Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 34 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Benotti69 said:
As i posted. To some, Cookson offered a glimmer of hope, that he has not delivered for some might mean that he is worse.
So again get pedantic about the thread title,
I doub't you can see the irony of what you posted


Benotti69 said:
Riis and Vino are still going strong ;)
Named by Cookson as possibly being pushed out of the sport
 
Possibly? That's anti-doping? All whilst letting Impey, Rogers and Froome off the hook.

Cookson is all words... not big on action.

Per the thread title; McQuaid presided over Contador and Armstrong going down. Sure he may have resisted but enforced the rules when required.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
thehog said:
Possibly? That's anti-doping? All whilst letting Impey, Rogers and Froome off the hook.

Cookson is all words... not big on action.

Per the thread title; McQuaid presided over Contador and Armstrong going down. Sure he may have resisted but enforced the rules when required.
I'll be blunt. That is one of the worst comments I've seen on this forum.

Lets give McQuaid a pat on the back. He enforced the rules when he was backed into a corner and had nowhere to go.

Laughable how you spin Contador and Armstrong's downfall into a more positive leverage for McQuaid over Cookson.

I'm convinced you want Cookson to be worse off than McQuaid.

We can't have less controversy for the next decade. :rolleyes:

It's why I don't respect your opinion. Just like in the Lemond thread, changing your opinion on the Mcilvain tape from years previously with no new facts established in the meantime. An urgent need for controversy springs to mind. To be fair, there's few more around here.

I see no different here in this thread.
 
Benotti69 said:
Threads can evolve.

Some posters might find that after the false promises and lack of change that things are worse due to that!

But as posters can only get pedantic over the title of the thread it really does speak of how much things have changed for the sport.....
No need for this thread to get side tracked when there is already a thread specifically for this purpose.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21496
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Mellow Velo said:
No need for this thread to get side tracked when there is already a thread specifically for this purpose.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21496
Indeed...and the very last post on that thread all about changes made by Cookson is this informative gem of wisdom from Bennotti...

Benotti69 said:
:rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/Kenny_Pryde/status/510485706029162496/photo/1

Is it me or does Cookson look like he forgot to put his teeth in....
 
gooner said:
I'll be blunt. That is one of the worst comments I've seen on this forum.

Lets give McQuaid a pat on the back. He enforced the rules when he was backed into a corner and had nowhere to go.

Laughable how you spin Contador and Armstrong's downfall into a more positive leverage for McQuaid over Cookson.

I'm convinced you want Cookson to be worse off than McQuaid.

We can't have less controversy for the next decade. :rolleyes:

It's why I don't respect your opinion. Just like in the Lemond thread, changing your opinion on the Mcilvain tape from years previously with no new facts established in the meantime. An urgent need for controversy springs to mind.

I see no different here in this thread.

I don't respect McQuaid but he enforced the rules. I thought Contador should have got off but the UCI appealed and took him down. At the time Contador was the best cyclist in the world with 0.0007 picograms of Clen in his system but still got 2 years.

Cookson has left off Impey, Rogers and failed to investigate the Froome TUE.

What can be said about that? Froome had 40mg of Predisone in his system and Cookson had no desire to find out how that came to be. Even when Froome was smashing the field.

McQuaid was a lot of things but Cookson is not any better.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Was Froome's prednisolone use against the rules Hoggie?......THE rules...not Hoggie rules :rolleyes:

Think not
 
Cookson's rules you mean :cool:

Which weren't WADA compliant and were run by one of Hein/McQuaid's old men. But assume Dr. Z all of sudden became ethical under Cookson :p

You guys are too funny.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
ebandit said:
Was Froome's prednisolone use against the rules Hoggie?......THE rules...not Hoggie rules :rolleyes:

Think not
It was against the rules Mark. Sorry.

Froome cheated and should be removed from the lists at the very least.

Cookson covering for him is more evidence that Cookson is the british version of McQuaid.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
Indeed...and the very last post on that thread all about changes made by Cookson is this informative gem of wisdom from Bennotti...
Baiting Mark?

