‘Fines, fines, fines’ - Lefevere accuses UCI of excessive control and lack of transparency

In his weekly column for Het Nieuwsblad, the former Soudal Quick-Step chief executive pointed to a series of recent incidents that, in his view, showed how strictly the UCI is policing riders and teams.

More than 10,000 CHF in fines was reportedly issued following the team time trial at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, the former Cirtérium du Dauphiné. According to Lefevere, Lotto arrived one minute late for the pre race inspection, despite the bicycles being ready on time, and received a fine of 3,000 Swiss francs. 

Jayco AlUla and TotalEnergies were also fined 500 euros each because their riders had been wearing rain jackets.

“What I have been wondering this week is what the UCI does with its pot of fines,” Lefevere wrote. “Who manages all that money? Does it flow back into cycling, or do they go out for a very good meal in Aigle? Investing it in Swiss property is another possibility, because the amounts are no longer normal.”

Lefevere acknowledged that the largest teams might be able to absorb such penalties without much concern, but argued that the cumulative cost could have a meaningful impact on smaller organisations.

“The individual riders or sports directors receive the fines, but the teams pay them,” he wrote. “That was the case in my time at Soudal Quick Step and I suspect it is the same everywhere. Paying UCI fines for an entire year weighs on a budget.”

Lefevere said the message from the governing body had been unmistakable in recent weeks.

“Big brother is watching you,” he wrote.

He cited Lorena Wiebes being removed from a race after her bicycle was found to be 20 grams above the permitted weight, as well as the continuing scrutiny of Jan Willem van Schip’s unconventional equipment and riding position.

“Lorena Wiebes’ bike twenty grams too heavy? Out of the race. Jan Willem van Schip with a strange bike set-up, a strange riding position or a strange look in his eyes? Out of the race. Even if the police have to force him to stop. And above all, fines, fines, fines.”

Lefevere’s criticism extended beyond the UCI’s disciplinary approach. He also took aim at the organisation’s claims of good governance and transparency.

The UCI recently announced that it had received its highest score to date in an Olympic governance audit, but Lefevere was unconvinced by the result.

“I would advise the auditors to listen to SD Worx-Protime and hear how transparent the UCI was around the exclusion of Lorena Wiebes,” he wrote. “Or ask SRAM about their experience with the restrictions on gearing. The UCI is like every other international federation: transparency does not exist.”

Lefevere reserved particular criticism for AIGCP president Brent Copeland, who also holds a senior management role at Jayco AlUla.

“Copeland wanted to be AIGCP chairman and was the first to criticise all his predecessors, but what has he actually changed for the better?” Lefevere wrote. “When do you hear from him?”

He argued that the UCI had succeeded in shifting responsibility for safety towards the teams while consolidating more authority for itself.

Lefevere pointed to a recent Cyclingnews interview in which Copeland said that safety was everyone’s responsibility, dismissing the phrase as little more than corporate language.

“Even the CD&V [a Belgian political party] no longer uses clichés like that,” he wrote. “The message the teams have to communicate is: ‘We are not taking this anymore.’ SafeR [cycling’s independent safety body] began with the teams, but in the meantime the ASO and the UCI have pulled the entire issue towards themselves.”

Lefevere closed by insisting that he had no ambition to return to the AIGCP, although he could not resist suggesting that the teams might benefit from a more confrontational figure.

“I absolutely do not want to go back to the AIGCP,” he wrote. “But, if I may say so myself, the teams could use someone with my tact, or rather my lack of it.”