Message from the Board to all members and supporters
It has been a difficult week, to say the least, for those who love the sport of cycling.
The fallout from the file released by the United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA) resulting from its investigation into doping allegations against Lance Armstrong and the many other riders implicated, has been incredibly damaging for cycling worldwide. The evidence presented is damning, the behaviour of the key players is morally reprehensible and cycling fans have every right to feel let down.
The Board of Cycling Australia (CA) met last night via teleconference for an initial discussion from the perspective of Australian cycling. The Board recognises its responsibility and role in the fight against doping within our sphere of influence here in Australia and among Australian cyclists. We also firmly believe there are many good things happening in the sport and it is equally important to continue to play our part in leading the sport into a future of growth and optimism.
Critical to this is the need to reassert where we stand on doping.
- As stated clearly in the CA Anti-Doping Policy: "Cycling Australia condemns doping as fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport". The Board of CA is committed to the fight against doping in sport and in cycling in particular. We have a 'zero tolerance' approach to any athlete found guilty of cheating through the use of performance enhancing drugs and to any other person who aids and abets that process.
- As has been the case in the past, CA undertakes to fully cooperate with any investigation conducted by an accredited authority into an allegation of an Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) against an Australian cyclist. This obligation also extends to any athlete, employee, contractor or member who might be asked to assist with any such inquiry.
- CA will redouble its efforts to protect the integrity of the environment within which people participate in the sport of cycling in Australia. This includes engaging and working with stakeholders and government agencies, such as the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Australian Sports Commission (ASC), to maximise our ability to meet this challenge.
A key issue for Australian cycling that arose out of the USADA dossier released last week was the naming of Matthew White as being implicated in doping practices conducted by the US Postal Services team.
For the past two seasons, Matt has been employed by CA as a part-time contractor in the role of Elite Men's Road National Coordinator. In that role he has made a significant, valuable contribution to our men's national teams and at no time do we believe his influence or actions went against the best interests of the sport.
However, the admissions contained within his public statement of 13 October clearly place him in breach of the CA Anti-Doping Policy and Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the Board has determined that his ongoing employment with CA is untenable and Matt was formally advised overnight of the termination of his contract.
We have been criticised in some quarters for the decision to appoint Matt in the first place and we understand the concerns that have been raised.
- At the time of his initial appointment in January 2011 Matt was a senior Director Sportif with the Garmin Slipstream team registered with the International Cycling Union (UCI).
- Garmin terminated his contract in January 2011 on the grounds he had contravened team policy.
- As a result of this decision CA made inquiries with a number of individuals and organisations including ASADA, the UCI and senior management at Garmin Slipstream, before determining there were no grounds to prevent Matt continuing in his role with CA.
The Board has recognised the current situation calls for the review of our internal processes for the appointment of staff and contractors and while this process will begin immediately it will also be a key item to be addressed in more detail by the CA Board at its scheduled November meeting.
Over the past few days there have been a number of initiatives tabled in the media by CA President, Klaus Mueller with a view to encouraging debate here in Australia as to what are the appropriate 'tools' to combat doping in sport. CA was an active player in the establishment of ASADA in 2005/06 and we have witnessed its effectiveness on more than one occasion since. ASADA is a leader in the world of sports anti-doping agencies and Australians should be very proud of the job done by the Authority. It is an ongoing challenge for all future governments and the sporting community to ensure ASADA is appropriately resourced.
In the past 24 hours the Hon Senator Kate Lundy, Minister for Sport, announced a Memorandum of Understanding between ASADA and the Australian Crime Commission, effectively strengthening the collaborative investigative capabilities of ASADA. CA congratulates and supports the Minister for this initiative.
John Coates AC, President of the Australian Olympic Committee, has written to the Minister seeking stronger powers for ASADA, including the authority to compel witnesses to comply with doping investigations. Again, CA supports the serious consideration of such initiatives.
The board, in its discussion last night, canvassed several of the suggestions that have been in the public arena this past week and resolved that an amnesty is not consistent with CA's strong anti-doping position. The Board does however support criminalising doping as it sends a strong message that such conduct is unacceptable and adds the resources of the police to the fight against this blight on sport.
CA has also been taken to task lately regarding our public support of the UCI and its initiatives and commitment to the fight against doping in the sport.
We acknowledge that there is now clear evidence that the UCI, until recent times, failed to fully and properly do its part to stamp out doping. We stand by our belief that the UCI deserves significant credit in a number of areas, namely its persistence in dealing with the Operation Puerto files and the ground-breaking introduction of the Biological Passport.
We believe there is also reasonable evidence to support the view that the current professional peloton is much 'cleaner' and fair competition is now taking place. However, we concede questions do remain.
How the UCI responds to the USADA file and how it addresses the allegations within it will be critical to the reputation of the organisation and that of the sport of cycling. We at CA encourage the UCI take this very real opportunity to steer the sport into a new future.
The Board of Cycling Australia