The UCI Presidential Election Explained

Image 1 of 3

Brian Cookson watches racers pass by at the UCI Mountain Bike World Championships(Image credit: Will Shand)

It's the moment the cycling world's been waiting for, the moment when the incumbent president, Pat McQuaid, faces off against his challenger, Brian Cookson, in the final battle for the presidency of the UCI. For the last few months each candidate has been hacking away at the other through the media, now, finally, they face the voters in Friday's election.

No. While the confederation may tell its delegates which way to vote – such as, for example, the Europe confederation deciding to give the support of its fourteen votes to Brian Cookson – the actual voting is by secret ballot and individual delegates can and will vote how they please. Thus each candidate is able to chip away at the support of the other: McQuaid trying to pinch a vote or two from Cookson in Europe, Cookson trying to pinch a vote or two from McQuaid in Asia.

He is relying upon a creative interpretation of the UCI's constitution, by which – he claims he is supported by the UCI's legal department – any federation of which he is a member may nominate him. Over his eight years as president McQuaid claims to have become an honorary member of a number of federations, including those of Morocco and Thailand, who have supported his candidacy in the election.

This interpretation of the constitution will, presumably, be challenged at congress. As this is not a constitutional amendment, a simple majority of the voters should be sufficient to reach a decision. One possible outcome of a challenge to the creative interpretation of the constitution could be that congress is put on hold until such time as a legal opinion is delivered, at which time the delegates would reconvene and carry on. Such an outcome is unlikely and the interpretation of the constitution is more likely to be challenged after the vote, if it proves to be an issue in deciding the outcome.

A number of amendments to the UCI's constitution have been proposed, which – if any were passed – would allow multiple federations to nominate election candidates, or deem that the incumbent president is automatically nominated. These all contain retroactive clauses to allow them to be applied to the current election. The primary purpose of these amendments seems to be to forestall any legal challenge of the creative interpretation of the UCI's constitution in the event of a McQuaid victory.

In order for any of these constitutional amendments to pass they will require the support of two thirds of the voting delegates, or twenty-eight of the voters. Or, looked at the other way, to block them will only take the support of fifteen voting delegates. The Europe confederation has voted to block all constitutional amendments and, assuming all its fourteen delegates vote as ordered, that would require the support of just one other delegate to block these amendments.

If McQuaid wins one presumes that someone – Igor Makarov, a coalition of national federations, Jaimie Fuller or some other interested party – will challenge the election result, either to the CAS or through the Swiss courts. Makarov and Fuller have both hinted they would fund such a challenge. Such a scenario would see the cloud hanging over McQuaid's presidency until such time as a decision was handed down, which could be many, many months.