UCI president David Lappartient has faced difficult questions about why a journalist who has written critical investigative pieces has been refused accreditation for the Road World Championships in Wollongong, Australia.
Ian Treloar has examined the governing body's link to an autocrat with a dreadful human rights record and a Russian billionaire under sanctions following the Ukraine invasion, stories which drew criticism from Lappartient and have formed the basis, Treloar suggests, for his inability to cover the current event as an accredited journalist.
Writing for Australia-based cycling website CyclingTips, Treloar was one of four colleagues to apply for accreditation and while all three of his colleagues were successful, his application was refused.
The UCI insists this is due to high demand from other media outlets meaning it was necessary to apply a rule limiting publications to three reporters.
However, the official line has not gone down well, with pictures from the event's press centre showing empty desks and prompting Treloar to tell the Guardian it may be "an accumulation of a number of stories building a perception in their minds that I'm a troublemaker".
In recent times, Treloar's investigative pieces have examined the link between Russia and the UCI following the Ukraine invasion, notably that Russian billionaire Igor Makarov remains on the UCI management committee despite being under sanction from Australia and Canada.
> UCI defends decision to honour Turkmenistan dictator
Treloar also looked into the governing body's relationship with Turkmenistan autocrat Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, as well as exploitation of a UCI scheme to help evacuate cyclists from Afghanistan.
"I think I'm asking reasonable questions about sports governance," he continued. "I'm sure that the UCI believe they are a transparent organisation and that they are governing in an accountable way, but if they're blocking access, then I question whether that actually is the case."
Speaking at a press conference, president Lappartient said the refused accreditation was simply a matter of policy.
"Two points. The first one is that it's exactly the UCI policy for the accreditations," he said.
"It has been published, it's three per newspaper and from what I understand CyclingTips already have three journalists. Every newspaper is here with three journalists, after that I don't have any specific comment to make. By the way, every newspaper is welcome, but this newspaper used its three accreditations which we do for this event, so here we are."
SBS Sport suggested that the policy outlined above may not be as strict as Lappartient makes out, reporting the Illawarra Mercury has nine accredited members at the event, and noted the press room has been "perhaps ten per cent full at its busiest".
The cycling journalists' union, l'Association Internationale des Journalistes du Cyclisme (AIJC) has raised concerns with the UCI, and its UK representative, Sahbh O'Shea, said she had never seen the three reporters rule enforced.
"I've spoken to them in person and expressed my dissatisfaction with the fact that they're effectively restricting access to a journalist who has published negative articles about them," she said.
Speaking to SBS, Treloar's editor Caley Fretz said the reasons given "do not hold water".
"The whole situation is deeply disappointing, petty, and unbecoming of the sport's governing body. We're here as Australia’s largest cycling-focused publication to cover and promote the sport we love, yet the UCI’s behaviour is preventing us from doing just that," he said.
The UCI has since released a statement echoing its president's words on a three-reporter quota.
The UCI reserves the right to approve or deny accreditation via the online application process. Accreditation is limited to a maximum of three permanent media representatives for each media outlet (representatives holding a valid press card).
Add new comment
10 comments
Further restrictions today on questions - journalists warned not to bring up the fact that the French women's team flew coach whilst the men's went business.
Someone writes accusative articles about me but want to be invited to my party! Of course I'm going to say no. So the UCI is not doing anything here that any other person wouldn't do. In fact I might suspect Mr.Treloar got what he wanted, making sure by making four applications knowing that the limit was three. That is, manufacturing a story.
So you're happy with journalists toe-ing the party line and not uncovering some shady dealings by the UCI. In the past CT has had more than three journalists attend and as shown, there is heaps of space.
He hasn't been stopped from writing whatever he wants to write. He hasn't been stopped from asking anyone he wants to for a interview. And he hasn't been prevent from publishing. All that has happened is his been told he's not welcome in UCI's own private tent having already pissed on it. Welcome to the real grown-up world.
'The grown-up world' it most certainly is not. It's the people at the top of the UCI not wanting anyone to pull back the curtain on the shadier side of the organisation.
Maybe you're comfortable with that idea, with the undue influence of oligarchs, dark money and the think tanks shaping government policy; scandals like Cambridge Analytica & Facebook, Leave.eu or Arron Banks' libel case against Carole Cadwalladr.
No-one is suggesting that the UCI is in the same league as those things but the same principles surely apply. Or perhaps you'd prefer not to know about the grubby side of sport administration. Perhaps you'll be happier if they stop any doping investigations and let the poor athletes have their syringes and blood bags in peace.
You're missing the point. What I saying it that his press freedom has not be infringed in any way whatsoever. He can still write and publish whatever he wants. Tell me otherwise if you can.
If the UCI wanted specifically to appear to have stuff to hide, excluding Iain Treloar would be a good way to do it.
I would strongly recommend reading his work - apart from the exposure of some, er, interesting conduct from the UCI and its chums, he also uncovered some fascinating stuff from odd areas of the sport and industry. All beautifully written, too.
No idea what he writing about, good or bad, but as a news journo he is a sodding parasite. Ban the bloody lot.
To fuss about this shows him be be complete dimwit. Freedom of the press. Why?
Yes, what a parasite exposing potential corruption and shenanigans at the highest level.
Tell you don't understand why freedom of the press is a good idea in one post!