McQuaid family @ it again? READ MOD WARNING POST 19

Jawgap · 18-02-2011 05:05PM

Apologies, I don't know a lot about cycle-sports, but in this case I felt compelled to contribute...

U C, I really don't understand what's going on in cycling's official association / promoter.

X files · 18-02-2011 08:59PM

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Its a fact that the 'internet' in general, and the forum space in particular, is full of people with opinions. Some well informed, and authoritative, others, well, less so.................some outright mischevious and malicious - sh1t-stirrers, if you like. Ill-informed comment seems to be the norm on a lot of sites - A 'tabloid' sort of opinion prevails - "to hell with accuracy, just get it out there".

Its fairly obvious to me that a lot of the criticism of Pat McQuaid stems from this area - people who latch on to a 'populist' thread and for no good reason (esp. since you can do so anonymously) their postings do little more than re-hash earlier ill-informed posts. I'm not being specific about boards.ie here, the cyclingnews.com forum is as bad, if not worse, IMO. Its far too easy to sling mud from a distance and not have to worry about the impact or repercussions.

I would caution that a lot of stuff that is in the print and online media - which has an insatiable desire to print something, ANYTHING, every day - is one-sided and 'populist', and probably not as well sourced as it might first sound. The fact is that official channels like the UCI have to be relatively conservative and certain before they can reach a decision/make an announcement and the timelines for this are not nearly fast enough for the web/newpaper markets. The recent comments from PMcQ regarding Contador (viz yesterdays impromptu press conference in Oman) should be seen in this light.

I want to believe Pat McQuaid is an honest and fair guy, with the betterment of cycling at the heart of his interests. The talk of corruption, conflicts of interest, complicity in cover-ups of doping etc fly in the face of this. I read a lot of material on the topics from a wide variety or sources, but and to be honest, at this stage I simply dont know what the truth is any more.

If this whole issue with Pat McQuaids leadership of UCI is to be viewed in the light of the above 'benefit of the doubt' frame of mind, I'd like to think that he would be a lot more cautious of commenting on Armstrongs retirement...."His contribution to cycling has been enormous, from both the sporting point of view and his personality. All sports need global icons and he has become a global icon for cycling," UCI president Pat McQuaid told AP. "The sport of cycling has a lot to be thankful for because of Lance Armstrong." How - allowing for the ongoing FDA investigation - PMcQ sees this as "sensible" comment, I simply dont know. Is there some sense of loyalty to Armstrong that he would feel he is betraying if he used more cautious words to say thanks and good-bye to LA?

It doesn't show him in a good light and its small wonder that the loony element of the internet casts further doubt on his integrity.

Sorry, I'm rambling ............ I fear for the future of the sport in the hands of UCI and wish it were otherwise. Its getting hard to see Pat McQuaid as part of the solution.

Good point I could care what heis family get up to but ifyou are the uci boss that is different, conflict yes, honourable no my biggest problem is that he is a cronic bore

2011abc · 18-02-2011 09:35PM

Negative posters here should be ashamed of themselves .It is unlikely there has been a family in the history of cycling here in Ireland that have done more to promote it.Sure there are many families who have and continue to work tirelessly for the sport but I really cant think of any that trump the McQuaids in terms of numbers involved or achievements.

Junior · 18-02-2011 09:44PM

You call Contadors acquittal an achievement ?

Captain Havoc · 18-02-2011 10:47PM

Oldlegs wrote: »

Just to add, the deleted comments may well have been over the line, but I would just like to ensure that the question of Conflict of Interest does not become "Ad hominem" until it has been fully addressed by the principals at the centre of the topic.

Oldlegs wrote: »

Sure - but surely I am still allowed to make my point that I consider the post and the poster to be part of the subject matter, until the conflict of interest issue has been put to bed ?

You may not agree with that opinion, but it remains a valid opinion.

Thanks for the permission there. The first quote is the one I took exception to. Just to clarify, if anyone has an issue with any post, use the report button. Questioning a mod action in thread is something I take a dim view on and this will be the last comment that I will make on it.

edit: uberwolf: the above posts, amongst others, have been removed to the tedious bickering thread in order to clean this thread up

irishmotorist · 19-02-2011 12:57AM

2011abc wrote: »

Negative posters here should be ashamed of themselves .It is unlikely there has been a family in the history of cycling here in Ireland that have done more to promote it.Sure there are many families who have and continue to work tirelessly for the sport but I really cant think of any that trump the McQuaids in terms of numbers involved or achievements.

I've just tuned into this debate this evening and it's a bit of a mess. However, regarding this point, prior good deeds don't absolve you of your other misdeeds. A potential conflict of interest was highlighted and the fact that the McQuaid family has done good stuff in the past doesn't mean for a second that there is no conflict of interest.

Pat doesn't do his reputation any favours either. Hunting down all those who are tarnishing the sport to the ends of the earth would put him in a better light.
I suppose a spare $20k or whatever amount was left over from a LA donation to purchase a testing machine might dull the hunting senses a bit. (apologies if this amount was explained away in the past months and I missed it...)