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

maloner · 21-06-2013 10:50AM

Aodho wrote: »

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

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.

My issue with that piece by Mr McQuaid, was that he made sweeping, potentially offensive generalisations based on false information, and presented them as fact.

Slo_Rida · 21-06-2013 10:55AM

maloner wrote: »

My issue with that piece by Mr McQuaid, was that he made sweeping, potentially offensive generalisations based on false information, and presented them as fact.

Quote one.

Aodho · 21-06-2013 11:00AM

maloner wrote: »

My issue with that piece by Mr McQuaid, was that he made sweeping, potentially offensive generalisations based on false information, and presented them as fact.

I read that article in a different way and didn't see any undue offence intended, but fair enough

maloner · 21-06-2013 11:05AM

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Quote one.

St Tiernan’s, Dublin University CC, Chain Gang CC – don’t run open races. So we would not want to depend on them for inspiration or commitment to the cause.

I find that distasteful at the very least, and also factually incorrect.

Aodho · 21-06-2013 11:07AM

maloner wrote: »

I find that distasteful at the very least, and also factually incorrect.

There is some truth there, but yes in that phrased context it's not complimentary. I think for example Tiernan's are running their first open-race this year (since '84)

Slo_Rida · 21-06-2013 11:14AM

maloner wrote: »

I find that distasteful at the very least, and also factually incorrect.

I think if you read the bit before that, the cause he refers to is racing (specifically getting irish riders into top events) so if a club is not putting on races then surely they are not contributing to that cause. That point makes perfect sense to me. And would appear to be factual.
You'll read it from your own point of view naturally. But if it's read in context with an open mind first...well...you might have a different take on it after.

Aodho · 21-06-2013 11:24AM

Aodho wrote: »

I think for example Tiernan's are running their first open-race this year (since '84)

And fair play to them by the way, that's genuinely great to see. There seems to be some young blood in that club who are giving back to the sport.

If they saw the no vote as the way to go that's fine by me... their opinion is to be respected.

morana · 21-06-2013 11:27AM

Aodho wrote: »

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.

they will put it on my headstone! he submitted himself to the process and lost full stop. Old, new or whatever decided that he hasnt done a good enough job in the last 8 years to warrant a nomination from Cycling Ireland.

St Tiernans, DUCC and Chain gang will defend themsleves and rightly so. They have nothing to be ashamed of at least they were affiliated and thus had a vote!

As slo-rida suggested lets move on.

MrCreosote · 21-06-2013 11:31AM

Aodho wrote: »

There seems to be some young blood in that club who are giving back to the sport.

"The Sport" is not just racing- the UCI and CI represent, by their own manifesto, ALL forms of cycling. Giving back to the sport is not just organising races, you could argue (and I do!) that having a club that simply gets people on bikes does more for the sport than any number of races.

And the growth in cyclist numbers in Ireland is more despite the UCI and CI, than as a result of what they've done.

Aodho · 21-06-2013 11:33AM

morana wrote: »

Old, new or whatever decided that he hasnt done a good enough job in the last 8 years to warrant a nomination from Cycling Ireland.

Agreed

Aodho · 21-06-2013 11:36AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

"The Sport" is not just racing- the UCI and CI represent, by their own manifesto, ALL forms of cycling. Giving back to the sport is not just organising races, you could argue (and I do!) that having a club that simply gets people on bikes does more for the sport than any number of races.

And the growth in cyclist numbers in Ireland is more despite the UCI and CI, than as a result of what they've done.

I wasn't inferring that is the only way to "give back". It's the backbone of the sport, but getting bums on saddles anyway you can is giving back I think.

I'd would not agree w/ your second statement though. I think both bodies have moved the sport on in their own way

Slo_Rida · 21-06-2013 11:37AM

morana wrote: »

they will put it on my headstone! he submitted himself to the process and lost full stop. Old, new or whatever decided that he hasnt done a good enough job in the last 8 years to warrant a nomination from Cycling Ireland.

St Tiernans, DUCC and Chain gang will defend themsleves and rightly so. They have nothing to be ashamed of at least they were affiliated and thus had a vote!

lets move on.

For me, this is the definitive post. And it was made by the man who put these wheels in motion. I'm out.

LeoD · 21-06-2013 11:59AM

What do you need to be/do the be part the "old guard"? Be involved in cycling since the 70's/80's or just be in favour of PM's nomination? If you've only been involved for a couple of years and were in favour of PM's nomination, which guard are you? What about those that have been involved in cycling for 30 years and were against PM's nomination? Confused.

Slo_Rida · 21-06-2013 12:15PM

LeoD wrote: »

What do you need to be/do the be part the "old guard"? Be involved in cycling since the 70's/80's or just be in favour of PM's nomination? If you've only been involved for a couple of years and were in favour of PM's nomination, which guard are you? What about those that have been involved in cycling for 30 years and were against PM's nomination? Confused.

Good point...and how does the Garda cc feature in this? They must be in "guard limbo" altogether :P

LeftBlank · 21-06-2013 12:40PM

Aodho wrote: »

I'd would not agree w/ your second statement though. I think both bodies have moved the sport on in their own way

IMO, the Bike to Work scheme has done more for cycling than CI/UCI.

JOHN_70 · 23-06-2013 02:14AM

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...

Good point Tiny, in hindsight my earlier post was maybe a bit hard on the leisure cyclists of which I am one! I was just trying to see things from the point of view of the hardcore racers who might be inclined towards maintaining the status quo.

drogdub · 23-06-2013 01:08PM

JOHN_70 wrote: »

Good point Tiny, in hindsight my earlier post was maybe a bit hard on the leisure cyclists of which I am one! I was just trying to see things from the point of view of the hardcore racers who might be inclined towards maintaining the status quo.

Mcquaid on newstalk in a few minutes

ThisRegard · 23-06-2013 01:50PM

Here it is

http://www.newstalk.ie/Ger-Gilroy-interviews-Pat-McQuaid

Well researched interview, McQuaid, IMO, doesn't come out of it well.

AIR-AUSSIE · 23-06-2013 03:17PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Here it is

http://www.newstalk.ie/Ger-Gilroy-interviews-Pat-McQuaid

Well researched interview, McQuaid, IMO, doesn't come out of it well.

McQuaid:

Lance was tested 200 times and was not caught.

:rolleyes:

Hermy · 23-06-2013 04:08PM

Great interview - well done Ger Gilroy.

McQuaid really is hard to fathom!

Inquitus · 23-06-2013 04:10PM

Hermy wrote: »

Great interview - well done Ger Gilroy.

McQuaid really is hard to fathom!

You'd wonder why he bothered with the Interview tbh.

Dermot Illogical · 23-06-2013 04:16PM

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd wonder why he bothered with the Interview tbh.

I was wondering that as well. What did he stand to gain?

23-06-2013 04:22PM

Well he cannot now be accused of not doing an interview in Ireland.

LeftBlank · 23-06-2013 06:02PM

531 wrote: »

Well he cannot now be accused of not doing an interview in Ireland.

He popped up on RTE Radio earlier on - was part of the launch for the Leinster Loop.

RobFowl · 23-06-2013 06:08PM

531 wrote: »

Well he cannot now be accused of not doing an interview in Ireland.

Yep, fair play for putting himself up for that.
Don't think he would have changed anyones mind though.

PeadarCo · 23-06-2013 06:46PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Here it is

http://www.newstalk.ie/Ger-Gilroy-interviews-Pat-McQuaid

Well researched interview, McQuaid, IMO, doesn't come out of it well.

The best interview with a key player in the whole Armstrong/doping debacle I've seen/heard. It was nice to see an interviewer who knows what they're talking about. While overall I don't think he didn't come out great (the WADA misquote ala Armstrong) he was better than expected. By cutting through some of McQuaids rubbish it get to some real insights to what the reasons for some McQuaids decisions were. I wouldn't agree with him but I could understand where he was coming from when making those decisions.

shaka · 23-06-2013 10:21PM

Great interview. Are you watching prime time ?

Listening to McQ is like listening Bertie aherne waffling .

A friend said to me recently McQ had been good for irish cycling, I asked how ? He couldn't answer.

el tel · 24-06-2013 04:15PM

Pity he wasn't asked what did being the chair of the road commission entailed, because when he uses the " I was not UCI president then" line he jumps straight of the hook.

thebionicdude · 24-06-2013 10:37PM

el tel wrote: »

Pity he wasn't asked what did being the chair of the road commission entailed, because when he uses the " I was not UCI president then" line he jumps straight of the hook.

He was appointed as President of the Road Commission shortly after being elected to the UCI Management Committee. In an interview with Lionel Birnie he explained that his responsibility was for junior racing, women's racing and the U23 category. He says Verbruggen kept responsibility for the men's pro scene.

In it he also maintains that members of the Management Committee only met a few times a year. As he wasn't based in Switzerland until 2005, it seems he considers himself distant and thus, unaccountable, for what happened at the UCI from 1998-2005 in the road scene.

Make of that what you will.

My interpretation is that in the least he was a witness to UCI strategy and discussions post-Festina. Its failures in terms of tackling the doping problem did not seem to inform his judgement when dealing with the fallout of Puerto and USADA, when he was President.

One has to bear in mind that Verbruggen was also in his ear during these difficult moments. It is hard to know how much Pat was involved 1998-2005 and how much HV has been involved since 2005. However, there is little evidence of any real policy change between the two Presidencies.

Leroy42 · 24-06-2013 11:03PM

I listened to the podcast today of the interview, I now know why he to didn't bother coming over for the EGM, he would has lost the vote by a bigger margin.

Ger was prepared, and tbh he was almost laughing at some of his answers. I mean his line about trying to make out the Russian government giving money to cycling and LA was the same thing!

Bear in mind he put himself forward for the interview and that is the best he could come up with! It's not like Ger even came up with any new questions, so the fact that Pat stills seems unable to come up with a plausible response he crazy.

Ger really nailed him about the John Fahy quote, he made Pat out to be a complete liar. Car crash stuff really.

My one gripe (although in these things they always are against time limits etc) was the fact that when Pat constantly reverted back to the rules he didn't bring up that LA was allowed to break the rules on his comeback or even that in the UCI rules he can only get home nomination then why bother asking Ireland if he was going to go with Switzerland.

Finally, for all those that support him, I think Pat was quite dismissive of the rank & file when he said that nobody knows him in Ireland anyway.

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

Comments