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

TiBoy

Aodho wrote: »

Kieron McQuaid makes a lot of good, honest points.


The people referred to as "old guard" should have their opinions respected, like it or not they have given plenty to our sport & when many of the "new brigade" have moved onto another phase/ craze they will still be there, organising races, developing underage talent and tapping away.

Yes indeed the old guard views should be respected, all opinions should. The old guard includes a large cohort of grass roots riders and racers who have been involved in the sport for decades and their opinion should be respected.

However I dont believe for one minute that the "old guard" CI establishment who supported the nomination represented this cohorts views.

dave_o_brien

TiBoy wrote: »

Yes indeed the old guard views should be respected, all opinions should. The old guard includes a large cohort of grass roots riders and racers who have been involved in the sport for decades and their opinion should be respected.

However I dont believe for one minute that the "old guard" CI establishment who supported the nomination represented this cohorts views.

Nor should it be believed that the "old guards" opinion is more valuable.

Or forgotten that the "old guard" need the "new guard" for the sport to continue. The belief that "the sport survives because of these McQuaid supporters who have been around doing the hard work for 50 years" is utter sh*te and totally short sighted.

While I respect most of the reasons why people continue to support McQuaid, I simply cannot stand any idiot who shares Kieron's view.

TiBoy

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Nor should it be believed that the "old guards" opinion is more valuable.

Or forgotten that the "old guard" need the "new guard" for the sport to continue. The belief that "the sport survives because of these McQuaid supporters who have been around doing the hard work for 50 years" is utter sh*te and totally short sighted.

Completely agree

12 sprocket

thebionicdude wrote: »

Did you see the skinny legs on Kieron in that photo? He's the McQuaid that should have moved to Switzerland, he might have done better than Pat in the high mountains.

Your really showing your class there arent you!

ktz84

12 sprocket wrote: »

Your really showing your class there arent you!

I'd say it's line with the way that Pat has treated anyone who has dared to question anything he has done. He's not known for flattering characterisations of anyone he considers a foe. I guess you will be agreeing that he isn't very classy either

thebionicdude

12 sprocket wrote: »

Your really showing your class there arent you!

I genuinely thought he looked like a useful climber. It was a poor attempt at trying to be light-hearted. I apologise if you were offended. I will shut up now.

CramCycle

12 sprocket wrote: »

Your really showing your class there arent you!

He was I think, a bit of light humour to ease the tension, it is a fine line but I feel he done it well. Live comedy is a fickle mistress and depends on the crowd to decide whether it works or not though.

I'd give it 9/10 for timing, 9.5/10 for overall humour.

It does lose a little in that he had to come on to explain it was a joke, so overall he will lose a few marks in my eyes, a good joke needs no explanation or justification.

8.7/10 overall, good job.

Slo_Rida

IMO
This is a McQuaid bashing thread...not good.

High Nellie

Slo_Rida wrote: »

IMO
This is a McQuaid bashing thread...not good.

In fairness, the McQuaids have bashed all round them - they bash everyone and every opinion that is contrary to the status quo.

Which one of them called us all "hilarious" quite a way back when questions about Pat's leadership were first asked on this forum?

And Pat has bashed all round him - the whistle blowers, the journalists, the 'activists' allegedly motivated by self-gain, etc, etc, and most recently the Brit who has dares to challenge him.

And now we have another round of bashing by the clan - bashing the Young Crowd (they should just leave things to the Old Guard to carry on in the same old way); those who communicate in the social media; those cyclists who are not racers, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The latest MCQuaid contribution is just a scattergun bash - hitting back blindly in a way that makes the clan look a bit pathetic really. And this is a pity for the McQuaids - they just don't seem to listen and learn. I think much of heave against Pat wasn't personal - it was against the head of the system and Pat had various constraints to juggle in that role. It would have helped if they had accepted the democratic process graciously but this is not the case. They have basically insulted (bashed) a lot of decent people and are continuing to damage what should be a proud aspect of our cycling heritage.

The lack of a statement by Pat on the EGM outcome is intriguing ... Why is he holding his fire when its not in his nature? Hopefully he might at last be listening and learning. But I doubt it ...

happytramp

Slo_Rida wrote: »

IMO
This is a McQuaid bashing thread...not good.

Again, this just seems like attacking the personalities involved in the debate rather than actually contributing to it. If it seems like it's a thread that's bashing McQuaid it's probably because his supporters here have done such a poor job of responding to the lengthy list of issues many people have regarding his tenure as head of the UCI.

CramCycle

Slo_Rida wrote: »

IMO
This is a McQuaid bashing thread...not good.

Correction it is a discussion on the merits of the man at the helm of the UCI, his merits and those surrounding his unexpected and slightly insulting run to the Swiss before the CI EGM.

I don't know the man personally, I am not casting doubt on his past in irish cycling during the 60s, 70s, 80s, I wasn't there.

What I am concerned over is the fact that, in my view, the man at the top of the UCI during such an abysmal state of governance, seems to have turned this into a personality fight. Rather than, here are my checks and balances, weigh me on those. My opinion of the head of the UCI for the past number of years has weighed up these and found him lacking. He has attempted to do it but has taken the credit for work that was in no way related to him, he has misrepresented issues that have been raised, he has vilified those who have asked questions rather than engaging with them positively. These people do not raise issues out of spite, they do it for the betterment of the sport in my opinion.

The head of the UCI has had several opportunities to stand firm, help clean up the sport with clean swoops, instead he offers piecemeal that is discarded when it did not suit. Maybe it is Peters principle, maybe the job wasn't for him, maybe the pressures mounted on him were in his eyes insurmountable and he took what he perceived to be the best route. It really doesn't matter.

I hope the next man to take the position sees that if the job is not done in a suitable manner, then you will be held to account. It may not all be your fault but in that position, it is entirely your responsibility to either take the blame or figure out how to fix it. He has done neither.

He has been given every opportunity before now, it would not have even taken much to turn the tide in his favour, but he couldn't do it and that says it all really.

JOHN_70

While I agree that McQuaids behaviour wasn't all that it should be - there is a lot of sense in Kieron McQuaids open letter...........if it wasn't for the clubs that promote open races (and have promoted these races for many years when cycling wasn't so fashionable) how many of the leisure clubs with one or two racing members would exist today? How many of the leisure club members would stand at a junction to steward a race on a wet Sunday afternoon? I'm a leisure cyclist myself but I come from a fairly hard-core athletics background (where I am involved as an official) and Kieron McQuaid's letter struck a chord. When all of the leisure clubs fold as their members move on to the latest fitness craze it will be the long established clubs that continue to keep the sport of cycling alive in this country!

Bluefoam

JOHN_70 wrote: »

While I agree that McQuaids behaviour wasn't all that it should be - there is a lot of sense in Kieron McQuaids open letter...........if it wasn't for the clubs that promote open races (and have promoted these races for many years when cycling wasn't so fashionable) how many of the leisure clubs with one or two racing members would exist today? How many of the leisure club members would stand at a junction to steward a race on a wet Sunday afternoon? I'm a leisure cyclist myself but I come from a fairly hard-core athletics background (where I am involved as an official) and Kieron McQuaid's letter struck a chord. When all of the leisure clubs fold as their members move on to the latest fitness craze it will be the long established clubs that continue to keep the sport of cycling alive in this country!

Therefore it's their way or the highway?

dave_o_brien

JOHN_70 wrote: »

While I agree that McQuaids behaviour wasn't all that it should be - there is a lot of sense in Kieron McQuaids open letter...........if it wasn't for the clubs that promote open races (and have promoted these races for many years when cycling wasn't so fashionable) how many of the leisure clubs with one or two racing members would exist today? How many of the leisure club members would stand at a junction to steward a race on a wet Sunday afternoon? I'm a leisure cyclist myself but I come from a fairly hard-core athletics background (where I am involved as an official) and Kieron McQuaid's letter struck a chord. When all of the leisure clubs fold as their members move on to the latest fitness craze it will be the long established clubs that continue to keep the sport of cycling alive in this country!

This is nonsense. Kieron attacked newcomers to the sport, insisting it was the members he had known since his days racing that keeps the sport going. The sport has ballooned, and with that comes a new, dedicated core group. Yes there are many hangers-on, but do you think they were motivated enough to press their case either with their club, or in person? Do you think the relative newcomers who motivated themselves to actually make a difference did so cause cycling's in fashion?

I don't. I think these are the people who will take cycling in Ireland forward for a long time to come. And when the bike to work crowd are getting their cross fit buzz on, these guys will be the ones organising the races.

FWIW, I didn't want Pat to get re-elected. He's had his time and it's someone else turn now. He's done plenty right, but, in my opinion, has easily left himself with as many questions to answer. But that's life at the head of an international organisation. Shake hands and move on. His brother, on the other hand, has lost all of my respect, for attempting to undermine the most motivated group of cyclists on this island.

Beasty

This is absolutely nothing to do with Pat McQuaid's involvement in Irish Cycling. I have no questions his record as a Sports Administrator in Ireland, and he gets my nomination for the CI Hall of Fame for his achievements within the organisation

This is about his suitability as global leader of the sport. He has had his chance and failed to deliver in that role. He has lost the confidence of cycling's stakeholders. The buck stops with him and given the UCIs record during his tenure (and I repeat no-one has challenged a single thing in the McQuaid file at this time) it is time for change. That is what happens in major organisations - cycling needs to move on as does Pat McQuaid.

Attempts to personalise the debate are counter-productive, and have certainly detracted from his "campaign". This is about ability to do the job in hand and nothing to do with his or his family's achievements in Irish cycling

TinyExplosions

JOHN_70 wrote: »

While I agree that McQuaids behaviour wasn't all that it should be - there is a lot of sense in Kieron McQuaids open letter...........if it wasn't for the clubs that promote open races (and have promoted these races for many years when cycling wasn't so fashionable) how many of the leisure clubs with one or two racing members would exist today? How many of the leisure club members would stand at a junction to steward a race on a wet Sunday afternoon? I'm a leisure cyclist myself but I come from a fairly hard-core athletics background (where I am involved as an official) and Kieron McQuaid's letter struck a chord. When all of the leisure clubs fold as their members move on to the latest fitness craze it will be the long established clubs that continue to keep the sport of cycling alive in this country!

I think there's always going to be a core group of people who want to race, and a different (possibly larger) group that are happy to be leisure riders -what probably happens is that you get together as a leisure group, and then find that some people move onto racing, and others stick where they are, go on to the next craze etc etc.

A few years ago, we had a fairly large, core group on here of what would really be called leisure riders going out for weekend spins together, having the craic -a large proportion of those riders are now out racing week in and week out, and maybe, just maybe they were helped get to that position by starting out as a 'leisure' cyclist.

I think the future of the sport is in getting as many people involved in the activity (if you want to split them like that) as possible -without the leisure clubs, how many entrants would you have in the open races...

12 sprocket

[QUOTE=Beasty (and I repeat no-one has challenged a single thing in the McQuaid file at this time) [/QUOTE]

Beasty
I challenged the Mc Quaid file as you call it.. I said it was mainly an opinion piece by the authors, and I still believe that!
See page 14 0f this thread.. Now hopefully that doesnt bring the wrath of the anti mc quaid group on to my head or be used to lead to another spate of attacks on Mc Quaid.

I think it was rob fowler that said the decision has beem made, we should move on. but lets keep the facts correct

ktz84

12 sprocket wrote: »

Beasty
I challenged the Mc Quaid file as you call it.. I said it was mainly an opinion piece by the authors, and I still believe that!
See page 14 0f this thread.. Now hopefully that doesnt bring the wrath of the anti mc quaid group on to my head or be used to lead to another spate of attacks on Mc Quaid.

I think it was rob fowler that said the decision has beem made, we should move on. but lets keep the facts correct

You didn't challenge any of the evidence in their report but instead chose to direct your fire at the authors by simply dismissing it as an opinion piece. Any report will be present the evidence and then give opinions (conclusions) based on that evidence. If others challenge it they do so on the basis of the evidence presented. What parts of the conclusions drawn do you feel are not supported by the evidence or where is the evidence itself wrong or flawed?

Beasty

12 sprocket wrote: »

Beasty
I challenged the Mc Quaid file as you call it.. I said it was mainly an opinion piece by the authors, and I still believe that!
See page 14 0f this thread.. Now hopefully that doesnt bring the wrath of the anti mc quaid group on to my head or be used to lead to another spate of attacks on Mc Quaid.

I think it was rob fowler that said the decision has beem made, we should move on. but lets keep the facts correct

It would be great if we could move on but when people who are close to Pat McQuaid wade in and attempt to criticise clubs and individuals for no valid reason I think it fair enough to challenge those assertions

In terms of the McQuaid file, I have said previously that if anyone could find any fault in what it presents (ie the facts that are stated within it) we would happily clarify or correct as appropriate. As you have not done so (and indeed I am not aware of anyone else having done so), I presume you accept the facts as stated therein.

el tel

The more I think about, the more parallels between Lance Armstrong's and Pat McQuaid's personalities I see.

Slo_Rida

Re Kieron M's letter. He really just complimented the old clubs and those that run races. He just didn't give the new/leisure (whichever) clubs a big pat on the back and that has put peoples nose out of joint. Naming the clubs that don't run races (if correct) seems like a statement of fact and not necessarily a criticism.
I don't care who Kieron McQuaid is or what he has/has not done in the past, I'm cycling now and that's all I care about. This boards forum has been a big help to me at times so I'm giving my opinion on this thread. There's just a tone coming out of this thread that grinds on my personality. The people got their vote, got their say and a decision was made. A bit of class could have been shown here and bury the issue but it seems the victors in the vote are weighing in over and over, often with repeated sentiments.

Maybe since I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this matter I should have "unfollwed" ages ago.

I'll repeat what a couple of people have said earlier in this thread. Let's move on and get back to the bikes.

hardCopy

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think there's always going to be a core group of people who want to race, and a different (possibly larger) group that are happy to be leisure riders -what probably happens is that you get together as a leisure group, and then find that some people move onto racing, and others stick where they are, go on to the next craze etc etc.

A few years ago, we had a fairly large, core group on here of what would really be called leisure riders going out for weekend spins together, having the craic -a large proportion of those riders are now out racing week in and week out, and maybe, just maybe they were helped get to that position by starting out as a 'leisure' cyclist.

I think the future of the sport is in getting as many people involved in the activity (if you want to split them like that) as possible -without the leisure clubs, how many entrants would you have in the open races...

His complaint touches on another question, what's so bad about leisure cycling? What makes racing cyclists more important than or more entitled to comment than leisure cyclists. If someone pays their membership and rides their bike why should they have to prove themselves to Kieron McQuaid in a road race?

RobFowl

Slo_Rida wrote: »

I'll repeat what a couple of people have said earlier in this thread. Let's move on and get back to the bikes.

This thread is really going nowhere fast.

Got out for a great spin on the way to and from marshaling on wed and again in the sun yesterday. Planning to do 3 hours tomorrow and either race (IVCA) or local spin on Sun.

Hope everyone else has something similar planned.

Slo_Rida

RobFowl wrote: »

This thread is really going nowhere fast.

Got out for a great spin on the way to and from marshaling on wed and again in the sun yesterday. Planning to do 3 hours tomorrow and either race (IVCA) or local spin on Sun.

Hope everyone else has something similar planned.

Went out for a spin last night (considering practising sprints since I've never done one). Less than 1km into my spin I bumped into a local club running their league. Some of their guys do ours so they invited me in. Hell of a warm-up launching straight into roll-overs and then a massive hill!!
Gonna get out for something longer and easier tomorrow evening, hopefully the sun comes out.
You should do the race...leisure cycling isn't real cycling :eek:

RobFowl

Slo_Rida wrote: »

You should do the race...leisure cycling isn't real cycling :eek:

Will do, hoping to get up to see the nationals as well :cool:

petethedrummer

Don't worry everyone. Pat still has his position as director of Global Cycling Promotions. He can carry on his good work in spreading cycling around the world.

MrCreosote

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Re Kieron M's letter. He really just complimented the old clubs and those that run races. He just didn't give the new/leisure (whichever) clubs a big pat on the back and that has put peoples nose out of joint. Naming the clubs that don't run races (if correct) seems like a statement of fact and not necessarily a criticism.
I don't care who Kieron McQuaid is or what he has/has not done in the past, I'm cycling now and that's all I care about. This boards forum has been a big help to me at times so I'm giving my opinion on this thread. There's just a tone coming out of this thread that grinds on my personality. The people got their vote, got their say and a decision was made. A bit of class could have been shown here and bury the issue but it seems the victors in the vote are weighing in over and over, often with repeated sentiments.

Maybe since I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this matter I should have "unfollwed" ages ago.

I'll repeat what a couple of people have said earlier in this thread. Let's move on and get back to the bikes.

I would say that the bitching and moaning and personal slights have come almost entirely from the losing side. They seem to have a problem with the democratic process that THEY set up- when they don't get the result they want then it's onto the personal insults and insinuations that recreational cyclists are not "real" cyclists. The oldie mentality is one sure way of keeping the sport down. At the end of the day, if you're not a professional then you're doing the sport for fun or recreation, whether that's racing or pootling down to the shops.

Slo_Rida wrote: »

You should do the race...leisure cycling isn't real cycling :eek:

I know you're only joking, but that's the attitude that comes through from the Kieron McQ letter.

Inquitus

Any A4 races in Leinster this weekend?

Slo_Rida

Inquitus wrote: »

Any A4 races in Leinster this weekend?

Seems a bit of a quiet month afaics. I considered Carrick but just gonna do some training instead.
The nationals could be some good viewing....

Aodho

Leroy42 wrote: »

With all due respect this is nonesense. 1st you don't need to have either been in races or organised races to know what good goverence is. 2nd, the old guard got to have their say, in fact the old guard decided to endorse PMcQ without bothering to ask anybody else and only due to Anto and others did the others get to have their say.

Cycling is no longer than reserve of racing cyclists, the whole sport is moving on. CI and by extenstion the UCI seem happy to accept new 'non racing' members in to their ranks, the president can then hardly complain after taking their money about them having a say.

Leroy, I'm pretty sure I'm making some sense.


I'm not suggesting for a moment that a cyclist needs to race to be a real cyclist. The 'old guard' have in the main been most welcoming & supportive to the "new guard" in my experience, and at all levels within the sport. Nor do they seem to be trying to reserve anything. From what I can see and what I was trying to get across (obviously poorly) is that their opinions should be respected, if nothing more than they are the proven backbone of the sport/ activity, have been there, done that & seen all this before. Also their efforts/ traditions/ systems/ sacrifices of the past are what makes cycling what it is today and what is enjoyed by all cyclists within the sport.
The other point I was trying to make is that there is plenty of outraged opposers who are relatively new to the sport but have not done much homework bar reading kimmage/ walsh/ etc & are now "outraged” and very vocal about it.

I personally don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; I've heard both good & bad of McQuaid. The sport has become cleaner & stronger during his tenure but I certainly acknowledge he’s no saint & has likely broken a number of rules, etc.
What I do see though is a bit of a lynch mob mentality from some "new guard" members based on nothing other than (social media?) consensus. In comparison to those who have been in the sport longer they also seem to be taking a more backs-to-the-wall, aggressive & self-righteous stance on this issue and see the need to defend their new status in the sport. Both are unnecessary & unhelpful I would think.