Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 29 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Hawkwood said:
Well as I've pointed out before we're all quoting Cycling Weekly's selected highlights from the full interview published in Cycle Sport magazine. Another quote from the CW highlights is:

“In any system of justice you have to have a road to redemption of some sort. We can’t reinvent history, but we have to avoid the sport going down that road again. In any walk of life you will get people who try to cheat the system, be they a banker or an accountant or in a sport. What we have to do as an organisation is reduce cheating to a minimum, and deal with it effectively and equitably.”
....and that is they key part of that interview.......an acceptance that we live in a compromised world........the subtlety of that will be lost on some unfortunately

Mark L
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
....and that is they key part of that interview.......an acceptance that we live in a compromised world........the subtlety of that will be lost on some unfortunately

Mark L
the key to that quote is it is all talk.

Where is the extra funding for extra testing?

Where is the funding to back date test what was in use 5 years ago?

Where is the independence of anit doping?

Why are the UCI still policing the sport?

Cookson talks a decent talk, not great nor bad, but nowt special mind. But if Cookson was truly wanting to clean up the sport, he would be making big changes to anti doping. Instead no change except no more positives announced, but rather try and find them on the website....

Cookson is in to manage the sport better than the last 2 donkeys, he is not here to make it fairer or cleaner or harder for dopers. He has had a year and in those departments he has failed miserably.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Benotti69 said:
the key to that quote is it is all talk.

Where is the extra funding for extra testing?

Where is the funding to back date test what was in use 5 years ago?

Where is the independence of anit doping?

Why are the UCI still policing the sport?

Cookson talks a decent talk, not great nor bad, but nowt special mind. But if Cookson was truly wanting to clean up the sport, he would be making big changes to anti doping. Instead no change except no more positives announced, but rather try and find them on the website....

Cookson is in to manage the sport better than the last 2 donkeys, he is not here to make it fairer or cleaner or harder for dopers. He has had a year and in those departments he has failed miserably.
Good post.

I knew all along that Cookson would be nothing more than a british version of McQuaid. Why would he want to change anything?

The only change is the PR. Cookson needs to do a better job of pretending cycling is cleans. But actually changing things would be bad for buisness. And that is all that matters.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
A sure sign that the UCI has not turned over a new leaf is that they are not defending Kimmage's action against Hein.

Now that would send out a big message to the omerta .....
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
the sceptic said:
Cookson needs to do a better job of pretending cycling is cleans.
For once you are right.......he's doing a terrible job of pretending cycling is clean :rolleyes:

Mark L
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Benotti69 said:
A sure sign that the UCI has not turned over a new leaf is that they are not defending Kimmage's action against Hein.

Now that would send out a big message to the omerta .....
Are they defending Hein?

Mark L
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Benotti69 said:
A sure sign that the UCI has not turned over a new leaf is that they are not defending Kimmage's action against Hein.

Now that would send out a big message to the omerta .....
That's a very unfair stick to beat the guy with.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
If you think about the legal implications of that you would be able to work that out for yourself..

Mark L
If Cookson was anti doping he would be doing all he could to assist Kimmage.

He aint doing jack ***.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
People in positions such as his operate within certain constraints........you'd have to understand that to be able to give an informed and intelligent critique of what he is doing

Mark L
 
Benotti69 said:
A sure sign that the UCI has not turned over a new leaf is that they are not defending Kimmage's action against Hein.

Now that would send out a big message to the omerta .....
Technically it had nothing to do with Cookson - its a private caee between Kimmage and Verbruggen. In his position he probably cant comment (and probably shouldnt).

Its very easy for us 'faceless' forum users to be able to say things and complain that others aren't doing this that and the other. Think about your own life, both in and out of work - do you freely speak your mind, do you comment on other peoples woes? Do you think about speaking out but don't because of fear over your own position, not appropriate, etc?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I think it would be very easy for Cookson to defend Kimmage. He could at least comment in Kimmage's defense, if not bend UCI to assist and heaven f**king knows the UCI has been bent against guys like Kimmage over the years.

But Cookson's silence is deafening.
 
Benotti69 said:
I think it would be very easy for Cookson to defend Kimmage. He could at least comment in Kimmage's defense, if not bend UCI to assist and heaven f**king knows the UCI has been bent against guys like Kimmage over the years.

But Cookson's silence is deafening.
The problem with that argument is you want to have your cake and eat it - you want him to comment and act on all situations by bending the UCI like it was in the past. I thought it was the past that you didnt like?

The legal situation is between Kimmage and others - not between Kimmage and The UCI. It has nothing to do with Cookson. As head of the UCI he has probably been advised not to comment.

You can wax lyrical all you like bennoti, but the situation is not as simple as you would like to make out.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
TheSpud said:
The problem with that argument is you want to have your cake and eat it - you want him to comment and act on all situations by bending the UCI like it was in the past. I thought it was the past that you didnt like?

The legal situation is between Kimmage and others - not between Kimmage and The UCI. It has nothing to do with Cookson. As head of the UCI he has probably been advised not to comment.

You can wax lyrical all you like bennoti, but the situation is not as simple as you would like to make out.
I thought the original case was because he "slandered" the UCI, which McQuaid and Verbruggen took personally?

If so, then the UCI (ie Cookson) could at least say - we forgive you or something. Or comment positively. Or hint that if any CIRC finding corroborates Kimmage that they will help him out or similar.

Just suggestions.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
The CIRC is for a large part about nailing MQ and HV......it is for that precise reason that Cookson has to keep quiet about it.......bit like not speaking to press during an ongoing court case.......like it or not Cookson is a player by dint of his position......the CIRC outcomes may well have profound legal implications....... He cannot be seen to be trying to influence it whether directly or indirectly......

.......I would have thought that was obvious.

Mark L
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I thought the original case was because he "slandered" the UCI, which McQuaid and Verbruggen took personally?

If so, then the UCI (ie Cookson) could at least say - we forgive you or something. Or comment positively. Or hint that if any CIRC finding corroborates Kimmage that they will help him out or similar.

Just suggestions.
I thought he did?

He did, didn't he?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15607/Kimmage-confirms-Cookson-is-ending-UCI-legal-action-against-him.aspx
Thursday, October 10, 2013
New UCI president Brian Cookson has contacted Paul Kimmage to tell the journalist that he is ending a legal action instigated against him by the previous UCI leaders Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid.
Asked now if he believes Cookson represents a step forward, Kimmage is clear. “Absolutely. I don’t want to be flippant about him or be insulting to him, but he can’t be any f**king worse than McQuaid,” he answered. “He can’t be any worse." :D
 
ebandit said:
The CIRC is for a large part about nailing MQ and HV......it is for that precise reason that Cookson has to keep quiet about it.......bit like not speaking to press during an ongoing court case.......like it or not Cookson is a player by dint of his position......the CIRC outcomes may well have profound legal implications....... He cannot be seen to be trying to influence it whether directly or indirectly......

.......I would have thought that was obvious.

Mark L
Profound legal implications? How exactly? IOC sports have almost internationally kept doping out of law enforcement and judicial systems. They aren't going to start now.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Granville57 said:
TheSpud is saying the case is between Kimmage and another person - missing the point that it was started by the UCI.

I think Cookson can and should do more - an opinion to which I am entitled. Based on what CIRC turn up, if anything. HV should be pulling his head in unless he thinks the CIRC is toothless. It's a bit of a catch-22 but to say Cookson has no part is, imo, not quite right.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY