Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 32 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
the sceptic said:
No one is above corruption, especially people who aspire to positions of power. That is just how things work.

I still fail to see how Cookson is any better than McQ. He was part of the same system for years. Anyone who wants to be UCI president should imo be automatically disqualified.
In my opinion, anyone that the federation leaders would want to elect should be automatically disqualified. Pretty much sums up my opinion of cycling politics, although I do think the Kazakh federation's coverage of the Kolobnev bribe was pretty cute.
 
MarkvW said:
In my opinion, anyone that the federation leaders would want to elect should be automatically disqualified. Pretty much sums up my opinion of cycling politics, although I do think the Kazakh federation's coverage of the Kolobnev bribe was pretty cute.
The Markov dossier whereby he "allegedly" paid a PI to look into McQuaid and used it as a bribe to pressure him stand down. All done so Cookson could be elected and then payback Markov with the Tour of Russia and preferential treatment of Menchov.

The dossier wasn't an "official" UCI document just part of a dirty tricks campaign against McQuaid.

Good, bad or indifferent per McQuaid the methods applied are deployable. And we're supposed to see this as change for the better?

Just wait for CIRC document; Armstrong - bad, Astana - bad, Riis - bad, New generation - good.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
thehog said:
Not really. If we took the position that "the world is not corrupt" until proven otherwise then they'd be chaos.

Life teaches that we should ask questions, that we look into the details and raise concerns as to corruption. Our governments tell us to "be suspicious and be aware".

That is what DW is doing. Asking questions. Shutting it down or attempting to censor is not constructive.

Armstrong is the obvisous example. If we trusted what we were being told he'd be going for his 11th Tour title this year. If it wasn't for a few asking those questions the world would not discover the truth.


This is such a poor post.

DW is not 'asking questions'....he is making assertions......it is I who is asking questions, of him., to discover the truth.....therefore I shall take your post as support....thankyou.....it is not attempted censorship or trying to shut it down...it is asking for evidence.

Your words are the attempt to shut down......porr, really poor.

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
This is such a poor post.

DW is not 'asking questions'....he is making assertions......it is I who is asking questions, of him., to discover the truth.....therefore I shall take your post as support....thankyou.....it is not attempted censorship or trying to shut it down...it is asking for evidence.

Your words are the attempt to shut down......porr, really poor.

Mark L
My post was to foster discussion including asking questions. I'm encouraging debate and welcome DirtyWorks input even when I don't agree with him.

It's fairly straightforward.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
No. You were trying to stop questioning of DW's assertions.......there is no other point to your post.

Mark L
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
TailWindHome said:
No one is above corruption.
That doesn't mean everyone is corrupt.

The comment made by Dirty Works was "Lots of well intentioned people being directed by a corrupt few." So it seems reasonable to ask who fits into each category and why. No?
We are talking about the sport of cycling.

For me the days where people in this sport are innocent until proven guilty have long passed. If someone wants to be above suspicion of doping, cheating or corruption, they better be doing everything in their power to show they are 'clean' and showing they are doing everyhting in their power to clean up the sport...that is everybody in the sport.

I dont see many adopting the attitude that fans deserve to be shown how hard we are working to be clean.

Do you?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
thehog said:
My post was to foster discussion including asking questions. I'm encouraging debate and welcome DirtyWorks input even when I don't agree with him.

It's fairly straightforward.
Seems like some posters are more interested in making the thread unreadable by demanding links and getting personal rather than contributing anything to the discussion themselves.

Would be more interested in hearing why they think Cookson is a good guy rather than this constant nitpicking of other peoples posts.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cookson hopes Brändle and Voigt can inspire others
Dope for your whole career and you might get to race for a long time, make a lot of money and be held up as a hero by the president of your International fed.

:rolleyes:
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
the sceptic said:
Seems like some posters are more interested in making the thread unreadable by demanding links and getting personal rather than contributing anything to the discussion themselves.

Would be more interested in hearing why they think Cookson is a good guy rather than this constant nitpicking of other peoples posts.
Sounds like you are trying to stifle debate :rolleyes:

Mark L
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
Sounds like you are trying to stifle debate :rolleyes:

Mark L
Why not post some links to Cookson's revolution of the UCI and all the good he has done (clinic related)?

Otherwise you are really contributing to the thread.......:rolleyes:
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Look at the thread title..... that is the premise.....frankly, in the grown-up world we all know that claims have to be backed up otherwise they have no value.....so far zilch........it really is no good you, and your two little mates, trying to get away from that with all your attempts at diversion


Mark L
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Why not post some links to Cookson's revolution of the UCI and all the good he has done (clinic related)?

Otherwise you are really contributing to the thread.......:rolleyes:
Cookson is a sweet talker. Easy to fall for if you dont know what you are dealing with.

The facts support my position. Sky fans trolling and nitpicking rather than contributing their own opinions makes me even more sure that Im right.
 
ebandit said:
Look at the thread title..... that is the premise.....frankly, in the grown-up world we all know that claims have to be backed up otherwise they have no value.....so far zilch........it really is no good you, and your two little mates, trying to get away from that with all your attempts at diversion


Mark L
So, tell us about all the good things done.

Thank you the sceptic. That is getting to the point.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Its not for me to do that.....I didn't start the thread.....I haven't made any claims whatsoever.....you have....and you've backed off because you've been, not unreasonably, asked to substantiate them......still waiting

As for sceptic......he has started this thread, with a claim.....the claim is that Cookson is worse than McQuaid......its such a bad thread that sceptic hasn't even defined what that means.....and, of course, hasn't substantiated it.....but he's started an ad hominem attack in his last post.

Boys.....its no use whining....if you make accusations in public.......expect to be asked to justify them.....rather than put the onus on others......they are your claims.....own them, don't wimp out and start crying when somebody subjects them to scrutiny.....

Mark L
 
the sceptic said:
Cookson is a sweet talker. Easy to fall for if you dont know what you are dealing with.

The facts support my position. Sky fans trolling and nitpicking rather than contributing their own opinions makes me even more sure that Im right.

We sure knew what we were dealing with when McQuaid was in charge and he was an ugly talker.

So, even the one, minimal "fact" you post to support your position, doesn't support your position.

If folks appear to be nitpicking, it's because you have supplied nothing of substance to debate.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Don't hold your breath Mellow Velo.....some people think they can post what ever they like without substantiation......

........because Lance Armstrong ;)

Mark L
 
Mellow Velo said:
We sure knew what we were dealing with when McQuaid was in charge and he was an ugly talker.

So, even the one, minimal "fact" you post to support your position, doesn't support your position.

If folks appear to be nitpicking, it's because you have supplied nothing of substance to debate.
An ugly talker? Please elaborate? What is an 'ugly talker'?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Mellow Velo said:
We sure knew what we were dealing with when McQuaid was in charge and he was an ugly talker.

So, even the one, minimal "fact" you post to support your position, doesn't support your position.

If folks appear to be nitpicking, it's because you have supplied nothing of substance to debate.
:confused:
it's a 75-page long thread with a lot of facts.

also, imo the minimal fact that he's a sweettalker where McQuaid only talked rubbish does support the position that Cookson is worse.
Cookson is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans.
McQuaid never managed to do that. Under McQuaid, USPS was always going to be uncovered. Under Cookson, USPS would have remained untouched.
 
Sep 20, 2009
263
0
9,030
Well there are very few facts. One is that the thread is only 26 pages long when you change your setup but what ever!

I find it it absurd to suggest that Cookson is pulling wool over fans eyes as I don't think he is that smart! But please give a factual example.

However to entertain you here are some thoughts to get you excited.

The UCI have attempted to make anti-doping independent by establishing the CADF and appointing independent directors. Is this enough? Well it is an improvement but I would like to see the UCI require the CADF to target the top 10 in the rankings for additional testing. Plus publishing of the BP averages would be a way to overcome privacy concerns especially if it was related to top ranked riders and others.

The UCI is establishing an Anti-doping Tribunal from 2015 to remove national federations from the process and to try and get consistency. Lets wait and see on how this turns out but I am very surprised that the UCI did not appeal on Impey who's excuses I thought were mind boggling.

The UCI changed the rules for the hour record. I think this was a good idea but I am unhappy that only those in the BP programme can compete for the open record. This has meant that a good road TTer in the UK cannot go for it. This is unfair. Also the bikes that Voigt and Brandle rode appear to break the rules but have been allowed. If this happened it is wrong.

I think it is great if the UCI President supports events but this does not make him corrupt.

A poster was complaining about Voigt. They may think he doped, I might think he doped but what is Cookson to do? Say that he thinks Voigt is a doper and ban him! This is what some were suggesting that McQuaid did!

Cookson does not have carte blanche to do as he wants at the UCI! The management committee may not agree with all his proposals and have limited changes. The CEO may be implementing changes but they make time! Personally I think the UCI website is crap and they should be more transparent.

Lastly I would get rid of Zorzoli and make a complete change in staff connected with anti-doping but who knows maybe the management committee won't let him or he hasn't thought of doing it!
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
timmers said:
Well there are very few facts. One is that the thread is only 26 pages long when you change your setup but what ever!
congrats for having that one right.
I find it it absurd to suggest that Cookson is pulling wool over fans eyes as I don't think he is that smart! But please give a factual example.
read the thread before you post. it's only 26 pages long and you'll find your answers there.
Lastly I would get rid of Zorzoli and make a complete change in staff connected with anti-doping but who knows maybe the management committee won't let him or he hasn't thought of doing it!
rest assured, not just you.
everyone with an interest in cleaning up cycling would get rid of him. everyone.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
So, tell us about all the good things done.

Thank you the sceptic. That is getting to the point.
The biggest issue for me is that he promised anti doping would be "physically and politically" independent of the UCI. Then what happens? It moves to a different part of the UCI building. That should throw up all kinds of red flags for people who dream big about Cookson.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
The story of Froomes TUE and Zorzoli being the sole ruler of emergency TUE's in pro cycling broke in June. It seemed to come from WADA sticking their nose in how UCI handled TUE's.

The report from an independent audit, commisioned by Cookson, into UCI's anti-doping program came in early March.

The audit team, which included Anne Cappelen, director of systems and results management at Anti-Doping Norway and Marjorit Nurmi, quality manager at the Finnish Anti-Doping Agency, made a series of recommendations on numerous areas in which it felt improvements or changes needed to be made, with nine of these areas considered "urgent".

These are:

· Communication between the CADF and LADS relating to results management should be clarified and formalised.

· Risk assessment should be regularised and documented as per the International Standard for Testing.

· The possibilities for advance-testing should be eliminated.

· Auditing sample collection service providers should be planned and carried out to ensure proper and quality service.

· A Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee should be established.

· The UCI rules and technical documents should be reviewed to ensure the authority given to CADF in relation to doping control is respected and does not issue instruction to CADF.

· The system of referring cases to National Federations for prosecution should be reviewed.

· The risk assessment for Data Protection in process for the LADS should also include CADF.

· UCI and CADF rules and procedures should be altered to align them with the revised World Anti-Doping Code.
http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/cycling/1018745-independent-audit-recommends-urgent-improvements-to-uci-anti-doping-practices
 
sniper said:
:confused:
it's a 75-page long thread with a lot of facts.

also, imo the minimal fact that he's a sweettalker where McQuaid only talked rubbish does support the position that Cookson is worse.
Cookson is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans.
McQuaid never managed to do that. Under McQuaid, USPS was always going to be uncovered. Under Cookson, USPS would have remained untouched.
Congratulations.
Another fictitious, fact.
No amount of UCI talk, sweet or sour, was getting that bolted horse back inside the barn.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
neineinei said:
The story of Froomes TUE and Zorzoli being the sole ruler of emergency TUE's in pro cycling broke in June. It seemed to come from WADA sticking their nose in how UCI handled TUE's.

The report from an independent audit, commisioned by Cookson, into UCI's anti-doping program came in early March.



http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/cycling/1018745-independent-audit-recommends-urgent-improvements-to-uci-anti-doping-practices
Cookson had no problem to let riders cheat and go against WADA guidelines as long as it was not public. Of course when the Froome affair broke he started spinning like a vortex on steroids. Very damning.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY