Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
thehog said:
Cookson is just waiting for the World Cup final to start so he can slip another positive onto the website. Hopefully no one should notice.
Although I don't share the snark, I think there was an element of ASO asking the UCI not to blare out any negative news during the Tour. Given that the rider has retired I don't see anything underhand, the information was there, it was hidden, there just wasn't a fanfare.

Any doper caught and censored, some if not all of his titles stripped, presumably the ones that they can do legally. That's a good thing isn't it?

I have to question what some of you want cycling to do to make you happy, because it often feels like if the whole bally lot of them committed Seppuku in front of you. Without that change simply won't happen immediately, it will be a slow process, but I do feel the right steps are being made.

Unless of course you're just judging Cookson on his nationality, as several posts I have read suggest. There's a name for that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JimmyFingers said:
And I rest my case
This method is not restricted to any one nation.

This release has all the hall marks of the method when the eyes of the worlds cycling media would be turned to the race. It was proven right and a fan found the information while searching for something else. Cooksons response has been disappointing for someone who campaigned against this type of management.

You dont clean up the sport by hiding riders getting banned, whether retired or not!
 
JimmyFingers said:
And I rest my case
I did enjoy Alister Campbell who in my mind is one of those most despicable spin doctors of all time feeling duped by Lance Armstrong.

That was funny. If not ironic.

I know spin doctors are in every country but the UK does pride itself on spin. The fact that Cookson used a PR firm for his election & still uses that firm tells me all I need to know.

He is a hollow man. No substance behind the buklsh1t.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Benotti69 said:
This method is not restricted to any one nation.

This release has all the hall marks of the method when the eyes of the worlds cycling media would be turned to the race. It was proven right and a fan found the information while searching for something else. Cooksons response has been disappointing for someone who campaigned against this type of management.

You dont clean up the sport by hiding riders getting banned, whether retired or not!
Thank you Benotti, precisely my point, to the bolded.

As to the rest I don't share your opinion, not prepared to throw Cookson to the wolves any time soon. The road is long, there are bumps, I hope things improve.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Thank you Benotti, precisely my point, to the bolded.

As to the rest I don't share your opinion, not prepared to throw Cookson to the wolves any time soon. The road is long, there are bumps, I hope things improve.
Hope being the key word in that sentence. The evidence does not support your theory that things will improve.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
This is a link to the speech Cookson gave to Sport Accord, as part of his post election victory speech (?): http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=OTg5NA&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=/Templates/UCI/UCI8/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1

My manifesto contained six core pillars:

- To rebuild trust in the UCI
- Transform the way anti-doping is dealt with
- Grow cycling across the world
- Develop women’s cycling
- Overhaul elite road cycling
- And strengthen cycling’s influence within the Olympic Movement.
Personally find myself developing the opposite of #1. And #2 is indeed what is happening with this "ban coverup" - but seems to work against point #1.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
the sceptic said:
Hope being the key word in that sentence. The evidence does not support your theory that things will improve.
I didn't say they will improve, I said I hope they improve. I hope you appreciate the nuance. While I don't take the hardline some of you do, it doesn't mean I support the opposite. If we are going to have the status quo retained at the UCI under Cookson then I won't support him, but as I said change will take time.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JimmyFingers said:
Thank you Benotti, precisely my point, to the bolded.

As to the rest I don't share your opinion, not prepared to throw Cookson to the wolves any time soon. The road is long, there are bumps, I hope things improve.
Cookson is another shyster running a sporting federation that cares little for the fans of the sport, fair-play, adherence to rules and more to the vested interests.

Cookson is playing politics and is more concerned with been seen to do the right thing.

In a social media age he will get called on it many times.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
I didn't say they will improve, I said I hope they improve. I hope you appreciate the nuance. While I don't take the hardline some of you do, it doesn't mean I support the opposite. If we are going to have the status quo retained at the UCI under Cookson then I won't support him, but as I said change will take time.
But you have no evidence things will change. You just want it to be that way.
 
Jul 1, 2013
139
0
0
I think he deserves more time personally, you don't turn around a thoroughly corrupt and ineffective governing body overnight. And although it's a bit politician speak for my liking, I think it's fair that 'due process' does indeed conclude before we judge things. For all we know there might be ongoing legal issues preventing the UCI handling this the way they'd want. As long as we get the full explanation in the end, I'm willing to suspend criticism. At the end of the day, just happy the bio passport system has proven its worth

Re the Froome TUE episode, I actually think that comes out to Cookson's credit. How it was handled was unsatisfactory, albeit fine under WADA rules, and I think the response to change their system anyway - no TUE can be issued without multiple panel input now - is a positive one. The time to slate the UCI now is if they abandon this principle. For what it's worth, in a recent interview I heard, Cookson gave the impression he was against TUE's full stop

As for the inferiority complex some non Brits seem to have on here - it's as humorous as it is pathetic!
 
BradCantona said:
I think he deserves more time personally, you don't turn around a thoroughly corrupt and ineffective governing body overnight. And although it's a bit politician speak for my liking, I think it's fair that 'due process' does indeed conclude before we judge things. For all we know there might be ongoing legal issues preventing the UCI handling this the way they'd want. As long as we get the full explanation in the end, I'm willing to suspend criticism. At the end of the day, just happy the bio passport system has proven its worth

Re the Froome TUE episode, I actually think that comes out to Cookson's credit. How it was handled was unsatisfactory, albeit fine under WADA rules, and I think the response to change their system anyway - no TUE can be issued without multiple panel input now - is a positive one. The time to slate the UCI now is if they abandon this principle. For what it's worth, in a recent interview I heard, Cookson gave the impression he was against TUE's full stop

As for the inferiority complex some non Brits seem to have on here - it's as humorous as it is pathetic!
His response to everything has been up shut down dialogue and questions.

TUE process he refused any comment. His response was to put in place what was already thought to be in place. He was happy to keep it running with the one man show until it was leaked. If that wasn't known Cookson wouldn't have done anything.

Froome's Tenerife tweet is laughable but brings home the point that there is no testing at altitude.

In response to the conflict of interest in regards to his son at Sky, again he made a vailed threat to legal action with no explanation.

But just as long as he has Pat's laptop and put cameras on bikes I guess we can overlook the rest :rolleyes:
 
Jul 1, 2013
139
0
0
thehog said:
His response to everything has been up shut down dialogue and questions.

TUE process he refused any comment. His response was to put in place what was already thought to be in place. He was happy to keep it running with the one man show until it was leaked. If that wasn't known Cookson wouldn't have done anything.

Froome's Tenerife tweet is laughable but brings home the point that there is no testing at altitude.

In response to the conflict of interest in regards to his son at Sky, again he made a vailed threat to legal action with no explanation.

But just as long as he has Pat's laptop and put cameras on bikes I guess we can overlook the rest :rolleyes:
I don't fully go along with that, I don't think he's trying to shut down conversation, and I think you're harsh on the TUE issue. His politician speak can be irritating sure, but I think the shouting on here overweighs the actual 'crimes' committed so far. Out of interest, what do you think he should do regards the potential conflict of interest?

For the record, I think live camera shots from the bikes would be a positive development!
 
BradCantona said:
I don't fully go along with that, I don't think he's trying to shut down conversation, and I think you're harsh on the TUE issue. His politician speak can be irritating sure, but I think the shouting on here overweighs the actual 'crimes' committed so far. Out of interest, what do you think he should do regards the potential conflict of interest?

For the record, I think live camera shots from the bikes would be a positive development!
Because when JDD first released the story Cookson's first response was:

"Everything is in order, we follow the WADA rules any athlete would have been approved for the TUE under the same circumstances. There is no story here so stop asking".

Shane Stokes kept at Cookson that week. Cookson further responded to Shane with "you didn't like my response what more can I tell you? We followed the rules".

The following week JDD revealed that the TUE process as outlined by WADA was in fact not being followed. There was no panel and one man decided all emergency TUEs.

So Cookson failed to look into the issue when the issue arose, had knee jerk response to say there was no problem and attempted to cover up the failing & shut down dialogue on the matter.

It was bad enough that he was caught with his pants down in the first instance but to refuse to pull them up after the second time is a beyond the joke!

In regards to his son his refuses to even acknowledge it's an issue. What he needs to do is be open about it and make public on the steps he had put in place so neither party becomes compromised.

McQuaid did as such although it was a little watery. But at least he acknowledges it.
 
JimmyFingers said:
...If we are going to have the status quo retained at the UCI under Cookson then I won't support him, but as I said change will take time.
I'm having some trouble with this... The UCI basically takes every effort to hide SANCTIONS and we have to WAIT for change?

Not only are positives secret, now sanctions are secret, until they are not.

What are we waiting for?
 
BradCantona said:
I think he deserves more time personally, you don't turn around a thoroughly corrupt and ineffective governing body overnight.
You seem to misunderstand what the UCI is. It's a federation of national federations. He would never have been voted in if his message was "cleaning up the corruption." It's the opposite. He's there to protect the federation(s).

BradCantona said:
And although it's a bit politician speak for my liking, I think it's fair that 'due process' does indeed conclude before we judge things. For all we know there might be ongoing legal issues preventing the UCI handling this the way they'd want. As long as we get the full explanation in the end, I'm willing to suspend criticism.
When we're all dead?

BradCantona said:
At the end of the day, just happy the bio passport system has proven its worth
How do you know? We don't know how many bio-passport positives are in the APMU, we don't know how many, if any, the UCI has processed. We know nothing, yet told that it's working and then repeatedly discover it isn't. Anti-doping transparency has not improve one iota since the introduction of the bio-passport.

You've been lead to believe a number of things that are not true. The UCI and IOC both are okay with doping. Just don't kill anyone. Which is a huge step forward from Hein Verbruggen's policy, but there's no proof the UCI is protecting the integrity of the sport. Zero.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
I didn't say they will improve, I said I hope they improve. I hope you appreciate the nuance. While I don't take the hardline some of you do, it doesn't mean I support the opposite. If we are going to have the status quo retained at the UCI under Cookson then I won't support him, but as I said change will take time.
There has already been change. UCI no longer announce sanctions with press releases, they only slips it into a pdf file on their website. It is a new policy, "a new way of communicating”. And it seems to have worked fairly well. The news story has been about Menchov, not "7 cyclists handed doping bans"*, or a new doping story from cycling every other week, just one more Russian doper.

*Or whatever the number of elsewhere unanounced bans are
 
Jul 1, 2013
139
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
You seem to misunderstand what the UCI is. It's a federation of national federations. He would never have been voted in if his message was "cleaning up the corruption."
That was essentially his campaign message, hence stressing the importance of independence from anti-doping testing, and a fresh start following McQuaid. Granted he was only marginally voted in, but that's what he's been given a mandate to do. He now needs to live up to that promise, and unless you're expecting miracles that was never going to be achieved in less than a year

DirtyWorks said:
How do you know? We don't know how many bio-passport positives are in the APMU, we don't know how many, if any, the UCI has processed. We know nothing, yet told that it's working and then repeatedly discover it isn't. Anti-doping transparency has not improve one iota since the introduction of the bio-passport..
Disagree, it's catching dope cheats that otherwise would not be caught. It's obviously not perfect, but what solution is? I feel more comfortable than I do with other sports that don't take this measure. What do you propose to make it more transparent, that also ensures medical privacy and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

DirtyWorks said:
The UCI and IOC both are okay with doping.
Frustration with the pace of change is one thing, but this is just nonsense for me. If the UCI could rid the sport of its cheats, it would do so in a heartbeat. If nothing else, because it holds them back in capitalising on the further commercialisation of the sport
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
So far, I see little difference between Cookson and Brailsford in terms of how much cr@p they both talk, say one thing, do another etc. Complete politicians the pair of them and completely unconvincing in equal measure.

I don't expect Cookson to become any more convincing than Brailsford over time but I agree he deserves more time and while there may be 'complex legal issues' preventing him from announcing Menchov differently, legal issues relating to one case or one group of cases surely can't be the reason for a complete change in policy for the 'less high profile' or 'legacy' doping cases in general/going forward. And there was absolutely nothing to stop them announcing these policy changes in advance, which is why I suspect that it may have been a hurried response to the possible inadvertent/premature uploading of the updated Menchov/Kemp list.

If you judge him on his actions and not his words he seems intent on growing the commercial side of the sport only, particularly in Britain for the moment at least, and anything that gets in the way of that he has dealt with in a 'brush it under the carpet' manner and with a complete lack of promised transparency.

He does deserve more time so I'll reserve judgment for the moment but without much hope for any real and meaningful change. I don't see how he is any better than McQ so far though.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
BradCantona said:
...........


Disagree, it's catching dope cheats that otherwise would not be caught. It's obviously not perfect, but what solution is? I feel more comfortable than I do with other sports that don't take this measure. What do you propose to make it more transparent, that also ensures medical privacy and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

...........
Yeah it is catching doping cheats!!! It caught Armstrong didn't it? Oh wait no it didn't.

It caught guys from the grupetto who podiumed GTs, didn't it? Oh wait it didn't!

It caught a 42 year old who won a GT. didn't it? Oh wait it didn't!

Yeah it is working real well!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY