Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Professional Cycling For the Fans (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/)
-   -   Cookson In, McQuaid Out (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/915147-cookson-mcquaid-out.html)

revchuck 09-27-13 07:34 AM

Cookson In, McQuaid Out
 
Article here.

Flatballer 09-27-13 07:49 AM

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

gsteinb 09-27-13 07:52 AM

217

botto 09-27-13 09:38 AM

i second the 217.

mattm 09-27-13 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatballer (Post 16108896)
Finally. Hopefully McQuaid makes good on his promise to leave the sport entirely if defeated. We're all better off without him.

what was bad about mcquiad again?

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

Caretaker 09-27-13 01:23 PM

It's now up to Cookson to deliver.

cafzali 09-27-13 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattm (Post 16109318)
what was bad about mcquiad again?

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

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 09-27-13 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafzali (Post 16110182)
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.

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 09-28-13 01:39 AM

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 09-28-13 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16111690)
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.

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

Athens80 09-28-13 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16111690)
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.

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 10-01-13 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattm (Post 16109318)
what was bad about mcquiad again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafzali (Post 16110182)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16110533)
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?

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 10-01-13 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer (Post 16121214)
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.

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 10-01-13 10:52 AM

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. :p
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 10-01-13 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer (Post 16121302)
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?

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 10-01-13 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinster (Post 16121418)
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.

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

Jed19 10-01-13 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer (Post 16121302)
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. :p
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?

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 10-01-13 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16121623)
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!

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

Quote:

Kelly and two other Irish riders, Pat and Kieron McQuaid, went to South Africa to ride the Rapport Tour stage-race in preparation for the 1976 Olympic Games. They and others rode under false names[4] because of an international ban on athletes competing in South Africa, as a protest against apartheid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Ke...nd_Olympic_ban

Jed19 10-01-13 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16121742)
OK, so you're calling Sean Kelly a "moral cretin and a coward"?

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 10-01-13 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16121819)
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.

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 10-01-13 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16121883)
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.

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 10-01-13 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16122183)
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.

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 10-01-13 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16121883)
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.

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 10-01-13 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16122451)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 16121819)
Maybe Kelly was just a fraudster. .

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 10-01-13 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker (Post 16122542)
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.

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!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM.