I don't think that there's many people in cycling who would say that the introduction
of the biological passport over the last 8 years or so has been a negative thing but
there are some people who say that the UCI shouldn't be in charge of doping tests full
stop, what's your opinion on this?
Quite simple we've said for many years we would love to be able to give it to an independent
agency but the world anti doping code, the WADA code doesn't allow that.
The world anti doping code actually states that every international federation must be
and is responsible for it's anti doping at it's international events.
What we have done is we have created the CADF the cycling anti doping foundation and that's
separate to the UCI and operates separately to the UCI and step by step you know I would
admit now today that it's not completely independent of the UCI but step by step we are bringing
in measures to further distance it from the UCI and that really within the code at the
moment that's as far as we can go.
I think it's fair to say though that the UCI and yourself have come in for a fair amount
of criticism especially over the last 6 months or so what is it that keeps you motivated
and positive about the future of the sport and staying in this role.
I love the sport, I'm passionate about sport, I have been all my life and I've worked for
this sport all my life and I continue to work for this sport, I continue to travel the world
as I told you before we started the interview in the past 7 days I've been on 9 aeroplanes
and that's to go and help and meet people to develop the sport.
I also am very much aware that the sport has changed dramatically since 2005, since I became
president the, what we're dealing with in the whole Lance Armstrong affair and so forth
and is activities that took place 10 or 15 years ago, when there was a product around
that could not be tested for and I don't believe the responsibility is solely on the UCI's
shoulders for the fact that those riders went, or those athletes weren't caught there were
other agencies like WADA like USADA like AFLD who also tested the athletes and didn't catch
them so the responsibility shouldn't all be lying on the UCI's shoulders.
Having said that, that was the past and the UCI is dealing now with the present, and with
the future and the peloton today if you talk to the riders, talk to team officials and
so forth or talk to media who are close to it they all recognise that the peloton has
changed and that it's a much more, a much fairer sport, cleaner sport and that's what,
what drives me on.
I think the current riders are really crying out for a way to prove to the journalists
and to the public in general that they're doing this sport clean but there's really
nothing that hasn't been said by other riders mainly Armstrong before which they can say
now.
There's been an idea come from Michael Ashenden which he was unable to tell us about at the
change cycling now conference, he seemed to have an idea of how they could do this but
has the UCI got any ideas to let a rider prove 100% that he's clean?
I think that in the past 4 or 5, 6 years our sport of cycling has made major changes, the
athletes, we have a 1000 athletes in the registered testing pool, we do something like 13000 tests
a year €7,500,000 spent on anti doping, the athletes do it willingly that's not easy
for them to do, t fill in there whereabouts 24hours a day 3 months in advance, but they
do it and do it willingly, for the sport, for the love of the sport or you know the
success of the sport and it's those, it's working for those athletes today that motivates
me to keep going.
Other sports aren't under anything like the same type of microscope we're under and at
the end of the day it's down to the authorities who are responsible for anti doping WADA,
that's not the UCI, WADA to come up with new ways of catching the cheats and UCI has always
been one of the first international federations to introduce a new measure, we will continue
to do so, we will continue to work with science, WADA's already working with the pharmaceutical
industry we will continue working with them and working with science to catch the cheats
and to work for clean athletes.
I think the credibility's back now anyway and the sport's in a very very good place.
When you look at London last year 1,500,000 people on the roadside for the Olympic games
road race, biggest crowd in the history of the Olympic games for any Olympic games event.
The track was absolutely amazing the atmosphere in the track, mountain biking, BMX, our sport
is in a very good position.
There were you know sort of veiled threats made about the possibility of cycling going
out of the Olympic games programme, the executive board of the IOC met in Lausanne two weeks
ago, there wasn't one vote against cycling in that executive committee meeting, so cycling
is still very strongly associated with the Olympic games, does a lot and brings a lot
to the Olympic games we're even looking to bring in more events and even more disciplines
in future Olympic games so I think the sport is there in a healthy position and once we
continue as I say to work with the federations and our stake holders, today going forwards,
and that's why the importance of the stake holders consultation is very important for
us it's something we probably should've done maybe 5 or 6 years ago and you know we're
doing it now and it'll be, it's a very interesting process, very interesting to see and hear
all the ideas and try and compile all those and get them into some sort of order so that
we can move the sport forward, the way that all of the stake holders want us to do.