A fine mud-slinging contest between these two. Great if you like a pseudo-witty back-and-forth, but unlikely to lead to anything useful. Whichever side first starts to act like a grown-up could really score points here.
It won’t shock anybody to hear I’m not the UCI’s biggest fan, but every time WADA accuses the UCI of not doing anything, I ask myself why WADA didn’t step in (other than publicly protesting that the UCI isn’t doing anything).
I also wonder why WADA thinks that it is possible for cycling to keep all these great doping doctors and doping techniques to itself, without any of those skills ever flowing over into other sports. Since they are the World Anti Doping Agency for all sports, should that not be of great interest to them? And we know from the Vienna investigation that it wasn’t only cyclists, we know from Puerto that it wasn’t only cyclists. WADA is right when it says:
By suggesting a wider truth and reconciliation process (for all endurance sports), the UCI is again attempting to deflect attention from its own responsibilities, which are for those of cycling.
But by the same token, I would say:
By suggesting a focus only on cycling, WADA is again attempting to deflect attention from its own responsibilities, which are for all sports.
gerard.cc 
January 18, 2013 at 14:39
The Jamaican sprint squad look a bit dubious , no out of season testing there it seems …
January 18, 2013 at 14:50
Well, my intention is not to say that everything is rotten, but it would be naive to think that a sport so clumsily organized as cycling (at all levels) could prevent its doping skills from being employed elsewhere, in sports that often offer much bigger spoils.
January 18, 2013 at 15:30
Both could do so much more. WADA could have done more. UCI a hell of a lot more.
I allow less credit to UCI than WADA. This credit, or rather lack of it, is in inverse/direct proportion to UCI’s prediliction to indulge in self defensive justification and unexplained “about faces” and “somersaults”.
January 18, 2013 at 15:45
Truly there is a learning opportunity for both organisations. UCI has much to do in their own play ground…from grassroots education/mentoring, examining other sports, thru to ethical management culture and transparent management actions/interests.
For WADA, early intervention/cross sporting consultation is needed.
From available info the finances of both UCI and WADA are very limited. With consultation maybe? UCI could be persuaded to cede doping responsibilities to WADA. And maybe??? all WADA stakeholders could work towards a robust WADA budget.
Above all though, ethical structures and education from grassroots up is an essential requirement. In this regard I feel that the UCI lacks relative to WADA.
January 21, 2013 at 17:51
Having not read the WADA charter I confess I don’t know how much they can do when national federations still control sanctioning and the IOC is the only one who could toss out of the Games an organization like the UCI and its sport. How much investigative authority and sanctioning power does WADA actually have? It’s great to say they should do more but how and what are you suggesting… and do they actually have the power and authority to do it?
Another issue that doesn’t get much talk is whether fans of football (soccer to those in the USA) and some of the other sports, especially non-Olympic ones, really care much if the players are doped. Doesn’t seem fans of the NFL in the USA care much since despite the supposed controls there, 300 lb linemen continue to be an integral part of the sport. Sometimes as cycling fans I think we’re our own worst enemy when it comes to the commercial side of things by keeping the idea of a clean sport as our ideal?