Podcaster and content creator Benji Naesen has filed a complaint with the UCI’s Ethics Commission after he was threatened with legal action by a member of the UCI’s senior management over unspecified comments on social media.
The Belgian, one of the co-hosts of the Lanterne Rouge podcast, was sent the official letter at the start of the month, concerning “injurious statements made on social media”. Naesen’s complaint is over Articles 5 and 6 of the UCI’s code of ethics, which say staff should “behave in a dignified manner and act with complete honesty, credibility, impartiality and integrity”. He has over 87,000 followers on X, and 16,000 followers on Instagram.
Article continues below
The letter reads: “I would like to start by insisting that the UCI is open to objective and constructive criticism and accepts the increased scrutiny that comes with its role as governing body of the sport of cycling.
“Many of your comments vis-à-vis our organisation, though negative on most occasions, are accepted and go with our responsibility.
“I feel obliged, however, to outline that there are legal boundaries to the manner in which negative comments can be communicated and that personality rights must be respected. The UCI has indeed observed several occurrences of statements that have to be considered injurious towards our organisation and/or its elected officials.
“It shall also be noted that such injurious statements made on social media or other means of public communication can be pursued in the country of domicile of the person or entity against which the comments are directed. Several of the comments made against our organisation could therefore be subject of criminal proceedings in Switzerland, if we were to file a complaint.”
The letter does not specify which social media posts are considered “injurious”, and gives no evidence of Naesen breaking any defamation laws.
It continues: “The UCI would indeed much rather invite you to verify information before comments are made. Some of your comments with regard to the UCI Regulations or their application are incorrect, thus unnecessarily casting a negative image on our organisation.
“There are also situations where the UCI shares your opinion, but your comments are unnecessarily offensive. More specifically, the UCI recognises that some in-race decisions are incorrect or inconsistent, but they must nevertheless be commented in accordance with legal boundaries. In this regard, the UCI applies its best efforts to continuously assess the decision-making of commissaires and improve consistency, whilst respecting their area of authority within the race.”
Speaking to Escape Collective, Naesen said: “I won’t deny that I lost some sleep over this unexpected letter. I have always been easy to contact for anyone, including the UCI, for any constructive dialogue. I would have welcomed a different approach that did not involve threats of legal action.
“The letter does not include a single example of my comments that the UCI deems ‘injurious’,” he continued. “This makes it impossible for me to assess the legitimacy of their claims in the letter, or rectify past comments. This understandably makes me a little scared that I may be subject to legal proceedings if I publish a negative comment about the UCI in the future.”
“Every post I make about safety measures or in-race decisions, in relation to the UCI, comes from a place of wanting the sport to be a safer environment for athletes, with fairness within its races, and as many people watching as possible,” Naesen said. “I believe that intention comes across for people who consume my work.”
Both the UCI and Naesen were contacted by Cycling Weekly for comment.