Since when did humour become a crime in the clinic?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
Was Froome's prednisolone use against the rules Hoggie?......THE rules...not Hoggie rules :rolleyes:

Think not
Actually it was. TUEs under the rules need to approved by a committee, not one person, which is what Zorzoli did.
 
the sceptic said:
It was against the rules Mark. Sorry.

Froome cheated and should be removed from the lists at the very least.

Cookson covering for him is more evidence that Cookson is the british version of McQuaid.
The guy who gave Rasmussen a free pass lets Froome off. There just couldn't be anymore irony in the whole story.

Throw in the Menchov special favours deal and all of sudden it's smells a lot like 1999.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
the sceptic said:
It was against the rules Mark. Sorry.

Froome cheated and should be removed from the lists at the very least.

Cookson covering for him is more evidence that Cookson is the british version of McQuaid.
Actually no...Froome didn't cheat...he had a TUE...the shortcomings of the UCI in issuing it without the requisite three committee members are not his fault...and lets remember that lots of TUEs are issued to lots of riders....all of which go through the same process....no point just picking up on Froome's just because you have a prejudice and then try and spin it as pro-British collusion

Besides, WADA Director General David Howman said he“is concerned” about the UCI’s TUE process and asked it “to quickly fix the shortcomings identified in this case.”

.....hardly very damning

Mark L
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Actually it was. TUEs under the rules need to approved by a committee, not one person, which is what Zorzoli did.
WADA is very clear about that yes.

Funniest part is that Cookson was already told months ago by an independent audit that the UCI should establish a comittee and that it was urgent. So it was no coincidence or "emergency" that the Dawg got handed his horse steriods directly from Zorzoli. It was buisness as usual, and if not for the french news paper, would anyone know?

Again, very damning for Cookson.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
thehog said:
Not Froome's fault he killed the field on steroids.

Please. Too much.


You have to resort to twisting my words....and we all know why :rolleyes:


Frankly, after your ridiculous love-in with McQuaid earlier I'm surprised you are still showing your face

Mark L
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Actually it was. TUEs under the rules need to approved by a committee, not one person, which is what Zorzoli did.
Yes, but is there evidence that says he didn't have the illness as in the case with Armstrong and the saddle sore?

Incidentally, I got prescribed prednisolone a couple of weeks later. The idea that what Froome got was fit enough for a horse couldn't be more wrong.

5 tablets in one go each day 5 days consecutively. And mine wasn't too severe either.
 
the sceptic said:
WADA is very clear about that yes.

Funniest part is that Cookson was already told months ago by an independent audit that the UCI should establish a comittee and that it was urgent. So it was no coincidence or "emergency" that the Dawg got handed his horse steriods directly from Zorzoli. It was buisness as usual, and if not for the french news paper, would anyone know?

Again, very damning for Cookson.
And if we never found out Froome would have kept on going. Hardly very ethical and he cheated his competitors.
 
gooner said:
Yes, but is there evidence that says he didn't have the illness as in the case with Armstrong and the saddle sore?

Incidentally, I got prescribed prednisolone a couple of weeks later. The idea that what Froome got was fit enough for a horse couldn't be more wrong.

5 tablets in one go each day 5 days consecutively. And mine wasn't too severe either.
You mean to say Froome won by the margin he did because he was sick? And not because of the steroids.

Unmmmm ok, sure. That's logical, not :cool:
 
So, we have arrived at: "Cookson is worse than McQuaid because of one TUE issued by somebody else....."
Better than being condemned by his superior oratory skills I suppose.

I'm sure that women's cycling will be consoled by this "fact".:rolleyes:
 
Mellow Velo said:
So, we have arrived at: "Cookson is worse than McQuaid because of one TUE issued by somebody else....."
Better than being condemned by his superior oratory skills I suppose.

I'm sure that women's cycling will be consoled by this "fact".:rolleyes:
You mean YOU have arrived at that position. Which was your default.

The remainder are unconvinced by Cookson.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
thehog said:
You mean to say Froome won by the margin he did because he was sick? And not because of the steroids.

Unmmmm ok, sure. That's logical, not :cool:
Are you saying with certainty he wasn't ill?

You're trying to make his success exclusively to the prednisolone use.

That doesn't mean we're precluding the use of other substances for his dominance irrespective if the TUE was indeed needed for medical purposes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY