Strong-minded Sylvia Schenk continues quest for Law & Order - Part I

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Stefan Schwenke)

An interview with Sylvia Schenk, August 10, 2005

Former German Cycling Federation (BDR) president and current member of the Union Cycliste International (UCI) Management Committee, Sylvia Schenk believes that the upcoming UCI election has been seriously compromised and filed a complaint with the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) Ethics Commission in June 2005. Schenk complained about the UCI's financial support of Pat McQuaid, Road Commission President and UCI president-elect, and is about to file another complaint with the UCI Appeals Board before eventually taking the case all the way up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as she told Cyclingnews' Hedwig Kröner in an exclusive interview. (See also: Part II)

Schenk, a Frankfurt attorney, alleges that McQuaid's cost of living in Switzerland has been entirely paid for by the UCI since February 2005, and that it violates Article 52 of the UCI Constitution. "Pat McQuaid obviously lives in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI since February - and Verbruggen doesn't deny that," she said. "So one has to conclude that there is either a contract existing or if there isn't a contract, it represents a by-pass of the Constitution which stipulates that no member of the Management Committee may have a contract with the UCI at the same time."

Schenk also questions the UCI's - or more personally, its president Hein Verbruggen's - involvement and handling of the upcoming election for presidency. Verbruggen, who is already Chairman of the IOC Coordination Commission, is leaving the UCI for an as-yet unknown position with the IOC, after the vote for presidency at the UCI Congress is held during the World Road Championships in Madrid on September 23, 2005.

S.S.: The former BDR president (Manfred) Böhmer, whom I knew also from the NOC, asked me if I wanted to become his successor in spring 2000. I said yes immediately, and was co-opted by the UCI in their Management Committee in the same year. Verbruggen needed a woman in there as the IOC was putting pressure on him - and still is. Every Commission has to have at least one woman in it, and Verbruggen saw that as a good opportunity to co-opt me - Germany as a cycling nation and me as its federation's future president.

In 2001 I was elected president of the BDR. I stopped working for the municipality Frankfurt then (after 12 years of community politics it was enough). So the next three years saw me exclusively working for cycling, in an honorary capacity of course. I received a pension for my time as City Counsellor so I wasn't dependent on a job at the time. Since September 2004, I've started to work again as an attorney in Frankfurt.

S.S.: There were several reasons. The difficulties I'm experiencing with Verbruggen have lasted for two years now. My feeling of uneasiness in the cycling scene grew as it was a difficult situation for me. After the Olympics in Athens, it got made public that one German track rider who had participated in the Team Pursuit [Christian Lademann] had in fact had a suspicious doping test result in June. His values were just under the limit. Our team doctor then told the directeur sportif [Burckhardt Bremer] of our national team that there was a suspicion of EPO use. The rider was then controlled constantly before the Olympics but the two did not tell anyone. I only found out about this in September, when I asked about this particular rider's future prospects, and Bremer told me that we couldn't take him into our national team anymore because of these problems. I think I should have been informed right away to follow it up with WADA etc., but I wasn't, so that incident started my resignation.

S.S.: They said it wasn't necessary. The blood values were just under the critical mark. But our team doctor had the medical record of the athletes over years so he can evaluate unusual results. And he did say that there was a suspicion of EPO use, so that should have rang the alarm bells. So I told them that they should have informed me, that the Federation's reaction should have been different because it resulted in the public impression that we wanted to hide the result. But I didn't get the support of the Regional Federations at the time, and without that... [In a Committee meeting, the representatives of the Regional Federations took Bremer's side, so Schenk decided to resign - ed.]

S.S.: There are several complaints right now, not only from me, but also from the Asian candidate to the presidency [Darshan Singh]. He just filed his complaint because the Asian delegates have been replaced by others. As for my point of view, the first point is that we have three candidates, and the situation that one of these candidates lives in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI. He attends all sorts of meetings on behalf of the UCI, which have nothing to do with his function within the Management Committee. And that's not a way to proceed in an electoral campaign: it's unfair. In my opinion, it's against the Code of Ethics.

The second point is: This electoral candidate and Management Committee member, Pat McQuaid, obviously lives in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI since February - and Verbruggen doesn't deny that. So one has to conclude that there is either a contract existing - who would leave Ireland for Switzerland without having the security of a contract? An apartment has to be paid for on the long term too - or if there isn't a contract, it represents a by-pass of the Constitution that stipulates that no member of the Management Committee may have a contract with the UCI at the same time. That's why Pat McQuaid should have resigned his position within the Management Committee in February, as he's obviously getting paid.

S.S.: No, he doesn't, not as such. However, in his letters, he says that the payments made to McQuaid are merely expenses allowances and have no contractual foundation. But this is still questionable: it is hard to believe that McQuaid left his country for Switzerland without some sort of security of a contract, especially as his whole living must be paid for. If his payments are this high, which is undisputed, and you don't verbalise it in a contract, it represents a by-pass. As if saying: OK, you won't get a contract as the Constitution doesn't allow it but you'll get enough money to make a living - that's a breach of the Constitution, too!

Verbruggen says it's OK if it's an expense allowance - I don't think so - and he moreover claims that this had been subject of a vote, but he never said when that supposedly was, nor how it was voted, with what wording. His version always changes: he now said that 'it was accepted' and then he says it was decided in the Executive board, everybody knew about it and so on. But there was never any decision, there is no protocol where it would be written down. It's simply not true. We did talk about it, but it was clear - that was part of our conflict over the last two years - that I wouldn't consent with that sort of a decision. And because he didn't want to decide on it with a single vote against it, he didn't make the matter subject to a vote in the first place. The Management Committee wouldn't have annulled the Constitution for that vote.