Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it time for Pat to go?

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    happytramp wrote: »
    There is an extensive bullet point list somewhere in the 'L.A 'enough is enough' thread but I can't find it right now.

    These ones?
    RobFowl wrote: »
    From my point of view the main isuues with Pat McQuaid are
    The 50% haematocrit which effectively legitimised EPO abuse (introduced which he was VP)
    The decision to allow LA back without having been on the wereabouts system for the required 6 months
    The decision to accept monies/donations from LA
    The fact that the UCI didn't respond to David Millar (among others) letters re ingrained doping practices
    The decison to sue multiple figures involved in antidoping or whistelblowing (Dick Pound, Floyd Landis and now Paul Kimmage)
    The failure to properly address ingrained doping over a long period


  • Options
    #33
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    a148pro wrote: »
    So can someone remind me of a few examples of his crapness?

    Well I'll give you a few examples of the UCI's general crapness. Whether you can pin it all on Pat is another issue, but he's the one who's coming out and speaking in public on it.
    1. When Landis first made his accusations, the UCI did nothing to investigate any of the allegations that he was making about US Postal. McQuaid initially said
      I think Landis is in a very sad situation and I feel sorry for the guy because I don’t accept anything he says as true. This is a guy who has been condemned in court, who has stood up in court and stated that he never saw any doping in cycling. He’s written a book saying he won the Tour de France clean. Where does that leave his credibility? He has an agenda and is obviously out to seek revenge.
      About 6 months later he's saying
      A lot of the stuff he says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true. There was a lot of doping doing on in those teams in those years. If it [the federal investigation] proves that the US Postal team were involved in a lot of doping, it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me. In those days it was possible to beat the system.
      yet there was no effort or attempt to investigate the allegations.


    2. Jorg Jaksche decided to spill his guts (in the hope of a reduced ban) and spoke to the UCI, including directly with Pat for several hours. They completely discounted his testimony and at one stage someone from the German Criminal Board had to ring the UCI and say he qualified as a witness for them and therefore his word should be good enough for the UCI as well. He lifted the lid (further) on Fuentes, Saiz, CSC, Telekom and in response the UCI peddled the Lance line - "he was lying when he was doping, therefore he must be lying now." The same argument as for Jorg and Floyd applies to David Millar and Tyler Hamilton - whistle blowing that was wilfully ignored by the UCI

    3. The UCI failed utterly to offer a place where whistle-blowers could feel comfortable and safe telling what they knew. This was a complete abdication of responsibility and duty of care towards the sport and has contributed hugely to the continuing culture of doping within the peleton. Jorg Jaksche, Filippo Simeoni, Christophe Bassons and Emma O'Reilly can attest to that, while Dick Pound, Paul Kimmage and Floyd Landis all share the badge of honour of being sued by the UCI, Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen.

    4. His pattern of suing people is disturbing, and geared more towards anti-dopers than dopers. It reflects a bullying tendency to "play the man rather than the ball" and seems geared towards individuals who will be less able (financially) to defend themselves than large organisations.
      • Paul Kimmage - sued personally for writing a quote from Floyd Landis in a newspaper
      • Floyd Landis - sued for saying the UCI took money to cover up a positive test by Lance
      • Betsy Andreu - not sued for saying the UCI took money to cover up a positive test by Lance
      • Lance Armstrong - not sued for telling teammates that he could get tests covered up (i.e. the UCI was corrupt)
      • Dick Pound - sued for saying that he didn't feel the UCI was doing enough in the anti-doping fight

    5. The UCI has been at the rear of the anti-doping fight in cycling. It was the USADA who conducted this current investigation, with little or no co-operation from the UCI. It was the Tour de France (ASO) who kicked out the Puerto riders and the entire Astana team, and it was the Italian Olympic Committee who banned Valverde from riding in Italy for 2 years.

    6. There has been no acknowledgement of the varying conflicts of interest that arise in connection to the UCI's role as anti-doping enforcers within cycling. If they genuinely believe that it is acceptable to have the promoters act as the regulators and accept money from those they are regulating, then the problem may be insurmountable. It is very reminiscent of the "stroke" politics we see here, (thinking James Reilly) and I would be hoping that CI delegates consider the issue as a whole, without going down the Irish route of voting locally.

    7. The UCI's response to the Armstrong case by the USADA has been more than disappointing, it has been frighteningly biased against the only independent body involved in the current doping revelations. In claiming that UCI had sole jurisdiction over Armstrong and cycling, they actively attemoted to hinder the investigation

    8. Ignored their own rules by allowing Lance to compete on his comeback without having been available for testing for a 6 month period prior to that. It may only have been a few days, but the rules are there for a reason, and the rules were bent or ignored for this particular individual.

    Fairly balanced analysis of Pat here


  • Options
    #34
    Flandria
    Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭Flandria


    mcgratheoin - brilliant post


  • Options
    #35
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    Flandria wrote: »
    There were a few statements in the last week (including Kelly and Roche Jnr)

    I wonder if Nico's comments may have a teeny, tiny bit to do with Darach McQuaid, Pat's son being his manager....

    /tinfoil hat


  • Options
    #36
    paddyh117
    Registered Users Posts: 404 ✭✭paddyh117


    Called landis and hamilton scumbags
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-landis-and-hamilton-are-far-from-heroes?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0


    I can't believe he called them scumbags, and thinks they ruined the sport?

    he would actually have preferred if all this had never come out.....it's beyond belief!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    godihatedehills
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭godihatedehills


    Hamilton casts his vote: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/uci-chief-pat-mcquaid-has-no-place-in-cycling-says-angry-armstrong-whistleblower-3270276.html


  • Options
    #38
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,034 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    paddyh117 wrote: »
    I can't believe he called them scumbags, and thinks they ruined the sport?

    I don't have a problem with people calling them scumbags. It's just a bit late for Pat to be discovering a sense of moral outrage.


  • Options
    #39
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    Lumen wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with people calling them scumbags. It's just a bit late for Pat to be discovering a sense of moral outrage.

    Misdirection


  • Options
    #40
    paddyh117
    Registered Users Posts: 404 ✭✭paddyh117


    Lumen wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with people calling them scumbags. It's just a bit late for Pat to be discovering a sense of moral outrage.


    ....it was more the fact that he seem more offended that they blew the whistle on the sport and therefore "ruined" it, rather than took part in the doping in the first place!

    it's some twisted thinking!!


  • Options
    #41
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,794 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    paddyh117 wrote: »
    he would actually have preferred if all this had never come out.....it's beyond belief!!
    Unfortunately it's not beyond belief. That's why the answer to the question posed in the title has got to be yes. He had gained little enough credibility in his "attempts" to tackle doping as it was. His performance yesterday (including the follow up to the Press Conference) wasn't exactly "inspiring" and he shows no signs of being capable of moving cycling forward. It's best for all concerned if he steps aside. If he's not prepared to do that then the next best thing (from our perspective) is for the CI members to make sure they voice their opions at the forthcoming AGM, as CI is in the (possibly unique) position of being able to stop him running for re-election


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,034 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    mcgratheoin wrote: »
    Misdirection

    Yeah, good luck with that Pat!


  • Options
    #43
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Lumen wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with people calling them scumbags. It's just a bit late for Pat to be discovering a sense of moral outrage.

    I think it exhibits that he has absolutely no conception of how the UCI is going to be perceived over this. Yes Landis and Hamilton were cheats, but he's just come out and said that two of the key witnesses in one of the biggest scandals to hit the sport are "scumbags". How does that look?

    It's a serious error of judgement on his part and he could have easily condemned their behaviour without appearing to shoot the messenger, twice, in the face, like he's just done.


  • Options
    #44
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,034 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I was reading Ger Cromwell's piece on Pat in the Indo this morning.

    In fairness he's done quite well for a PE teacher. They're not the sharpest knives in the block.


  • Options
    #45
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,794 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Lumen wrote: »
    In fairness he's done quite well for a PE teacher. They're not the sharpest knives in the block.
    While I appreciate this was meant in humour, please don't make such generalisations

    Thanks

    Beasty


  • Options
    #46
    oflahero
    Registered Users Posts: 765 ✭✭✭oflahero


    Lumen wrote: »
    In fairness he's done quite well for a PE teacher. They're not the sharpest knives in the block.

    The PE teacher when I was in school doubled as a maths teacher, and is now the headmaster. Looks like they're actually quite the canny species.


  • Options
    #47
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,034 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Beasty wrote: »
    While I appreciate this was meant in humour, please don't make such generalisations

    Whether you find it humourous or not, the generalisation is based on statistics.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/physical-education-teachers-are-not-smart/

    teacherscores.jpg


  • Options
    #48
    leftism
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭leftism


    I'm just shocked at McQuaid's responses both today and yesterday! He is as unrepentant as Armstrong. I actually agree with a previous poster; i don't think McQuaid is corrupt anymore. I actually think he's completely delusional. Not only does he think he's done no wrong, he actually thinks he's solving the problem.

    Consider the UCI's response over the last few years, all under the leadership of Pat McQuaid:

    1) Ruthlessly attack any whistle-blower that speaks out about the doping problem in cycling.

    2) Sue the president of WADA for defamation.

    3) Refuse to cooperate with any investigations into doping conspiracy in the sport you're supposed to be policing.

    4) Worse still, deliberately attempt to stop investigations into doping conspiracy in the sport you're supposed to be policing, citing breaches of jurisdiction etc.

    5) Sue the worlds most outspoken anti-doping journalist for defamation.


    If (as Pat suggests) the sport is much cleaner now, it is definitely in spite of his and the UCI's best efforts. They have been dragged along kicking and screaming at every stage. And yet he has the nerve to come out and say that all this progress was his idea?!?! Not only that, he's suing the man that arguably deserves much of the credit...


  • Options
    #49
    CardinalJ
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭CardinalJ


    'Off the Ball' on newstalk have been trying to get him in for quite a while to ask him some real questions.

    They've put a post on their Facebook page which they want to get as much reaction to as possible so they can hopefuly use it to get an interview.

    Link is http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152231053390441&set=a.10150096680430441.394208.10150089120710441&type=1&theater


  • Options
    #50
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    ednwireland wrote: »
    Called landis and hamilton scumbags

    Is he allowed to call them scumbags if they can't call him a clown?


  • Options
    #51
    paulmcquaid
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭paulmcquaid


    You're all hillarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭buffalo


    paulmcquaid wrote: »
    You're all hillarious.

    Ah Paul, you came all this way. Could you not respond in a constructive way? Maybe address the points in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81381756&postcount=33 ?


  • Options
    #53
    happytramp
    Registered Users Posts: 2,599 ✭✭✭happytramp


    paulmcquaid wrote: »
    You're all hillarious.

    I am truly, truly happy there is a least one person who finds this mind-blowingly embarrassing debacle funny.


  • Options
    #54
    witty username
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭witty username


    paulmcquaid wrote: »
    You're all hillarious.

    Disappointingly brief. The last McQuaid visitor we had went on for ages. So I take it you don't love lamp then, Paul?


  • Options
    #55
    aindriu80
    Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    I heard Pat going over some of the things he has presided over since he has been in charge via sound clips on breakingnews.ie and it is high time he left. He isn't doing a whole pile, he can't condemn some of the things that some cyclists have slated and all he is doing is getting involved in the row.


  • Options
    #56
    Flandria
    Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭Flandria


    easy_01.jpg


  • Options
    #57
    sheepfield
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭sheepfield


    We all encounter bully-types in life: to get to the top of a world organisation (UCI) that has a proven track record of incompetence in dealing with cheats and other bully-boys takes a fairly thick-skinned operator with a pretty low sense of honour. Pat McQuaid probably doesnt give a tuppence about us mentioning him on boards; he sits in luxury in Switzerland; he can have a word with some minion round here to keep him updated if he cares enough, and can consider sueing if called "corrupt" or something horrific like that. He just needs enough brass neck to ride out this kind of controversy. And I dont think he is going anywhere too quickly. Which is a pity. A total new start is needed. And more people need to just ride the bike and not care about Pat McQuaid I reckon. All political careers end in failure anyway so it just takes time. I will be on my bike waiting.

    I equate him to other adminstrators like Pat Hickey and John Delaney who have had to deal with other stormy times in their sport but somehow manage to wrangle their way out of things in their shiny new suit and no amount of negative press seems to dislodge them. Pat is the head of a world body so his profile is much higher, though the self-serving, "stroke-politics" agenda of the Irish political animal is much the same. (Cue Delaney buying pints for the lads in Poland or Hickey lambasting any irish federation that makes him look bad to the IOC... wont get that chief-exec job if his house isn't in order!!!)

    Like many, I think it is an outright disgrace that he would sue Paul Kimmage. It speaks of targeting and bullying the small guy. Big guy in big house wearing shiny suit beats up on the humble, honourable man who points to the glaring problem at the heart of the community.

    The only thing that will see him removed I believe, is if LA has an incredible Pauline-conversion and spills the whole truth about the affairs of late, possibly exposing McQuaid to some charge, or something like that, if the 2001 TdS sample/$100,000 donation has another explanation.
    Or if the sponsors, en masse, decide to heave in some way. Money does talk. Those shiny suits are expensive.

    Highly unlikely, but wouldn't that make for a spectacular OPRAH episode???

    Cue Pat coughing outrageously into his meusli...

    We will be waiting.


  • Options
    #58
    paulmcquaid
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭paulmcquaid


    Ah I have to reply to sheephead. Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)?? Clearly you are so let me explain. Pat is suing Kimmage for 'calling him corrupt'. Simple. And Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers, IN JANUARY last! I'll repeat that, Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers informing him he was being sued, in January. How you can link the two is beyond me. Sure, Kimmage was correct about Lance. But that is completely separate to Pat taking umbridge to being called, 'corrupt'. Can ye not get that...?!? You guys crack me up!


  • Options
    #59
    paulmcquaid
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭paulmcquaid


    I'm just waiting for ye all to come back with - 'sher how can you say they are NOT connected...???!!!' The movie, 'Sneakers'. Dan Akroyd. Replying to someone in the back of the van when they mentioned conspiracy - 'isn't everything?!' Classic.


  • Options
    #60
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    paulmcquaid wrote: »
    Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)??

    I think this is the latest McQuaid talking point.

    McQuaid, the Pat version, pulled the same line this morning on RTE . And I bet, now that Kimmage's defence fund is up over $67,000, McQuaid and his side kick Hein (or is it the other way around) are deeply regretting the decision to sue Kimmage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    Good man Paul. Have you had a go at trying to convince people on here yet.... http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2255967

    Best of luck with it if you give it a shot.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement