Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

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

12467…24

Comments

  • #92
    happytramp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,627 ✭✭✭happytramp


    Donegaler wrote: »
    I see no reason to question such decisions

    I'm just going to leave this hang out there for a second.........think about it.......think about how utterly ludicrous this attitude to elected officials is. In this country? In this day and age? you should be ashamed.


  • #93
    Donegaler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭Donegaler


    Beasty wrote: »
    So you agree Presidents of the UCI should serve no more than 2 terms

    Pity you cannot come up with any reason to support McQuaid's candidacy. The Board never made any such decision by the way - they agreed to let the clubs decide via an EGM

    Lets leave it at this.....
    You think the board had not got the power to make the decision to nominate PMQ and I think they had.
    It is a succinct as that.
    Lets not complicate it.


  • #94
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,154 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Donegaler wrote: »
    I see no reason to question such decisions

    The board were elected to make decisions on a daily basis, in much the same way a government is elected to make decisions on a daily basis as to ask everyone to have an input on every decision is nigh on impossible and leads to other issues. Laws and precedent should guide them in most areas as to the right choice as should their moral compass (this may be a bad example).

    That said if a government takes a decision that annoys the population (or a sub group), it is their right to voice concern, and if it goes unheard mount protest or at least a voice of dissent. In the same way if the board takes a direction that upset the membership then they have the right to voice concern, in this case an EGM was called so democracy has worked (well sort of) so that the board can be certain of the view of their membership.


  • #95
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Donegaler wrote: »
    My position is that the Board of Cycling Ireland recently made a decision about a UCI nomination on its members behalf. They supported Pat McQuaid in his attempt to become President of UCI.
    The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions

    I see you quoted me there, but didn't give a reason as to how anyone was being prevented from cycling by all this...


  • #96
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Lets leave it at this.....
    You think the board had not got the power to make the decision to nominate PMQ and I think they had.
    It is a succinct as that.
    Lets not complicate it.
    I'm not complicating anything

    The Board took one decision on this - that was to call an EGM. That decision was taken on 26 April. The Board took no decision on the subject on 12 April, and indeed did not even discuss it as a Board. They may have been in a room together but it was clearly not a Board meeting


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Surinam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 252 ✭✭Surinam


    Diarmuid wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjl8OIZijjY

    Classic! But also painfully true - this is the exact attitude too many Irish people have towards those in authority and it's why our country is in the state it is. Most Irish people are cowards. :(


  • #98
    boege
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭boege


    Beasty wrote: »
    I'm not complicating anything

    The Board took one decision on this - that was to call an EGM. That decision was taken on 26 April. The Board took no decision on the subject on 12 April, and indeed did not even discuss it as a Board. They may have been in a room together but it was clearly not a Board meeting

    ..and if one board member in the room had not got out of his chair, then this thread would not exist. PMQ nominated, discussion over. Your lifting the carpet in a big way there.

    I see a similarity between the way CI board tried to behave and the way PMQ has, on occassion tried to lead UCI. It's politics, you have to compromise to get things done and it can get dirty. As a result people dont want to know and Donegaler has a point. We elect boards because they will have insight as to what is right on balance. We don't want to know about the dirty stuff that sometimes has to be done.

    In reality, PMQ will head UCI not because the Swiss or Irish nominated him, but because there is no credible alternative. PMQ will also lead UCI because the big sponsors will probably not object. It's about politics and money because its a business.

    If I was on the CI board I would look to maximise the situation for the members, I suspect they tried to.


  • #99
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,154 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CIs reasons for nominating PMQ initially:
    http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cycling-ireland-outlines-reasons-for-initially-backing-pat-mcquaids-uci-election-nomination/


  • #100
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/mcquaid-welcomes-swiss-cycling-decision-to-back-him-for-re-election-1.1396706

    However, several people drew attention yesterday to UCI rules which seem to raise questions about that tactic. According to UCI regulation 1.1.009, individuals may only hold the licence of one national federation. McQuaid holds a current Cycling Ireland licence thanks to his honorary membership, and it remains to be seen if his Swiss Cycling membership will pose a problem under the governing body’s own rules.


  • #101
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    boege wrote: »
    ..and if one board member in the room had not got out of his chair, then this thread would not exist. PMQ nominated, discussion over. Your lifting the carpet in a big way there.

    There was a pretty substantial move on the part of the clubs to call an EGM, a move that was ultimately not pursued because the Board of CI decided to call one themselves.

    Now, perhaps this is because they realised that their decision caused more of a backlash than they had anticipated. Perhaps they believed that an overwhelming majority supported McQuaid, and were surprised by the number of people who questioned the decision post-board meeting. Perhaps they thought that rather than reconvening the Board to validate the decision, that they should allow the members to have their say, in a democratic process, given the number of objections they received.

    Or maybe it's just stoopid democracy getting in the way of Boards governing companies.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    boege wrote: »
    I see a similarity between the way CI board tried to behave and the way PMQ has, on occassion tried to lead UCI. It's politics, you have to compromise to get things done and it can get dirty. As a result people dont want to know and Donegaler has a point. We elect boards because they will have insight as to what is right on balance. We don't want to know about the dirty stuff that sometimes has to be done.
    This is one of the problems I see with a lot of people associated with cycling. There seems to be a view amongst many that it's OK to break the rules so long as you don't get caught. That attitude is what has brought cycling to its current state - essentially the likes of Armstrong, Bertie, Vino etc cheated because they knew a lot of people would turn a blind eye to it. They thought they would get away with it (and there are probably a lot more riders out there that did)

    If people don't like the rules, petition to get them changed, don't simply ride roughshod through them. No-one will respect rules if they see those in power ignoring them

    Anyway I note the EGM is still on, which presumably means McQuaid has not withdrawn his request

    If he's not withdrawn his request, I would guess he has not handed in his life membership along with his CI licence

    If he's still got a CI licence then he cannot obtain a licence from any other federation, under UCI rules

    If he cannot obtain a licence from any other federation, no other federation can nominate him

    If no other federation can nominate him he still requires the nomination of CI, so the EGM remains as important as it ever was

    (and if he has sought a licence from the Swiss Federation to facilitate a nomination from them, he would appear to have broken UCI rules - which would be another fine example to us all:rolleyes:)


  • #103
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    boege wrote: »
    ..and if one board member in the room had not got out of his chair, then this thread would not exist. PMQ nominated, discussion over. Your lifting the carpet in a big way there.

    you will probably say "you would say that wouldnt you" but this was not the only issue! I asked for an egm on the basis anon-board member chaired the board meeting and because some of the answers given to questions were contradicted at the meeting and afterwards.

    The clubs also came on board in less than 24hours 31 clubs had called for an egm.

    Regarding the reasons to back him I find it quite insulting that the board see fit to allow everybody else bar their members have a say. This was in essence their original reasons for backing him.They wouldnt release it at the time because they felt it was too weak but would use it as a hymn sheet. They were forced into a u-turn. I am extremely surprised that they didnt include "Armstrong was tested 300 times and was never positive!" in the PR because believe it or the Armstrong defence was used.


  • #104
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    Beasty wrote: »
    This is one of the problems I see with a lot of people associated with cycling. There seems to be a view amongst many that it's OK to break the rules so long as you don't get caught. That attitude is what has brought cycling to its current state - essentially the likes of Armstrong, Bertie, Vino etc cheated because they knew a lot of people would turn a blind eye to it. They thought they would get away with it (and there are probably a lot more riders out there that did)

    If people don't like the rules, petition to get them changed, don't simply ride roughshod through them. No-one will respect rules if they see those in power ignoring them

    Anyway I note the EGM is still on, which presumably means McQuaid has not withdrawn his request

    If he's not withdrawn his request, I would guess he has not handed in his life membership along with his CI licence

    If he's still got a CI licence then he cannot obtain a licence from any other federation, under UCI rules

    If he cannot obtain a licence from any other federation, no other federation can nominate him

    If no other federation can nominate him he still requires the nomination of CI, so the EGM remains as important as it ever was

    (and if he has sought a licence from the Swiss Federation to facilitate a nomination from them, he would appear to have broken UCI rules - which would be another fine example to us all:rolleyes:)

    Spoke with the CEO yesterday the EGM goes ahead.


  • #105
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    12 sprocket wrote: »
    THere are more people racing in Ireland now than I have ever seen before, TV audiences and spectators at major pro races are huge.

    First of all, the upsurge in racing and leisure cycling numbers in Ireland (or the UK) is not a result of anything that Pat or the UCI have done. Fair enough though if you want to give him credit for everything that happens under his watch, but you also have to hand him responsibility for everything.

    In terms of TV audiences, it was under Pat's stewardship that German TV (both ARD and ZDF) stations stopped showing the Tour de France at all in 2007 due to doping scandals, and are considering pulling out completely at the end of their contract this year. That hardly tallys with an increased audience.

    More races have indeed been created, but Pat's relationship with Global Cycling Promotions, the organising body behind many of these races, is unclear at best and serious questions need to be asked about the diversion of ProTour funds being diverted to top up a private company of which Pat is a director.

    In addition, at a pro level, the sport is haemorrhaging sponsors. Rabobank, Vacansoleil, Europcar cutting their sponsorship level in half, the entire HTC Highroad Columbia team folding after one of the most successful years in cycling history. This does not paint a rosy picture of a sport in rude health. The big teams are not commercially viable and rely on rich benefactors to keep them going at the top level. Astana, BMC, Saxo-Tinkoff, Omega-Pharma Lotto, Orica-Greenedge, Radioshack-Leopard - all of these teams are propped up by billionaire owners as vanity projects.


  • #106
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    Donegaler wrote: »
    My position is that the Board of Cycling Ireland recently made a decision about a UCI nomination on its members behalf. They supported Pat McQuaid in his attempt to become President of UCI.
    The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions

    I did ...on your behalf!


  • #107
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    I can't bear reading some of the posts on here, but figure, sure I'll throw in my tuppence:

    1. People keep mentioning democracy and freedom to express opinions:

    I call BS. All this thread and all the other threads on this topic have fundamentally involved is two sides shouting across a room at each other, none willing to change their opinions.

    When it comes down to it those who support McQuaid are wrong, we who would like to see him gone are simply pussy footing around it under the pretention of being fair and allowing his supporters their right to an opinion, well it's a waste of time. None of his supporters have presented any clear logical arguments for supporting him. They've relied on nationalism (a disgusting cncept in itself), some poorly thought out declarations about "knowing his family", how he's a nice guy who cares about cycling, or vague attempts to connect the growth in cycling in Ireland to his tenureship as UCI president and what amounts to minor positive work he has done which pales in the face of recent negative events. Nothing evidence based, no strong basic arguments, they've relied on conjecture and sentimentality. They're wrong.

    Those who support his removal have provided numerous reasons, clear evidence and a step-by-step logic (if you put it all together) as to why they hold their opinion.

    So thread after thread we entertain those who claim he's a good man and deserves a chance to sort all this out, when really, we should shut them down.

    I figure it's most easily summarised as follows:

    a) Do you support PMcQ?

    Answer:
    No? Good job. You're done with this survey.

    Yes? See b).

    b) Do you think that the reasons you support his position are strong enough and can you logically argue them to counter the multiple reasons put forward by those opposing his position?

    No? Good job. You may now return to a) and enter the correct answer.

    Yes? Really. I very much doubt it. We recommend you rethink your answer.





    2. Can we stop with the "Oh that's the Irish version of democracy" type crap. It's a flaw in the system and is prevalent in many countries, not least the system's birthplace. You're only showing your ignorance and inability to argue without resorting to cliches by throwing that statement about.


  • #108
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Can we stop referring to Pat McQuaid as an Irishman and simply refer to him as the Swiss nominated candidate ;)


  • #109
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    Beasty wrote: »
    If people don't like the rules, petition to get them changed, don't simply ride roughshod through them. No-one will respect rules if they see those in power ignoring them

    I find this offensive. As an Irishman this impinges on my inalienable right to break rules I don't like and whinge and moan when people break the rules I do like. I think it's in our constitution somewhere.


  • #110
    Donegaler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭Donegaler


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Donegaler View Post
    My position is that the Board of Cycling Ireland recently made a decision about a UCI nomination on its members behalf. They supported Pat McQuaid in his attempt to become President of UCI.
    The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions
    I did ...on your behalf!

    Forgive me if I am incorrect,but did you not cast a vote at the board meeting which was deciding on whether to nominate PMQ?.
    And did you not vote either yes,no or abstain?
    Which one of these 3 options was acting on my behalf?


  • #111
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Donegaler View Post
    My position is that the Board of Cycling Ireland recently made a decision about a UCI nomination on its members behalf. They supported Pat McQuaid in his attempt to become President of UCI.
    The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions
    I did ...on your behalf!

    Forgive me if I am incorrect,but did you not cast a vote at the board meeting which was deciding on whether to nominate PMQ?.
    And did you not vote either yes,no or abstain?
    Which one of these 3 options was acting on my behalf?

    Do you understand how Boards like these work?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Forgive me if I am incorrect,but did you not cast a vote at the board meeting which was deciding on whether to nominate PMQ?.
    And did you not vote either yes,no or abstain?
    Which one of these 3 options was acting on my behalf?
    Morana cast no vote at a CI Board meeting on this matter. He had resigned when the meeting was held to discuss this on 26 April - at that meeting the Board decided to call an EGM

    There was no Board decision taken on the subject on 12 April. The Board of CI have acknowledged that


  • #113
    rollingscone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭rollingscone


    Harrybelafonte wrote: »
    I can't bear reading some of the posts on here, but figure, sure I'll throw in my tuppence:

    1. People keep mentioning democracy and freedom to express opinions:

    I call BS. All this thread and all the other threads on this topic have fundamentally involved is two sides shouting across a room at each other, none willing to change their opinions.

    When it comes down to it those who support McQuaid are wrong, we who would like to see him gone are simply pussy footing around it under the pretention of being fair and allowing his supporters their right to an opinion, well it's a waste of time. None of his supporters have presented any clear logical arguments for supporting him. They've relied on nationalism (a disgusting cncept in itself), some poorly thought out declarations about "knowing his family", how he's a nice guy who cares about cycling, or vague attempts to connect the growth in cycling in Ireland to his tenureship as UCI president and what amounts to minor positive work he has done which pales in the face of recent negative events. Nothing evidence based, no strong basic arguments, they've relied on conjecture and sentimentality. They're wrong.

    Those who support his removal have provided numerous reasons, clear evidence and a step-by-step logic (if you put it all together) as to why they hold their opinion.

    So thread after thread we entertain those who claim he's a good man and deserves a chance to sort all this out, when really, we should shut them down.

    I figure it's most easily summarised as follows:

    a) Do you support PMcQ?

    Answer:
    No? Good job. You're done with this survey.

    Yes? See b).

    b) Do you think that the reasons you support his position are strong enough and can you logically argue them to counter the multiple reasons put forward by those opposing his position?

    No? Good job. You may now return to a) and enter the correct answer.

    Yes? Really. I very much doubt it. We recommend you rethink your answer.





    2. Can we stop with the "Oh that's the Irish version of democracy" type crap. It's a flaw in the system and is prevalent in many countries, not least the system's birthplace. You're only showing your ignorance and inability to argue without resorting to cliches by throwing that statement about.

    Bill Maher salutes you. (Or he would if he read Irish cycling forums).


  • #114
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,668 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    morana wrote: »
    The egm will go ahead. My only hope is that people turn up and voice their opinion either way...

    Is this only open to CI members?

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #115
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Hermy wrote: »
    Is this only open to CI members?
    Thread on the EGM and procedures here

    Basically unless specifically invited to speak only delegates can do so. I expect other CI members to be able to attend, but would not anticipate non-members being allowed in unless invited to speak by the Board


  • #116
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/mcquaids-presidential-bid-hits-fresh-stumbling-block-29274287.html

    From the Indo today

    However, McQuaid's latest nomination could yet hit a snag. Under article 51 of the UCI constitution, the candidates for the presidency "shall be nominated by the federation of the candidate".
    As a former president of Cycling Ireland, McQuaid holds an honorary lifetime Cycling Ireland licence and it was confirmed by Cycling Ireland yesterday that he has an Irish licence for 2013.
    Even though he has lived near UCI headquarters in Switzerland since 2005, under UCI rule number 1.1008, the licence holder "shall remain affiliated to that (Irish) federation until the expiry of the licence, even if he changes country of residence".
    Under UCI rule number 1.1009 "a licence holder may hold the licence of only one national federation", so McQuaid cannot hold a Swiss licence and therefore yesterday's nomination by the Swiss federation could yet be deemed invalid.


  • #117
    YeahOK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭YeahOK


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Can we stop referring to Pat McQuaid as an Irishman and simply refer to him as the Swiss nominated candidate ;)

    Brilliant!:D


  • #118
    Donegaler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭Donegaler


    dave_o_brien wrote: »
    Do you understand how Boards like these work?

    Are you referring to boards in a Corporate Governance sense
    Or Boards.ie?


  • #119
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Are you referring to boards in a Corporate Governance sense
    Or Boards.ie?

    The Corporate Governance sense.


  • #120
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Are you referring to boards in a Corporate Governance sense
    Or Boards.ie?

    Also, I don't want to seem patronising, and I understand where you're coming from. A board is put in place to make decisions like this.

    But their duty is to represent what they believe the members best interests and wishes are. In this case, enough members have disagreed with their decision that it has become an issue. To simply say

    "Take your beating and leave the silent majority of CI members to get on with their cycling"

    or

    "The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions"

    misses the responsibilities of the members to hold their Board answerable for decisions the Board makes, particularly ones where a section of the membership feel aggrieved.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    Donegaler wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Donegaler View Post
    My position is that the Board of Cycling Ireland recently made a decision about a UCI nomination on its members behalf. They supported Pat McQuaid in his attempt to become President of UCI.
    The Board made similar decisions about UCI nominations in the past.
    They have been empowered to make such decisions.
    I see no reason to question such decisions
    I did ...on your behalf!

    Forgive me if I am incorrect,but did you not cast a vote at the board meeting which was deciding on whether to nominate PMQ?.
    And did you not vote either yes,no or abstain?
    Which one of these 3 options was acting on my behalf?

    questioning a decision made by a meeting which didn't conform to the memo and arts on behalf of you, me, 12sprocket, beasty and the other thousands of members of CI.

    you would be happy with a nomination that was flawed?

    (PS you don't need to thank me.)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement