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

el tel · 17-05-2013 02:01PM

This may be a stupid question, but I'm wondering why Pat McQuaid is so desperate to remain UCI president that he will attempt to employ all the available chicanery?

Is there some non-glaring reason that is being overlooked? Is there some benefit to him beyond the power, control that comes with the position, or even the self belief that he is the only person capable of doing the job? You'd think by now he'd get the message that he's not popular, yet he persists.

There must be something more. I wonder what it is, goddamit!!

Donegaler · 17-05-2013 02:34PM

The way I see it is that there was a decision made by the Board of Cycling Ireland on 12th April to nominate Pat McQuaid for the position of President of UCI in the forthcoming election.There were 5 voting for such a nomination,1 voting against and one abstainee.Therefore the Board had overwhelmingly backed McQuaid.
This decision was later seen to be flawed and was subsequently rescinded.
The alledged flaw seems to have been that the President of Cycling Ireland chose for his own reasons to hand over the chairmanship of the meeting to the Chief Executive,Mr Liffey.
Hence any decisions taken at this meeting were not valid as determined by the Memo.and Arts. of the company.

If the board had made any other decisions at this meeting such as the employment of a member of staff or the purchase of a piece of drug testing equipment,it would also be flawed.

The President could have asked the vice-chairman to chair the meeting.He was not aware of the problem his decision would cause,nor were any of the others at the meeting.They all knew 'how boards worked' or should have.
If the vice-chairman had chaired the meeting,there would have been no flaw and the decision would have stood.

And in answer to your 'patronising question',do I know how boards work,the answer is yes,though you seem to be the expert.

Beasty · 17-05-2013 02:58PM

You clearly don't understand how boards of major organisations work or indeed corporate governance issues (and to be clear I have been trained on company law, but am not a lawyer, and have sat on the boards of many companies (both limited companies and plcs), in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere (and indeed still do). I also work in the corporate headquarters of one of the largest quoted companies based in Ireland)

If you fail to follow the rules, and as in this case hold a meeting that is clearly not in accordance with the company's constitution, then the meeting is invalid. The Board of CI fully acknowledge that. When I first heard they had allowed a non-Board member to chair the meeting (the Chairman is the most important participant in any Board meeting) I was, quite frankly, flabbergasted. It was a completely inappropriate thing to do and I didn't need to go scurrying off to Mem and Arts to confirm that (although I did anyway just to make absolutely sure there was nothing in there permitting this)

They could have simply re-convened properly and taken the decision they originally intended to, but chose not to. Instead they chose to call an EGM to allow the membership (via club delegates) a say on the matter. That is the only decision the Board of CI took on that issue. They may have met in a hotel room on 12 April and discussed the matter but that was not a board meeting. It really is as simple as that

Dowee · 17-05-2013 02:58PM

Donegaler wrote: »

If the vice-chairman had chaired the meeting,there would have been no flaw and the decision would have stood.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Fantastic argument you're making. Keep up the good work!

petethedrummer · 17-05-2013 03:32PM

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes

mcgratheoin · 17-05-2013 03:34PM

Donegaler wrote: »

The way I see it.....

Two questions just to clarify,

do you support Pat McQuaid's request for a nomination from Cycling Ireland? (If you don't have an opinion on it, then that's fair enough, just say so)
do you support the actions of the board of Cycling Ireland in calling an EGM to consider this request or do you feel it should have been a matter solely for the board?

Dermot Illogical · 17-05-2013 03:41PM

Donegaler wrote: »

Quote:
They have been empowered to make such decisions.
I see no reason to question such decisions

Compelling stuff indeed. That one's going straight to the top of the "Reasons to support Pat" list.

dave2pvd · 17-05-2013 03:50PM

Donegaler wrote: »

They have been empowered to make such decisions.
I see no reason to question such decisions

So to you, the CI board is infallible*?

Each to their own dogma.

*except for morana, clearly.

Harrybelafonte · 17-05-2013 05:09PM

Donegaler wrote: »

The way I see it...

The way you see it is wrong.

morana · 17-05-2013 05:19PM

Donegaler wrote: »

The way I see it is that there was a decision made by the Board of Cycling Ireland on 12th April to nominate Pat McQuaid for the position of President of UCI in the forthcoming election.There were 5 voting for such a nomination,1 voting against and one abstainee.Therefore the Board had overwhelmingly backed McQuaid.
This decision was later seen to be flawed and was subsequently rescinded.
The alledged flaw seems to have been that the President of Cycling Ireland chose for his own reasons to hand over the chairmanship of the meeting to the Chief Executive,Mr Liffey.
Hence any decisions taken at this meeting were not valid as determined by the Memo.and Arts. of the company.

If the board had made any other decisions at this meeting such as the employment of a member of staff or the purchase of a piece of drug testing equipment,it would also be flawed.

The President could have asked the vice-chairman to chair the meeting.He was not aware of the problem his decision would cause,nor were any of the others at the meeting.They all knew 'how boards worked' or should have.
If the vice-chairman had chaired the meeting,there would have been no flaw and the decision would have stood.

And in answer to your 'patronising question',do I know how boards work,the answer is yes,though you seem to be the expert.

You are correct. He should have vacated the chair asked me or jack to take the chair If we declined he could have asked any of other others. They got a non board member to chair it. The president could then back pat with gusto freed from the chains of impartiality.

Following that i asked for an egm and they got legal advice. having been in a similar position the advice was to void the previous action and redo the nomination in accordance with regulations. They didn't do that this time. Why?. I like to think they didn't because some of the questions asked were answered in a manner which turned out to be at odds with info in the media the following day and with other Info which arose at the meeting. Also the fact a large number of clubs signed up for an egm was a factor.

Its now obvious that we weren't au fait with how boards work, thankfully.

I believe that this whole episode has undermined the board. They should investigate what his status is in Swiss cycling.

Somebody asked why he wants to stay? Its got to be the salary. Nobody knows how much he is on but I heard rumours. But you know me and rumours.

ashleey · 17-05-2013 06:11PM

Shane stokes on drive time said 'a high six figures'

Enough said

Donegaler · 17-05-2013 06:16PM

morana wrote: »

You are correct. He should have vacated the chair asked me or jack to take the chair If we declined he could have asked any of other others. They got a non board member to chair it. The president could then back pat with gusto freed from the chains of impartiality.

Its now obvious that we weren't au fait with how boards work, thankfully.

.......Thank You Morana.

buffalo · 17-05-2013 07:04PM

An interesting note...

http://www.rte.ie/news/world/2013/0517/450851-ireland-to-host-anti-doping-conference-in-brussels/

Minister of State for Sport, Michael Ring, said that Ireland was spending €18,000 euro a week on anti-doping measures.

happytramp · 17-05-2013 07:27PM

buffalo wrote: »

An interesting note...

http://www.rte.ie/news/world/2013/0517/450851-ireland-to-host-anti-doping-conference-in-brussels/

What a truly depressing final line to that article. Couldn't have been said better by Pat himself.

ashleey · 17-05-2013 07:35PM

happytramp wrote: »

What a truly depressing final line to that article. Couldn't have been said better by Pat himself.

I am hoping that he meant that if there were no cheats then the money could be better spent.

I would love to see a break down of that 18k a week though: which sports; what findings; where tests were carried out and by whom; where can the public view an audit of this, seeing as we are paying?

RobFowl · 17-05-2013 08:03PM

ashleey wrote: »

I am hoping that he meant that if there were no cheats then the money could be better spent.

I would love to see a break down of that 18k a week though: which sports; what findings; where tests were carried out and by whom; where can the public view an audit of this, seeing as we are paying?

The ISC are responsible and publish the details of their testing here (most recent report is 2011)
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Anti-Doping/Resources/Annual_Reports/

happytramp · 17-05-2013 08:03PM

ashleey wrote: »

I am hoping that he meant that if there were no cheats then the money could be better spent.

Right you are (I hope) I misread his 'could' as 'should'

RobFowl · 17-05-2013 09:37PM

Beasty wrote: »

Not quite yet - UCI rules don't allow you to be a member of 2 Federations (strictly not allowed to have licences issued by 2, but to all intents and purposes it's the same thing) - I am therefore assuming he's handed in his Honorary Life Membership of CI

The UCI line is that you can only have a licence from one federation but there is no rule that stops you being a "member" of more than one

They boast over 170 afilliated federations, how about a prize for the person who can get to join the most?

Beasty · 17-05-2013 09:56PM

RobFowl wrote: »

The UCI line is that you can only have a licence from one federation but there is no rule that stops you being a "member" of more than one

They boast over 170 afilliated federations, how about a prize for the person who can get to join the most?

He may be a member of more than one, but can more than one be "his federation"

UCI rules state:

The candidates for the presidency shall be nominated by the federation of the candidate.

That suggests the singular - only "the federation of the candidate" can nominate him. Last week the federation appeared to be Ireland. What has changed to make Switzerland his federation? If I now move to the North and join British Cycling, does that make them my federation, or does Ireland, the country that issued my licence, remain my federation? The UCI seems to think that both Ireland and GB would be "my federation" - but they would say that, wouldn't they;)

boege · 17-05-2013 10:17PM

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:)

Beasty
I think its not helpful to lay into me for something I did not say. I do support any breaking of rules and made no reference to rule breaking. Not everything is black and white and there is a world of gray and in leading organisations you find youself backing an issue your would prefer to oppose.

You say you have sat on company boards so you know exactly what I mean.

What I was trying to do was to suggest that the CI board are the most informed people about whether Pat McQuade should be remoninated. People here have set out arguements as to why he should not be supported. Thats fair enough but if I was going to take a decision I would like to hear the other side of these arguements. The board of CI spoke to McQuade so they should have heard both sides.

Personally, I think we need new leadership in cycling. Cycling is in a relatively good place now and a break with the past is timely, but then I thought that when Brian Cowen took over from Bertie Ahearn, god bless us.:o

Beasty · 17-05-2013 10:31PM

boege wrote: »

Beasty
I think its not helpful to lay into me for something I did not say. I do support any breaking of rules and made no reference to rule breaking. Not everything is black and white and there is a world of gray and in leading organisations you find youself backing an issue your would prefer to oppose.

You say you have sat on company boards so you know exactly what I mean.

To be clear I was not "laying into you". I quoted part of your post as it provided an opportunity for me to set out a wider concern I have about the approach of some people in cycling

And to be absolutely clear, I would never agree to brushing anything under the carpet at any board meeting I have ever taken part in. TBH, it would be far more than my job's worth. Shades of grey may be judgement issues with a variety of possible options/outcomes - exercising judgement in such circumstances is absolutely fine, so long as the conclusion stands up to external scrutiny. When required I make sure I have appropriate professional advice to ensure I will in no way compromise myself by any actions I take as a director of a company. The issue with the way the meeting was conducted on 12 April was black and white (and could well have come to light during the annual audit of CI)

ktz84 · 17-05-2013 10:50PM

Beasty wrote: »

He may be a member of more than one, but can more than one be "his federation"

UCI rules state:

That suggests the singular - only "the federation of the candidate" can nominate him. Last week the federation appeared to be Ireland. What has changed to make Switzerland his federation? If I now move to the North and join British Cycling, does that make them my federation, or does Ireland, the country that issued my licence, remain my federation? The UCI seems to think that both Ireland and GB would be "my federation" - but they would say that, wouldn't they;)

If you move north you will still have IRL on your licence. You'd have to move to England, Scotland or Wales

RobFowl · 17-05-2013 11:02PM

ktz84 wrote: »

If you move north you will still have IRL on your licence. You'd have to move to England, Scotland or Wales

Actually the IRL bit only applies to Irish citizens, British cyclists registered under CI have GB on theirs.
Quite a number of Northern Irish cyclists have GB on their licence FWIW.

ktz84 · 17-05-2013 11:07PM

RobFowl wrote: »

Actually the IRL bit only applies to Irish citizens, British cyclists registered under CI have GB on theirs.
Quite a number of Northern Irish cyclists have GB on their licence FWIW.

Ahh yes that's right but if you are based in the North as your main residence then you are obliged to register with Cycling Ireland which is what is I was really getting at anyway.

RobFowl · 17-05-2013 11:09PM

ktz84 wrote: »

Ahh yes that's right but if you are based in the North as your main residence then you are obliged to register with Cycling Ireland which is what is I was really getting at anyway.

That is correct, will be interesting to see what happpens in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales if devolution progresses!

ktz84 · 17-05-2013 11:38PM

RobFowl wrote: »

That is correct, will be interesting to see what happpens in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales if devolution progresses!

Yep it will be very interesting to see what way things all pan out as the International Sports Bodies have not shown any willingness in letting themselves bet dragged into debates over nationality. That is in the sense of nationality where disputes arise along political lines rather than a straightforward decision on where were you born well then you must register here type debates. The Irish Football Association up here has for many years now been pushing Fifa to stop players switching between Northern Irish and FAI. They keep saying that Fifa are making the right noises and understand their position however I doubt they will ever take action.

More immediately we'll get an idea of where Golf and IOC stands come the next Olympics and what happens re: McIllroy and McDowell assuming neither implodes before then.

ashleey · 18-05-2013 08:47AM

RobFowl wrote: »

The ISC are responsible and publish the details of their testing here (most recent report is 2011)
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Anti-Doping/Resources/Annual_Reports/

Thanks Rob.

I wasn't being smart. I was just looking for the info.

It sort of suggests to me that PMQ has little to do with the war on drugs in Irish sport for one, as it is an independent national body that is responsible.

If that is so everywhere, then he could need to validate his claims on having a significant role in this.

Junior · 23-05-2013 04:42PM

I don't know if this was posted in any of the other threads

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pat-mcquaid-cycling-has-an-extremely-bright-future

Beasty · 23-05-2013 09:14PM

Junior wrote: »

I don't know if this was posted in any of the other threads

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pat-mcquaid-cycling-has-an-extremely-bright-future

And some reactions

One concern raised by David Miller

Pat McQuaid’s article seems a little mixed in that it’s a personal voice, not a UCI voice and perhaps a Pat McQuaid presidential voice. It’s almost a pitch with regards to future candidacy, which I’m not sure is appropriate at this time

The problem I have is that it all sounds very good in principle, but when it comes to it will he actually deliver (assuming he gets re-elected), or will it be the case of same old same old - like the "Independent" Commission, disbanded as soon as it tried to act independently.

Alas Pat McQuaid is tainted by what has happened in the sport. It needs to regain some credibilty, and history shows us that this very rarely happens when encumbents are allowed to retain control. Basically the sport needs new leadership to take it forward

buffalo · 27-05-2013 04:32PM

Don't forget the Orwell EGM tonight - 7.30pm in the Milltown Institute.

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

Comments