Finally. Hopefully McQuaid makes good on his promise to leave the sport entirely if defeated. We're all better off without him.
i second the 217.
It's now up to Cookson to deliver.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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 because of an international ban on athletes competing in South Africa, as a protest against apartheid.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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!