Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Well, Cookson appeared to ignore the entire report. There was a lot of detail on cortisone and how some riders could get so skinny and not lose power. Cookson ignored all of that and the show carried on.

Indeed, and there was the Leinders stuff, Zorzoli, Lausanne, Saugy, Julich, Motoman, Yates. They all said hi in that report.
It was a unique window of opportunity to make real changes and break through the omerta.
But Cookson did zilch. Cookson was the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

...
Well, Cookson appeared to ignore the entire report. There was a lot of detail on cortisone and how some riders could get so skinny and not lose power. Cookson ignored all of that and the show carried on.

Indeed, and there was the Leinders stuff, Zorzoli, Lausanne, Saugy, Julich, Motoman, Yates. They all said hi in that report.
It was a unique window of opportunity to make real changes and break through the omerta.
But Cookson did zilch. Cookson was the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cookson has provided the Federations with full Verbruggen without the stupidity of McQuaid. From the point of view of the Federations, he has been an outstanding leader. I'd be very surprised if he had any opposition to a second term. Maybe he doesn't even have to bribe anybody...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...
Well, Cookson appeared to ignore the entire report. There was a lot of detail on cortisone and how some riders could get so skinny and not lose power. Cookson ignored all of that and the show carried on.

Indeed, and there was the Leinders stuff, Zorzoli, Lausanne, Saugy, Julich, Motoman, Yates. They all said hi in that report.
It was a unique window of opportunity to make real changes and break through the omerta.
But Cookson did zilch. Cookson was the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cookson has provided the Federations with full Verbruggen without the stupidity of McQuaid. From the point of view of the Federations, he has been an outstanding leader. I'd be very surprised if he had any opposition to a second term. Maybe he doesn't even have to bribe anybody...

I tend to agree, he is more of a federal pleaser than anything else. Source say that the non-elected Gibbs is really running the show at the UCI.

Sources also say Cookson, and his right-hand man, former campaign manager and now UCI director general, Martin Gibbs, are cleaning house, forcing out many former Pat McQuaid-Hein Verbruggen loyalists. Cookson’s decision to shut down GCP, created during the McQuaid era, came only after they botched a deal to extend the Tour of Beijing with Chinese officials, one source said. The same source said the UCI “is not a pleasant place to work,” and accused Cookson and Gibbs of “very good PR, but very little substance.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/12/news/road/promises-promises-brian-cookson-track_355886#mRqxfdp4Ew1FPwTu.99

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...
Well, Cookson appeared to ignore the entire report. There was a lot of detail on cortisone and how some riders could get so skinny and not lose power. Cookson ignored all of that and the show carried on.

Indeed, and there was the Leinders stuff, Zorzoli, Lausanne, Saugy, Julich, Motoman, Yates. They all said hi in that report.
It was a unique window of opportunity to make real changes and break through the omerta.
But Cookson did zilch. Cookson was the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cookson has provided the Federations with full Verbruggen without the stupidity of McQuaid. From the point of view of the Federations, he has been an outstanding leader. I'd be very surprised if he had any opposition to a second term. Maybe he doesn't even have to bribe anybody...

I tend to agree, he is more of a federal pleaser than anything else. Source say that the non-elected Gibbs is really running the show at the UCI.

Sources also say Cookson, and his right-hand man, former campaign manager and now UCI director general, Martin Gibbs, are cleaning house, forcing out many former Pat McQuaid-Hein Verbruggen loyalists. Cookson’s decision to shut down GCP, created during the McQuaid era, came only after they botched a deal to extend the Tour of Beijing with Chinese officials, one source said. The same source said the UCI “is not a pleasant place to work,” and accused Cookson and Gibbs of “very good PR, but very little substance.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/12/news/road/promises-promises-brian-cookson-track_355886#mRqxfdp4Ew1FPwTu.99

A little more to the Gibbs story:

The agency states that the committee has been putting pressure on UCI president Brian Cookson to sack the current director general Martin Gibbs.

It is thought that he has been behind the departure of a large number of former staff from the UCI. Sources previously told CyclingTips that there is a tense mood within the UCI, with some employees feeling under pressure.

One source claimed that Gibbs rather than Cookson has been making many of the major decisions since the latter took over as president in September 2013.

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/06/tour-de-france-organisers-aso-threaten-to-split-with-uci-over-calendar-reform-delays/

 

[Maxiton]

Okay, you guys are clearly more familiar than I am with Cookson and his shenanigans, since I stopped following the sport some time ago. So I concede he is crap. All the more reason then to apply pressure from the fan base, which he will have to respond to if he wants to maintain the charade (to the extent it is maintained).

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

there was the Leinders stuff, Zorzoli, Lausanne, Saugy, Julich, Motoman, Yates. They all said hi in that report.
It was a unique window of opportunity to make real changes and break through the omerta.
But Cookson did zilch. Cookson was the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cookson's reinstatement of Zorzoli, despite him being implicated by Rasmussen, being a willing accomplice of Armstrong (even defending him at the SCA trial) and so on, says all we need to know about Cookson and the UCI. In short, his main aim is still to 'do what is best for the sport', and if that means paying little more than lip service to eradicating doping, then so be it. So much for not only doing what is right, but being seen to do what is right.

Most of all, Cookson would never willing expose Sky to serious allegations of doping, as this would effectively burn down the whole of British cycling. The stakes are simply too high and Cookson has too much of a vested interest to ever allow this to happen although, once again, he would see his actions as, pragmatically, doing only what was 'in the interests of the sport'

 

[sniper]

^good post, agreed.

@markVW, sure he might be the right man for the feds, i'm not in a position to dispute that. From an AD pov, he's a zero like his predecessors.

 

[thehog]

Re:

^good post, agreed.

@markVW, sure he might be the right man for the feds, i'm not in a position to dispute that. From an AD pov, he's a zero like his predecessors.

This is one of favourites from the PR driven campaign manifesto...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

^good post, agreed.

@markVW, sure he might be the right man for the feds, i'm not in a position to dispute that. From an AD pov, he's a zero like his predecessors.

This is one of favourites from the PR driven campaign manifesto...

I have said throughout my campaign that we must embrace a new style of governance and a collegiate way of working so that a new era of growth and commercial success for the UCI and our sport can begin. My first priorities as president will be to make anti-doping procedures in cycling fully independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/brian-cookson-beats-pat-mcquaid-in-election-to-become-uci-president-but-not-before-a-morning-of-8844374.html

(that;s a double eyebrowraiser, for when a single eyebrowraiser doesn't suffice)

 

[thehog]

Which goes to show... Cookson didn't win the election, McQuaid lost it.

Cookson just rode the back of th Lance storm, got into power and closed up shop so no one could see or hear anything. A very British way of doing things.

 

[Robert21]

Cookson just rode the back of th Lance storm, got into power and closed up shop so no one could see or hear anything. A very British way of doing things.

He also got into power with the aid of a substantial amount of 'graft' from UK Sport, who doubtless thought that it would be in their interests to have him (as with Coe in athletics) as a placeman.

Putting Brian Cookson in as the head of cycling was another project which cost £120,000, of which £77,000 came from UK Sport.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3334177/Why-did-UK-Sport-spend-tens-thousands-money-Lord-Sebastian-Coe-s-bid-IAAF-president.html

 

[sniper]

Cookson just rode the back of th Lance storm, got into power and closed up shop so no one could see or hear anything. A very British way of doing things.

He also got into power with the aid of a substantial amount of 'graft' from UK Sport, who doubtless thought that it would be in their interests to have him (as with Coe in athletics) as a placeman.

Putting Brian Cookson in as the head of cycling was another project which cost £120,000, of which £77,000 came from UK Sport.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3334177/Why-did-UK-Sport-spend-tens-thousands-money-Lord-Sebastian-Coe-s-bid-IAAF-president.html

good observation.
the writing is on the wall as far as british sports is concerned.

 

[thehog]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

 

[Maxiton]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

As usual with such things, the British have it right. If you can call that right.

 

[thehog]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

As usual with such things, the British have it right. If you can call that right.

Actually not really. The average Russian expects a strong leader and one to tell them how they should live their lives. It’s a large country, too many divisions exist over a vast landscape, leadership and strength is necessary. Putin despite his ways has an extremely high approval rating even among the female and young population.

The British tend to fall for spin, saving face and providing a politically correct message whilst doing the exact opposite. It’s very hard to get a British person to be honest and direct. Russian prefer to be direct, concise and truthful. Even if the truth is to admit they are corrupt.

Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair were the antithesis of being direct and open (ref: Iraq War).

Now we see it with Seb Coe, always smiling, providing very nice answers to all questions all whilst doing not very much. Cookson's manifesto on "transparency" compared to what reality has show us is another example.

 

[Maxiton]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

As usual with such things, the British have it right. If you can call that right.

Actually not really. The average Russian expects a strong leader and one to tell them how they should live their lives. It’s a large country, too many divisions exist over a vast landscape, leadership and strength is necessary. Putin despite his ways has an extremely high approval rating even among the female and young population.

