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

funnights74

Prime time special tonight, RTÉ’s ‘Prime Time’ to feature doping, UCI presidential election & Cycling Ireland EGM.

Lumen

Is this the right thread for EGM stuff?

https://twitter.com/BlanchWheelies/status/345270650929303552

"After last nights club meeting it was unanimously agreed not to support the nomination of Pat McQuaid. 3 Blanchies will vote no at the EGM."

Inquitus

So how do the known results stack up?

No - Orwell CC, Audax Ireland, Blanch Wheelies, Swords CC
Yes - ?

RobFowl

Inquitus wrote: »

So how do the known results stack up?

No - Orwell CC, Audax Ireland, Blanch Wheelies, Swords CC
Yes - ?

No Dungarvan

Yes, UCD, Carrick Wheelers, Dunboyne cc

Beasty

You can add Laois to the No list. I believe South Dublin voted no also but it was close and I don't know if they will split their delegates accordingly

Alas I've heard of one or two clubs that have voted but have been unable to find volunteers to actually attend as delegates

A number of clubs are keeping their voting intentions close to their chest, which does beg questions in some cases as to whether they have consulted with their membership (if they have I would expect them to communicate to their members their voting intentions)

Junior

Yes, UCD, Carrick Wheelers, Dunboyne cc, Lakeland

Eamonnator

No.
Zero Gravity Mountain Bike Club.
2 votes.

RobFowl

Fairly sure Emerald cc will vote yes !

pelevin

UCD vote yes? Good to see the student rebellious tradition going strong in the capital . . .

vigorelli

Beasty wrote: »

You can add Laois to the No list. I believe South Dublin voted no also but it was close and I don't know if they will split their delegates accordingly

Navan can be added to the Yes list, all 4 votes.

Beasty wrote: »

A number of clubs are keeping their voting intentions close to their chest, which does beg questions in some cases as to whether they have consulted with their membership (if they have I would expect them to communicate to their members their voting intentions)

Any indication who these clubs are?

niceonetom

Junior wrote: »

Yes, UCD, Carrick Wheelers, Dunboyne cc, Lakeland

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence but two of these clubs have recently been extended invitations to compete at international events, organised by David McQuaid. I'm not saying that this had any influence on their decision making process re the nomination issue, but it would, hypothetically speaking, be unfortunate if a club felt obligated to vote one way or another on the basis that it might affect their chances of participating in certain races.

doozerie

UCD are voting yes? Where is that coming from? That is entirely contrary to my understanding.

Beasty

vigorelli wrote: »

Any indication who these clubs are?

I have been informed of situations where people have contacted their representatives to try and establish which way they will vote and have not been given the courtesy of a reply. I have also heard of clubs who have taken decisions on which way to vote without consulting their members

I'm certainly not going to name names, and as a result of petitioning amongst members of some of these clubs it may well be that they have re-considered their position (much in the same way as the CI Board decided to)

TBH, the only real "open" discussion on the topic I have seen is here on Boards - if you go onto club websites there is no mention of the EGM or voting intentions in the vast majority of cases (and I acknowledge my own club falls into this category).

What I have seen here is an informed discussion, and indeed a couple of polls that would suggest those contributing are overwhelmingly against the nomination. However I cannot believe that is an accurate reflection of what will happen tomorrow.

I am hopeful of a no vote but fully expect a significant number of delegates to support the nomination - what I have struggled to see is any compelling arguments being put forward to this effect. Getting away from the "well he's Irish" argument (which thankfully has not been a major focus in the discussions on Boards), the main things I've witnessed have been unwarranted attacks on those who dare to speak out against McQuaid (be it Jaimie Fuller and CCN, Brian Cookson for daring to actually put his name in the hat, or the group of "activists" (McQuaid's term clearly aimed at certain individuals including me) that he seems to have a bee in his bonnet about because we have gone to the trouble of highlighting problems within the UCI during his tenure)

buffalo

Beasty wrote: »

TBH, the only real "open" discussion on the topic I have seen is here on Boards - if you go onto club websites there is no mention of the EGM or voting intentions in the vast majority of cases (and I acknowledge my own club falls into this category).

While Orwell held an EGM at which there was plenty of discussion, we felt it inappropriate to use the club forum for same. As you're well aware, online debating can get heated and sometimes ugly, and require moderation - often 24/7 which the club admins cannot do. So arguing on the club forum was discouraged, and instead directed to the EGM, where such a discussion could be properly chaired.

EGM notice, voting procedure and the final result were published, and are still available on the forum or website, down to the names of the delegates for the CI EGM tomorrow.

531

I know that my club is split but I do not know the numbers (yet). I also do not know if the votes at the EGM will be split, pro rata, to reflect the members voting (if you know what I mean!?).

I dare say that people who are against the nomination are likely to be more 'vocal' on forums such as this.

The result is far from being a foregone conclusion. You only have to look at some of our elected representatives in the Dáil and local authorities to see that all politics is local.

Is any bookie giving odds on the result?

C3PO

Does anyone have any feeling on how the Ulster clubs are likely to vote?

I suspect that like the Fianna Fáil voters, the Yes camp will come out strongly on Election Day!

doozerie

My view, for what it's worth: to me it no longer matters whether McQuaid and the UCI were complicit in shady dealings, not for the EGM vote at least. Clearly the motives and actions of both himself and the UCI need to be formally investigated and actions taken where necessary, but for me the question of their integrity to date has taken a bit of a back seat to the shocking tactics of the head of a large organisation claiming to represent the best interest of its members who sees fit to respond to questions of his management with bitter and personal attacks on those asking the questions.

Even if he is ultimately proven innocent of being no more than a doe-eyed puppet for those around him (which doesn't exactly look great on the CV of someone in a position of significant power), McQuaid clearly is the wrong person to hold such an important position in any area. Where I'd expect maturity he displays bitterness and animosity, where I'd expect calm and rational thinking he displays aggression and obnoxiousness. He shouldn't be in charge of anything. He can make all the promises that he likes, he can't convince me that he has the best interests of anyone other than himself at heart.

531

C3PO wrote: »

Does anyone have any feeling on how the Ulster clubs are likely to vote?

Ah, back to the Ulster question! It couldn't split on Unionist/Nationalist lines could it?! Irish McQuaid vs British Cookson, oh no!

pelevin

doozerie wrote: »

My view, for what it's worth: to me it no longer matters whether McQuaid and the UCI were complicit in shady dealings, not for the EGM vote at least. Clearly the motives and actions of both himself and the UCI need to be formally investigated and actions taken where necessary, but for me the question of their integrity to date has taken a bit of a back seat to the shocking tactics of the head of a large organisation claiming to represent the best interest of its members who sees fit to respond to questions of his management with bitter and personal attacks on those asking the questions.

Even if he is ultimately proven innocent of being no more than a doe-eyed puppet for those around him (which doesn't exactly look great on the CV of someone in a position of significant power), McQuaid clearly is the wrong person to hold such an important position in any area. Where I'd expect maturity he displays bitterness and animosity, where I'd expect calm and rational thinking he displays aggression and obnoxiousness. He shouldn't be in charge of anything. He can make all the promises that he likes, he can't convince me that he has the best interests of anyone other than himself at heart.

Does Pat McQ impression: "Thank you for that contribution." . . .

Few minutes later: "People like Doozerie are negatively minded scumbags with nothing to contribute to cycling."

Mycroft H

doozerie wrote: »

UCD are voting yes? Where is that coming from? That is entirely contrary to my understanding.

Would have thought they would have voted no too from knowing a few of them.

vigorelli

531 wrote: »

The result is far from being a foregone conclusion. You only have to look at some of our elected representatives in the Dáil and local authorities to see that all politics is local.

The old guard who remember McQuaid from long before his UCI days are not on social media and not showing up in online polls. I fear a Michael Lowry effect coming out on the day

vigorelli

531 wrote: »

C3PO wrote: »

Does anyone have any feeling on how the Ulster clubs are likely to vote?

Ah, back to the Ulster question! It couldn't split on Unionist/Nationalist lines could it?! Irish McQuaid vs British Cookson, oh no!

One can hope... in this case it might be a good thing, a few less votes for PMQ. But will they be bothered enough to travel?

CramCycle

BX 19 wrote: »

Would have thought they would have voted no too from knowing a few of them.

Me too, but they are entitled to do it, like alot of the other posters, if UCD gave their members a chance to vote, then I hope they get their members there to cast their votes.

My only concern for the EGM is that alot of clubs won't be able to make it but may have expressed an opinion. I know guys who are working, on holidays, etc. It my not be a great system but it would appear to be the best we have got.

That said I am also of the opinion that everyone is getting their chance, I am horrified to hear that some clubs are not responding to members, I realise it is voluntary, but I have seen others who did not have time/place for an EGM giving the opportunity for a private by ballot by e-mail etc.

I have said it before, if you can make it but your club committee can't drop them a general mail, saying that you are free and can cast a vote on their behalf as instructed by the membership.

I seen another poster referring to Dublin clubs making the calls, which is grossly unfair, I have seen e-mails from Clare men willing to come up to cast their club votes. If it is a dig that it is on in Dublin, it is what it is, if it were in Cork or Belfast, I would still be there, and I imagine there are quite a few from close to the Red Cow who would be willing to travel. It is a pity that clubs didn't have either a petrol or travel fund to dip into from CI but I think the idea as AGMs and EGMs move around (I would be just leaving the night before by bike or public transport), it should balance out in the long run (ie everyone pays near the same over a few years).

CramCycle

vigorelli wrote: »

531 wrote: »

One can hope... in this case it might be a good thing, a few less votes for PMQ. But will they be bothered enough to travel?

I really hope not, and to be honest doubt it is the case,I hope they vote for what they feel is in the best interest of the future of the sport.

doozerie

CramCycle wrote:

Me too, but they are entitled to do it, like alot of the other posters, if UCD gave their members a chance to vote, then I hope they get their members there to cast their votes.

Yes, we had a vote within the club several weeks back, the outcome being that the club delegates will be voting no. Which is why I'm so surprised that people seem to believe the club will be voting yes - that's gotta be due to a misunderstanding as the result of the internal vote was very clear.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, we had a vote within the club several weeks back, the outcome being that the club delegates will be voting no. Which is why I'm so surprised that people seem to believe the club will be voting yes - that's gotta be due to a misunderstanding as the result of the internal vote was very clear.

I was only going by the posters above, this is how rumours get started :pac: but once the members were listened to, that's all that really matters.

Lumen

Awk-ward.

Sean Kelly defends Pat McQuaid ahead of vote on UCI President nomination
http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2013/0614/456642-kelly-defends-mcquaid-ahead-of-vote/

Sean Kelly: “Armstrong report is horrific but Pat McQuaid has changed things totally”, Posted on: October 12th, 2012
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/sean-kelly-armstrong-report-is-horrific-but-pat-mcquaid-has-changed-things-totally/

"Sean Kelly (left) and Pat McQuaid (right) at the launch of the Sean Kelly team in its early days. In the middle is Andrew McQuaid, Pat’s son – then a rider with the team and now a cycling agent."

Raam

I go to Sean Kelly for all my opinions on doping. He is sure to be completely transparent and open about all that went on in his era.

FrankGrimes

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's this kind of stuff that serves to further convince me he has no place heading up the UCI.

To say that guys like Anto, Conor and Paul are being manipulated by shadowy forces is absolutely ridiculous. I know them all and I know that they started their campaign off their own bat. Their position is long held and they've been lobbying long before this became a global issue.

It's not the first time that I've heard these mutterings about interference by "outsiders" in the debate and I've no idea where it's coming from.

I find it quite disappointing and saddening that he's attempted to smear them in this fashion.

As for "small group", at this stage I'm aware of hundreds of people in Irish cycling who believe he shouldn't get a third term. These guys are just the thin end of the wedge, the ones who got up off their arses and really made their voices heard.

I've been a keen observer of this thread for some time and keep hoping to get the time to put my thoughts together and post them here, but my schedule is absolutely mental these days and I haven't had the chance. So, on the eve of the Cycling Ireland EGM, I just wanted to post to say I am one of the many silent observers who are strongly opposed to McQuaid's nomination but haven't yet spoken out on it. Vladmir is right - the likes of Beasty, RobFowl, morana and others of their ilk are very much the thin end of the wedge and guys like me who haven't gotten up off our arses to have our voice heard have them to thank for their part in ensuring the membership of CI are able to have a say on the nomination process. Lads, thank you very much for your integrity, dedication to the best interests of the sport and its membership, and your determination, even in the face of unwarranted slurs on your good names, to fight the good fight and let the membership have its say.

I won't get much into the details of the for and against arguments, but what I will say is that I'm confident that any objective assessor would determine that the quality of the arguments put forward by the No side significantly outweigh the quality of argumentation put forward by the Yes side, which have often appeared to be based on a variety of logical fallacies. In fact, you could probably play Logical Fallacy Bingo with the pro-McQuaid arguments and you'd be a lot quicker hitting every fallacy on this list than you would with the No arguments.

For me, a leader, regardless of their competence for the job or otherwise, is nothing without integrity and unfortunately I believe McQuaid's behaviour has demonstrated that he regards integrity as optional. In the Prime Time interview he said he had been suspicious of Armstrong for years. But yet he accepted Armstrong's donations to the UCI. That, in isolation, would for me be grounds to reject his nomination due to questionable integrity. That it is merely one of many questionable actions (e.g. mounting personal attacks on those who challenge his leadership), for me means that, though he has made many positive contributions to the sport, unfortunately, he is not the right person to lead cycling into the future.

Inquitus

Swords 4, Orwell 5 I think