revchuck 

Article here.

Flatballer

Finally. Hopefully McQuaid makes good on his promise to leave the sport entirely if defeated. We're all better off without him.

gsteinb

217

botto 

i second the 217.

mattm

what was bad about mcquiad again?

i don't follow uci politics so these names mean nothing to me.

Caretaker

It's now up to Cookson to deliver.

cafzali

Most everyone in the sport believes he knew very well what was going on as far as doping, but as leaders of other professional sports have done, chose to cover it up. The fact that he was a staunch defender of Lance didn't help his cause either, as that just served to link him to the poster boy for doping, even though many others were also guilty as well.

Jed19

These are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. I don't have any evidence, but I suspect he and Verbruggen were on the take. How does an 'ethical' sports administrator accept a sizable donation from an athlete his organisation is supposed to police?

And the other thing is McQuaid should never have been elected in the first place. Why? He was banned from the 1976 Olympics for competing in an apartheid South Africa cycling race, despite the world-wide boycott of that nation at that time. The old rogue had registered for the race under a false name. A press photographer had snapped his picture, and the photograph did not match the name. How somebody so unethical came to head the UCI is just unbelievable. The guy was a scoundrel, even way back then.

I say good riddance!

Caretaker

I predict that in years to come people will, not based on any evidence, be referring to Brian Crookson. He'll soon find it goes with the job.

mprelaw

Of course, because historically, it's been an apt job description.

Athens80

I hope that in years to come people will not refer to him at all because he's just been a competent administrator who doesn't get any notice.

Cat4Lifer

So back to the question: what was bad about McQuiad again?
Looks like some people just believe him, without any evidence, to be corrupt.
Of course, there is a file out about him that supposedly highlights his inappropriate behavior as head of the UCI.
As far as I'm concerned, his banning of race radios and the handling of that whole mess is enough for me to be glad he's out.

Jed19

In my post, I pointed out two things that were bad about McQuaid. Competing in apartheid South Africa through subterfuge and accepting the Lance Armstrong 'donation'.

The first showed him to be some kind of liar/fraud, and the second showed an ethically-challenged cretin.

And I have a hunch, just a hunch, that something was rotten about Verbruggen and McQuaid, and we'll learn that truth someday. Maybe when a general amnesty is offered to everybody that was a scoundrel in the pro peloton and management.

Cat4Lifer

Oh right, he raced in South Africa under a false name in the '70s
I heard he ran a stop sign once. Of course, that could be just a part of a smear campaign.
Now, his accepting/soliciting of "donation" of a rider still competing does at least smack of impropriety.
Who knows, maybe one-day we'll find out it was a final pay-off from a doper?

Leinster

Well it's not just that. He insisted all through the Armstrong years that there was absolutely no doping in cycling, that they had it sorted out, and there was nothing to see here. Despite that, 2 (Landis, Contador) Tour de France winners from his period in charge of cycling have had their titles stripped due to doping charges.

Jed19

And who could forget that he tried to "throttle" USADA's Armstrong investigation.

Jed19

Look, running a stop sign is entirely different from actively planning and executing a fraud. Maybe you don't look at McQuaid's apartheid South Africa imbroglio as fraud, and you might be right, but no doubt in my mind that a guy who does that kind of thing is a moral cretin and a coward. If he felt strongly about busting the apartheid boycott, then he should have registered for the race using his own name. At least, I could have respected him for that, even If I disagreed with his position. And he did that when he was a 26/27 year old, for crying out loud.

And also consider my point that such an ethically-challenged man as a 26/27 year old should not have been voted in to lead the UCI in the first place. There are consequences to things we do, and while I am not advocating that he be sent to Siberia for his past actions/antecedents, at least he has no business leading a world-wide organisation like the UCI.

Harsh? Of course, but that's how I roll!

Caretaker

OK, so you're calling Sean Kelly a "moral cretin and a coward"?

Jed19

Maybe Kelly was just a fraudster. If he later ran the UCI and accepted donation ($100,000) from a cyclist his organisation is supposed to police, tried to scuttle USADA's investigation of same athlete, then yes, he'll qualify as a moral cretin in my book.

For me, it is not only one thing, it is the series of ethically-challenged actions by McQuaid that qualifies him as a moral cretin.

Caretaker

Right, so now you're saying none of the other seven riders who concealed their identities were necessarily "moral cretins or cowards", just possible 'fraudsters' although who exactly they were defrauding is unclear as the race organisers undoubtedly knew their true identity.

Jed19

I did not say the other riders who concealed their identities were not fraudsters, you implied that.

Fraud is not necessarily a crime against a person or a state. In modern colloquialism, we use fraud as a kinda catchall for the kind of behavior McQuaid exhibited in apartheid South Africa, but in the case you and I are both referencing, then maybe a hoax better describes the situation. Nonetheless, it is an intention and plan at deceit for benefit.

I did mention in my earlier post that the use of the word moral cretin has to do with the cummulative actions of Pat McQuaid. It is a series of actions by him that brought me to my conclusions about him.

Caretaker

I interpreted your "maybe Kelly was just a fraudster" as "just possible fraudsters" in reference to Kelly and the other riders excluding Pat McQuaid (eight riders in all took part)who you obviously hold other things against. Where did I err in this interpretation? Where did I imply anything?

It was certainly a plan to evade the consequences of their action in competing in South Africa. I'd describe it as a subterfuge.

I accept you later clarified your earlier misleading post. You are entitled to your opinion of Pat McQuaid, my concern was to not have others by implication labelled as 'fraudsters', 'moral cretins' and 'cowards'.

Jed19

This is where you implied (or put words in my mouth, I did not say) that I held the other guys up as possible fraudsters. If you don't mean what you wrote, then I'll let it drop.

What McQuaid and the others did is more than subterfuge. Subterfuge or duplicity is not necessarily evil, but it is almost always underhanded. All these guys held racing licences from a body that subscribed to the apartheid boycott. If they had nothing to hide, why race under false names? That in itself is shameful behavior, and they knew it.

And then have a guy that did this as an adult be elected the UCI head, was in my view, a mistake. McQuaid was not honorable then, and later subsequent actions proved him not honorable now.

Caretaker

If Kelly was "maybe just a fraudster" in your words, then surely that makes Kieron McQuaid, J. Burns, G. Main, D. Nixon, P. Nugent and A. Owen, all of whom were entered in the race under false names "possible fraudsters" also.

Underhanded? Absolutely. Something to hide? Absolutely.

Shameful behaviour? I disagree and I doubt they saw it as shameful.

As I've already mentioned you're entitled to your opinion of Pat McQuaid.

Jed19

You don't think what they did can be labelled shameful behavior? They knew it was shameful, and that was why they hid it. When you are licenced for racing by a body that subscribes to UCI rules and regulations, then turn around to circumvent/violate those rules and regulations (which your licence obligates you to abide by) while hiding cowardly behind false names.................., then that is a cowardly act in my book.

Like I said, I'll have respected them more if they went to apartheid South Africa on principle, and competed under their own names. That would have been a more "stand-up" position, even if you disagreed with their actions. Some actions/positions/stance can be respected even when you vehemently disagree.

I suspect McQuaid, Kelly et al know in their guts that that was not their finest hour!