Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[the sceptic]

You mean YOU have arrived at that position. Which was your default.

The remainder are unconvinced by Cookson.

Nice twisting there. Cookson can not be at fault for Zorzoli acting like a one man comittee.

 

[TheSpud]

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

I guess they missed these stories:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/27882004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-did-not-break-anti-doping-rules-say-UCI.html

But, hey lets not let proper journalistic reporting get in the way of hysterical forum postings ...

AND before you mention they were unhappy with the lack of TUE committee - yes I know that, but they still supported the TUE.

 

[sniper]

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.

but his son works for Sky.
I mean what would you do?

 

[TheSpud]

but his son works for Sky.
I mean what would you do?

Declare it / not deny it in the open - which is what he has done. He hasn't tried to cover it up - ask Walsh ...

And anyway, his son is not involved in the management of Sky, so the potential COI is low - I believe this has be done to death elsewhere.

 

[thehog]

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.

Froome said he was sick. It was cold and raining. He took steroids and killed the field. I'll let you do the math on that one. He speed dialed the one man TUE show and got his legalised steroids.

What else can be said except... WTF. If you're ok with what played out then you're standards for doping ethics are fairly low.

It also demonstrates where Froome stands on the use of performance enhancing substances.

 

[the sceptic]

Froome said he was sick. It was cold and raining. He took steroids and killed the field. I'll let you do the math on that one. He speed dialed the one man TUE show and got his legalised steroids.

What else can be said except... WTF. If you're ok with what played out then you're standards for doping ethics are fairly low.

It also demonstrates where Froome stands on the use of performance enhancing substances.

I believe it was the horse steroids that gave him the edge. He was toying with the future tour champion and beat Martin in the TT the next day. If Dawg could do that while sick, why did he get his *** handed to him by Contador in the vuelta? and why could Richie not finish a race for months?

I assume Dawg was doping on TUEs for a long time, in addition to everything else they are doing at sky, until the Zorzoli link got cut off. Then he lost that mutant edge.

 

[sniper]

Declare it / not deny it in the open - which is what he has done. He hasn't tried to cover it up - ask Walsh ...

And anyway, his son is not involved in the management of Sky, so the potential COI is low - I believe this has be done to death elsewhere.

The old man himself is and has been. The links between BC and Sky are no secret. Huge COI right there.
I also remember Cookson giving Sky some staffing advice recently.

The consensus on the COI wrt Cookson jr. is that it is a huge COI, especially in light of the history of this sport and its government.
Unacceptable to anybody with half a brain.

 

[thehog]

The old man himself is and has been. The links between BC and Sky are no secret. Huge COI right there.
I also remember Cookson giving Sky some staffing advice recently.

The consensus on the COI wrt Cookson jr. is that it is a huge COI, especially in light of the history of this sport and its government.
Unacceptable to anybody with half a brain.

Correct. A conflict of interest is not a state, its a relationship. And it can't be avoided or spoken away.

 

[TheSpud]

Unacceptable to anybody with half a brain.

So that's a personal attack. Unacceptable to anybody (full or half brain) ...

The consensus on the COI wrt Cookson jr. is that it is a huge COI, especially in light of the history of this sport and its government.

What consensus? On here - in a small forum dominated by less than 20 posters? Or in the public / wider news / opinions?

 

[Benotti69]

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".

We still have not arrived at independent fully funded anti doping.

Maybe for you it is acceptable that the dopers, ex dopers, doping doctors and enablers can continue to work and be part of the sport, for me it isn't and i'll continue to criticise and slam the likes of Cookson.

 

[TheSpud]

Correct. A conflict of interest is not a state, its a relationship. And it can't be avoided or spoken away.

Can you explain what you actually mean by that, because I don't understand it and therefore cannot comment (either way) on it.

 

[the sceptic]

So that's a personal attack. Unacceptable to anybody (full or half brain) ...



What consensus? On here - in a small forum dominated by less than 20 posters? Or in the public / wider news / opinions?

ball, not man.

 

[TheSpud]

We still have not arrived at independent fully funded anti doping.

Maybe for you it is acceptable that the dopers, ex dopers, doping doctors and enablers can continue to work and be part of the sport, for me it isn't and i'll continue to criticise and slam the likes of Cookson.

I agree - the situation you describe is not good, but is it WORSE than McQuaid? And that's the question, not 'worse than Cookson said it would be' but 'worse than McQuaid'.

Personally I haven't really looked in minute detail at either presidents, but what I haven't seen in this thread is a coherent argument that things are worse. Yes, they are slower than was promised / planned - but are they really worse than Phat Pat?

 

[TheSpud]

ball, not man.

Actually questioning the 'consensus' was playing the ball. Being accused of having half a brain was being kicked directly (to spell it out - the opposition didn't play the ball) - but of course you chose to ignore that (as ever).

Post the link to the consensus and we can play the ball - if not, why don't you leave the pitch ...

 

[Benotti69]

I agree - the situation you describe is not good, but is it WORSE than McQuaid? And that's the question, not 'worse than Cookson said it would be' but 'worse than McQuaid'.

Personally I haven't really looked in minute detail at either presidents, but what I haven't seen in this thread is a coherent argument that things are worse. Yes, they are slower than was promised / planned - but are they really worse than Phat Pat?

With McQuaid we were going to find out the 'mistakes' as McQuaid was such a bumbling idiot.

With Cookson, who is not the bumbling idiot, we will not get to see much, so from that point of view, yep he is worse, because he has brought a style of management similar to other sports, which is to keep doping as quiet as possible and try to sweep it under the carpet as quickly and quietly as possible.

 

[thehog]

Can you explain what you actually mean by that, because I don't understand it and therefore cannot comment (either way) on it.

Sure Martin.

A conflict of interest arises from a connection between two or more individuals or organizations, or between an individual and an organization. It is a relationship, not an action. So, a person or organization cannot commit or perform a conflict of interest.

A particular conflict of interest is neither good nor bad, but its presence can interfere with perceptions about a person's objectivity and independence. Someone exploiting a conflict of interest or mishandling conflicting relationships can cause injury. For that reason, conflicts of interest are managed by recognizing a potential or existing conflict, judging the risk of it leading to harm, deciding what level of risk is acceptable, and reducing the conflict to a tolerable level. In some cases managing the conflict may not be sufficient to deal with perceptions, so eliminating it may be the only solution. Objective analysis is key, otherwise flawed preconceptions (e.g., there is no conflict of interest unless there has also been harm) and long-standing customs can obscure the fact that a conflict of interest exists.

 

[Benotti69]

Sure Martin.

10char.............

 

[the sceptic]

Actually questioning the 'consensus' was playing the ball. Being accused of having half a brain was being kicked directly (to spell it out - the opposition didn't play the ball) - but of course you chose to ignore that (as ever).

Post the link to the consensus and we can play the ball - if not, why don't you leave the pitch ...

Impressive that you got the reference so far, being a new poster and all.

 

[TheSpud]

Impressive that you got the reference so far, being a new poster and all.

Well, anyone who can read understands "ball not man". But yet again you ignore the point and deflect and accuse people of playing the man.

As I said - provide the evidence (ie the ball) or get off the pitch.

 

[TheSpud]

With McQuaid we were going to find out the 'mistakes' as McQuaid was such a bumbling idiot.

With Cookson, who is not the bumbling idiot, we will not get to see much, so from that point of view, yep he is worse, because he has brought a style of management similar to other sports, which is to keep doping as quiet as possible and try to sweep it under the carpet as quickly and quietly as possible.

He may be less of a bumbling idiot than McQ as you say but not sure that makes him worse. And if he is (intent on) keeping doping quiet why didn't he cover up JTL, Kreuziger, Rogers, Iglinsky, Iglinsky?

Isn't he in cahoots with the teams and personally running / directing the anti doping efforts along with Zorzoli (as many of you have complained about - "its not independent")? If that's true he's made a bit of a hash of it.

 

[Benotti69]

He may be less of a bumbling idiot than McQ as you say but not sure that makes him worse. And if he is (intent on) keeping doping quiet why didn't he cover up JTL, Kreuziger, Rogers, Iglinsky, Iglinsky?

JTL and Kreuziger were not on his watch.

He threatened JTL after JTL called it all a 'mickey mouse court'.....

Rogers got off, so there is your cover up. So has Impey.

Iglinsky's used to get back at Vino for taking gold medal in London.

Isn't he in cahoots with the teams and personally running / directing the anti doping efforts along with Zorzoli (as many of you have complained about - "its not independent")? If that's true he's made a bit of a hash of it.

Seems to me like he has kept everything SSDD.........

 

[the sceptic]

Well, anyone who can read understands "ball not man". But yet again you ignore the point and deflect and accuse people of playing the man.

As I said - provide the evidence (ie the ball) or get off the pitch.

Of course Martin, of course.

 

[ebandit]

Of course Martin, of course.

It surely can't be long before you are banned for incessant baiting, sceptic......and as you said yourself you are "due a long one"

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

JTL and Kreuziger were not on his watch.

He threatened JTL after JTL called it all a 'mickey mouse court'.....

Rogers got off, so there is your cover up. So has Impey.

Iglinsky's used to get back at Vino for taking gold medal in London.




Seems to me like he has kept everything SSDD.........

Well with JTL and Kreuz he could have made them go away if he really wanted too - didnt other letters disappear? But, if as you say, he is worse than McQuaid surely he WOULD have made them disappear? But what did he do - made sure they were followed through. The UCI could even appeal to CAS with Kreuz - hardly the action of someone who wanted to smooth over / cover things up.

The Iglinsky comment is pure supposition - i can see your logic : he denied Cav a gold, but in reality Cav wasnt in the hunt at the end.

Rogers is baffling, but then again if Cookson is so bad surely it would never have seen the light of day ...

btw whats SSDD?

 

[Afrank]

People, please do not accuse others of being formerly banned members, simply report your suspicions to the mod team through the report system or PM. Thank you.