McQuaid nominated unanimously by Switzerland (read warning post #78)

CramCycle

I'll be cycling out from Goatstown , so if anyone wants to suck my wheel, I will give you a tow on the morning, free of charge, no matter what way you vote.

12 sprocket

ROK ON wrote: »

12sprocket
You are playing the man all of the time no the ball.
This is simple beyond belief.
Many CI members are of the opinion that McQuaid is undeserving of another attempt as head of the UCI.
I have not heard ANY argument WHATSOEVER supporting McQuaid. Nor have to points made against McQuaid been refuted by his supporters.

Jamie Fuller, Cookson, the Ruskies are an irrelevance in this debate at the present. You really need to sh1t or get off the pot.

Tbh I think the mods that are involved should pass this over to an unbiased mod because where I am sitting 12Sprocket is trolling.

Make an argument or p1ss off.

Rok on
I am clearly not playing the man or trolling (had to look that one up) I support Pat Mc Quaids nomination for a number of reasons and they have all been included in Cycling Irelands letter to their members outlining their rationale in supporting his nomination, included below once more..

I especially think and the evidence seems to be mounting that the doping culture is being broken by the UCI with Pat Mc Quaid leading it.
Riders who dope are being caught and punished. There is a different environment in the teams and peleton with riders who are caught doping being treated like pariahs.

However what I have found since this issue began is that its a very polarised issue with the Anti Mc quaid side being absolutely unwilling to give any credit to his achievements or to face up to the fact that Mc Quaid has and continues to battle the culture of doping. And I do agree that there was an insidious doping culture (for over 100 years ) and the EPO era really escalated that because of the effectiveness of epo as a doping agent.

On another point I think anti doping is going to be an ongoing battle as there will always be some who try to take shortcuts in all walks of life.

I am inclined to focus on the present and future, and I think professional cycling is now a safer and fairer place for riders to be involved in
So Rok on read cycling ireland boards rationale below and note the final few words from the board democratically elected oversee Irish Cycling..

"It was felt based on the above, and after prolonged deliberation of the available facts, that he was

deserving of Cycling Ireland’s nomination.

Cycling Ireland Board"


Board Statement re Mr. Pat McQuaid Nomination for UCI Presidency

Atits meeting of 12thof April 2013, the Board of CyclingIreland decided to nominate Mr. Pat

McQuaidto stand for the UCI presidency. Legal advice received subsequent to thisdecision has

resultedin the Board convening an EGM on the nomination for the 15th of June, 2013.

Followingrequests from members the Board is happy to outline the rationale forsupporting the

nominationof Mr. Pat McQuaid at its 12thof April meeting. This support wasbased primarily on the

followingpoints:

· Cycling Ireland nominated Mr. Pat McQuaid to stand as acandidate; it was felt he should be

judgedon his record by the delegates at the UCI Congress in September. Not to let himstand

wouldbe to act as ‘judge and jury’ and deprive other cycling nations an opportunityto debate

anddeliberate on the selection of the UCI President.

· Initiatives such as:

o Globalisation of cycling;

o Gender equality of Olympic cycling program;

o Introduction of BMX discipline to the Olympic program;

o Adoption and promotion of Paracycling programs.

· Anti-Doping Initiatives introduced during his terms:

o Biological Passport System;

o Whereabouts system;

o No Needles Policy;

o True Champion or Cheat Program;

o Introduction of confidential hotline.

· Undertakings with regard to governance changes to bebrought to the UCI Management

Committeeas per Cycling Ireland’s press statement of 12th ofApril – see HERE.

· His contributions to the development of Irish Cyclingrecognised with an Honorary Life

Membershipand his continued assistance and support to our Federation.

Itwas felt based on the above, and after prolonged deliberation of the availablefacts, that he was

deservingof Cycling Ireland’s nomination.

Cycling Ireland Board

16th May 2013

TinyExplosions

buffalo wrote: »

Okay 12 sprocket, I'll bite on your reasons to nominate McQuaid.

12 sprocket wrote: »

Rok on
I am clearly not playing the man or trolling (had to look that one up) I support Pat Mc Quaids nomination for a number of reasons and they have all been included in Cycling Irelands letter to their members outlining their rationale in supporting his nomination, included below once more..

I especially think and the evidence seems to be mounting that the doping culture is being broken by the UCI with Pat Mc Quaid leading it.
Riders who dope are being caught and punished. There is a different environment in the teams and peleton with riders who are caught doping being treated like pariahs.

However what I have found since this issue began is that its a very polarised issue with the Anti Mc quaid side being absolutely unwilling to give any credit to his achievements or to face up to the fact that Mc Quaid has and continues to battle the culture of doping. And I do agree that there was an insidious doping culture (for over 100 years ) and the EPO era really escalated that because of the effectiveness of epo as a doping agent.

On another point I think anti doping is going to be an ongoing battle as there will always be some who try to take shortcuts in all walks of life.

I am inclined to focus on the present and future, and I think professional cycling is now a safer and fairer place for riders to be involved in
So Rok on read cycling ireland boards rationale below and note the final few words from the board democratically elected oversee Irish Cycling..

So you post up the list of achievements again, but id you happen to read buffalo's response to the last time you posted them? (you can use the link at the top if you want to read that again).

The doping culture you think is being broken is largely in spite of, not due to the presidency of Pat.
Do you think calling whistleblowers liars and scumbags is an appropriate way to break doping culture?
Do you think that ignoring highly suspicious results from high powered riders is an appropriate way to break doping culture?
Do you think that taking large donations from a rider who is then able to circumvent the 6 month restriction on racing is an appropriate action for a president?
Do you think that bringing in rules to limit presidential terms to a max of 8 years in his third term (if reelected) is an appropriate action for a president?
Do you think his open letter to federations that was a thinly veiled attack on potential competition (going so far as to suggest bribery) is an appropriate action for a president?

At every turn he seems to be saying the wrong thing, or being at odds with the general consensus and has made a fair few, highly questionable decisions in the past. He is a direct link to the height of the doping era (made even worse with his close friendship with Hein), and it's time for a change, if anything to show that the UCI are serious about tackling the problems in the sport.

Beasty

12 sprocket

I may disagree with the position you take, but it is important that both sides of the debate are discussed. I therefore welcome your contribution and the fact you have put a lot of effort into it

detones

Bit of coverage here from the Former Newstalk Off The Ball Lads on their new @Second Captains Irish Times Podcast on the whole issue, including an interview with Pats likely opponent Brian Cookson. This show was put out yesterday its worth a listen. Interview around 31.50 in.

12 sprocket

detones wrote: »

Bit of coverage here from the Former Newstalk Off The Ball Lads on their new @Second Captains Irish Times Podcast on the whole issue, including an interview with Pats likely opponent Brian Cookson. This show was put out yesterday its worth a listen. Interview around 31.50 in.

I have just listened to that programme and Brian Cookson stated that there has indeed been a lot of excellent work done on anti doping and theres more to be done... Kimmage stated that cycling has the best anti doping programme of all the sports and also stated that it needed some other changes to make it work better.

And as this whole debate / issue and people concerns seems to be mainly around the doping and anti doping situation I would think the logical thing is to support the current incumbent to finish the work thats been done in the last few years.

TinyExplosions

12 sprocket wrote: »

And as this whole debate / issue and people concerns seems to be mainly around the doping and anti doping situation I would think the logical thing is to support the current incumbent to finish the work thats been done in the last few years.

Unless you are of the view that it is in spite of the incumbent, and not because of him...

nilhg

12 sprocket wrote: »

I have just listened to that programme and Brian Cookson stated that there has indeed been a lot of excellent work done on anti doping and theres more to be done... Kimmage stated that cycling has the best anti doping programme of all the sports and also stated that it needed some other changes to make it work better.

And as this whole debate / issue and people concerns seems to be mainly around the doping and anti doping situation I would think the logical thing is to support the current incumbent to finish the work thats been done in the last few years.

I think that's where we'll have to agree to differ, I see improvement but how much better could it be with proper relations and cooperation with USDA and WADA, if the independent commission had been let do it's work instead of being abolished once it looked as if they wanted to actually be independent, if whistleblowers thought that they would listened to rather than dismissed out of hand or called scumbags, if journalists could work with out the threat of being dragged to the courts in Switzerland, I could go on but you probably get the picture.

happytramp

Honestly 12sprocket think about some these questions. Not saying to come on here and answer them..... but just for one second, think about how mind-blowingly inappropriate these actions are.

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Do you think calling whistleblowers liars and scumbags is an appropriate way to break doping culture?
Do you think that ignoring highly suspicious results from high powered riders is an appropriate way to break doping culture?
Do you think that taking large donations from a rider who is then able to circumvent the 6 month restriction on racing is an appropriate action for a president?
Do you think that bringing in rules to limit presidential terms to a max of 8 years in his third term (if reelected) is an appropriate action for a president?
Do you think his open letter to federations that was a thinly veiled attack on potential competition (going so far as to suggest bribery) is an appropriate action for a president?

RobFowl

12 sprocket wrote: »

Introduction of confidential hotline.

Undertakings with regard to governance changes to be brought to the UCI Management

With regard to the hotline specifically McQuaids treatment of any and all whistle-blowers to date has been simply atrocious so crediting him with this is simply a joke.

Re the "undertaking" that a fairly poor face saving exercise and he's said (AFIAK) that he doesn't support them, asking that a President serve only 2 terms while nominating him for a third was particularly laughable.

Paracycling, BMX and being in charge over the change in track medals at the Olympics I give him credit for. Is that enough? For me it is most certainly not.

I quote Travis Tygart re the UCI in the LA investigation
"At every turn, the UCI attempted to obstruct our efforts to reveal the truth,"

He added that the cycling body still "appears to be irresponsibly trying to script a self-interested ending to this affair."

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8898476/travis-tygart-usada-chief-says-uci-obstructed-lance-armstrong-probe

tfrancer

Beasty wrote: »

So what's your club doing? Have they consulted with their membership and decided which way they are going to vote? Have they filled their delegate slots?

Yes, my club held a Facebook poll to consult the membership. Approx 33% of members voted, almost unanimously anti-PMcQ. A further 40% saw the poll but did not vote and the remaining 27% do not appear to have been aware of the poll. So the club's delegates have been mandated to vote No. My interpretation of the vote is that one third of the membership feel strongly about this issue but two thirds either don't have an opinion or do not wish to get involved. So, yet again, the vocal minority will be heard. I would imagine that the pattern of voting in many other clubs would not be much different. Democracy?

Inquitus

tfrancer wrote: »

Yes, my club held a Facebook poll to consult the membership. Approx 33% of members voted, almost unanimously anti-PMcQ. A further 40% saw the poll but did not vote and the remaining 27% do not appear to have been aware of the poll. So the club's delegates have been mandated to vote No. My interpretation of the vote is that one third of the membership feel strongly about this issue but two thirds either don't have an opinion or do not wish to get involved. So, yet again, the vocal minority will be heard. I would imagine that the pattern of voting in many other clubs would not be much different. Democracy?

That's how democracy works. Lets take the first Lisbon treaty vote. 53% of people voted, and only 53% of those voted no. so only 28% of people voted no! A vocal minority!

morana

tfrancer wrote: »

Yes, my club held a Facebook poll to consult the membership. Approx 33% of members voted, almost unanimously anti-PMcQ. A further 40% saw the poll but did not vote and the remaining 27% do not appear to have been aware of the poll. So the club's delegates have been mandated to vote No. My interpretation of the vote is that one third of the membership feel strongly about this issue but two thirds either don't have an opinion or do not wish to get involved. So, yet again, the vocal minority will be heard. I would imagine that the pattern of voting in many other clubs would not be much different. Democracy?

but whats the alternative? Thats all you can do, give people the oppurtunity to vote.

Its good to see 12 sprocket back after the allegations PmcQ offered Marakov a position for his support. What undermines the CI press release is the fact that they want future presidents time limited to 2 terms while they nominate him for a third as per good governance! Also, I dont get this angle of letting the other federations vote and deny your own members a vote.

That PR was available on the Monday after the vote but the people in KRH decided to use it as a hymn sheet. It was only released after the Swiss did/didnt nominate him which I feel is insulting to the ordinary members.

I am happy to acknowledge what Mcquaid has done I have always said that. BAcking somebody on the present and future would mean no politician would ever be voted out.

Anyway, after Saturday we can all move on get out on our bikes etc.

thebionicdude

tfrancer wrote: »

My interpretation of the vote is that one third of the membership feel strongly about this issue but two thirds either don't have an opinion or do not wish to get involved. So, yet again, the vocal minority will be heard. I would imagine that the pattern of voting in many other clubs would not be much different. Democracy?

Yes, that is democracy. Better to give people the opportunity to vote in my view.

Even national referendums suffer low turn-outs as many people prefer to leave the decision up to those who are more informed/care. It has not helped that the sole Irish cycling website has not posted any arguments in favour or against McQuaid's nomination to help inform the debate. Not every Irish cyclist is active on Boards unfortunately.

tfrancer

I think PMcQ has been caught out by the very negative mood in post Celtic Tiger Ireland and is regretting not having severed his ties with CI a couple of years ago. While there is no doubt opposition to his continuing as President in many countries, it is not on the scale being witnessed here.

thebionicdude

Based on his hustings, McQuaid's manifesto for the future is to let him finish what he started with regards to anti-doping and the globalisation of pro cycling. Thus, he is asking us to judge him on his record in the past.

Regardless of his policies, a few things still concern me about his Presidential style.

1) He does not seem to take criticism well, if at all.
2) He appears to be a very reluctant democrat.
3) He seems overly confrontational.
4) His communication seems particularly clumsy
5) He seems oblivious to how his actions prompt even more cynicism amongst fans (the last thing the sport needs more of)
6) He appears to view everything as a power struggle

The result is that the President of a minority sport is in the mainstream press constantly. Mostly for feuding. In my view this is because he is failing to answer questions that have kept arising during his 8 year tenure. He can blame it on the dopers as much as he likes but I believe if he was really good at what he did, then we wouldn't be hearing so much from him.

Inquitus

tfrancer wrote: »

I think PMcQ has been caught out by the very negative mood in post Celtic Tiger Ireland and is regretting not having severed his ties with CI a couple of years ago. While there is no doubt opposition to his continuing as President in many countries, it is not on the scale being witnessed here.

If you visit the various cycling forums etc. there's hardly anyone who thinks Pat has done a good job, or deserves re-election. I take your point that a majority of UCI members probably have no real knowledge of what goes on at the UCI, and as such are ambivalent, but the vast majority of those who are knowledgeable on the matter would have a negative view of Pat and Hein.

ROK ON

@12sprocket

Thanks for coming back.
I accept that the points you make in your most recent post can be used rightfully by proponents of PMcQ. I may disagree with them, I think many of them are open to credible evidence based challenge, but I fully accept your right to use them and I thank you for that.

What I do not accept and I believe is irresponsible and downright malicious of you is to bring in other points that have nothing whatsoever to do with being pro or anti McQ. These in my view were grenades tossed in to derail a debate.

That's my view.

@tfrancer - I am not so sure that your assertion that the anti McQuaid lobby is most vehement in Ireland.
I suggest that you gist some global website where cycling fans post.
On CyclingNews (arguably the worlds largest forum) and in several American and Australian sites there is precious little support for Pat McQuaid continuing to serve as President. I accept that not all posters on such websites are license holders but it would be incredible to suggest that thy do not at least represent the views of license holders globally. This is not some type of post Celtic tiger hangover or malcontentedness. The man is reviled and he has no popular support whatsoever among license holders the world over.

thebionicdude

tfrancer wrote: »

I think PMcQ has been caught out by the very negative mood in post Celtic Tiger Ireland

God forbid that people suddenly understand the importance of holding politicians to account!

Dermot Illogical

tfrancer wrote: »

I think PMcQ has been caught out by the very negative mood in post Celtic Tiger Ireland and is regretting not having severed his ties with CI a couple of years ago. While there is no doubt opposition to his continuing as President in many countries, it is not on the scale being witnessed here.

Is that not because there's a vote here? The rest of the world have to satisfy themselves with roundly booing him at major events.

2x4

Just wondering, if CI members vote against McQuaid on Saturday, and a new UCI president takes over, how will people react when the next doping scandal or the next Armstrong surfaces?

RobFowl

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Is that not because there's a vote here? The rest of the world have to satisfy themselves with roundly booing him at major events.

There's only a vote because of a "politicised small group of people".
If CI had their way members would have had any vote at all.
Depending on your point of view that's either a good thing or a bad thing.

Personally I think that unless there is a change at the top there will be no root and branch reform which is needed.
The UCI will not give up it's role in testing either without change and I feel that promoting the sport, globalisation etc are not compatible with the same organisation calling most of the shots regarding testing.

CramCycle

2x4 wrote: »

Just wondering, if CI members vote against McQuaid on Saturday, and a new UCI president takes over, how will people react when the next doping scandal or the next Armstrong surfaces?

Well if he/she doesn't take bribes accept donations, take excuses and lies accepted postdates TUEs, and he punishes them with a ban as per guidelines, with all communications made in the full view of the likes of WADA etc. I will react positively.

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

Well if he/she doesn't take bribes accept donations, take excuses and lies accepted postdates TUEs, and he punishes them with a ban as per guidelines, with all communications made in the full view of the likes of WADA etc. I will react positively.

You're nothing but a scumbag, you have nothing positive to say about the sport and are trying to bring politics into this election.
If you just went away things would be better for you. Offer to tell me all about organised doping in any pro teams you're ridden for and I'll ignore you.

TinyExplosions

2x4 wrote: »

Just wondering, if CI members vote against McQuaid on Saturday, and a new UCI president takes over, how will people react when the next doping scandal or the next Armstrong surfaces?

We'll react according to their performance -nobody is blaming Pat for the existence of dopers and doping, but we do question his handling of it.

A lot of the anti-PMQ feeling could well be perception -for all we know he could be working mightily hard behind the scenes to eradicate cheats in his sport, but his public persona is just laughable at this point (many examples of that in this thread, no point in rehashing).

Hermy

12 sprocket wrote: »

There is a different environment in the teams and peleton with riders who are caught doping being treated like pariahs.

The deafening silence form the professional peloton following Armstrong's demise would suggest otherwise.

12 sprocket

Inquitus wrote: »

I take your point that a majority of UCI members probably have no real knowledge of what goes on at the UCI, and as such are ambivalent, but the vast majority of those who are knowledgeable on the matter would have a negative view of Pat and Hein.

so inquitis you happen to know the vast majority of those who are knowledgable on the matter? and that they would have a negative view of Pat and Hein.
That seems like an absolutely ridiculous argument.

I imagine also that these "vast majority of those who are knowledgable" also happen to have the same view as yourself.

CramCycle

12 sprocket wrote: »

so inquitis you happen to know the vast majority of those who are knowledgable on the matter? and that they would have a negative view of Pat and Hein.
That seems like an absolutely ridiculous argument.

It may be based on public views, which could be biased, as maybe those who are pro McQuaid are either reserved or just feel no need to speak out.

The predominant view IMO opinion from looking at threads from other countries and internationally on other forums, is that it is time for Pat to step down.

Its not a ridiculous argument but one fairly based on those who are speaking on the issue. The question should be where are those speaking up for McQuaid? Other than yourself and a number (not all) from the Swiss Federation, there is not exactly a throng of support.

Inquitus

12 sprocket wrote: »

so inquitis you happen to know the vast majority of those who are knowledgable on the matter? and that they would have a negative view of Pat and Hein.
That seems like an absolutely ridiculous argument.

I imagine also that these "vast majority of those who are knowledgable" also happen to have the same view as yourself.

I visit a number of the internet's most popular cycling forums. Your voice is the only one I have seen speaking up for Pat on my travels. Of those who have voiced an opinion on the matter it is almost unanimously negative towards Pat and Hein.

RobFowl

Inquitus wrote: »

I visit a number of the internet's most popular cycling forums. Your voice is the only one I have seen speaking up for Pat on my travels. Of those who have voiced an opinion on the matter it is almost unanimously negative towards Pat and Hein.

While I have some respect for Pat I have zero for Hein Verbruggen. That guy has no place in sport at any level.