It would be nice to have consistent decisions across the board.

For the most part I like the sound of this (with the caveat that it should be kept as independent as humanly possible from the grubby little hands of the UCI.)

this isn’t working how we’d like it, we’re going to implement a new committee that works the way we want to get what we want.

I understand Pat’s frustration with the inconsistencies. I think we all understand.

However, I also understand the the UCI system is a failing one, because they have too many conflicts of interest already. I can’t see how they wouldn’t have their fingers in this pie.

Going the other direction, I think the CAS should be an absolute last resort. CAS shouldn’t be getting a new cycling appeal every two weeks, otherwise what is the point of even having the initial process?

In conclusion, the more voices the UCI involves to 1. reduce their conflict of interest between promoting the sport, managing the image and discipline. and 2. preventing the need of the CAS at ever juncture. The better.

I don’t know if I have confidence this will do the trick. Pat wants the system to be black and white in a grey world, and this coming from the UCI, who only deal in bias.

The UCI has shown just as much disrespect for the rules governing doping as national federations (Alex Rasmussen, Alexandre Kolobnev, Alberto Contador). Just because their missteps usually fall on the anti-dopers side of the line doesn’t win my trust.

I would trust an organization that follows the rules and applies them evenly. The UCI has mishandled the AK and AC cases just as much the national federations.

(AR – suspended even though the rules said he was OK after the UCI let the deadline lapse, AK – UCI encouraging him getting kicked out of the Tour even though the rules did not call for immediate suspension, AC – keeping the positive on the hush hush in fall 2010)