Financial doping and how the UCI use masking agents to hide income in the 2010 accounts

For the teeny-weeny tiny number of you who give a shit about the UCI's accounts.

8 months ago fmk 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Doping?

Ah, story-telling.

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...

by TheFigurehead on Oct 5, 2011 1:14 PM EDT reply actions

call it rope-a-doping if you must then. whatever, lots of people fooled by it.

by fmk on Oct 5, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, people are fooled by it

The word madkes people click on the link. And I guess that’s all that matters.

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...

by TheFigurehead on Oct 5, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Such cynicism.

by fmk on Oct 5, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

But I thought that..

Rich people are better than the rest of us? Am I wrong?

by ursula on Oct 5, 2011 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Uuuum … can’t see the relevance of your observation, witty and all as it must seem

by fmk on Oct 6, 2011 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for doing this analysis

What the UCI have done isn’t particularly unusual so I’m not sure it’s fair to single them out for criticism – there are far wider complaints that could be made about financial reporting standards though not sure those are for a cycling website.

It might be more legitimate to claim a governing body should be more transparent about its finances given the quasi-governmental role it fulfils. It’s certainly disappointing that they don’t feel the need to act that way.

What I found more interesting is what it tells us about the UCI’s financial position (not great) and size (pretty small). A you say it does slightly put paid to the notion they’re awash with cash, though I expect Phat Pat and others still take home a nice salary.

by thebongolian on Oct 7, 2011 8:24 AM EDT reply actions

I’m not sure it’s fair to single them out for criticism

I’m a cyclist. That’s a cycling site. The UCI is cycling’s governing body. What do you want me to do, analyse Apple’s accounts before I can look at the UCI’s?

In case you missed the memo, there this sport’s only governing body. They singled themselves out.

by fmk on Oct 7, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

yes but you hate their guts

sorry but i’ve longed stopped expecting you to be impartial when it comes to the UCI. it’s one thing to criticise them for being worse than everyone else another to criticise them for being no better than anyone else as seems to be the case here.

and as I am grateful for you delving into their accounts. it is interesting and not something i could do.

by thebongolian on Oct 7, 2011 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Where have I ever said they’re worse than anyone else?

it’s one thing to criticise them for being worse than everyone else another to criticise them for being no better than anyone else as seems to be the case here.

Does that actually mean something?

by fmk on Oct 8, 2011 7:53 AM EDT up reply actions

You accuse them of “financial doping” which has strong connotations on a cycling website – I think most people would take that to mean they’re doing something legally dodgy and therefore worse than others

by thebongolian on Oct 8, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

You seem to be trying to defend the UCI by relating their actions to ‘other’ organizations.
Which, in reality only can distract the conversation.

Also, the UCI has a rather long record of performing ‘legally dodgy’ things.
It seems reasonable to recognizing their recent past actions and their current, yet rather antiquated cronyistic behavior.

What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)

by Ryan_Liles on Oct 9, 2011 2:16 AM EDT up reply actions

So you’ve zero evidence of me ever having said that the UCI is worse than anyone else? And yet you feel free to make that claim. And then you have the balls to challenge me over accusing the UCI of financial doping? Go you!

by fmk on Oct 10, 2011 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions