March 6, 2006 — Dear Editor, First, I appreciate that you have printed my comments, and I have indeed been in communication with Kris Westwood in a positive interaction. Though most of my comments were not negated in his response to me (and he gave credit to many of them), he does deny being Mark’s advocate in 2002. For the record, we asked Kris to be Mark’s advocate, he agreed but was then asked by the CCA to be their advocate. Thereafter, he asked Mark to find a new advocate, which he did – Tim Lefebvre – and told Mark “it would be like having 2 advocates” at the appeal.

But really, in the end, it didn’t matter because the appeal was NEVER heard. The HPC conferenced first to determine if they were incorrect in CHANGING the criteria of who to send to the Road Worlds late-season – from most UCI points, which Mark had, to Coach’s Choice, which was Charles Dionne as he had just won San Fran – and they determined that they indeed were right to do so.

They didn’t feel that Mark’s appeal needed to be heard since they would come to the same conclusion anyway. This seems pretty circular to me. The key problem in this situation was that NOONE actually contacted Mark or provided a written account of the process. Mark called Tim Lefebvre, who said that the process was a moot point from the very start of the conference as the committee had already decided they were correct – a lost cause, as he put it. What is the point of appeals then?

I will say, yes, technically Kris was not Mark’s advocate – but the HPC cannot say they heard Mark’s appeal and they definitely did not follow fair procedure in the lack of communication thereafter with Mark. These are my points.

Thanks again for having the journalistic integrity to print my letter – I believe now that this will help lead to positive efforts at the CCA.

Respectfully,
Robyn Snyder Walters, Ph.D., CSCS