• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Rigozzi is almost guaranteed to do a good job at the UCI given his friendship with Zorzolli.

As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.

Sorry Wiggo, you have that wrong. There are a lot of really good and successful lawyers who would not fall into the big billing category. Your view is the commonly encountered one from some laypeople: an ill-informed, simplistic and naïve understanding of the profession. (I wanted to use the word ignorant but I was trying to be polite!)
Nicely put dishonest argument. Just what I have come to expect. Let's see...
strawman / changing the subject: check
name calling: check
citing irrelevant facts: check
vagueness: check
stereotyping: check
My resume's bigger than yours: check
accusing opponent of being "simplistic": check
mockery: check
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
thought this is interesting enough to post here as well:
Francisco Fernández, lawyer and part owner of Caisse d'Epargne, explains in 2010:
"the first thing we do when we're interested in a rider is call Mario Zorzoli, chief of UCI antidoping department, who will then give a green light according to the hematological data he has in front of him."
http://forodeciclismo.mforos.com/30984/ ... n-febrero/
Zorzoli clearly sits on Froome's passport data.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Rigozzi is almost guaranteed to do a good job at the UCI given his friendship with Zorzolli.

As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.

Sorry Wiggo, you have that wrong. There are a lot of really good and successful lawyers who would not fall into the big billing category. Your view is the commonly encountered one from some laypeople: an ill-informed, simplistic and naïve understanding of the profession. (I wanted to use the word ignorant but I was trying to be polite!)
Nicely put dishonest argument. Just what I have come to expect. Let's see...
strawman / changing the subject: check
name calling: check
citing irrelevant facts: check
vagueness: check
stereotyping: check
My resume's bigger than yours: check
accusing opponent of being "simplistic": check
mockery: check
Wiggo, the only dishonesty is your intellectual dishonesty with your vacuous checklist, none of which have anything to do with the argument you raised. That argument was,

"As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins"

You raised this bogus argument not me. You made the stupid comment, not me. Your response is so juvenile that it is apparent my observation of your ignorant simplistic comments have hit the nail on the head.

Maybe the next time you comment about something you know nothing about you will admit it.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Dear Wiggo said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Rigozzi is almost guaranteed to do a good job at the UCI given his friendship with Zorzolli.

As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.

Sorry Wiggo, you have that wrong. There are a lot of really good and successful lawyers who would not fall into the big billing category. Your view is the commonly encountered one from some laypeople: an ill-informed, simplistic and naïve understanding of the profession. (I wanted to use the word ignorant but I was trying to be polite!)
Nicely put dishonest argument. Just what I have come to expect. Let's see...
strawman / changing the subject: check
name calling: check
citing irrelevant facts: check
vagueness: check
stereotyping: check
My resume's bigger than yours: check
accusing opponent of being "simplistic": check
mockery: check
Wiggo, the only dishonesty is your intellectual dishonesty with your vacuous checklist, none of which have anything to do with the argument you raised. That argument was,

"As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins"

You raised this bogus argument not me. You made the stupid comment, not me. Your response is so juvenile that it is apparent my observation of your ignorant simplistic comments have hit the nail on the head.

Maybe the next time you comment about something you know nothing about you will admit it.
Wiggo was bang ont he money.

Sky richest team in the peloton and winning everything. Dont watch much cycling does thou?
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re: Re:

Rigozzi is almost guaranteed to do a good job at the UCI given his friendship with Zorzolli.

As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.[/quote]


Sorry Wiggo, you have that wrong. There are a lot of really good and successful lawyers who would not fall into the big billing category. Your view is the commonly encountered one from some laypeople: an ill-informed, simplistic and naïve understanding of the profession. (I wanted to use the word ignorant but I was trying to be polite!)[/quote]

Nicely put dishonest argument. Just what I have come to expect. Let's see...
strawman / changing the subject: check
name calling: check
citing irrelevant facts: check
vagueness: check
stereotyping: check
My resume's bigger than yours: check
accusing opponent of being "simplistic": check
mockery: check[/quote]

Wiggo, the only dishonesty is your intellectual dishonesty with your vacuous checklist, none of which have anything to do with the argument you raised. That argument was,

"As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins"

You raised this bogus argument not me. You made the stupid comment, not me. Your response is so juvenile that it is apparent my observation of your ignorant simplistic comments have hit the nail on the head.

Maybe the next time you comment about something you know nothing about you will admit it.[/quote]

Wiggo was bang ont he money.

Sky richest team in the peloton and winning everything. Dont watch much cycling does thou?[/quote]

What are you even talking about? The issue in case you missed it was whether of not Rigozzi would make a good employee at the UCI. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Sky. I have noted your tendency on this Forum to pervert the real issues in your comments. If you and Wiggo want to get hung up on a topic totally irrelevant to the issues raised in my comments do it on your own time, but don't was the time of the Clinic and the rest of us with irrelevant invective and doltish commentary.

What would you know what I watch and don't watch? This is so classic of your tendency to make unwarranted assumptions in your comments about what other people do or whether other cyclists dope. Do us all a favour and either stick to the topic or shut up, because you are embarrassing yourself!
 
May 27, 2010
5,181
3
0
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Rigozzi is almost guaranteed to do a good job at the UCI given his friendship with Zorzolli.

As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.

Sorry Wiggo, you have that wrong. There are a lot of really good and successful lawyers who would not fall into the big billing category. Your view is the commonly encountered one from some laypeople: an ill-informed, simplistic and naïve understanding of the profession. (I wanted to use the word ignorant but I was trying to be polite!)
Have to agree with Robbie here.

Rigozzi actually has impressive credentials and, even if I don't like it myself, defending a doper is not mutually inclusive of being a doping facilitator.

Dave.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
worse

the sceptic said:
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
you may think it's worse that there has been more british wins.............but how is it worse for cycling?

imagine? if fat pat had have been re elected.............would this years results really have differed

Mark L
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
thought this is interesting enough to post here as well:
Francisco Fernández, lawyer and part owner of Caisse d'Epargne, explains in 2010:
"the first thing we do when we're interested in a rider is call Mario Zorzoli, chief of UCI antidoping department, who will then give a green light according to the hematological data he has in front of him."
http://forodeciclismo.mforos.com/30984/ ... n-febrero/
Zorzoli clearly sits on Froome's passport data.
Froome? Every cyclist who has ever taken a test! That's not hyperbole. Every cyclist ever WADA tested.

All cleans
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
sniper said:
thought this is interesting enough to post here as well:
Francisco Fernández, lawyer and part owner of Caisse d'Epargne, explains in 2010:
"the first thing we do when we're interested in a rider is call Mario Zorzoli, chief of UCI antidoping department, who will then give a green light according to the hematological data he has in front of him."
http://forodeciclismo.mforos.com/30984/ ... n-febrero/
Zorzoli clearly sits on Froome's passport data.
Froome? Every cyclist who has ever taken a test! That's not hyperbole. Every cyclist ever WADA tested.

All cleans
yeah, i mean, you're right of course.
i focus on the Froome data because it helps me understand better how crucial it must have been for Sky to bring in Leinders in order to improve the relationship with Zorzoli.
Froome's rise was possible only with Zorzoli's consent.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Re: worse

ebandit said:
the sceptic said:
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
you may think it's worse that there has been more british wins.............but how is it worse for cycling?

imagine? if fat pat had have been re elected.............would this years results really have differed

Mark L
I know you brits need an empire to feel better about yourselves but for those of us who don't let our patriotic emotions cloud our judgement it's pretty boring.
 
Re: worse

the sceptic said:
ebandit said:
the sceptic said:
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
you may think it's worse that there has been more british wins.............but how is it worse for cycling?

imagine? if fat pat had have been re elected.............would this years results really have differed

Mark L
I know you brits need an empire to feel better about yourselves but for those of us who don't let our patriotic emotions cloud our judgement it's pretty boring.
Yeah, up The Empire! Time to put those little colonies back in their place.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
sceptic feel free to wear your 'anti british heart' on your sleeve.............but don't blame the uci president just 'cos results don't go the way you prefer

Mark L

 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
the sceptic said:
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
It's very annoying. The sooner Crookson and Sky are outed the better :mad:
The UCI will just move into the next country they see an opportunity to 'grow' the sport by raiding tax funds. Right now they are doing a great job. Sky, London games, grande depart Yorkshire, another several days with ASO producing the event..... You need a 'homegrown' attraction to win... Crazy lucky how things worked out, and magically keep working out. The money just keeps pouring in!!
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
is it the chicken or the egg?....................did brian get the job 'cos british cycling was successful or is british cycling successful because of brian

Mark L
 
Aug 26, 2014
1,218
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
the sceptic said:
I told you guys. Cookson would be worse than McQ. Now we will have brits winning everything while others who try to keep up with their doping will get kicked out of the sport.
It's very annoying. The sooner Crookson and Sky are outed the better :mad:
Cannot come soon enough for me. I will be dancing in the street the day it happens.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Dear Wiggo said:
As for legal stuff, it's pretty simple: the side with the most money wins.

Wiggo was bang ont he money.

Sky richest team in the peloton and winning everything. Dont watch much cycling does thou?
Add in Pistorious, OJ Simpson, any number of patent or trademark cases, yadda yadda.

The guys with the money are typically going to come out on top. Interesting to see people disagree with this, given the examples available.

I mean. Erin Brokovich's story made such an interesting movie because it was so unusual for the underdog to win.
 
Feb 18, 2013
389
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
[quote="DirtyWorks"
The nine-day event is expected to attract 450,000 on-site spectators and a worldwide television audience of about 300 million.

Haha 300 million viewers. They are off by 295 million.
Not sure how it works with Cycling, but I remember with Formula 1 back in the day, that their viewer numbers were determined by including the number of viewers of the sports results in the daily newscasts (as basically that shows sponsors to the audience...), so the amount of people watching a race live may be several million globally, but by the time all of the people who watch the news are included it ups the number to the hundreds of millions.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Not necessarily a Cookson vs McQuaid comparison.

However.

Compare: 1. the reaction and public outcry from Cookson when a women's cycling kit looks nude in a photo, vs
2. the UCI's response when steel bollards fixed to the road with no warning in pre-race, race notes or anything useful result in grossly negligent, severe injuries to riders. Not 100% sure but a shattered knee cap is pretty much it for a rider, surely?

When asked what action it was taking, the UCI told Cyclingnews, "Following crashes that got several riders injured on the Vuelta al Pais Vasco first stage, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has expressed its concerns to the race organiser. Under the UCI Regulations, race organisers are responsible to ensure that all necessary safety measures are taken and clearly the presence of exposed pavement posts in the finish line were unacceptable.
Expressed their concerns?
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Cookson allowing UCI rules to be blatantly ignored. Even McQuaid had Hoste and Van Petegem and Gusev declassed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS