McQuaid requests CI nomination

CheGuedara

The Sunday Business Post is reporting that McBruggen is after requesting renomination from CI for his position at the UCI.

It also discusses some division in the CI board over the matter and mentions division on the calling of an EGM for members to have their vote as discussed at the last CI AGM.

Given the strength of feeling and opinion that is out there on the subject of McQuaid and his position at the head of our sport you would imagine that the board would call an EGM rather than deny the membership their vote. You'd have to imagine that to not do so would make the continuance of the board close to untenable for going against the membership and refusing them their right to direct their national federation to reflect their view on McQuaids continuing tenure.

morana

CheGuedara wrote: »

The Sunday Business Post is reporting that McBruggen is after requesting renomination from CI for his position at the UCI.

It also discusses some division in the CI board over the matter and mentions division on the calling of an EGM for members to have their vote as discussed at the last CI AGM.

Given the strength of feeling and opinion that is out there on the subject of McQuaid and his position at the head of our sport you would imagine that the board would call an EGM rather than deny the membership their vote. You'd have to imagine that to not do so would make the continuance of the board close to untenable for going against the membership and refusing them their right to direct their national federation to reflect their view on McQuaids continuing tenure.

I am not so sure. The board have never discussed his nomination because we only got it last friday. As for it being untenable I wouldnt agree. Anybody can call an EGM but I would agree its difficult to do it.

But lets see what happens I am sure you will hear about it.

Beasty

This is worthy of a separate thread, so I've moved these posts from the Is it time for Pat to go? thread

Beasty

I should perhaps have known better, but I'm still surprised McQuaid has decided to try and hang on despite the pretty clear and substantial weight of opinion against him. He would have been much better off stepping down and taking some kind of ambassadorial role within the sport, allowing a clean sweep of the UCI hierarchy.

In terms of the CI board, I would be amazed if they agree to his nomination without reference to the membership, particularly given the scale of opposition as evidenced by our earlier poll. They could of course simply reject his request anyway, in which case they could even be seen as the trigger to actual (rather than simply talked about) change in the sport. Failing that an EGM would be the obvious course of action, as then they can almost wash their hand of it - if the members vote for his nomination then we will have to accept some responsibility for the consequences

The biggesrt danger is if the Board agree to an EGM, but then a quorum is not achieved - that passes the buck back to the Board and they can then reasonably take a decision either way amongst themselves

Morana, do you know what the timing is here? My understanding is nominations are required to be recieved at least 90 days ahead of Congress, which I presume is mid September, which would mean a decision would be required by early June at the latest.

morana

Beasty wrote: »

I should perhaps have known better, but I'm still surprised McQuaid has decided to try and hang on despite the pretty clear and substantial weight of opinion against him. He would have been much better off stepping down and taking some kind of ambassadorial role within the sport, allowing a clean sweep of the UCI hierarchy.

In terms of the CI board, I would be amazed if they agree to his nomination without reference to the membership, particularly given the scale of opposition as evidenced by our earlier poll. They could of course simply reject his request anyway, in which case they could even be seen as the trigger to actual (rather than simply talked about) change in the sport. Failing that an EGM would be the obvious course of action, as then they can almost wash their hand of it - if the members vote for his nomination then we will have to accept some responsibility for the consequences

The biggesrt danger is if the Board agree to an EGM, but then a quorum is not achieved - that passes the buck back to the Board and they can then reasonably take a decision either way amongst themselves

Morana, do you know what the timing is here? My understanding is nominations are required to be recieved at least 90 days ahead of Congress, which I presume is mid September, which would mean a decision would be required by early June at the latest.

yes its june the nomination must be in by.

Beasty

Can't imagine there won't be other nominations given the comments made by senior members of other federations and Change Cycling Now . I would have thought McQuaid's only chance would be by being the sole nomination. Still, we have the power to force some kind of change

Captain Havoc

Poll added

happytramp

I'm going to hazard a wild guess that this will end up being a pretty one sided poll

Beasty

Let's hope the CI Board are looking at it (I'm sure at least one member is;))

I was a bit surprised when I first looked at it and the vote was level at 2-all, but it's moved on a bit since then. It's pretty much in line with the original poll at present, which is part of the reason I was surprised at McQuaid's request. Ideally the Board will reject him without even calling an EGM. The problem if they do call one is it's not "one member one vote" - basically it's an electoral college with Clubs sending delegates (as for the AGM). Hence the only way for the rank and file membership to have a say is to either get a delegate slot, or petition their own clubs to get their delegates to vote in line with the general consensus of the club membership

tfrancer

Beasty wrote: »

I should perhaps have known better, but I'm still surprised McQuaid has decided to try and hang on despite the pretty clear and substantial weight of opinion against him. He would have been much better off stepping down and taking some kind of ambassadorial role within the sport, allowing a clean sweep of the UCI hierarchy.

Is that a realistic suggestion? I would imagine that the majority of those who voted for Pat to go would like him to fade into the background. That's after they celebrate his downfall and give him a good kicking.

Casati

Beasty wrote: »

I should perhaps have known better, but I'm still surprised McQuaid has decided to try and hang on despite the pretty clear and substantial weight of opinion against him. He would have been much better off stepping down and taking some kind of ambassadorial role within the sport, allowing a clean sweep of the UCI hierarchy.

In terms of the CI board, I would be amazed if they agree to his nomination without reference to the membership, particularly given the scale of opposition as evidenced by our earlier poll. They could of course simply reject his request anyway, in which case they could even be seen as the trigger to actual (rather than simply talked about) change in the sport. Failing that an EGM would be the obvious course of action, as then they can almost wash their hand of it - if the members vote for his nomination then we will have to accept some responsibility for the consequences

The biggesrt danger is if the Board agree to an EGM, but then a quorum is not achieved - that passes the buck back to the Board and they can then reasonably take a decision either way amongst themselves

Morana, do you know what the timing is here? My understanding is nominations are required to be recieved at least 90 days ahead of Congress, which I presume is mid September, which would mean a decision would be required by early June at the latest.

Beasty - all evidence to date would have to lead you to presume that the board will approve this nomination. Prior to the AGM, the board issued a statement supporting Pat McQuaid. As we saw in the AGM, in response to the request made to discuss the vote of no confidence proposed by the Swords member, the main action taken by the board I believe was to agree to review the results of the Independent Commission. When that was disbanded I didnt see any comment by the board. When WADA refuted claims it had agreed to the truth and reconciliation process, the board remained quiet. The technical rules make it impractical for a group of members to arrange an EGM.

The bit I cant understand is why Pat is going for re-nomination, his last 10 years cant have been very enjoyable for him, and looking ahead it difficult to see things dramatically improving

Beasty

Casati wrote: »

Beasty - all evidence to date would have to lead you to presume that the board will approve this nomination. Prior to the AGM, the board issued a statement supporting Pat McQuaid.

I do not think the Board will be so foolish as to nominate him without giving the membership a say. They know the general feeling against McQuaid both in Ireland and elsewhere. The previous poll was vastly in favour of it being "time for McQuaid to go", and this one is heading the same way by the looks of it.

The Board also have some "specialist" members appointed from outside the club hierarchy who will, I am confident, consider this with a "corporate governance" hat on. CI will leave themselves open to massive criticism if they nominate without at least holding an EGM. They could though simply reflect the wider feeling within the sport and turn him down out of hand

One of the big concerns I have is, as I mentioned above, the voting system within CI. It only needs McQuaid to convince a relatively small number of clubs (or more precisely their delegates) to get him the support he needs, and I'm sure he and his associates will actively canvass clubs - particularly those run by some of the "old guard" who will have worked with the McQuaids in the past. For that reason I consider it critical for the membership to make their own feelings known within their own clubs, and attempt to either get delegate slots themselves or ensure those delegates that do attend any EGM (if one is called) reflect the feelings of the full membership

If an EGM is held and it supports McQuaid, then so be it. We will have had our say and no-one would then me able to criticise the Board. If it turns him down then in the same vein it will have been done openly and the Board will not leave itself open to criticism from anyone

Beasty

tfrancer wrote: »

Is that a realistic suggestion? I would imagine that the majority of those who voted for Pat to go would like him to fade into the background. That's after they celebrate his downfall and give him a good kicking.

Whatever people's personal views on McQuaid his background in the sport cannot be questioned. I believed this to be a sensible option for him to pursue although by trying to put himself forward again he risks burning this particular bridge

One further thing I would say is I see this more about a lack of confidence in the leadership. It's no different in my own mind to a large corporate that fails to deliver the results for whatever reason. Ultimately the buck stops with someone. Big business is littered with former chief executives who were pretty good at their jobs, but rightly fell on their Swords (if you can excuse the pun;)) when something major went wrong. In this case it's McQuaid, and whatever his ability to actually do the job, I do not believe the sport can move forward with someone associated with the past in the way McQuaid is. I have no problem with him retaining a role within the sport, but he (and Verbruggen) should, in my view, have absolutely no influence on its governance going forward

Eamonnator

If an EGM were called, would each club have the same number of votes?
That is to say would a club with 15 members(mine) have the same number of votes as a club with 100 members?
How many votes would my club have?

Beasty

Eamonnator wrote: »

If an EGM were called, would each club have the same number of votes?
That is to say would a club with 15 members(mine) have the same number of votes as a club with 100 members?
How many votes would my club have?

There's a formula based on membership numbers. I think Swords had the right to send 3 delegates at the AGM, some clubs will have had only 1, and others may have 5.

I'm sure morana can clarify, but we are getting far enough into the year for most clubs to be getting near to their full membership I would guess

2011abc

It sickens me sometimes the begrudgery in this country !Pat McQuaid has done more for cycling in this country than most could ever dream of .Jack Charlton was also disprespected in this fashion and Mick McCarthy and Brian Kerr...What is it in our national psyche that cause many to behave like this ?By no means would I have moved in Pat's (inner) circle on the domestic scene but he always impressed with his 'professionalism' -even when he wasnt being paid!And seemed like a generally nice guy to boot .I am very proud the UCI President is irish .
Lance fooled most of us , most of the time ,get over it !

el tel

2011abc wrote: »

It sickens me sometimes the begrudgery in this country !Pat McQuaid has done more for cycling in this country than most could ever dream of .Jack Charlton was also disprespected in this fashion and Mick McCarthy and Brian Kerr...What is it in our national psyche that cause many to behave like this ?By no means would I have moved in Pat's (inner) circle on the domestic scene but he always impressed with his 'professionalism' -even when he wasnt being paid!And seemed like a generally nice guy to boot .I am very proud the UCI President is irish .
Lance fooled most of us , most of the time ,get over it !

I can only speak for myself but I don't think anyone is begrudging Pat McQuaid and what he good he may have done locally. Rather I think people are concerned about the disrepute he has brought onto the sport by his hopeless and seemingly ad hoc management of the doping crisis. I think the "sure he's one of us" psyche is just as bad as any begrudgery trait.

kumate_champ07

2011abc wrote: »

It sickens me sometimes the begrudgery in this country !Pat McQuaid has done more for cycling in this country than most could ever dream of .Jack Charlton was also disprespected in this fashion and Mick McCarthy and Brian Kerr...What is it in our national psyche that cause many to behave like this ?By no means would I have moved in Pat's (inner) circle on the domestic scene but he always impressed with his 'professionalism' -even when he wasnt being paid!And seemed like a generally nice guy to boot .I am very proud the UCI President is irish .
Lance fooled most of us , most of the time ,get over it !

it has nothing to do with him being Irish.

2011abc

I GUARANTEE you if he wasnt irish this thread would not exist ,ok so obviously Monsieur/Herr etc etc "X" wouldnt be seeking a nomination from Cycling Ireland most likely but neither would most of the posters have any interest in career/character assasinating some 'foreigner'...Irish armchair soccer/cycling etc fans think its smart to join the lynch mob at the slightest sniff that one of their heroes may have gotten something wrong.

LeftBlank

2011abc wrote: »

I GUARANTEE you if he wasnt irish this thread would not exist ,ok so obviously Monsieur/Herr etc etc "X" wouldnt be seeking a nomination from Cycling Ireland most likely but neither would most of the posters have any interest in career/character assasinating some 'foreigner'...Irish armchair soccer/cycling etc fans think its smart to join the lynch mob at the slightest sniff that one of their heroes may have gotten something wrong.

If he really wanted to, he could have stopped Armstrong. The opportunities were there and as someone near the top of the world cycling body at the time, he should hav taken them. Instead he decided to ignore all the questions, pretend everything was ok and in the end bring the entire sport into disrepute.

McQuaid has damaged cycling to an enormous degree. Cycling really needs a break from the old guard. This has nothing to do with him being Irish.

Beasty

Of course it wouldn't exist as CI (who have many members contributing to this poll) would not have the ability to influence the future of the sport in the same way

Can I ask you one question 2011abc - ignore the fact he is Irish for one moment - do you genuinely believe McQuaid is the best person for the job, and if so why? What abilities does he bring to it that someone else cannot?

Plastik

He is Irish. We are Irish. All members of Cycling Ireland have a right to voice their opinion of his attempted nomination by the governing body of Irish cycling. The contempt of Pat McQuaid has nothing to do with the fact that he is from Ireland, but the utter balls of a job he has done since becoming head of the UCI.

By the way, there is equal disgust, displeasure and contempt on here that Hein Verbruggen is still knocking around, but unfortunately we're not in a position to influence that. You influence what you can, when you can, if you feel strongly enough about it. If Pat McQuaid was English, French, Danish, Klingon and I was given the opportunity to have him removed from that position in order to allow cycling attempt a clean start, I would.

His displays, his words, his actions POST the Armstrong affair make his nomination completely unjustifiable.

Lumen

2011abc wrote: »

I GUARANTEE you if he wasnt irish this thread would not exist ,ok so obviously Monsieur/Herr etc etc "X" wouldnt be seeking a nomination from Cycling Ireland most likely but neither would most of the posters have any interest in career/character assasinating some 'foreigner'...Irish armchair soccer/cycling etc fans think its smart to join the lynch mob at the slightest sniff that one of their heroes may have gotten something wrong.

I'm not Irish, and I'm not the only non-Irish person on this forum. Feel free to speculate that my desire for PMQ to go is founded in some sort anti-Irishness if it makes you happy.

IMO there is a solid base of support for PMQ amongst the non-passive-aggressive-nerd-cyclist fraternity (i.e. people who don't vote in internet polls) which should not be disregarded, particularly those who have been involved with cycling in Ireland for many years. At the same time, there are people in that group who wish him to go, many of whom may be keeping their opinions to themselves for fear of appearing disloyal or upsetting the community.

Groupthink exists in all spheres of discourse.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: 2011abc - Accusing the majority of posters of being Xenophobic (sort of, closest word I could find) is inappropriate, please do not do it again. It adds nothing to the discussion and as pointed out in a few posts, not really relevant.

Any issues, feel free to PM me.

tfrancer

Lumen wrote: »

Groupthink exists in all spheres of discourse.

Isn't "groupthink" a posh word for "lynch mob"?

petethedrummer

tfrancer wrote: »

Isn't "groupthink" a posh word for "lynch mob"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Quigs Snr

Well regarding the mcquaid apologists... who fooled who is irrelevant. If bad stuff happens on your watch and you are not taking drastic action (lets not talk mostly ineffective passports and the likes here - drastic would mean life bans etc... ) You walk the plank. Thats what reponsibility is. Ask any CEO.

Doesnt matter who did what... UCI has never been held in more contempt by its members.... hes had a long time to turn it round and I do think he is better than his predecessor but his close links to him are fatal as they have nullified the standard excuse of... no giggling please... all this happened before his time and its much better now. Firstly that is simply not true and secondly but going around practically arm in arm with Hein he is effectively endorsing and hence merging his reign with his.

Nothing against Mcquaid, he has done more for Irish cycling than any of us armchair experts, but he and his family have done well out of it too and fairly or not his time has come to an end. Cycling has a credibility problem now and whether he deserves it or not so does he... nothing he will do will be good enough in the eyes of the public, every 99 good things will be nulified by one bad... fresh blood will get a fairer go at it. Aside from wanting to turn it around, go out on a high note, I cant see why Mcquaid would want to inflict more of this on himself, I imagine Brian Cowen was in the same boat before the last election.

happytramp

2011abc wrote: »

It sickens me sometimes the begrudgery in this country !Pat McQuaid has done more for cycling in this country than most could ever dream of .Jack Charlton was also disprespected in this fashion and Mick McCarthy and Brian Kerr...What is it in our national psyche that cause many to behave like this ?By no means would I have moved in Pat's (inner) circle on the domestic scene but he always impressed with his 'professionalism' -even when he wasnt being paid!And seemed like a generally nice guy to boot .I am very proud the UCI President is irish .
Lance fooled most of us , most of the time ,get over it !

I mean no disrespect but would I be right in assuming you don't have a very intimate knowledge of the evidence pointing at the UCI's extreme ineptitude at fighting doping in the sport?

Chips Lovell

The board is there to work for the members' interests. We're lucky to have a great board at the moment and I've seen first hand the level of commitment they have for the sport.

I don't believe the board will make a decision that runs counter to what the members want. But that's provided that they are fully informed about what the membership thinks.

So if you have an opinion on the matter, one way or the other, it's important to email the board and let them know what course of action you'd support.

FrankGrimes

There's all sorts of parallels that can be drawn between the whole clip below from Casino and the doping which has occurred on McQuaid's watch, but the last 5 seconds in particular sums up my thoughts on exactly why McQuaid should not remain in the position:

witty username

2011abc wrote: »

Irish armchair soccer/cycling etc fans think its smart to join the lynch mob at the slightest sniff that one of their heroes may have gotten something wrong.

Hero? You're referring to Pat McQuaid here? Hero?

Seriously???

Leroy42

Lads, if you think that CI are going to do anything other that nominate PMQ again you are living in dreamland.

We had a whole thread a few months ago with a few CI guys coming on here stating that that anybody was free to call an EGM and that the issue was not a board decision.

A week later CI release a press release given full support for PMQ.

The the AGM comes along and they avoid a vote on the basis they want to wait for the independent investigation...that goes nowhere but does CI do anything?

There is a reason PMQ and his family have achieved so much for Irish cycling. The 1st being the efforts and work they have done to help cycling on this island. The 2nd is politics. People don't get to the top because they 'love the sport' or their 'passion' or what they bring to the community. They get to the top because they are good at getting in with the people who matter, the people who make the decisions.

And that hasn't changed, and all the complaining on here won't make a bit of difference.

Even since the last thread PMQ's whole handling of the passport debacle (we checked LA all the time...some of the time...we checked before he got back racing and everything seemed fine) has been even more of a mess than what he did before. No matter what he has achieved, and there is plenty to admire, he was in charge when the single biggest doping scheme in cycling, nay in world sports, was taking place. There should be no coming back from such an oversight as that.

Drugs were an issue when he took office, yet despite it being known as one of the main areas of concern within the sport, he has spectacularly, to a degree not seen in any other sport, failed to deal with the issue.

Put aside what he has done for Ireland, what type of person he may be, how much work his family do for cycling. His job, the one he now seeks a nomination for, is to run cycling in the best way possible. I don't think anybody on here can honestly say that the UCI, and therefore PMQ, has achieved that.

Time for CI to stand up and be counted. I for one won't be holding my breath as at the end of the day it surely must be advantageous for CI to have the President of the UCI (the Giro coming over for a start) and at the end of the day that, and not right or wrong, will dictate what they will choose.

morana

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lads, if you think that CI are going to do anything other that nominate PMQ again you are living in dreamland.

We had a whole thread a few months ago with a few CI guys coming on here stating that that anybody was free to call an EGM and that the issue was not a board decision.

A week later CI release a press release given full support for PMQ.

The the AGM comes along and they avoid a vote on the basis they want to wait for the independent investigation...that goes nowhere but does CI do anything?

There is a reason PMQ and his family have achieved so much for Irish cycling. The 1st being the efforts and work they have done to help cycling on this island. The 2nd is politics. People don't get to the top because they 'love the sport' or their 'passion' or what they bring to the community. They get to the top because they are good at getting in with the people who matter, the people who make the decisions.

And that hasn't changed, and all the complaining on here won't make a bit of difference.

Even since the last thread PMQ's whole handling of the passport debacle (we checked LA all the time...some of the time...we checked before he got back racing and everything seemed fine) has been even more of a mess than what he did before. No matter what he has achieved, and there is plenty to admire, he was in charge when the single biggest doping scheme in cycling, nay in world sports, was taking place. There should be no coming back from such an oversight as that.

Drugs were an issue when he took office, yet despite it being known as one of the main areas of concern within the sport, he has spectacularly, to a degree not seen in any other sport, failed to deal with the issue.

Put aside what he has done for Ireland, what type of person he may be, how much work his family do for cycling. His job, the one he now seeks a nomination for, is to run cycling in the best way possible. I don't think anybody on here can honestly say that the UCI, and therefore PMQ, has achieved that.

Time for CI to stand up and be counted. I for one won't be holding my breath as at the end of the day it surely must be advantageous for CI to have the President of the UCI (the Giro coming over for a start) and at the end of the day that, and not right or wrong, will dictate what they will choose.

Just to clarify there was only 1 CI guy,me. An egm can be called by 10% of the clubs. We avoided the vote because a motion calling for the vote wasnt submitted in time for the AGM but did allow people to in to air their views at the agm. I asked people to email me directly and I got 8 emails!

niceonetom

Well I did email every member of the board (as mentioned in previous thread), and will do so again. My email was only acknowledged by one member (not Mr. Moran incidentally), and in his reply I was told:

The Board will continue to review this position as events at the UCI develop. The Board notes and welcomes the appointment by the UCI of the independent review panel.

Now, given that this independent panel was summarily dismissed by McQuaid before completing its investigation or making its findings public, I think the time has come for the board to make their opinions and intentions known to us, the licence holding (and paying) membership.

Some posters here seem assured that the board are keen to hear, and act upon, our wishes in this matter. Others are certain that the alliances that the Clan McQuaid have built over the decades massively trump and possibility of democracy or accountability. And I don't honestly know which to believe.

The first we hear of what they think should not be when their nomination is made.

By any sensible measure Mr. McQuaid has failed at his job:

• As president Mr. McQuaid allowed the sport's own rules to be suspended to allow Lance Armstrong to return to the sport without proper out-of-competition testing - testing which should, it now transpires, have shown Armstrong to have been doping.
• He has sued or threatened to sue whistle-blowers such as Frankie Andreu who attempted to reveal the level of corruption and doping in the sport.
• He has attempted to silence members of the press such as Paul Kimmage and David Walsh.
• He has labelled riders like Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis as "scumbags" and "liars" who we now know, thanks to USADA, were indeed telling the truth about the widespread doping within the peleton.
• He has attempted to suppress other anti-doping bodies on jurisdictional grounds which later proved to be spurious.

Some might want to get into the specifics of whether these failings were the result of intentional corruption or bumbling incompetence. I don't think it matters.

But if the board of Cycling Ireland renominate Pat McQuaid without even seeking a mandate to do so from their membership there can only be massive damage to their own reputations as honest actors in this situation.

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/Home/Contact-Cycling-Ireland.aspx

morana

niceonetom wrote: »

Well I did email every member of the board (as mentioned in previous thread), and will do so again. My email was only acknowledged by one member (not Mr. Moran incidentally), and in his reply I was told:

I know you did and I passed it on with the others to the rest of the board.

niceonetom

morana wrote: »

I know you did and I passed it on with the others to the rest of the board.

Thank you.

CardinalJ

Its funny, when there was a poll about Lance it was almost the same percentage of people saying he hadn't doped.

I can understand why McQuaid is going for the nomination, it keeps with his "I've done nothing wrong" line, but he shouldn't get it.

Casati

morana wrote: »

I asked people to email me directly and I got 8 emails!

The small number of mails might have been related to the fact most folk understood that it was simply too late to include the motion?

I really think the board should call an EGM to vote on Pat's nomination. Apart the hassle factor, its a win-win for the board as they would gain great confidence from rank and file members by allowing their voices to be heard, while most likely keeping an Irishman and CI supporter as head of the UCI.

Apart from involvement in Nissan Classic's, Tour Of Irelands, Tour De France and the planned Giro stages to Ireland, the McQuaids have been involved many team sponsorships and in bicycle and cycling clothing distribution nationally for decades, and as such have a lot of very strong links with clubs and members and I've not doubt Pat will benefit from all the good-will that goes with it.

Pat will get the vote in the same way Bertie topped the poll the last time FF got elected - his supporters will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Trojan

niceonetom wrote: »

Now, given that this independent panel was summarily dismissed by McQuaid before completing its investigation or making its findings public, I think the time has come for the board to make their opinions and intentions known to us, the licence holding (and paying) membership.

And if they don't, then it's time to stop funding the CI with your membership.

After all that's gone on in cycling, and an incredible display of corruption - or worse - absolute incompetence, I find it astonishing that the current UCI leadership are still in power, nevermind seeking to continue that.

The mind boggles. The future of cycling as a competitive sport has never been darker.

12 sprocket

Trojan wrote: »

And if they don't, then it's time to stop funding the CI with your membership.

After all that's gone on in cycling, and an incredible display of corruption - or worse - absolute incompetence, I find it astonishing that the current UCI leadership are still in power, nevermind seeking to continue that.

The mind boggles. The future of cycling as a competitive sport has never been darker.

This is factually incorrect the future of cycling as a competitive sport has never been stronger...

• London Olympics Cycling was viewed by most people and spectators
• Globalisation there is now a very strong asian cycling scene
• South Africa A Pro continental team win milan San Remo

Globalisation of cycling has thrived Under Pat Mc Quaids Presidency, At least talk facts lads!

Leroy42

Facts! then at least don't use verbs like 'thrived' when you can only put three, at best tenuous, examples of the growth in your post.

London Olympics - I think you could look at any sport in that and find it was the most watched. The London Olympics themselves were very successful, nothing to do with the UCI. Sky and Sir Brad, Cav etc had a lot to do with it as well. Of course the fact that Team GB had such great competitors in the events also helps but to try to put any credit to that to the UCI is strecthing it a bit.

Asia - I don't know too much about the Asian scene, but the fact that no Asian teams have come into pro cycling ranks (Tier 1) would seem to suggest that it isn't that strong.

Ciolek winning MSR - Not sure what that has to do with UCI and PMQ, although it is good for the sport for that is certainly a plus. But one second tier team, after 10 years being top man (and how many being involved?).

So should Cioleks win be enough for PMQ to get another term. What if Sagan had won the sprint?

So yes, we certainly should stick to the facts. Pro-cycling is a laughing stock at the moment. Mention it to non cyclists and 'drugs' will come up. Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think it is a sign of a thriving sport that many sponsors are pulling out? Rabobank would rather pull out and continue to pay money for nothing rather than stay in the sport.

The Olympics are threatening to cut cycling for the events, to even get to that point when it is a debate is scary.

Cycling itself is certainly experiencing a boom at the moment, not sure you can place any of that at UCI's door.

omicron

12 sprocket wrote: »

[/B]

This is factually incorrect the future of cycling as a competitive sport has never been stronger...
London Olympics Cycling was viewed by most people and spectators

So more people than ever got to see a (former :rolleyes: ) doper win the road race in the Olympics, and this is somehow a good thing?

Cond0r

So what actually needs to happen for us, the (paying) members of Cycling Ireland to be able to have our voice listened to by the board?

It seems to me that we have a fairly unique opportunity to stop PMQ getting another term in office at the UCI and we shouldn't let it pass by.

Beasty

As has already been said, write to the CI Board with your views on whether you feel McQuaid should be nominated. The ball is currently in their court, and they could reject or nominate him outright. If they do the latter I suspect there will be an outcry from the rank and file membership, and I would be very surprised if they take this course of action without receiving some kind of mandate from the membership (ie calling an EGM to discuss the nomination)

If the board indicate they wish to propose McQuaid without calling an EGM, then it's a case of rallying the troops and getting the clubs to call one. I suspect it will not come to this though

Cond0r

Beasty wrote: »

As has already been said, write to the CI Board with your views on whether you feel McQuaid should be nominated. The ball is currently in their court, and they could reject or nominate him outright. If they do the latter I suspect there will be an outcry from the rank and file membership, and I would be very surprised if they take this course of action without receiving some kind of mandate from the membership (ie calling an EGM to discuss the nomination)

OK, basically mailing all their personal addresses listed here?

Beasty wrote: »

If the board indicate they wish to propose McQuaid without calling an EGM, then it's a case of rallying the troops and getting the clubs to call one. I suspect it will not come to this though

I hope it doesn't come to this, but sadly from reading the response morana gave early in the thread I think it may. Thanks for the response!

Beasty

Cond0r wrote: »

OK, basically mailing all their personal addresses listed here?

Yes - just the Board members mind - don't spam everyone on that page!

morana

Cond0r wrote: »

I hope it doesn't come to this, but sadly from reading the response morana gave early in the thread I think it may. Thanks for the response!

sorry I am trying and have been trying to be impartial on this. I dont think it would be right for me to voice an opinion either way here

Beasty

morana wrote: »

sorry I am trying and have been trying to be impartial on this. I dont think it would be right for me to voice an opinion either way here

I agree - I think it would be very inappropriate for any Board members to discuss their own views here, particularly as it's for the Board as a whole to take a decision on such matters

8kvscdpglqnyr4

I've just sent an email to the board ... I feel better already.

nilhg

Whatever about the eventual outcome of this I think it's really important that CI are seen to approach making the decision in an open and transparent way, too often in this country some obscure rule or byelaw is wheeled out to stifle open discussion.

Cycling has had its reputation dragged through the muck and what better way to start to rebuild it than for our board to take the lead and call an EGM rather than have one foisted on them by the clubs/members, whatever the result at least it'd be one that everyone involved could say was open and fair even if they didn't agree with it.

yer man

I think Pat should go! - Infact I was one of only 3 people that got up and spoke at recent the AGM saying as much.

However I don't see why the board should call an EGM. There is "open and transparent" method today which is underpinned by the CI constitution on how to call an EGM. This is not there to block you but to ensure that EGMs get called when the members mobilise on serious issues. Social media is great but unless people are willing to do real leg work and show that the member clubs want an EGM I do not believe the board should call one.

There was plenty of talk before the last AGM that the matter would be discussed and yet only 3 people bothered to travel and speak. All the chatter on social media does not count for much unless people carry that into the real world - that is my lesson from the AGM. So based on that I think that if people want REAL change there is a REAL means to do it but your gonna have to get in the REAL world and do the hard miles canvassing support - sorry for rant guys but talk is cheap.