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

GlennaMaddy

12 sprocket wrote: »

Morana, Rob Fowler
My views on him going to the Swiss are that, it is what most people in his position would have done in the circumstances. There was clearly a nasty campaign organised against him in this country by the signatories of the file and other..

Campaign seems to follow democratic process if you ask me, hardly 'nasty'

QueensGael

There's a piece on this topic coming up on Drivetime now (with Shane Stokes)

www.rte.ie/radio

pprendeville

pelevin wrote: »

So Pat McQuaid took more or less one day to write and send a long character-staining letter about Brian Cookson out to the cycling federations once Cookson had the temerity to go forward for the UCI Presidency. Is this what most people would have done in the circumstances?
Pat McQuaid thanks the relevant cyclists who came forward in the Armstrong case and gave evidence. A few minutes later he calls the two main protagaonists in that whole affair "scumbags." Is this what most people would have done in the circumstances, and is it appropriate language of someone who represents cycling in a dignified manner? Like presumably most Irish I'm pre-inclined to support my own but I'm afraid to me this is the behaviour more of a back-street bully defending his territory in however dirty a manner does most damage to perceived threats, and who I cannot support.

Well said.

@12Sproket - There is plenty of what appears to me as evidence as to why PMcQ needs to go although it may not be concrete but he sure seems to be able to do a good job of hiding things. Suing Kimmage and others and gagging that guy (was it Ashenden for 8 years if he wanted to be on an anti-doping committee), the whole affair of the LA case stands out as a shambles, the list goes on, the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Then he goes calling anyone who exposes both themselves and cheaters 'scumbags' and has the brass to label good people activists.

12 sprocket

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Well since we are talking elections here lets recap on a little democracy 101..... if you are a stakeholder even a lowly A4 struggling in the local league or whether you are a pillar of the cycling community volunteering all your spare time... or even if you just won the tour... the beauty of democracy in theory at least is that all those votes carry equal weight.

To effectively attack some of the signatories as nobodies like you have... well that says a lot about someoneI. I'm no idealist. .. the big names can and do influence these votes... says a lot though that Mcquaid with wide open media access is almost certainly going to be tarred, feathered and run out of town by these nobodies... even taking a neutral standpoint of someone who knows nothing about the whole affair, that in itself raises huge credibility questions

THe only one calling them nobodies is yourself! I stated the fact that I don't know them, never heard of them doing anything for Irish cycling. And that would certainly be a valid thing to say in the light of the statement saying they are embedded in the sport. Unfortunately your response is typical of a lot of the debate on this issue

Dermot Illogical

12 sprocket wrote: »

THe only one calling them nobodies is yourself! I stated the fact that I don't know them, never heard of them doing anything for Irish cycling. And that would certainly be a valid thing to say in the light of the statement saying they are embedded in the sport. Unfortunately your response is typical of a lot of the debate on this issue

Being embedded in the sport is only possible if you've heard of them?

And as for debate on the issue, at this stage there doesn't actually appear to be one. You're so far trying to find disagreement where there is none, disregarding people's opinions because you've "never heard of them", and generally faffing around trying to discredit the document being discussed by attacking the authors. What you've resolutely failed to do is debate the content of the document, or counter it in any meaningful way.

And whether it suits you or not the membership of CI are entitled to their opinions, and their vote. I would suggest that if you have any compelling points to make which might make them vote the way you want, now might be the time to make them. You've been less than convincing so far.

ktz84

12 sprocket wrote: »

THe only one calling them nobodies is yourself! I stated the fact that I don't know them, never heard of them doing anything for Irish cycling. And that would certainly be a valid thing to say in the light of the statement saying they are embedded in the sport. Unfortunately your response is typical of a lot of the debate on this issue

It's not really a valid point is it? What's being discussed here is Pat McQuaid's record as a member of the UCI Management Committee and subsequent time as President. A person can be embedded in the sport of cycling simply by giving a real commitment to that sport and that can be at a very local level however that doesn't dimminish their abililty to analyse the publicly available data and to draw conclusions on it or at least asking search questions of Pat McQuaid. When you make the point that you don't know them or their contribution to Irish Cycling implicit in it is a concept of prominence or significance at National Level. If you take the converse of that you can only be left with the impression that if they don't meet that criteria then they are insiginifcant or a nobody. If that's not the point then why make it in the first place?

I fully accept that the authors have to be credible within cycling in order for the cycling community to take them seriously however as you have already said you know 2 of the authors and understand their long association with Cycling in Ireland therefore I don't feel the report suffers from an issue of credibility. Reports are often co-authored by those that have greater prominence or visibility in their field and others that aren't so well known and its the fact of the association of those with greater prominence that lends credibility to the report within that community so there's nothing unusual in that you wouldn't necessarily know them all in fact that's pretty standard.

The report lays out clearly the authors' view of Pat McQuaid's record. All you have to do is go through each point and provide the counter argument. Democracy is about letting people have their voice so take that opportunity if you feel so passionate about it. A much rounder discussion would actually be appreciated by all. You might get a rough ride but you're getting that anyway and you haven't even started to debate the actual issues.

12 sprocket

ktz84 wrote: »

It's not really a valid point is it? What's being discussed here is Pat McQuaid's record as a member of the UCI Management Committee and subsequent time as President. A person can be embedded in the sport of cycling simply by giving a real commitment to that sport and that can be at a very local level however that doesn't dimminish their abililty to analyse the publicly available data and to draw conclusions on it or at least asking search questions of Pat McQuaid. When you make the point that you don't know them or their contribution to Irish Cycling implicit in it is a concept of prominence or significance at National Level. If you take the converse of that you can only be left with the impression that if they don't meet that criteria then they are insiginifcant or a nobody. If that's not the point then why make it in the first place?

I fully accept that the authors have to be credible within cycling in order for the cycling community to take them seriously however as you have already said you know 2 of the authors and understand their long association with Cycling in Ireland therefore I don't feel the report suffers from an issue of credibility. Reports are often co-authored by those that have greater prominence or visibility in their field and others that aren't so well known and its the fact of the association of those with greater prominence that lends credibility to the report within that community so there's nothing unusual in that you wouldn't necessarily know them all in fact that's pretty standard.

The report lays out clearly the authors' view of Pat McQuaid's record. All you have to do is go through each point and provide the counter argument. Democracy is about letting people have their voice so take that opportunity if you feel so passionate about it. A much rounder discussion would actually be appreciated by all. You might get a rough ride but you're getting that anyway and you haven't even started to debate the actual issues.

As you say above the report lays out clearly the authors view of Pat Mc Quaids record. f you go to the previous page you will see the rationale from the cycling Ireland Board to their members in a post of mine, I think there are some good examples of the boards views of his record and I agree with them.

LeftBlank

12 sprocket wrote: »

As you say above the report lays out clearly the authors view of Pat Mc Quaids record. f you go to the previous page you will see the rationale from the cycling Ireland Board to their members in a post of mine, I think there are some good examples of the boards views of his record and I agree with them.

Do you have any opinions of your own (not just ones copy-pasted from CI) about why PMcQ should be re-elected?

ktz84

12 sprocket wrote: »

As you say above the report lays out clearly the authors view of Pat Mc Quaids record. f you go to the previous page you will see the rationale from the cycling Ireland Board to their members in a post of mine, I think there are some good examples of the boards views of his record and I agree with them.

The reasoning given by the Board has been disputed by this report and their arguments I find reasonable and well researched. In what way do you feel that the report has got things wrong and what sources can you provide to support your conclusions?

Beasty

OK, I've stayed out of this since one poster decided to turn the discussion towards the signatories of the document. As many of you already are aware I am one of those signatories. It was discussed whether brief biographies of the signatories should be included and we decided against including them. The document is about McQuaid's record, not us. We included our names as we have all contributed to it and share the beliefs stated in it, which have been fully supported with extensive references to evidence within the document. Am I embedded in Irish cycling? - well I think I have become so in recent years. I have become involved at a number of levels in a various projects and issues. However I prefer to keep these between myself and others involved and they really are totally irrelevant to the paper.

There was a lot more we could have included but decided not to, partly because we felt there was already adequate evidence that really does speak for itself. Readers of the document can draw their own conclusions, as we did in our executive summary and covering letter. The evidence is pretty substantive. Basically there was enough conclusive evidence to support our views already and adding more was unnecessary for what was already a very long document. We basically focussed on the stuff that was incontrovertical

Perhaps anyone who has an issue with the document could point out any inaccuracies in what was said.

morana

As much as I love a debate this is pointless.
12sprocket supports PmcQ it seems everybody else doesnt.

BTW if you fancy a bet Paddypower.com has Cookson at 6/1 and McQuaid at 8/11 but Lemond is 2nd fav at 4/1!!!!
There is also a good piece on the communications firm working for Cookson on CN. They seem to win a lot of competitions but I think this will be their hardest. It will be very difficult to defeat McQuaid.

I think the EGM will be tight but the NO will just get it I would think, of course attendance will be the key.

buffalo

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

12 sprocket wrote: »

Cycling Ireland nominated Mr. Pat McQuaid to stand as a candidate; it was felt he should be judged on his record by the delegates at the UCI Congress in September. Not to let him stand would be to act as ‘judge and jury’ and deprive other cycling nations an opportunity to debate and deliberate on the selection of the UCI President.

The board don't want to act as 'judge and jury', so they decided to elect him without having a membership vote... that doesn't make any sense. It's passing the buck to the other national federations to make a real decision, instead of critically judging it themselves. Does that mean at the next election they'll put forward whoever sticks their hand in the air, so as not to act as judge and jury for them?

12 sprocket wrote: »

Initiatives such as:

o Globalisation of cycling;

The document linked to here explains why McQuaid's role in this as president of GCF represents a conflict of interest and abuse of power, is losing the UCI money, and costing pure race promoters. This will lead to less promoters willing to put on races, and cost the sport in the long run.

12 sprocket wrote: »

o Gender equality of Olympic cycling program;

Did McQuaid and the UCI do this? I would credit the British federation and track success for it. Unless you can show me some statement crediting McQuaid? I know Pendleton was very active in campaigning for it, but I don't remember McQuaid calling for it.

When I think of the UCI and women's cycling, I remember Nicole Cooke's retirement statement...

"Whilst the UCI have spent the past 10 years trying to defend the indefensible Armstrong position, with time wasting actions such as suing Paul Kimmage for libel after Kimmage dared to bring their "good name" into disrepute; whilst they have been so engrossed trying to find receipts for the equipment they bought after Lance made donations to them and suing Floyd Landis after he blew the whistle and holding press conferences calling Landis a liar. Whilst they have been so busy with all these "priorities", the women's road sport, that looked so promising in 2002 when I turned professional, has crumbled.

There are so many ways in which the UCI could support the sport for women, but instead they have acted, regardless of their intent, in a way that has caused the sport to lose events. Gone are the women's Milan San Remo, the Amstel Gold Race, Tour de L'Aude, Tour Midi Pyrenees, and Tour Castel de Leon. No HP tour in America. No Tours in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Instead of a two-week Tour de France we have nothing. Today, in January, the major race in the women's calendar this year, the one from which I have the pink T-shirt, has no organiser and no route."

Or Emma Pooley: "I think the UCI has been extremely backward". The women's professional sport suffers from a lack of prestige, under-funding, a truncated race calendar and imbalanced media coverage in comparison with men's pro riding.

12 sprocket wrote: »

o Introduction of BMX discipline to the Olympic program;

From some brief research, it looks like the UCI were behind the push to include this, and skateboarding. Let's chalk this one up to Pat. One good point.

12 sprocket wrote: »

o Adoption and promotion of Paracycling programs.

Again, this seems like it's been a UCI push, though I would be grateful if you link to something that showed it 12sprocket. But I know CI has been active in this area, and I presume that's been a top-down push. That's me being generous really, I can't find anything to back up that impression. Two good points.

12 sprocket wrote: »

Anti-Doping Initiatives introduced during his terms:

o Biological Passport System;

Didn't the French federation have this ten years before the UCI finally adopted it? That's a decade of cheaters that might've been caught, while the French riders lagged behind and paid the price for the UCI's inaction.
And when it was brought in (took McQuaid three years to get around to it), it was done so amidst a conflict between the UCI, WADA, FFC and ASO - the sort of situations that seem to occur quite frequently under McQuaid. And when the profiles of people like Lance Armstrong aren't sent to be analysed, what's the point of having such a system?

12 sprocket wrote: »

o Whereabouts system;

Was this not adopted with the WADA code in 2004? I'm open to correction, but again, credit due for taking on board the idea, a little much to trumpet it as an accomplishment. And again, exception made for Armstrong... what's the point of having an anti-doping system if you exclude the dopers?

12 sprocket wrote: »

o No Needles Policy;

Again, I believe this one came from the Mouvement Pour Un Cyclisme Crédible. You can credit McQuaid with making it an UCI rule, but MPCC introduced it first.

12 sprocket wrote: »

o True Champion or Cheat Program;

This is the anti-doping rulebook in DVD format. Hardly a compelling reason for re-election.

12 sprocket wrote: »

o Introduction of confidential hotline.

Too little, too late in my book. What about McQuaid's treatment of Landis when he confessed? Hamilton? Jörg Jaksche? Frankie and Betsy Andreu? Emma O'Reilly? Ivan Basso? I wonder if he thinks of all of them as "scumbags".

12 sprocket wrote: »

Undertakings with regard to governance changes to be brought to the UCI Management Committee as per Cycling Ireland’s press statement of 12th of April (see below).

Is this the "if you elect me, I'll make sure nobody else can stand for a third term, like I'm doing!" Why not just bring it in now, while he has the power?

12 sprocket wrote: »

His contributions to the development of Irish Cycling recognised with an Honorary Life Membership and his continued assistance and support to our Federation.

So are we judging him on his record as UCI President, or his Irish record too? It seems he did great work for cycling in Ireland, but in his capacity as UCI President, I don't think he's faring very well.


So as you can see, there's not a lot of substance in those reasons when you take away the PR sheen. I'm open to correction on any point, I've probably erred in there somewhere. The UCI needs to change, and that won't happen with McQuaid at the helm. For me personally, I thought the Independent Commission was his last chance at redemption - an outside body that could freely get to the root of what was wrong with the UCI. I'm still awaiting the much vaunted Truth and Reconciliation body that's going to replace it.

Casati

morana wrote: »

@12Sprocket

Whats your views on him going to the Swiss?

By the way I respect your position I wont attack it but may have in the past and if I did I apologise for particularly calling you "deluded" although I know you will appreciate I had the "knifing in the back" accusation at that board meeting. Lets move on.

Is this not covered in detail in the UCI constitution - has Pat technically broken the rules already by going the Swiss route if he is still a member of CI?

RobFowl

Casati wrote: »

Is this not covered in detail in the UCI constitution - has Pat technically broken the rules already by going the Swiss route if he is still a member of CI?

The rules looked clear to me and others but Pat has interpreted them differently and apparantly in a way that stands up.
I have actually asked the Swiss to clarify as have multiple journalists but they have declined as have the UCI.

happytramp

It does feel that (apart from the occasional update) this has basically become a place where people with strong issues on the state of governance within this sport argue with (what i'm assuming based on the lack of clear evidence or facts to back up their points) are acquaintances/family/friends of Pat who believe in 'him' as a person as opposed 'him' as a useful, functioning entity.

And just to reiterate... I'm not speaking as an activist, just a concerned citizen.

pprendeville

happytramp wrote: »

It does feel that (apart from the occasional update) this has basically become a place where people with strong issues on the state of governance within this sport argue with (what i'm assuming based on the lack of clear evidence or facts to back up their points) are acquaintances/family/friends of Pat who believe in 'him' as a person as opposed 'him' as a useful, functioning entity.

And just to reiterate... I'm not speaking as an activist, just a concerned citizen.

Your new entity is now HappyActivistTramp.

dave_o_brien

happytramp wrote: »

It does feel that (apart from the occasional update) this has basically become a place where people with strong issues on the state of governance within this sport argue with (what i'm assuming based on the lack of clear evidence or facts to back up their points) are acquaintances/family/friends of Pat who believe in 'him' as a person as opposed 'him' as a useful, functioning entity.

And just to reiterate... I'm not speaking as an activist, just a concerned citizen.

In pats world view, you have no reason to be concerned- he's doing an excellent job and is only looking for fair democracy. By being concerned, you are an activist.

This is the outlook of a tyrant.

Lumen

So in summary, we have so far:

For Pat:
- Paracyling promotion and the dawn of a new era of Olympic-level BMX and skateboarding.

Against Pat:
- Lance etc.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

So in summary, we have so far:

For Pat:
- Paracyling promotion and the dawn of a new era of Olympic-level BMX and skateboarding.

Against Pat:
- Lance etc.

That's me decided, Pat for life president! Anything else and you hate the disabled... are you a disabled hater!

Hermy

TinyExplosions wrote: »

...Pat for life president!

But that's Hein's job, isn't it?:pac:

pelevin

What about Pat becomes Honorary Vice-President under Verburgerhead, and Cookson to do whatever that other job is?

Beasty

Good blog here highlighting the sheer hypocrisy of McQuaid's letter to the Federations

How anyone can think the guy is suitable to run a global sports organisation is beyond me

thebionicdude

Yet another twist!

The Swiss nomination is being legally challenged. As the nominations for President are due by 23rd of June, it may very well be that Cycling Ireland's EGM on the 15th is the only avenue for McQuaid to seek re-election. I'm assuming it's improbable he can wrap up a court case promptly. Even if the Swiss formally back him regardless and he proceeds to the election with a potentially unresolved court case, I'm guessing uncertainty as to the validity of his nomination may impact the voting at congress. I'm sure he'd welcome Cycling Ireland's backing at this stage.

Let there be no doubt, our vote counts!

From Shane Stokes:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/14733/Legal-challenge-to-Swiss-Cyclings-nomination-of-McQuaid-for-UCI-presidential-role.aspx

Vino Veritas

The alternative to Pat is more of a concern. We had Greg (Skins) as the main contender, Now we have Russian / Sky Cookson

Beasty

Vino Veritas wrote: »

The alternative to Pat is more of a concern. We had Greg (Skins) as the main contender, Now we have Russian / Sky Cookson

I would be delighted if someone else (other than McQuaid) would stand against Cookson to make a proper contest out of it, but he's still a vastly superior alternative to the incumbent

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

I would be delighted if someone else (other than McQuaid) would stand against Cookson to make a proper contest out of it, but he's still a vastly superior alternative to the incumbent

Beasty
maybe one of the others should be that paragon of virtue and ethic Jamie, theres a report below from ACCA about ethics

Australian Competition andConsumer Association
$120,000penalty against sports gear maker

3 December 2008

Skins Compression Garments PtyLtd, the supplier of Skins brand sports compression garments, has beenpenalised $120,000 after being found to have engaged in resale pricemaintenance, in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Skins was also found to haveengaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in advertising and promoting itsproducts.
The case was instituted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Misleading or deceptiveconduct

The Australian Competition andConsumer Commission had alleged that Skins had claimed in advertisements:
· that it does not pay sportsstars to wear or endorse Skins products and

· that it does not providesports stars with products without payment, when it did pay sports stars to wear and endorse its products and/or providedits products to sports stars to wear under 29 sponsorship agreements.

The representations were madein television, radio and print advertisements and on Skins websites.
Skins paid sports starsincluding cricketer Brett Lee and the Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and MelbourneFootball Clubs, the Wests Tigers rugby league club and NSW Rugby Union (Waratahs)clubs to wear and endorse Skins products.
It also provided substantialquantities of Skins products to sports stars including to players representingCricket Australia, Hockey Australia and Basketball Australia as well as playersfrom AFL clubs, rugby league and union teams. In total, Skins agreed to payapproximately $750,000 and to provide Skins products valued at over $800,000under the agreements.

Full article here http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/875247

buffalo

Arrah sure, better the divil you know, right? :pac:

You've not responded to my post 12 sprocket, does that mean you accept it as accurate?

pelevin

buffalo wrote: »

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


The board don't want to act as 'judge and jury', so they decided to elect him without having a membership vote... that doesn't make any sense. It's passing the buck to the other national federations to make a real decision, instead of critically judging it themselves. Does that mean at the next election they'll put forward whoever sticks their hand in the air, so as not to act as judge and jury for them?


The document linked to here explains why McQuaid's role in this as president of GCF represents a conflict of interest and abuse of power, is losing the UCI money, and costing pure race promoters. This will lead to less promoters willing to put on races, and cost the sport in the long run.


Did McQuaid and the UCI do this? I would credit the British federation and track success for it. Unless you can show me some statement crediting McQuaid? I know Pendleton was very active in campaigning for it, but I don't remember McQuaid calling for it.

When I think of the UCI and women's cycling, I remember Nicole Cooke's retirement statement...

"Whilst the UCI have spent the past 10 years trying to defend the indefensible Armstrong position, with time wasting actions such as suing Paul Kimmage for libel after Kimmage dared to bring their "good name" into disrepute; whilst they have been so engrossed trying to find receipts for the equipment they bought after Lance made donations to them and suing Floyd Landis after he blew the whistle and holding press conferences calling Landis a liar. Whilst they have been so busy with all these "priorities", the women's road sport, that looked so promising in 2002 when I turned professional, has crumbled.

There are so many ways in which the UCI could support the sport for women, but instead they have acted, regardless of their intent, in a way that has caused the sport to lose events. Gone are the women's Milan San Remo, the Amstel Gold Race, Tour de L'Aude, Tour Midi Pyrenees, and Tour Castel de Leon. No HP tour in America. No Tours in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Instead of a two-week Tour de France we have nothing. Today, in January, the major race in the women's calendar this year, the one from which I have the pink T-shirt, has no organiser and no route."

Or Emma Pooley: "I think the UCI has been extremely backward". The women's professional sport suffers from a lack of prestige, under-funding, a truncated race calendar and imbalanced media coverage in comparison with men's pro riding.


From some brief research, it looks like the UCI were behind the push to include this, and skateboarding. Let's chalk this one up to Pat. One good point.


Again, this seems like it's been a UCI push, though I would be grateful if you link to something that showed it 12sprocket. But I know CI has been active in this area, and I presume that's been a top-down push. That's me being generous really, I can't find anything to back up that impression. Two good points.


Didn't the French federation have this ten years before the UCI finally adopted it? That's a decade of cheaters that might've been caught, while the French riders lagged behind and paid the price for the UCI's inaction.
And when it was brought in (took McQuaid three years to get around to it), it was done so amidst a conflict between the UCI, WADA, FFC and ASO - the sort of situations that seem to occur quite frequently under McQuaid. And when the profiles of people like Lance Armstrong aren't sent to be analysed, what's the point of having such a system?


Was this not adopted with the WADA code in 2004? I'm open to correction, but again, credit due for taking on board the idea, a little much to trumpet it as an accomplishment. And again, exception made for Armstrong... what's the point of having an anti-doping system if you exclude the dopers?


Again, I believe this one came from the Mouvement Pour Un Cyclisme Crédible. You can credit McQuaid with making it an UCI rule, but MPCC introduced it first.


This is the anti-doping rulebook in DVD format. Hardly a compelling reason for re-election.


Too little, too late in my book. What about McQuaid's treatment of Landis when he confessed? Hamilton? Jörg Jaksche? Frankie and Betsy Andreu? Emma O'Reilly? Ivan Basso? I wonder if he thinks of all of them as "scumbags".


Is this the "if you elect me, I'll make sure nobody else can stand for a third term, like I'm doing!" Why not just bring it in now, while he has the power?


So are we judging him on his record as UCI President, or his Irish record too? It seems he did great work for cycling in Ireland, but in his capacity as UCI President, I don't think he's faring very well.


So as you can see, there's not a lot of substance in those reasons when you take away the PR sheen. I'm open to correction on any point, I've probably erred in there somewhere. The UCI needs to change, and that won't happen with McQuaid at the helm. For me personally, I thought the Independent Commission was his last chance at redemption - an outside body that could freely get to the root of what was wrong with the UCI. I'm still awaiting the much vaunted Truth and Reconciliation body that's going to replace it.

Very good post

irishpeloton

I've been asked a few times throughout this whole thing 'why should I care who the UCI President is, how does it affect me'?

It's a valid question and if you're a leisure cyclist or indeed a racing cyclist who is not inclined to follow pro racing and all the politics that go with it, it's easy to adopt the stance that the UCI President doesn't affect you.

But here's the story I tell people who ask me that question:

A few months ago I got an email from a Danish kid, 20 years old. He told me that he had been a successful junior racer in his home country. He had considered turning professional. He had a VO2 max of 73.6. Not world beating, but good enough to be a decent professional.

But between himself and his mother they decided that it would be a bad idea to turn professional. Not because riders are doping, not because riders are getting caught doping, not because riders are being pressured to dope.

It was because of the reaction of the UCI and its President whenever any of the above is made known to them.

They had read the stories of Christophe Bassons, Filipo Simeoni, Alberto Contador, Lance Armstrong. They had read the USADA report released last year. And they were appalled.

They felt that he couldn't set out trying to turn professional safe in the knowledge that a clean rider would be treated with respect and that dopers would be dealt with professionally, by the UCI.

The kid is now in university.

Are you happy to have a UCI President who inflicts this sort of decision on young talented cyclists? What if your own kid shows a talent for cycling? Do you want to be able to encourage them to pursue this gift? Are you satisfied that professional cycling as governed by the current UCI President is a sport you would be proud to tell others that your kid is a part of?

I know which way I would answer all of those questions right now.

My kid would be on his way to university.

12 sprocket

So do I take it Irish Peleton that the ethics of some of the people leading the charge against Mc Quaid and the UCI doesnt concern you? Would you or your fellow signatories not have some concerns that your campaign is being used by people that might have other agendas.