I expressed an opinion about their possible feelings because I was in my late twenties in 1976 so can remember the general attitudes of the time.

They used false names because they knew riding in S. Africa at that time was against the rules of the UCI and would make them ineligible for the 1976 Olympics. To suggest they were hiding their identity out of some sort of shame is just to apply modern attitudes to a time nearly forty years ago. It was a reporter covering the honeymoon of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton who rumbled their deception so that will give you an idea of the attitudes where big film stars felt no shame in holidaying there.

They weren't taking a stance they were getting some Winter training in prior to the Olympics. This was an era of shamateurism in the Olympics and bending the rules wasn't seen as shameful, just levelling the 'playing field' with the East Europeans.

None of those lads should ever have gone to South Africa. I suspect they knew it at the time, and they certainly knew about it afterwards. And if confronted about it today by a South African their own age, they'd have a hard time justifying it.


Some of the quotes from McQuaid here don't show him in a good light;

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/12/1/...n-south-africa

Yeah, whatever.

Whatever, indeed.

It was the Irish stakeholders that overturned their own federation's nomination of McQuaid. His true home federation did not nominate him so Pat scurried to get other national cycling bodies to put him forth as their candidate, which was an end run around the UCI constitution. Pat's allies also tried to change the constitution in mid campaign to ensure McQuaid could run. At the last minute there was a smear attempt on Cookson that fizzled badly. If Pat McQuaid and his allies were willing to junk the UCI constitution over his re-election then I say good riddance, and kudos to the Irish stakeholders for taking a stand in this matter.

Glad that Cookson got this whatever the faults of McQuaid might or might not have been. His pledge to go along with separating anti doping functions from the UCI is a good idea and will find favor with a lot of the race organizers I imagine. McQuaid's intransigence in that regard seemed overbearing and perhaps even rightfully viewed with some suspicion.

Just think of the fact that doping in pro cycling was out of control under Verbruggen and McQuaid, and that fact alone necesissated a new leadership for the UCI. Tyler Hamilton stated in his book that Lance got the UCI to come after him, and I won't be at all surprised if some shady stuff were to be exposed later.

Verbruggen and McQuaid just reeked of corruption. And we should not forget that McQuaid tried to scuttle the USADA investigation.

Yeah I think the days are done when you could just sweep this under the rug from lack of confidence in being able to control it as it was in the past. There are, in fact conflicts of interest in the UCI handling anti-doping functions when keeping sponsors on makes sweeping it under the rug a more attractive option.

It's time to try and put some of this cynicism about doping in the sport to rest with some stringent independent controls that leave less room for even the appearance of corruption......I don't think McQuaid quite knows what time it is in that regard.

Just that factor alone justifies the change in leadership, imo.