• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
King Boonen said:
Come on Hog, that's poor even for you.
Truth be told. We don't know either way whether he was responding to a direct question or not. Or whether there was a question that stated "directors and managers with a doping past" and these two were highlighted by Cookson.

You can't know unless we see the original transcript.

In one breath he is saying "I wasn't aware that Armstrong had spoken to the CIrC" and in the next breath he is saying "But Riis & Vino haven't and they should because they are dopers".

Impartiality, not. Confidentiality, not.
 
thehog said:
Truth be told. We don't know either way whether he was responding to a direct question or not. Or whether there was a question that stated "directors and managers with a doping past" and these two were highlighted by Cookson.

You can't know unless we see the original transcript.
Exactly, so stating that Cookson was making an announcement is just stirring.

for all we know Cookson could have rattled off loads of names and those were the two the reporter chose to run with. The first paragraph is most likely purely artistic licence on the part of the reporter or even sub-editor.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
thehog said:
Truth be told. We don't know either way whether he was responding to a direct question or not. Or whether there was a question that stated "directors and managers with a doping past" and these two were highlighted by Cookson.

You can't know unless we see the original transcript.
You need to hear the tape or whatever it's called nowadays, that way you'd get the nuances. The editor may well have decided that the public wanted to hear about some people and not others. I don't think newspaper articles are good pieces of evidence one way or the other.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
gooner said:
Cookson's first comment was "I would like both of them" which clearly is in response to a question on them. He's right in what he ssid about them but you and your type look for ways to get controversy out of everything with the usual nitpicking and needless criticism for the sake if it when there is no basis for it.
I can see this conversation is not going to go too well if you're going to lump me into some nebulous group of individuals in your mind, as if we are all beholden to exactly the same mantra. Low hanging fruit and tall poppies is the basis. Coupled with all the sports scientists in the FTP passport thread saying performances tell you who to test. Revoltingly short sighted to the point of ridiculousness.

I'd really like to understand why you take it so personally and feel the need to jump to a complete stranger's defense?

gooner said:
Cookson is in the most important position in the sport or did you not know that? His commentd carry significance for the way the sport is going.
In your arrogant opinion, Cookson is the most important person. To suggest criticizing him is throwing mud at the sport is seeking to shut me down. I'm going to strenuously disagree.

Did you jump up and down when people criticized McQuaid?

gooner said:
You also fail to grasp the obvious fact he spoke in general terms about people comming forward to the commission.
I don't fail to grasp anything of the sort. The commission and its remit has been documented and publicised since before it existed. He's asked people to come forward since forever. That was the point of the commission, or did you miss that the first time and only discover it now?

If someone asked me, "Do you want Riis and Vino to go to the commission" I would have said - if they have something worth saying, yes.

If he's being quoted so far out of context I look forward to a correction in due course. IF he lets it stand... well, what can I say?

It would seem to me that Cookson's predominant concern is public opinion, too. Not combatting doping.

Futhermore, as the head of the UCI, which is the head of the national feds.
I was under the impression Riis had already spilled his guts to the Dutch NADO, who have an open investigation ongoing?
If this is true, why the push for the CIRC to have Riis' story all over again? Why isn't the CIRC working in concert with the other NADOs?

Is this all just anti-doping theatre. SSDD?

You really pushed my buttons in suggesting the sport is the target if any negative criticism is leveled at Cookson. Bleh. To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticise. Pathetic.
 
King Boonen said:
Exactly, so stating that Cookson was making an announcement is just stirring.

for all we know Cookson could have rattled off loads of names and those were the two the reporter chose to run with. The first paragraph is most likely purely artistic licence on the part of the reporter or even sub-editor.
Agreed.

I'm not stirring in the slightest. I'm responding to Gooner who was convinced he was responding to a direct question. It's not clear on several fronts.

Nevertheless the manner which Cookson speaks of Armstrong and not knowing that he had spoken and the way in which he is "shaming" Riis/Vino and then using the term "friends" for Sky doesn't help him.

He doesn't come across as a person with intelligence. A bit slow to be honest. But appears to love his PR.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
King Boonen said:
Exactly, so stating that Cookson was making an announcement is just stirring.

for all we know Cookson could have rattled off loads of names and those were the two the reporter chose to run with. The first paragraph is most likely purely artistic licence on the part of the reporter or even sub-editor.
We can only deal with what we have. If you want to believe that Cookson rattled off other names too thats up to you. But the facts are that the interview mentiones those two. Anything else is just guesswork and speculation.
 
the sceptic said:
We can only deal with what we have. If you want to believe that Cookson rattled off other names too thats up to you. But the facts are that the interview mentiones those two. Anything else is just guesswork and speculation.
As it only shows quotes, not a full transcript, it's all just guess work and speculation, yet people want to jump down his throat and have a go at him for something that really we should be happy about.

thehog said:
Agreed.

I'm not stirring in the slightest. I'm responding to Gooner who was convinced he was responding to a direct question. It's not clear on several fronts.

Nevertheless the manner which Cookson speaks of Armstrong and not knowing that he had spoken and the way in which he is "shaming" Riis/Vino and then using the term "friends" for Sky doesn't help him.

He doesn't come across as a person with intelligence. A bit slow to be honest.
Thing is he has to say something, but anything he says is going to sound foolish because, as is right, he doesn't actually know who has talked to CiRC.

I'm not sure anyone can complain about his shaming Riis and Vino. They are the two biggest profile, unrepentant dopers in cycling management aren't they? Whatever you think of Vaughters he's at least come forward (when he knew he had no choice admittedly).

I've no problem with the friends thing, they are friends. If he suddenly tried to create a distance there that doesn't exist then it'd seem more disingenuous.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Hawkwood said:
Here's what Cookson might have said to the reporter (depending on how heavily edited the interview was ):

`They are allowed under the Wada code and we’ve been advised by doctors outside the UCI that TUEs are a necessary element, but to ensure the integrity of the process it was important to improve it. Having one person doing it was always going to leave us open to accusation that there was something untoward happening.

“So let’s not do that any more. Let’s have a panel to look at every TUE even if it takes more time, is more trouble and is non-controversial. We are in an environment now where there is total suspicion of anything that could be indicative of doping. We have to be whiter than white, stronger than strong in our structures and our processes. We have to have belt and braces.”'
This is pulled directly from the 2009 UCI ADR documentation:

 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
King Boonen said:
As it only shows quotes, not a full transcript, it's all just guess work and speculation, yet people want to jump down his throat and have a go at him for something that really we should be happy about.
Unless you think the guardian are just making stuff up, its not all just guesswork. But in that case, why even bother discussing anything that isnt directly from the horses mouth?
 
Actually I missed this part article on TUEs:

“The only issue there is that of medical confidentiality. I think we need careful analysis, sit down with Wada, our own medical experts and the teams. We need to handle [TUEs] better, how we put that information into the public domain. If it was up to me I’d say let’s have no TUEs – if you want to take some medicine, fine, but you have to go home. The moment we did that, we’d be outside the Wada code and the lawyers would have a field day.”
Cookson talking tough to his friends at Sky. But he was outside the WADA code anyway by not having a committee.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
the sceptic said:
Unless you think the guardian are just making stuff up, its not all just guesswork. But in that case, why even bother discussing anything that isnt directly from the horses mouth?
Press articles are not normally verbatim accounts of what someone has and hasn't said, they are normally highly edited accounts made up of interviews and other material. I have been interviewed by the Sunday Times, and it made stuff up for the article, and heavily altered what I had said.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
This is pulled directly from the 2009 UCI ADR documentation:

Point 45 would appear to be the problem, the chair can appoint `one or more members of the TUEC' to examine an application and render a decision. So it looks like the panel does not have to work as a panel, but is simply a group who can share the work out. And it doesn't look like more than one person needs to make a decision.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
thehog said:
Actually I missed this part article on TUEs:



Cookson talking tough to his friends at Sky. But he was outside the WADA code anyway by not having a committee.
See my post above, Point 45 is the loophole, there is a committee, but it looks as if it doesn't have to act as a committee!
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Hawkwood said:
See my post above, Point 45 is the loophole, there is a committee, but it looks as if it doesn't have to act as a committee!
Hawkwood said:
Point 45 would appear to be the problem, the chair can appoint `one or more members of the TUEC' to examine an application and render a decision. So it looks like the panel does not have to work as a panel, but is simply a group who can share the work out. And it doesn't look like more than one person needs to make a decision.
No, there is NOT a committee.

Despite what their rules say, the UCI had disbanded the committee.

It did not exist.

There was only Zorzoli.

The problem was point 40 to point 45 inclusive. The biggest one being 42.

That you can't see the CoI of Zorzoli making decisions or the fact that it contravenes the UCI's own rules is astounding.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
No, there is NOT a committee.

Despite what their rules say, the UCI had disbanded the committee.

It did not exist.

There was only Zorzoli.

The problem was point 40 to point 45 inclusive. The biggest one being 42.

That you can't see the CoI of Zorzoli making decisions or the fact that it contravenes the UCI's own rules is astounding.
I pointed out there is a loophole, even if the UCI has or had a TUE committee, point 45 allows one person to make the decision.
 
Hawkwood said:
I pointed out there is a loophole, even if the UCI has or had a TUE committee, point 45 allows one person to make the decision.
That's not correct. The decision of one can only occur by appointment from the Chair. Which means there is "oversight".

In Froome's case the TUE went direct to Zoroli who I understand is not the chair therefore "not appointed" and thus should not have granted the TUE.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Hawkwood said:
I pointed out there is a loophole, even if the UCI has or had a TUE committee, point 45 allows one person to make the decision.
As WADA pointed out, their method was not WADA compliant. And thehog's got it right.

Not like it matters. The UCI reports to no one, randomly enforces rules, and more.
 
Jul 1, 2013
80
0
0
the sceptic said:
Unless you think the guardian are just making stuff up, its not all just guesswork. But in that case, why even bother discussing anything that isnt directly from the horses mouth?
Discuss it sure, but don't instantly hammer the guy based on half the information

thehog said:
Nice try. But the first paragraph makes it clear what Cookson's "announcement" was. Cookson "told" rather than "responded" to a question.
My God this is an embarrassing response! This surely wasn't for real right?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
As WADA pointed out, their method was not WADA compliant. And thehog's got it right.

Not like it matters. The UCI reports to no one, randomly enforces rules, and more.
credit where it's due.
much of your well-informed posts on (mis)management issues, CoIs, etc, within the UCI/ASO and related bodies have been nicely vindicated in recent weeks.
+1 to that, because after the Cookson-McQuaid swap, it was tempting to sing along and enjoy the Obama effect.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Hawkwood said:
If it was up to me I’d say let’s have no TUEs – if you want to take some medicine, fine but you have to go home. The moment we did that, we’d be outside the Wada code and the lawyers would have a field day.”
Interesting that he personally seems to want no part of medication and competition and puts it out there for all to read. I will give him credit for that.

Sniper, I don't want to be right. Unfortunately, I am.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Interesting that he personally seems to want no part of medication and competition and puts it out there for all to read. I will give him credit for that.

Sniper, I don't want to be right. Unfortunately, I am.
Is this where his stated aim for independent doping control within the UCI kicks in :rolleyes:

i.e. It wasn't my fault, it was like that when I got here !
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
As WADA pointed out, their method was not WADA compliant. And thehog's got it right.

Not like it matters. The UCI reports to no one, randomly enforces rules, and more.
I'm saying that the UCI has a rule dating back from at least 2009 (need to check the date) that creates a loophole. I'm not saying that the loophole is WADA compliant. I would never draft Point 45 the way it's drafted, as it can potentially give one person too much power.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,328
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Interesting that he personally seems to want no part of medication and competition and puts it out there for all to read. I will give him credit for that.
The `problem' is that at what point does an illness become a disability and then falls under disability legislation? For example can asthma be listed as a disability, and hence people with it are covered by disability legislation?
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Hawkwood said:
I'm saying that the UCI has a rule dating back from at least 2009 (need to check the date) that creates a loophole. I'm not saying that the loophole is WADA compliant. I would never draft Point 45 the way it's drafted, as it can potentially give one person too much power.
Man alive. There is no loop hole when the rule is based on the premise that the 4 rules before it were being adhered to, when they clearly weren't.

As already explained to you.

Far.

Out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts