In a series of letters signed by the chiefs of the five bodies, McQuaid and UCI director general Christophe Hubschmid have been urged to clarify the process by which national federations can nominate candidates for the Presidency of the UCI.

The power brokers ask that the CAS answer the question of "which federation (s) may submit a valid nomination for a prospective candidate for office of President of UCI?" under article 51.1 of the UCI Constitution ahead of the Presidential election in Florence on September 27, where McQuaid will be up against British Cycling boss Brian Cookson.

Swiss Cycling and Cycling Ireland have both withdrawn their nominations for McQuaid, which leaves him relying on support from Morocco and Thailand as he seeks a third term in office.

Opponents of McQuaid claim this breaches the UCI Constitution, specifically article 51.1 - which requires any Presidential candidate to be nominated by the "federation of the candidate".

Following the Swiss and Irish federations' decision not to back the 63-year-old, who has been UCI President since 2005, the Asian Cycling Confederation (ACC) and Malaysian National Cycling Federation (MNCF), put forward an amendment to the rules calling for article 51.1 to include the term "[or] two federations other than the federation of the candidate".

The proposed amendment, which Cookson called "undemocratic", will be voted on at the UCI Congress ahead of the Presidential election on the same day.

"The cycling world has been watching the UCI Presidential race carefully and its reaction has varied from amusement to outrage, from bewilderment to astonishment," reads the letter seen by insidethegames.

"The loudest voices are frustrated by the uncertainty that will accompany this year's Congress in light of shifting nominations, retroactive laws and midstream changes to the election process.

"We understand that Congress has the power to address the propriety of amending the election process, and it will speak when these matters are addressed in Florence."

Further pressure has been placed on Pat McQuaid after USA Cycling, with the support of five other federations, called for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to rule whether he is eligible to stand for a third term

The national bodies argue that the uncertainty over whether this means a candidate can only be nominated by his home federation - in McQuaid's case, Ireland - or a federation of which they are a member by virtue of residence and length of service - McQuaid lives in Switzerland as the UCI headquarters are based there - is creating confusion, damaging credibility and undermining the transparency of the UCI election process.

"This uncertainty does not serve anyone's interests, especially those of the delegates who rely on this year's proceedings to allow the UCI to prove to the cycling world that the governance of their International Federation is ultimately grounded in the Constitution, and that the meaning of the Constitution is predictable and reliable," the letter continues.

"As a group, we believe strongly about the legal principles involved to ask a court to resolve this Constitutional dispute in due course.

"But we also care enough about our International Federation to try everything in our power to avoid a protracted battle that might cast the results of the election into doubt for many months to come."

Pat McQuaid is being urged to let the Court of Arbitration for Sport judge whether or not he should be allowed to stand for a third term as President of the UCI



The letter goes on to call on McQuaid and Hubschmid to avoid any "post-election litigation over Article 51.1" by agreeing to the submission request to CAS, and draws comparisons to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) versus International Olympic Committee (IOC) case brought before CAS in 2011.

In that instance, USOC successfully challenged the IOC's decision to ban American Beijing 2008 400 metres champion LaShawn Merritt from competing at London 2012, after he was found guilty of a drugs offence and banned for 21 months in October 2010.

The IOC were working under Rule 45 - the Osaka Rule - of the Olympic Charter which allowed it to prevent any athlete who had received a doping sanction of more than six months from competing at the next Olympic Games.

The CAS ruled in favour of the USOC, who argued that this rule was unfair as it punished Merritt a second time for the same offence.

That decision ultimately led to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) successfully overturning the British Olympic Association's (BOA) bylaw which banned any athlete convicted of a serious doping offence representing Team GB at any future Olympics, which saw the likes of convicted drugs offenders Dwain Chambers, Carl Myerscough and David Millar allowed to compete at London 2012.

Rule 45 has subsequently been removed from the Olympic Charter and the WADA Code.

"As in USOC v IOC, we believe that both sides understand the benefits that the certainty and finality of a CAS decision provide, and that submission of this question will confirm to the world that the UCI is a federation of laws and not of politics," concluded the letter.

Cookson supported the idea proposed in the letter.

"I can totally understand the desire by a number of National Federations to seek clarity on the UCI Constitution in relation to the nominating procedure and how this applies to the current Presidential election," he said.

"Given the nature of the controversy it does make sense to have this matter adjudicated by CAS so that we can have a sound and fair election that is also genuinely robust."

Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]


Related Stories
August 2013: Exclusive - Cookson wants "coronation and not an election" claims McQuaid in letter to UCI federations
August 2013: Swiss Cycling Federation President quits after "coup" over McQuaid
August 2013: Swiss Cycling withdraws McQuaid nomination for UCI Presidency
August 2013: McQuaid free to stand for UCI Presidency after cleared by lawyers, he claims
August 2013: Exclusive - New doubts over transparency of UCI election after correspondence shows staff intervened in drafting rule change