US women’s cycling team suspended for dressing mechanic as rider

[Veloo]

Wow, what was the DS thinking?

https://ca.yahoo.com/sports/us-women...124935123.html

-------------------

US women’s cycling team Cynisca has been suspended by the International Cycling Union (UCI), the sport’s global governing body, for perpetrating a “fraud” and dressing a mechanic as a rider in order to avoid disqualification from a race.

In a statement, the UCI said Cynisca required five riders in order to take part in last July’s Argenta Classic in Belgium but arrived at the start line with only four.

The UCI said Cynisca’s then sports director, Danny Van Haute, told the four riders – Anna Hicks, Cara O’Neill, Katherine Sarkisov and Claire Windsor – to “lie about the whereabouts of a fifth rider,” who they said was ill.

After informing the team they needed a fifth rider in order to compete, the UCI said Van Haute told team mechanic Moira Barrett to wear a rider’s clothes and face mask, sign the start sheet as a rider and then present herself at the starting line.

“The above-mentioned members of the team were therefore all found to have participated in a fraud under article 12.4.008 of the UCI Regulations, with different levels of implication,” the UCI statement read.

In a statement sent to CNN, Cynisca called the incident a “one-time mistake by a rogue director.”

“At the time of the event, other team management/staff were unaware of the deception carried out by Mr. Van Haute and the mechanic,” the statement added.

“Upon learning of the incident, the team took actions internally and terminated all current and future relationships with Mr. Van Haute and the mechanic. The team then fully cooperated with the UCI investigation.

“Cynisca Cycling understands the need for disciplinary action taken by the UCI. The team did not and will never condone this sort of behavior. On behalf of the team, we once again apologize to the event organizers for the behavior that occurred at the event.”

Cynisca said Hicks has also since left the team, adding: “The team looks forward to continuing our mission to advance more women in cycling.”

The UCI said Van Haute “was found to be the main perpetrator” and suspended from all cycling activity until December 31, 2025, as well as being fined.

Barrett, who the UCI said “played an active role in the fraud by wearing a rider’s clothes and attempting to sign the start sheet as the team’s fifth rider,” was suspended until September 1, 2024.

The four riders were given a reprimand, while the team has been fined and banned from the next race on the UCI International Calendar.

“The decision remains subject to a possible appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),” the statement added.

[Mark McM]

He was thinking, "We spent a ton of money getting our team to the event, so we don't want to waste our budget just because we're down one rider" Women's teams are under-funded as it is, and the sponsors who do give them money want the exposure of racing, so I can understand them trying to get into the race with 1 rider too few. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand the motivation.

[72gmc]

I'm bothered that there is no information that the UCI or others considered the power dynamic of the DS/rider relationship on this team. It's important not just in the process, but in the reporting, for the UCI to convey their consideration for whether the riders had any protection against this demand by the DS. Ample evidence exists of Directeurs Sportif using inadequate protections to abuse their power with young cyclists and women's cycling teams in particular.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by 72gmc

I'm bothered that there is no information that the UCI or others considered the power dynamic of the DS/rider relationship on this team. It's important not just in the process, but in the reporting, for the UCI to convey their consideration for whether the riders had any protection against this demand by the DS. Ample evidence exists of Directeurs Sportif using inadequate protections to abuse their power with young cyclists and women's cycling teams in particular.

I don't understand your complaint. In the post above, the DS was fined and suspended for the rest of the season, the team was fined and suspended from the next race, while the riders only received reprimands.

[bicycletricycle]

This would have been funny if it worked, but it didn’t and rules is rules. Firing people seems a bit much

[benb]

If you quit can you just tell the UCI to go pound sand and you're not paying a fine?

I took the other articles to imply the 5th rider is real but actually was sick and this was just an attempt to still race despite draconian UCI rules.

If the team was going to take a bath for losing their entry I can't really fault them too much for trying.

It seems like a heavier penalty than if they'd been doping or something.

The real power imbalance is between the UCI and the teams.

[72gmc]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I don't understand your complaint. In the post above, the DS was fined and suspended for the rest of the season, the team was fined and suspended from the next race, while the riders only received reprimands.

If the article had said something about the riders being reprimanded, and also being educated about ways to request help when subjected to improper requests from a DS, I’d feel better about it. It’s the implied assumption that the riders were willing accomplices that bothers me.

As Joe Lindsey put it in his Escape Collective article: “Van Haute directed the scheme, and the riders involved – all relatively young – faced the choice of going along with it or defying Van Haute, at risk to their careers.”

[FriarQuade]

I've crossed paths with Danny many times and he is a great person who's been around pro cycling for as long as I can remember. I don't blame him for trying one bit. The consequences do seem steep though, especially for a rule that isn't that important in the first place.

It does bring up other questions though, was the ill rider traveling with the team and if so, why couldn't she have showed up to sign on and then drop out? I'm also curious why go to a euro race trip with only 5 riders? It's so easy to loose a rider for a variety or reasons, why put yourself in that situation in the first place? I'm sure there's a reason if someone would have done actual reporting on this but such is the state of journalism.

[e-RICHIE]

The rules are clearly written, and every team and manager knows them before entering the room. Conspiring to break the rules, and especially asking your riders to be part of your ruse, is unacceptable. It’s not leadership on any level.

The rule may be inane. The consequences may be too. But the team and the staff knew they were breaking them. Adding, cosplay in cycling has been taken to new heights with Cynisca’s antics this week.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by FriarQuade

It does bring up other questions though, was the ill rider traveling with the team and if so, why couldn't she have showed up to sign on and then drop out? I'm also curious why go to a euro race trip with only 5 riders? It's so easy to loose a rider for a variety or reasons, why put yourself in that situation in the first place? I'm sure there's a reason if someone would have done actual reporting on this but such is the state of journalism.

Budget. Sending somebody to Europe for a race costs thousands of dollars.

And if the sick athlete was really sick, showing up to sign in and then drop isn’t great - that potentially exposes other athletes and staff to pathogens, and that’s assuming the athlete was capable of getting out of bed. A bad enough fever or stomach bug and you aren’t leaving the bed/bathroom.

Would have been nice to have that in the reporting, but it doesn’t change anything - underfunded teams can’t take extra athletes around the world. And there’s pressure to put tha sponsor money to use, so skipping the race isn’t good either.

Pretty dumb rule, IMO. I understand wanting teams to bring… a team, but I don’t see what harm there is in day-of exemptions for this type of situation.

[carpediemracing]

In the old days some of those rules weren't really enforced. Not the rider count rule, but things like bike inspection. There's a story about how two brothers on the same team (Alan and Paul McCormack) would bring their nice shiny bikes through bike inspection. No one really noticed that Alan, who rode about a 50 cm bike, was rolling through inspection with about a 56 cm bike, which happens to be about the size that Paul rode.

The backstory is that the team really had only one solid bike, so they sent their riders to inspection with the same bike.

I don't know if this is true but it came up as a comment in an article when someone pointed out that no one really cared if Alan brought a 56 through inspection (or whatever the big bike was).

At the same time, I've worked a lower end UCI race, and everyone is scrambling to be there. Budgets are thin, there's no leeway for anything, things are held together with duct tape and string. You have one rider who decides they don't want to go, or can't go, or whatever... as a team you do what you have to do.

They banned him not for one season, they banned him for TWO seasons - end of 2025. That seems overly harsh.

I get how you have to have a minimum number of riders. Otherwise you'd have all these teams show up with 3 or 4 riders, or 1 rider, etc.

I think in 1989, when Lemond won, he finished with maybe 3 teammates? I have no idea how the team managed. One teammate was Museeuw, another was Lammerts.

[coffeecherrypie]

Occasionally something like this happens in pro hockey, team needs a backup goalie for a game. What they do is sign a local, often associated with the team in another capacity, to a 1-game pro contract. (If that goalie actually gets into the game, which only happens if the starter gets hurt, it always becomes a good story). So couldn’t the team have just done that, drawn up a contract for their mechanic that says you’re a bone fide team member for the next week or whatever?

[Bruce K]

You mean like when an NHl team grabbed the Zamboni driver when both their goalies went down?

If memory serves he shut out the opponents for the rest of the game and ended up with a few game career

BK

[ntb1001]

Originally Posted by Bruce K

You mean like when an NHl team grabbed the Zamboni driver when both their goalies went down?

If memory serves he shut out the opponents for the rest of the game and ended up with a few game career

BK

That goalie actually lives nearby me.
He was a goalie before in the AHL until he needed a kidney transplant, then he became a building service operator/zamboni driver. He then happened to be in the right spot at the right time for his shot at fame. He only played that one game in NHL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[coffeecherrypie]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. It actually happens frequently enough--that someone is signed for a game--that there is a procedure for it; what was rare in the David Ayres case that you're referring to was that he actually played (and didn't get lit up). From wikipedia:

Most professional leagues require each home team to maintain a list of local non-professional goaltenders, available to either team, who can be used in the exceptional case that one or both of a team's normal goaltenders are injured or unavailable (such as a player acquired in a trade or minor league call-up arriving late on short notice); such a goaltender who fulfills that role is known as an emergency back–up goaltender (or EBUG).

So those non-pros would be given pro status for one game if and only if they actually have to be activated as the back-up.