Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 52 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Nobody like old Pat McQ to make a sensible statement.

I cant remember his name Mark something (Armstrongs spokesperson) who kept coming out with these comical statements around the time of the USADA investigation.

Reminded me of the Iraqi Information minister Comical Ali.

Wonderboy and Comical Mark.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ebandit said:
...........
why? hope for things to be......................worse

Mark L
not hoping.........but Cookson......is not doing......the things...the.....sport needs..........but...then...i......didn't.....have......high.....expectations....of......'ol..........Cookie
 
Bosco10 said:
Yes, he tried to block USADA but USADA prevailed, so he flipped sides and said Armstrong has no place in cycling. Now McQuaid flips sides again and says Armstrong was the scapegoat. Pat the Fat will say anything at any time to suit himself. Remember when he called Hamilton and Landis scumbags?
Actually, the details on this go something like:
-McQuaid and Verbruggen defend Wonderboy including the infamous "never, never, never" quote.
-USADA case starts and McQuaid, Verbruggen, Plant, Wiesel try to block USADA.
-McQuaid and Verbruggen *reluctantly* enforce the sanction.
-McQuaid declares UCI is the only organization with the moral authority to manage cycling. Yes, he said moral authority.
-Wonderboy does a strategic confession
-Verbruggen never trusted Wonderboy. McQuaid's "no place in cycling" quote happens.

Classic stuff. In this way Cookson is far more skilled.

Cookson needs more time to make anti-doping completely secret.

BTW, Alain Rumpf has parted ways with the UCI. Apparently, he was leading the whole World Cycling Promotions project that Cookson shut down. If they had more races than China, then IMO, the UCI Management Committee would have kept it going. Talk about a guy who should know where bodies are buried... Alain is definitely one of them.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Actually, the details on this go something like:
-McQuaid and Verbruggen defend Wonderboy including the infamous "never, never, never" quote.
-USADA case starts and McQuaid, Verbruggen, Plant, Wiesel try to block USADA.
-McQuaid and Verbruggen *reluctantly* enforce the sanction.
-McQuaid declares UCI is the only organization with the moral authority to manage cycling. Yes, he said moral authority.
-Wonderboy does a strategic confession
-Verbruggen never trusted Wonderboy. McQuaid's "no place in cycling" quote happens.

Classic stuff. In this way Cookson is far more skilled.

Cookson needs more time to make anti-doping completely secret.

BTW, Alain Rumpf has parted ways with the UCI. Apparently, he was leading the whole World Cycling Promotions project that Cookson shut down. If they had more races than China, then IMO, the UCI Management Committee would have kept it going. Talk about a guy who should know where bodies are buried... Alain is definitely one of them.
Good details, but I first heard McQuaid say his famous quote during the UCI press conference in Oct 2012. (He also said that Armstrong deserves to be forgotten!) I remember thinking, wow this guy can flip faster than a fish out of water!
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
ebandit said:
thick as thieves forever for all time

fat pat says 'poor lance'.......................and others think that cookson is worse

Mark L
Lance is a scapegoat. Everybody doped. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be banned, but...

Cookson is worse. At least Pat was catching dopers indiscriminately, Cookson is controlling who gets to ride and who doesn't and seemingly punishing teams that don't toe the line.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Heckler said:
Lance is a scapegoat. Everybody doped. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be banned, but...

Cookson is worse. At least Pat was catching dopers indiscriminately, Cookson is controlling who gets to ride and who doesn't and seemingly punishing teams that don't toe the line.
good post.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
Bosco10 said:
Yes, he tried to block USADA but USADA prevailed, so he flipped sides and said Armstrong has no place in cycling. Now McQuaid flips sides again and says Armstrong was the scapegoat. Pat the Fat will say anything at any time to suit himself. Remember when he called Hamilton and Landis scumbags?
You can say he has no place, i.e. ""he was an unapologetic doper who deserves a lifetime ban." and say he's a scapegoat, i.e. "..one lifetime ban doesn't clean up the whole dirty peloton" and not be contradictory.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
argyllflyer said:
McQuaid's role in trying to block the USADA investigation should never be forgotten. A shill to Armstrong and a vile, putrid smear on the history of the sport.
Not to fill a whole page of this thread, but, your point is often trotted out as "McQ was soft on doping..." without ever considering how important it was to McQ to attempt to control the message.

Nobody has caught more dopers than McQ.
 
Heckler said:
Nobody has caught more dopers than McQ.
eh??

testing for EPO didn't happen til Pat was in charge, no? that then means that those on EPO could now get caught (and several sacrifical lambs went on the alter as a result). Pat wasn't actually catching them.
His time was the only one with the means to actually pop anyone.
Especially when it's widely rumoured that LA would point a finger and suddenly someone got popped.
Wonder how many were ignored or let go during Pat's reign...

As for other UCI president's times, the HCT limit only came in late 90's so it's not like there was much that could be detected prior to Pat's tenure, anyway...
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
Archibald said:
eh??

testing for EPO didn't happen til Pat was in charge, no? that then means that those on EPO could now get caught (and several sacrifical lambs went on the alter as a result). Pat wasn't actually catching them.
His time was the only one with the means to actually pop anyone.
Especially when it's widely rumoured that LA would point a finger and suddenly someone got popped.
Wonder how many were ignored or let go during Pat's reign...

As for other UCI president's times, the HCT limit only came in late 90's so it's not like there was much that could be detected prior to Pat's tenure, anyway...
Your myth of McQ, based on rumours and supported by the empty "Makarov Dossier", doesn't jive with facts. If he was so unethically dishonest and soft on dopers, why did he introduce the Bio Passport at all? If he was so soft on doping, why did he leak
the passport watch list of suspect riders? The main shortcoming of the Passport is the very small testing window, which led to "micro dosing". This was created by the riders, not McQ.

The era of LA turning in riders that he didn't like was under Verbruggen. Verbruggen as UCI Pres was Very different than McQ as UCI Pres. even though everyone talks like they were co-presidents. I believe that McQ was Very well aware of the facts of doping and attempting to transition the sport, slowly and manageably, into a cleaner era. Makarov, for one, was not supportive of this.

Now, you have riders performing at record breaking levels, Froome's illegal TUE. And yet, fewer positives. I mean really; Iglinsky idiots and Rabottini (Citracca? still working...)and who else? A bit of noise from the past...

I'm just a casual observer, but put your pitchfork away and pay attention.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
roundabout said:
Teams being?
Why don't you just start with Saxo and Kreuziger, who was banned for passport values that were within accepted parameters. On the eve of the most lucrative GT of the year... (WTF?) Kreuziger may be a doper, but nobody's proven that yet.

My thought is that there is a little battle going on between the three teams with Russian affiliations, Katusha, Astana and Saxo. Makarov (remember their incredible accounting problems?) is the guy on the inside.

My thoughts are also that, while everybody is talking about doping, and rightly so, the real problem that is becoming the bigger problem in cycling is match fixing.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Heckler said:
Your myth of McQ, based on rumours and supported by the empty "Makarov Dossier", doesn't jive with facts. If he was so unethically dishonest and soft on dopers, why did he introduce the Bio Passport at all? If he was so soft on doping, why did he leak
the passport watch list of suspect riders? The main shortcoming of the Passport is the very small testing window, which led to "micro dosing". This was created by the riders, not McQ.

The era of LA turning in riders that he didn't like was under Verbruggen. Verbruggen as UCI Pres was Very different than McQ as UCI Pres. even though everyone talks like they were co-presidents. I believe that McQ was Very well aware of the facts of doping and attempting to transition the sport, slowly and manageably, into a cleaner era. Makarov, for one, was not supportive of this.

Now, you have riders performing at record breaking levels, Froome's illegal TUE. And yet, fewer positives. I mean really; Iglinsky idiots and Rabottini (Citracca? still working...)and who else? A bit of noise from the past...

I'm just a casual observer, but put your pitchfork away and pay attention.
I don't think it's all BS what your saying, but you forget to mention, for instance, that UCI was (and i assume still is) in the habit of briefing teams, docs and riders on how to dodge the passport and the testing system as a whole.
The primary purpose of introducing the passport was to increase the external credibility of cycling, not to catch riders.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
sniper said:
I don't think it's all BS what your saying, but you forget to mention, for instance, that UCI was (and i assume still is) in the habit of briefing teams, docs and riders on how to dodge the passport and the testing system as a whole.
The primary purpose of introducing the passport was to increase the external credibility of cycling, not to catch riders.
I don't know anything about the UCI briefing anyone about the bio passport; there are the stories of LA, Bruyneel, etc. being briefed, but that was again, Verbruggen era. And, it's an unsubstantiated guess, but not too much of a stretch to assume that there were A Lot of people on the Postal payroll. Other than that, I haven't heard a rumour.

To be fair, you have to admit your claim of the passport as a PR tool is a little bit stretch. It was never designed to catch riders, it was implemented to help target testing in a more organized, efficient and cost effective manner. It is meant as a red flag creator. It is also a system full of holes: the rider chosen testing window is a little ridiculous and an accepted threshold of 50% and everyone testing at 49% is a little suspect, non?

But now, and on the point to the thread, if you were in charge of anything, and your #1 task was to catch the cheats once and for all, would you ever even consider farming that task out to a third party? Independent testing is a bigger joke than any truth of UCI briefings. The only accomplishment there is now, if and when there's a scandal, Cookson's UCI can say "...it wasn't us..."

Cookson is Much Worse for cycling than McQuaid.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Heckler said:
I don't know anything about the UCI briefing anyone about the bio passport; there are the stories of LA, Bruyneel, etc. being briefed, but that was again, Verbruggen era. And, it's an unsubstantiated guess, but not too much of a stretch to assume that there were A Lot of people on the Postal payroll. Other than that, I haven't heard a rumour.

To be fair, you have to admit your claim of the passport as a PR tool is a little bit stretch. It was never designed to catch riders, it was implemented to help target testing in a more organized, efficient and cost effective manner. It is meant as a red flag creator. It is also a system full of holes: the rider chosen testing window is a little ridiculous and an accepted threshold of 50% and everyone testing at 49% is a little suspect, non?

But now, and on the point to the thread, if you were in charge of anything, and your #1 task was to catch the cheats once and for all, would you ever even consider farming that task out to a third party? Independent testing is a bigger joke than any truth of UCI briefings. The only accomplishment there is now, if and when there's a scandal, Cookson's UCI can say "...it wasn't us..."
i see your points, agree that Verbruggen was the real ******bag. But McQuaid happily partied in his footsteps.

who's this italian UCI lady Jonathan Vaughters had good ties with?
She was also involved in the passport, I think.
She may have taught Jonathan a thing or two about a thing or two.

I do think the passport was mainly PR, though you have a valid point that it's secondary purpose was to more efficiently pinpoint targets.

Cookson is Much Worse for cycling than McQuaid.
Cookson is bad.
But let's not portray McQuaid as a good guy.
 
Heckler said:
Your myth of McQ, based on rumours and supported by the empty "Makarov Dossier", doesn't jive with facts. If he was so unethically dishonest and soft on dopers, why did he introduce the Bio Passport at all? If he was so soft on doping, why did he leak
the passport watch list of suspect riders?
To the bolded, Verbruggen and McQuaid were the last federation to sign onto the WADA standard or else the sport would not be present at some Summer games. They fought the whole thing, all the way. "Is the UCI going to sign the WADA standard?" was a real story at the time.

What watch list of riders was leaked by McQuaid?

Heckler said:
The main shortcoming of the Passport is the very small testing window, which led to "micro dosing".
No. The main shortcoming of the bio-passport is the federation not sanctioning positives. There's no rule against it, and there's no transparency, so the integrity of the sport is permanently questionable.

Micro dosing is an issue, but there is so little confidence there is any "sport" in elite cycling, it's buried in a long list of integrity related issues.

McQuaid's legacy is intact in so many published personal attacks and patently false claims on a wide number of issues there is no rehabilitating his image.
 
sniper said:
i see your points, agree that Verbruggen was the real ******bag. But McQuaid happily partied in his footsteps.

who's this italian UCI lady Jonathan Vaughters had good ties with?
She was also involved in the passport, I think.
She may have taught Jonathan a thing or two about a thing or two.

I do think the passport was mainly PR, though you have a valid point that it's secondary purpose was to more efficiently pinpoint targets.


Cookson is bad.
But let's not portray McQuaid as a good guy.
Maybe Francesca Rossi?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1625649&postcount=1086

Vaughters spreads the Rossi love here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/independent-anti-doping-commission-needed-for-cycling-says-aigcp

Good thing Froome is cleans.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
To the bolded, Verbruggen and McQuaid were the last federation to sign onto the WADA standard or else the sport would not be present at some Summer games. They fought the whole thing, all the way. "Is the UCI going to sign the WADA standard?" was a real story at the time.

Verbruggen fought WADA. McQ, to be fair to you, was unfathomably loyal; I don't understand. McQ introduced Bio Passport, didn't fight whereabouts.


What watch list of riders was leaked by McQuaid?


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france This is interesting reading, for all sorts of reasons, in hindsight.


No. The main shortcoming of the bio-passport is the federation not sanctioning positives. There's no rule against it, and there's no transparency, so the integrity of the sport is permanently questionable.

I believe the Passport was meant as a targeting tool, not a pass or fail test in it's own right. Calls for transparency are, just like with your National government, a little unrealistic.


Micro dosing is an issue, but there is so little confidence there is any "sport" in elite cycling, it's buried in a long list of integrity related issues.

This is a common cry, but only because the sport made an attempt (under McQ) to catch cheats and clean things up. Just compare it to America's top 3, football, rugby, track and field, etc. Cycling looks pretty good in that light.

McQuaid's legacy is intact in so many published personal attacks and patently false claims on a wide number of issues there is no rehabilitating his image.

Yes, a PR problem. Not exactly a world class politician. But, stand him next to Blatter, Mosley, etc. and he looks slightly amateurish, but pretty clean. Foot in his mouth honest. Look at the list of McQ allies that were fired when Cooky cleaned house, does that list look like a bunch of doping sympathizers? I wonder why he got rid of them?

Cookson came off polished initially, now he just looks like a clown of a puppet.

I could care less about his image, I care about what he accomplished.
Cookson is going to sterilize the sport so that any dumb@ss can follow it and any punter can place a bet on who's going to win the TdF.
 
Heckler said:
You can say he has no place, i.e. ""he was an unapologetic doper who deserves a lifetime ban." and say he's a scapegoat, i.e. "..one lifetime ban doesn't clean up the whole dirty peloton" and not be contradictory.
Dang that's good! You should be a media consultant for both McQuaid & Verbruggen.
 
Heckler said:
Cookson is going to sterilize the sport so that any dumb@ss can follow it and any punter can place a bet on who's going to win the TdF.
And some people at the UCI will know who is going to win because they'll never test positive. Kind of like Mr. former 7x TdF winner.

Regarding the request for some kind of verification on your claim of a leaked list, the URL posted states the following:

The list was handed out to UCI anti-doping officials at the race, as well as the WADA observers present at the event.

That's not leaking.

As for the rest, it's the usual excuses and deflections from UCI aparatchiks. McQuaid's legacy stands in the countless personal attacks and patently false statements he made over the years.

Moving on, Cookson is a better leader as compared to Pat. He doesn't attack people in the press. He'll declare them positive, but...
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
And some people at the UCI will know who is going to win because they'll never test positive. Kind of like Mr. former 7x TdF winner.

Regarding the request for some kind of verification on your claim of a leaked list, the URL posted states the following:

The list was handed out to UCI anti-doping officials at the race, as well as the WADA observers present at the event.

That's not leaking.

As for the rest, it's the usual excuses and deflections from UCI aparatchiks. McQuaid's legacy stands in the countless personal attacks and patently false statements he made over the years.

Moving on, Cookson is a better leader as compared to Pat. He doesn't attack people in the press. He'll declare them positive, but...
I stand corrected, maybe not Every dumb@ss is going to be able to follow it...

Read the article again; it was an internal memo, a Confidential UCI document, for "UCI anti-doping officials at the race, as well as the WADA observers present at the event" It was leaked, intentionally, to L'Equipe. You were a CN member back then, you just must have not checked in that month...

Race fixing. That's what's new. Thanks to your polite man.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Heckler said:
To be fair, you have to admit your claim of the passport as a PR tool is a little bit stretch. It was never designed to catch riders, it was implemented to help target testing in a more organized, efficient and cost effective manner. It is meant as a red flag creator.
You are also claiming that it was McQuaid who leaked the suspicion list.

If McQuaids UCI meant to use the bio passport to target testing then why did WADA's independent observers write this in their report about the testing at the 2010 Tour de France;

During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team?s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ?presence? of prohibited substances and/or methods.
The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.
A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA,
HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider..
For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider?s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample
was made available.
For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.
Sounds more like McQuaids UCI used the ABP and the suspicion list to know who and when to not test.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY