Reaktionen und -Forderungen von und aus Vereinigungen/Verbänden an die UCI
Unter dem Schock des Armstrong-Dossiers der USADA gab es einige Reaktionen aus Verbänden, die dringende Änderungen, auch innerhalb der UCI anmahnten, um die Glaubwürdigkeit des Radsports wieder her zu stellen.
Doch waren die Verbände wirklich so ahnungslos gewesen, wie sie mit ihren Reaktionen andeuten? Sollte die allseits geforderte unabhängige Untersuchungskommission je verwertbare Ergebnisse vorlegen, müsste sie auch diese Frage beantworten.
– CPA – Jean Regenwetter (FSCL) – Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU) – Brian Cookson (BC) – Tom Lund (DCU) – WADA – BDR –
21.11.2012 CPA Cyclistes Professionnels Associés/International Association of Professional Cyclists)
Presseerklärung der CPA, 21.11.2012
AT THE CPA MEETING NEW PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
Some important issues about cycling were discussed during the annual CPA meeting yesterday in Milan.
All members of the national professional racers associations of the union did attend the meeting, first of all The president of the CPA Gianni Bugno, the vice president Pipe Gomez and all the members of the Steering Committee. Key topic of the meeting was the tsunami caused by the Armstrong case. The CPA will ask in the next few day Pat Mc Quaid for a meeting in order to talk about the opportunity of setting up an independent doping control commission with at least one expert indicated by the CPA.
The Armstrong affaire is devastating not only for the involvement of one of the greatest champions of cycling, but also for the loss of credibility and authority of the institutions established to guide this sport. Runners cannot tolerate that there are doubts about the correct application of sports justice. It’s the duty of the sports leadership to ensure a fair and equal system for everyone and the UCI, after these facts have emerged from the Armstrong case, it can’t guarantee for the application of the sports justice.
The CPA strongly believes that the fight against doping has to continue but that the first step in this direction is the guarantee of a fair fight for everyone. …
23.9./17./28.10.2012 Jean Regenwetter, Luxemburger Radsportverband FSCL
Jean Regenwetter, Präsident des Luxemburger Radsportverbandes (Fédération du Sport Cycliste Luxembourgois (F.S.C.L.)) war der erste Funktionär, der sich in Bezug auf Doping kritisch gegenüber der UCI, hier insbesondere gegenüber Pat McQuaid und Hein Verbruggen, geäußert hatte.
Pat McQuaid wirft er vor, die Vergangenheit verdrängen zu wollen und sieht in Hein Verbruggen die Graue Eminenz, die noch alle Fäden in der Hand hält. Eine verbandsinterne offene Diskussion gäbe es nicht, die Mitglieder hätten lediglich ab bzw. zu zu stimmen, allerdings fehle auch eine Opposition (Berliner Zeitung, 17.10.2012, FAZ, 22.9.2012).
Von Jean Regenwetter liegt keine offizielle oder persönliche Erklärung vor, lediglich Interviews. In dem hier zitierten Interview der FAZ vom 28.10.2012 spricht er von einem Brief an die Verbände, den er schreiben werde. Dieser ist mir nicht bekannt.
Glauben Sie, dass McQuaid die Affäre Armstrong als UCI-Präsident überstehen wird?
… Die Vorwürfe sind so groß – ich weiß nicht, wie er sich aus dieser Nummer rauswinden könnte. Der niederländische Radsportpräsident Marcel Wintels hat inzwischen einen Brief an die UCI geschrieben, er erhebt darin die gleichen Anschuldigungen wie ich und fordert ebenfalls einen Neuanfang. …
Wächst innerhalb der UCI wirklich der Widerstand gegen McQuaid?
Ich habe Reaktionen bekommen von Wintels; die Österreicher sind auf demselben Trip, die Schweizer auch. Was die anderen Europäer machen, weiß ich nicht.
Also auch nicht, wie sich etwa die Deutschen mit Rudolf Scharping an der Verbandsspitze in dieser brisanten Angelegenheit verhalten?
Ich habe nur gelesen, dass Scharping die Probleme im Radsport nicht personifizieren wolle. Aber man kann doch nicht sagen, dass sich die Probleme von selbst lösen. Der Herr Scharping ist noch nie auf dem UCI-Kongress aufgetreten. Fritz Ramseier war lange Jahre im Verwaltungsrat der UCI, er ist ein honoriger und feiner Mensch. Aber er hat Verbruggen und McQuaid aus den Händen gegessen. Kritische Worte ihnen gegenüber habe ich von ihm nie gehört, selbst bei einem Glas Bier….
Immerhin kündigte der Weltverband am Freitag, als er bekanntgab, die sieben aberkannten Tour-Titel von Armstrong nicht neu zu vergeben, auch an, die jüngere Vergangenheit von einer unabhängigen Kommission untersuchen zu lassen. Ist das ein ernstgemeintes Anliegen? Schließlich soll es dabei auch um die umstrittene Rolle der UCI gehen.
Ich glaube schon. Es kommt allerdings darauf an, was er unter der Kommission versteht. Sie müsste nicht nur den Fall McQuaid/Armstrong aufarbeiten, sondern sich grundsätzlich mit der UCI befassen. Deshalb dürfte auch die UCI diese Kommission nicht bestimmen, sondern das IOC müsste es machen. Nur dann wäre sie glaubwürdig. Sie muss unabhängig sein von demjenigen, den sie kontrollieren soll. Das werde ich auch in einem Brief an die europäischen Radsportverbände schreiben. Der Bericht dieser Kommission müsste auf einem außerordentlichen Kongress der UCI zur Diskussion gestellt werden, noch vor dem nächsten offiziellen Kongress im Herbst 2013 in Florenz. Und die nationalen Verbände müssten dann darüber bestimmen, was geschieht.
Wer schadet Ihrer Meinung nach dem Radsport mehr – McQuaid oder sein Vorgänger Verbruggen?
Der Initiator des ganzen Systems ist Verbruggen. Er ist schon lange nicht mehr tragbar. Aber man kann das trotzdem nicht an einer einzelnen Person festmachen. …
25.10.2012 Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie (KNWU)
Nach den USADA-Enthüllungen gab der langjährige Sponsor Rabobank bekannt, ab 2013 nicht mehr mit seinem Namen den Profiradsport unterstützen zu wollen. Das Team Rabobank war in den vergangenen Jahren zwar mehrfach in Dopingaffairen verwickelt gewesen, doch das verheerende Ergebnis und die öffentliche Rezeption des amerikanischen Dossiers ließen dem Geldgeber wohl keine andere Wahl mehr.
Der niederländische Radsportverband KNWU meldete sich daraufhin am 25.10.2012 mit einem Brief an Pat McQuaid (UCI) zu Wort, in der er eine unabhängige, mit Kompetenzen ausgestattete internationale Untersuchungskommission forderte. Der Radsport befände sich in seiner bislang größten Krise, seine Glaubwürdigkeit stünde auf dem Spiel. Vor 10 Jahren sei versprochen worden, die der Radsport sei auf einem sauberen Weg, die Dopingskandale könnten sich nicht wiederholen, nun sei alles noch viel schlimmer geworden. Die UCI müsse scharfe Maßnahmen und Reformen ergreifen und die Kommission die Vergangenheit analysieren und auch Vorschläge machen, wie in Zukunft Doping minimiert werden könne.
Der Brief wurde von >> velonation am 25.10.2012 in voller Länge veröffentlicht.
Dear Mr McQuaid, dear Pat,
From the KNWU we strongly feel the need to inform you about our view on the problems and challenges international cycling currently faces. The immediate cause is obviously the USADA report, the immediate strategic decision of Rabobank stopping the sponsorship of team Rabobank (because they lack confidence in the international institution of cycling) and the UCI’s response last Monday.
Let’s start by determining where we agree upon; the professional international cycling sport finds itself in the deepest crisis ever. The credibility of our wonderful sport is more than ever at stake. The USADA report has made it painfully clear that:
– within the international world of cycling systematic doping was (is?) common;
– despite stricter controls doping could not (can not) hardly be detected (since that is still the permanent response of Armstrong: ‘I have never been caught on using doping’);
– and that many people in the professional circuit knew, guessed or accepted this use of doping and ‘just thought this was normal behaviour.’
It is good and important that the UCI in its statement has completely agreed upon the report of the USADA and took over the corresponding sanctions against Lance Armstrong.
Moreover, to the opinion of the KNWU it is more than ever necessary that the UCI now, as lead agency of international cycling, has the obligation to present very strong measures and reforms to come out of this crisis and to restore the credibility and confidence of the cycling sport.
In recent years there have undoubtedly been taken steps forwards in the fight against doping. The blood passport was the most important measure. But even more can and must be done over the next 5 to 10 years to really purify the sport from doping and to step aside from a system or culture where ‘the lie reigns.’
10 years ago, after the ‘Tour the dopage,’ the statement was made, also from the UCI, that this could not happen again. That we were on the right track again. That the controls were improving and the culture was changing. Unfortunately in 2012 we have to conclude that the USADA Report has concluded that it is even worse. The key question for us, the KNWU, is to what extent we really can legitimately say that, in the year 2012, there no longer exists or can be spoken of a culture that tolerates, seduces or even encourages systematic doping. We are not reassured. On the contrary, we are very worried, and we are not alone in this. Rabobank resigning its sponsorship, and in particular the reason why it stopped, is painful and significant. We can not sufficiently answer the question whether or not the doping culture has become widely accepted in professional cycling in the recent years. The credibility of the sport and the institutions around it are therefore more than ever at stake.
This deep crisis requires a strong and unconventional approach. We believe it is very necessary that an international independent investigation, a kind of truth committee, will be put in place soon (perhaps by the IOC or the UCI, or by the national federations). With appropriate and effective legal measures this committee will conduct thorough research into all the aspects and facets of professional international cycling. All those involved in the system of professional cycling ((old)-riders, teams, soigneurs, team doctors, team leaders, team bosses, sponsors, doping authorities/inspectors, regulations, national federations, UCI, organisers, etc) should be within the scope of such a truth committee. With a dual assignment:
1. Let this committee bring out all the facts and findings (‘truth’) from 2007 till the present, exposing the system, its culture and how the system operates, show what progress has already been made, and also where the system fails.
2. Give this committee the task to make recommendations or take measures which can faster contribute to the professional cycling sport becoming cleaner and where the principle of fair play prevails.
If we do not use this crisis, with all those involved, as an explicit opportunity to really clean up, we fear that the culture of doping and lying in cycling sport that is unfortunately so deeply rooted, may never go away. Now is not the time to come with more fundamental proposals or reforms. Let the committee think about these aspects and present these proposals. Alternatively the circumstances ask to enable fast, precise, powerful and for resolute measures beyond what the UCI is already doing. It could be considered to implement measures in a ‘code’ to which the teams need to commit before they can even obtain a (ProTour) license. Of course there are always legal restrictions, but it is also important to make a statement right now. Besides the legal boundaries and frameworks above all moral borders and frames will be needed. Principles that are broadly agreed and lived upon and should be sought from all stakeholders, such as:
– Suspension of four years instead of two years and greater financial penalties or deduction of points;
– As well as penalties for the teams (and their responsible managers) whose riders are caught using doping (points deduction, financial penalties, withdraw licences), to make doping a collective rather than an individual issue;
– No ProTour teams are allowed to hire people (soigneurs, doctors, team leaders, team bosses) with any prior involvement in doping practices (simply no ProTour lience is provided for participation in the ProTour circuit);
– ProTour teams are only allowed to work with UCI accredited doctors;
– The explicit separation of the different roles and responsibilities (governance) of the UCI (and perhaps of national federations. Indeed, because of the commercial and financial interests of the ProTour a conflict or apparent conflict of interest arises which at all times must be prevented);
– Measures that contribute to a greater degree of self-cleaning and adjusting capabilities;
– Etc.
More than ever, the UCI must dare to act forcefully. Critical to everyone involved in the sport, including the UCI itself. An authoritative, independent international truth and inquiry committee with adequate legal measures can thereby serve as an important starting point. Only if we as an international cycling community are willing to take a very critical look to the ‘own system’, we will be able to build a clean, sportive and credible future. On behalf of the Dutch anti-doping authority and the NOC*NSF, we do an urgent appeal to the UCI to take the necessary and convincing first steps or make the necessary decisions in the Management Committee next Friday.
If the UCI fails to do so, we as KNWU/Netherlands at national level are considering the possibility to create such a truth or inquiry committee (with the greatest international assignment or scope as possible), because we believe this is necessary.
This is obviously in our opinion internationally but also nationally of great value. But it is evident that an international approach clearly has our preference. We hope you will choose the vigorous and forceful approach.
With kind regards,
Royal Dutch Cycling Federation,
M. (Marcel) J.G. Wintels
President
Am 14. 1. 2013 gab die KNWU ein gemeinsam mit der Niederländischen Antidopingagentur entwickeltes Programm bekannt, mit dem die drei niederländischen World Tour-Teams Vacansoleil DCM, Blanco Pro Cycling and Argos – Shimano eine dopingfreie Zukunft entwickeln sollen und dem Radsport wieder Glaubwürdigkeit schenken sollen:
>>> Gezamenlijke aanpak dopingproblematiek Nederlandse profploegen, Dopingautoriteit en KNWU (velonation: Dutch teams introduce Truth and Reconciliation-style approach)
29.10.2012 Brian Cookson, Britischer Radsportverband – persönliches Statement
Team Sky reagierte nach Bekanntwerden des USADA-Dossiers mit scharfen Maßnahmen gegenüber Teammitgliedern, die mit Doping in Verbindung gestanden hatten. Einige mussten das Team verlassen.
(Sky zero telerance)
(Bobby Julich)
(deJongh, Yates)Diese Haltung stieß auf Kritik, da damit die Omertà, das große Schweigen, zementiert und viel Wissen verzichtet würde.
(David Howman)
(Rolf Aldag)
Brian Cookson, Präsident des Britischen Radsportverbandes und Mitglied des UCI Management Committee, sowie Mitglied des Operating Board des Teams Sky, wandte sich am 29.10. mit einer persönlichen und öffentlichen Erklärung an alle Mitglieder. Er sieht in der Schaffung und Arbeit einer wahrhaft unabhängigen Untersuchungskommission die letzte Chance für den Radsport und die UCI glaubwürdig zu sein bzw. zu werden.
>>> Das Statement von Brian Cookson wurde auf der Verbandsseite von British Cycling veröffentlicht:
Over the last few days, many members of British Cycling, and many other people from around the world, have been in contact with me to express their views about the controversy that is engulfing cycling in the wake of the Lance Armstrong affair. I cannot respond to every single one individually, but I have been deeply affected by your concerns and deeply troubled by the impact of the entire matter on the sport for which, like you, I have an intense passion.
I wanted to make my position on this matter absolutely clear. I am of course Chairman of British Cycling’s Board, a post I have held since 1996, and a member of the UCI Management Committee, a post I was elected to in 2009. However, this is a personal statement.
In my view it is first of all important to acknowledge that a major crisis has developed for our sport, a crisis which has to be dealt with by radical and urgent action. I want to assure you that British Cycling will not shrink from its duty in defending the integrity and credibility of the sport, in this as in every other respect. I know that all of my colleagues on the Board and all of the senior management team at British Cycling share that determination. British Cycling has not and will not tolerate doping of any form.
It is critical that all doping matters are handled by the relevant independent body. If anyone believes that they have evidence of any British Cycling member at any level engaging in doping, please do not hesitate to contact UK Anti Doping with this evidence. Here is the link to the relevant page of their website; www.ukad.org.uk/what-we-do/report-doping/
I am also a member of the Operating Board of Team Sky. This is a liaison body between British Cycling and the owners of Team Sky, Tour Racing Limited, the shareholders of which are BSkyB and other companies from within the same group I attend the Operating Board to represent the interests of British Cycling, alongside our Chief Executive, with one of the key objectives having always been that Team Sky provides a clean doping-free environment for as many British riders as possible.
Many people said that a professional team run in this way couldn’t be done, but it has been done, it’s been hugely successful, and now it is seen as a model that others are seeking to imitate. And I am confident that Team Sky, though having to operate in a challenging environment, has remained and will continue to remain true to those original objectives.
Of course neither British Cycling nor Team Sky operates in a vacuum. We are part of a worldwide sport. So it is important that we have whatever influence we can have over our international colleagues and competitors.
I believe therefore that all of us involved in the sport should also acknowledge that;
– despite the best efforts of the UCI and all other relevant agencies, doping and other prohibited procedures became historically commonplace in professional road cycling. (That is not to say that all riders or teams were guilty of these practices, many undoubtedly competed without resorting to such cheating).
– this situation considerably worsened during the 1990s with the introduction of EPO and similar substances, then beyond that period with the further use of transfusions and similar procedures. As has been demonstrated by the USADA case, these practices, and conspiracies to conceal them from the authorities, were used extensively by Lance Armstrong and his team to “win” 7 Tours de France and other races.
– other cases, some of which are still being pursued by various authorities, clearly indicate that such activities were also practised by other teams and individuals, with the assistance of doctors and others both from within and outside the sport.
I totally condemn such cheating and re-assert that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the perpetrators of such activities will be appropriately sanctioned, both now and in the future. In this respect I think it is vital that all relevant agencies of sport and government continue to co-operate and collaborate with each other. I would like to thank all those agencies and commend them on their efforts and on the very real progress that has been made, particularly since 2005.
I do believe that the environment today is very much better as a result of those efforts. I would certainly contend that, despite the current problems, no other sport has faced up to such difficult issues, no other international federation has shown such tenacity in dealing with such high-profile offenders, and no other sport has made so much progress in the fight against doping as has cycling in recent years. Much has been done, but of course much remains to be done.
The UCI, in particular its former President Hein Verbruggen and its current President Pat McQuaid have received considerable criticism of their handling of these matters. Certain serious allegations have been made which have caused widespread concern. I am pleased that, at its meeting last week, the UCI Management Committee agreed to an independent review of all matters relevant to the current crisis, including those allegations. I understand that both of them will fully co-operate with that review.
The Management Committee agreed that the review should include a clear and transparent independent examination of all the UCI’s regulations and procedures, particularly those relevant to doping and the handling of disciplinary action. This review can and will include all matters which the review Commission itself may consider to have an impact on the current crisis, including the length of suspensions and other sanctions available for such offences. This review will also consider the possibility of amnesty, partial amnesty, truth and reconciliation processes, and any similar matters.
It will also consider how the UCI might move to prevent those with a history of involvement in doping from being involved in the management of any professional or national team. I personally would like to see this extended to the media and race organisations. I find it hard to understand how any convicted and unrepentant doper can be given any credence as a commentator, journalist, or VIP.
The Management Committee agreed that it is vital the membership of this Commission is truly independent. We felt that other international bodies such as the IOC, WADA, and CAS should be involved in appointing the members. An announcement of the membership and the full remit of the review board will be made as soon as possible.
So, as I said directly after last week’s meeting of the UCI Management Committee, the UCI has taken another worthwhile step in its response to the USADA investigation into Lance Armstrong. I can assure everyone that my UCI Management Committee colleagues and I are unanimous in our determination that this independent commission will just be the start of the process and nothing will be off the agenda. Cycling must and will learn the lessons of the Armstrong era
Finally, to add to this, I guarantee unequivocally to the members of British Cycling that I will use my influence through the UCI Management Committee to ensure that our International Federation operates with integrity, honesty and transparency. If I am not able to do that from inside the organisation, I will resign.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Brian Cookson – President, British Cycling
4.11.2012 Tom Lund, Dänische Radsport-Union
Tom Lund, Präsident der Dänischen Radsport-Union (Danmarks Cykle Union), sprach sich für den Rücktritt hein Verbruggens aus. Die voeliegenden Zahleungen Armstrongs an die UCI über 125 000 $ seien genug Grund dafür insbesondere in Anbetracht dessen, dass Armstrong die Jahre über gedopt war.
dr, 4.11.2012, velonation, 5.11.2012:
„Lund said that he considered the payment of large sums of money from Armstrong to the UCI to be a resignation matter, particularly as it has emerged that Armstrong doped for much of his career. Verbruggen vocally defended the American on several occasions, and was quoted by the AD.nl website last year as saying he was certain that he ‘never, never, never doped.’
“We think that Verbruggen must resign because as president he received a large amount of money from Lance Armstrong,” he said while speaking on the Deadline programme on DR2. “We do not think it is correct that he hides a large money transfer from a racer who subsequently is investigated about meeting the rules of the sport.”
WADA
24.10.2012 John Fahey, WADA-Präsident
John Fahey, WADA-Präsident, begrüßte am 24.10.2012 in einer offiziellen Stellungnahme der WADA die Entscheidung der UCI, die Urteile der USADA anzuerkennen, betont jedoch gleichzeitig, dass Verbände Verantwortung trugen und tragen und dass sie sich daher nicht damit herausreden könnten, mit ihren Testprogrammen genügend getan zu haben. Es gäbe auch keinen Grund sich mit Ermittlungen auf die 8-Jahres-Verjährungsfrist zu beschränken (WADA, 22.10.2012).
In Interviews wird er deutlicher. Er sieht in einem Sportverband, in dem alle Sportler jahrelang gedopt waren, keinen Platz mehr für Personen dieser Sporthierarchie, die dieses System stützten. 22./23,10.2012:
WADA, 2.11.2012:
“Only with the necessary independence and terms of reference will the inquiry be able to properly address the systemic culture of doping that was allowed to develop in cycling during this time.
„There was a period of time in which the culture of cycling was that everybody doped. There is no doubt about that. The administrators have to take some responsibility for that.“ …
„The evidence that was given by those riders who are team-mates of Lance Armstrong, one after the other, they said the same thing – that you could not compete unless you were doping.“ …
„If that doping was widespread, then the question is legitimately put: ‚Who was stopping it? Who was working against it? Why wasn’t it stopped?‘
„I think it’s relevant to ask those questions.“…
Fahey added that anyone involved during the Armstrong years could not justify their place in the sport’s hierarchy at the UCI.
„It’s not a question of simply saying we’ll rule off the line and go on.“
„They clearly have to take the blinkers off, look at the past, examine the people who are there, ask themselves the questions: ‚Are those same people still in the sport and can they proceed forward with those people remaining?‘
„I don’t think there’s any credibility if they don’t do that and I think they need to get confidence back into the sport, so that its millions of supporters around the world will watch and support the sport going forward.“ (abc.net, 24.10.2012
2.11.2012 WADA erhebt keinen Einspruch vor dem CAS
Am 2. November 2012 erklärte die WADA sie werde das Armstrong-Urteil sowie die Urteile gegen die Zeugen, die lediglich 6-monatige Sperren erhielten, nicht vor dem CAS anfechten. Nach sorgfältiger Prüfung, auch durch einen unabhängigen Gutachter, sei an der Arbeit der USADA nichts zu beanstanden. Damit wird auch die Überschreitung der 8-Jahres-Verjährungsgrenze übernommen. In ihrer offiziellen Stellungnahme hält sie fest, dass die UCI aufgrund ihres Doping-begünstigenden Verhaltens an dem Geschehen Mitschuld trage und begrüßt die von der UCI angekündigte unabhängige Untersuchungskommission:
“Following the UCI Management Committee’s announcement last week, WADA now awaits with considerable interest the details of the independent inquiry that is proposed, including its composition and terms of reference.
„It is important that there now be genuine independence and a complete examination of the scenario, with a panel that has full powers of inquiry and access to all required evidence and information.
“Only with the necessary independence and terms of reference will the inquiry be able to properly address the systemic culture of doping that was allowed to develop in cycling during this time….
“This is not a situation in which just because the athlete did not return a positive test there was nothing more the governing body of cycling could do. It has taken a major effort and undertaking from a national anti-doping organization to gather the compelling evidence following allegations raised by Floyd Landis in 2010.“ (WADA., 2.11.2012)
David Howman, WADA-Generaldirektor, ergänzte:
“What we want to do is see how the UCI go forward with their suggestion [of an independent commission]. I think the ball is clearly in their court to take the opportunity that is obvious to do the best thing for their sport. That is their responsibility.” (velonation, 2.11.2012)
Vom Bund Deutscher Radfahrer war wenig zu hören:
rad-net, 2.11.2011:
„Das Präsidium des Bund Deutscher Radfahrer (BDR) hat sich auf seiner Sitzung am Rande der Hallenradsport-Weltmeisterschaften in Aschaffenburg heute ausführlich mit der «Affäre Armstrong» beschäftigt und in diesem Zusammenhang das Verhalten des internationalen Radsportverbandes UCI thematisiert.
… unterstützt der BDR die von der UCI angekündigte Bildung einer unabhängigen, international besetzten Kommission, die die Arbeit und die Strukturen der UCI im Hinblick auf deren Rolle und ihre verantwortlichen Personen in der Affäre Armstrong untersucht.
…
Außerdem fordert der BDR eine weitere unabhängige Kommission zu bilden, deren Aufgabe die Analyse der aktuellen Anti-Doping-Maßnahmen der UCI und des Radsports allgemein wäre.“