Is it time for Pat to go?

leftism

Following Pat McQuaid's statement and responses to questioning at press conference today, do people think that his position as president of the UCI is no longer tenable? If so, how can the members of Cycling Ireland go about calling for a vote of no confidence at the upcoming ADM?

Is it finally time for change in the UCI???

Flandria

You might need a poll for that question;)

leftism

Should be fixed now

leftism

Does anyone know if an official motion calling for a vote of confidence/no confidence was submitted to CI prior to the submission deadline?

If not, does that rule out the possibility of a motion from the floor being called on the day?

Diarmuid

leftism wrote: »

Does anyone know if an official motion calling for a vote of confidence/no confidence was submitted to CI prior to the submission deadline?

If not, does that rule out the possibility of a motion from the floor being called on the day?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81369746&postcount=2018

Beasty

As linked by Diarmuid above, it is expected that a motion will be put forward from the floor on the day.

Anyone going?

leftism

Beasty wrote: »

As linked by Diarmuid above, it is expected that a motion will be put forward from the floor on the day.

Anyone going?

Is there a precedent for this type of motion being put forward? If not, then i'd be very surprised if it gets past the post. I've seen these types of motions crop up prior to ADM's, and the "old guard" within federations will look for any reason not to allow a vote to take place. Motions submitted on time and in writing, signed by multiple clubs have been rejected on the grounds that T's weren't crossed and I's weren't dotted...

mcgratheoin

He's never tested positive you know.....

leftism

Its a sad truth within politics that the disenfranchised majority are usually so disorganized that they pose little or no threat to the establishment. Just look at that "Occupy Dame St." crowd. Not a toothbrush or an alarm clock among them...

buffalo

Flandria wrote: »

You might need a poll for that question;)

What leftism is doing is known as "pulling a Lusk Doyle". :pac:

Kav0777

mcgratheoin wrote: »

He's never tested positive you know.....

.... there were suspicious results though....

RobFowl

leftism wrote: »

Is there a precedent for this type of motion being put forward? If not, then i'd be very surprised if it gets past the post. I've seen these types of motions crop up prior to ADM's, and the "old guard" within federations will look for any reason not to allow a vote to take place. Motions submitted on time and in writing, signed by multiple clubs have been rejected on the grounds that T's weren't crossed and I's weren't dotted...

I think they are fairly sure it'll be allowed, stopping or blocking it would be a strong signal as well (and not too good for Mr McQuaid)......

Captain Havoc

I think I might show up Saturday week, just for the fireworks.

RobFowl

Interesting that now there are 48 votes for him to go and none for him to stay!
Suspect the CI agm will not be as clear cut !

Captain Havoc

RobFowl wrote: »

Interesting that now there are 48 votes for him to go and none for him to stay!
Suspect the CI agm will not be as clear cut !

Maybe the man himself will show up to shake hands and kiss babies in an effort to get people onside, especially Dr. McGrane.

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

What leftism is doing is known as "pulling a Lusk Doyle". :pac:

That's copyright infringement right there.

You can expect to hear from my lawyers.

(It may be some time) :pac:

happytramp

It's refreshing to see that more people love lamp than want Pat to stay.

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

As linked by Diarmuid above, it is expected that a motion will be put forward from the floor on the day.

Anyone going?

Im def going as I do every year.Not sure how a motion can be taken from the floor though as the submission date has closed.Wouldn't be too sure about the outcome of such a motion either.Both partys would I feel have support.

petethedrummer

happytramp wrote: »

It's refreshing to see that more people love lamp than want Pat to stay.

Could we table a second motion to elect Lamp as head of the UCI?

Mefistofelino

Q. - Who replaces him? A power vacuum at the top at the present time is likely to be filled by someone from the Tchmil / Marakov sphere which doesn't look like a good solution.

A viable alternative needs to be lined up before the push.

Leroy42

slightly Ot, but does CI pay any monies over to the UCI? if any is paid over (as in licence fees etc) then I for one won't be renewing in protest.

Before anybody says it I know that won't make any difference but I think after that press conference today it is clear that simply carrying on as normal won't see any changes.

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

Im def going as I do every year.Not sure how a motion can be taken from the floor though as the submission date has closed.Wouldn't be too sure about the outcome of such a motion either.Both partys would I feel have support.

Standing Orders from here

1. Only club delegates and persons invited by the Chairman may address the meeting.
2. A motion can only be moved by a representative of the Member as defined in the Articles of Association 2 (a) to (g) inclusive who proposed the motion.
3. A motion or amendment shall be seconded immediately after the mover’s speech and before any discussion is permitted.
4. A motion or amendment shall not be withdrawn if delegates from two or more affiliated clubs object to such.
5. A speaker shall not speak more than once in debate on any motion or amendment except in the following circumstances:
   1. A seconder may reserve their speech until later in the discussion providing the seconding is purely formal;
   2. The mover of the motion shall be entitled to reply to the debate on the motion;
   3. The movers of any amendment and the original motion shall be entitled to reply in that order at the end of the discussion on each amendment and before voting takes place;
   4. By permission of the Chairman where an explanation, information or correction is necessary.
6. In reply to debate the movers must confine themselves to answering previous speakers and must not introduce new matters into the discussion.
7. Speakers may be limited to three minutes for the mover of the motion, two minutes for the mover of the amendment and one minute for other speakers.
8. If more than one amendment is proposed to the original motion they shall be set against the motion in their order in the final agenda. If an amendment is carried, then the motion, as amended, shall become the substantive motion.
9. A decision shall not be rescinded or amended at the same meeting by any subsequent motion.
10. It shall be competent for any delegate, who has not taken part in the debate, to move formally:
    1. That the question be put;
    2. That the meeting proceed with the next business;
    3. That the debate (or meeting) be adjourned;
    4. The previous question
11. The vote on such motion shall be taken immediately without discussion - if the motion that the question be now put is carried.
12. Any person ruled out of order by the Chairman will cease speaking and resume their seat.
13. Any person who, having been ruled out of order by the Chairman, refuses to comply with these Standing Orders will be expelled from the meeting.
14. The meeting shall, on a motion duly moved and seconded, and with the consent of not less than two-thirds of the delegates voting, suspend such provisions of these Standing Orders as shall be specified by the motion. In moving any such motion, the mover shall state the purpose for which the suspension is sought and the motion shall be put to the meeting without discussion.

In theory a motion could be thrown out and it's important to get the wording right to minimise the risk of this. Having said that, the fact that it's the Cycling Ireland Medical Officer putting the motion forward may make it difficult to stop some discussion of the background doping issues. It's clearly important to get as many delegates as possible to lend support to any motion (and indeed those opposing it, who should be given every chance to have their say). Stopping such discussion would probably attract as many headlines as allowing it, and either way if the members make their feelings known it could make it very difficult for CI to support McQuaid in his attempt for re-election next year (and as I understand it he does require a nomination from CI to stand)

Given there will also be a discussion on the grading issues, hopefully there will be a very healthy attendance at this year's AGM.

Chips Lovell

Beasty wrote: »

Stopping such discussion would probably attract as many headlines as allowing it...

I think this is a key point.

Flandria

Mefistofelino wrote: »

Q. - Who replaces him? A power vacuum at the top at the present time is likely to be filled by someone from the Tchmil / Marakov sphere which doesn't look like a good solution.

A viable alternative needs to be lined up before the push.

Good point. I think Pat has done a very good job on keeping any potential opposition pushed right to the back. He has used that 'global initiative' card to surely draft strong support from Asian and Mid-East federations by rolling it out to Beijing, Lankgawi, Oman and Qatar so I wouldn't be overwhelmingly confident that he will go easily no matter what's stacked up against him. There were a few statements in the last week (including Kelly and Roche Jnr) that praised the 'tireless anti-doping work under Pat's tenure blah-blah...' so I reckon if he comes out fighting he might continue to try to push this all onto Verbruggen's watch.

Much as it pains me, I would have to consider letting him stay if I thought he could get his way on banning race radios. For sure PEDs have poisoned the sport but them team radios are slowly strangling the life out of it...

petethedrummer

http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/post-peloton/2012/9/10/bringing-down-the-government.html

petethedrummer

http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/post-peloton/2012/9/25/robbing-peter-to-pay-pat.html

a148pro

I would have voted no simply on the basis that he should in fact have gone a long time ago

But then I realised I actually don't know anything factual about McQuaid's poor / dishonest / ineffectual performance as head of UCI, I've just seen constant criticism on here from people who's opinion I respect

So can someone remind me of a few examples of his crapness?

morana

a148pro wrote: »

I would have voted no simply on the basis that he should in fact have gone a long time ago

But then I realised I actually don't know anything factual about McQuaid's poor / dishonest / ineffectual performance as head of UCI, I've just seen constant criticism on here from people who's opinion I respect

So can someone remind me of a few examples of his crapness?

bump

Bluefoam

morana wrote: »

bump

Well I think the fact that there are numerous athletes support staff & journalists who, for the past 20 years have been vocal in highlighting the fact that the sport is over run by cheats and the fact that the sport has now descended into farce... & the fact that McQuaid and his cronies have done nothing but vocally berate these whistle blowers and have on at least two occasions sued people for being vocal about the problems facing the sport. So I would say that in these circumnstances, they are at least complicit in the downfall of the sport, if not corrupt.

ednwireland

a148pro wrote: »

I would have voted no simply on the basis that he should in fact have gone a long time ago

But then I realised I actually don't know anything factual about McQuaid's poor / dishonest / ineffectual performance as head of UCI, I've just seen constant criticism on here from people who's opinion I respect

So can someone remind me of a few examples of his crapness?

doesnt see a conflict of interest with this

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-would-accept-rider-donations-in-the-future

McQuaid also reiterated what he told Cyclingnews in November 2011 and said that the UCI would accept a similar offering from the stars of the current peloton, but would be more careful to ensure that the payment was made in a more transparent manner.

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

"Another thing that annoys me is that Landis and Hamilton are being made out to be heroes. They are as far from heroes as night and day. They are not heroes, they are scumbags. All they have done is damage the sport."

just two that spring to mind if i remember any more

happytramp

a148pro wrote: »

So can someone remind me of a few examples of his crapness?

There is an extensive bullet point list somewhere in the 'L.A 'enough is enough' thread but I can't find it right now. I would say however that by far the biggest problem is that he actively chose to bury his head in the sand with regards to the biggest doping programme in the history of the sport. All the signs were there, the rumors, the interviews, the testimony and he didn't want to hear about it. Had he wanted to help clean up cycling he could have done but he chose not to ruffle the feathers of his golden goose.

Here's the kicker.... His main goal of the past few years is to promote cycling on a world wide level. To expand it's territory and sell it abroad. It was beneficial to this goal to have the truth about Armstrong remain hidden. He had a vested interest in concealing the doping hence his ploy to wrestle the investigation off the USADA. You simply cannot have a man with a desire to protect the image of the sport be in charge of policing it. That is ultimately why either he has to go or an interdependent body needs to be in charge of anti-doping investigation.

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

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

Flandria

mcgratheoin - brilliant post

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

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!!

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

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.

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

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!!

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

Lumen

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Misdirection

Yeah, good luck with that Pat!

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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...

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

petethedrummer

ednwireland wrote: »

Called landis and hamilton scumbags

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

paulmcquaid

You're all hillarious.