A detailed, thorough analysis by me and by lawyers and other experts of the so-called CIRC report has learned that this report lacks a factual basis, is incomplete and biased and it doesn’t respect basic ethical principles, such as the right to defend yourself against accusations.

Even this totally subjective CIRC had to conclude, be it probably with pain and regret, that it could find no evidence of concealment of doping samples or corruption. That was a pretty easy conclusion to reach, as there simply was no concealment or corruption.

But for the rest – and this will be proven on this website – the CIRC report is unfair, biased and incomplete in its methodology, in its substance and in its conclusions.

Here follows a short summary of the main conclusions following our analysis of the CIRC’s report:

1. The CIRC violated its terms of reference in different ways: on the one hand by not examining the role of other stakeholders, in particular WADA, in the issues examined, and on the other hand by undue criticism of issues which are outside the terms of reference, such as the 2005 presidential elections at the UCI.   WADA and its former president Dick Pound are clearly shielded by the CIRC.
2. The CIRC report is aimed at destroying not only my reputation – which was of course the aim of Brian Cookson and WADA – but also to denigrate 15 years of hard work by many people who were devoted to the cause of cycling and to anti-doping. Having failed to find any concealed tests or corruption, other arguments had to be found to bring me down.
3. The CIRC report is woefully short of objectivity and neutrality. The CIRC has knowingly omitted to check the veracity of interviewees’ statements; it is not transparent on its selection of statements to be reported; it ignores relevant documents; it did not respect the principle of hearing both sides and it ignored information that I provided. As a conclusion, the CIRC report is a complete sham.
4. The CIRC’s methodology of not hearing both sides of the story was, of course, very attractive for anyone who may have reasons to exact revenge for past grudges, especially when their confidentiality was guaranteed. The CIRC report demonstrates that they have availed themselves of the opportunity with great gusto.
5. Generalities such as “an anti-doping policy directed against the abuse of doping substances rather than the use of them”, “containment of the doping problem with a focus on protecting health” are subjective interpretations based on vague witness statements rather than on a thorough investigation of all the facts. Perceived errors are turned into representative examples of a general and deliberate – but non-existent – policy that is not examined further.
6. Guesswork such as the supposed reason for the lack of credit for UCI’s fight against doping is the excuse for a collection of rash criticisms on issues outside anti-doping, such as the presidential elections and other institutional matters.
7. The CIRC does not refrain from demagogy. Ignominously, the CIRC concludes for example on the basis of just two so-called TUE cases that the UCI had consistently failed to apply its own rules.
8. As if that was not already serious enough, the CIRC even goes as far as to twist the meaning of a letter that it quotes very selectively and omits key wording.
9. Similarly, the CIRC falsely accuses me of having been aware that medical prescriptions were backdated. This is simply not true.
10. Also totally false is the CIRC’s conclusion that the UCI limited the scope of the Vrijman report to procedural issues. This falsehood will be clearly demonstrated by referring to the evidence that was also available to the CIRC, which however preferred to ignore it.
11. The alleged “preferential treatment” of Lance Armstrong is an a posteriori construction, turning a number of events occurring into a nonexistent strategy of “preferential treatment”.

If mistakes were made by me, or under my presidency, so be it. I will take responsibility for that. But it is one thing is to identify a mistake and report on all the circumstances that allow people to assess and to discuss it; it is quite another thing to manufacture a “procès d’intention” out of selected statements and fragments of facts. This does not serve the cause of cycling, nor of anti-doping. It serves only the short-sighted cause of those people who put the CIRC in place.  This is the fundamental weakness of the CIRC report.