The British tend to fall for spin, saving face and providing a politically correct message whilst doing the exact opposite. It’s very hard to get a British person to be honest and direct. Russian prefer to be direct, concise and truthful. Even if the truth is to admit they are corrupt.

Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair were the antithesis of being direct and open (ref: Iraq War).

Now we see it with Seb Coe, always smiling, providing very nice answers to all questions all whilst doing not very much. Cookson's manifesto on "transparency" compared to what reality has show us is another example.

By "right" I mean it works for them the way they want it to. The Japanese are sort of the same as the British: civil, polished, very difficult to get them to be direct and up front. They don't see "direct" and "up front" as honesty, they see it as barbarism. Anyway, the point is the British have a long history of having things go the way they want while being genteel; and, while also maintaining a participatory democracy and rule of law. I'll take that any day over frank thuggery and strongman rule.

 

[Robert21]

The British tend to fall for spin, saving face and providing a politically correct message whilst doing the exact opposite.

George Orwell, writer of what is perhaps the greatest novel of the 20th century, Nineteen Eighty-Four, did say that one of the most defining qualities of the English was their hypocrisy.

 

[thehog]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

As usual with such things, the British have it right. If you can call that right.

Actually not really. The average Russian expects a strong leader and one to tell them how they should live their lives. It’s a large country, too many divisions exist over a vast landscape, leadership and strength is necessary. Putin despite his ways has an extremely high approval rating even among the female and young population.

The British tend to fall for spin, saving face and providing a politically correct message whilst doing the exact opposite. It’s very hard to get a British person to be honest and direct. Russian prefer to be direct, concise and truthful. Even if the truth is to admit they are corrupt.

Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair were the antithesis of being direct and open (ref: Iraq War).

Now we see it with Seb Coe, always smiling, providing very nice answers to all questions all whilst doing not very much. Cookson's manifesto on "transparency" compared to what reality has show us is another example.

By "right" I mean it works for them the way they want it to. The Japanese are sort of the same as the British: civil, polished, very difficult to get them to be direct and up front. They don't see "direct" and "up front" as honesty, they see it as barbarism. Anyway, the point is the British have a long history of having things go the way they want while being genteel; and, while also maintaining a participatory democracy and rule of law. I'll take that any day over frank thuggery and strongman rule.

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

 

[Hawkwood]

Power, corruption and lies.

It exists on two levels. Do as the Russian do; bribe, cheat, pay to hold all major events in your home country as symbol of strength and power for the motherland – OR - do as the British do; infiltrate political hierarchy placing “meek” leaders into power that can be manipulated from afar, claim the corruption is democratic because due process has been followed as symbol of might and strength for the motherland.

As usual with such things, the British have it right. If you can call that right.

Actually not really. The average Russian expects a strong leader and one to tell them how they should live their lives. It’s a large country, too many divisions exist over a vast landscape, leadership and strength is necessary. Putin despite his ways has an extremely high approval rating even among the female and young population.

The British tend to fall for spin, saving face and providing a politically correct message whilst doing the exact opposite. It’s very hard to get a British person to be honest and direct. Russian prefer to be direct, concise and truthful. Even if the truth is to admit they are corrupt.

Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair were the antithesis of being direct and open (ref: Iraq War).

Now we see it with Seb Coe, always smiling, providing very nice answers to all questions all whilst doing not very much. Cookson's manifesto on "transparency" compared to what reality has show us is another example.

By "right" I mean it works for them the way they want it to. The Japanese are sort of the same as the British: civil, polished, very difficult to get them to be direct and up front. They don't see "direct" and "up front" as honesty, they see it as barbarism. Anyway, the point is the British have a long history of having things go the way they want while being genteel; and, while also maintaining a participatory democracy and rule of law. I'll take that any day over frank thuggery and strongman rule.

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

The Germans didn't have a hope in hell's chance of pulling off a successful invasion of Britain in 1940, but knew they had to somehow put Britain out of the war, or lose. So in 1941 Germany went to plan B, invade the USSR in a crazy attempt to get Britain to come to terms.

 

[thehog]

Down there in Yalta the Brits didn’t come away with much. Stalin cleaned up, thuggery winning the prize that day.

 

[Maxiton]

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

I beg to differ. The British, the Americans, and even people in his own government tried to warn Stalin that Hitler was planning a surprise attack. Stalin thought they were all trying to provoke trouble and ignored the warnings. When Hitler in fact did attack, what did Stalin do? Unbelievably, he retreated to his country dacha for two weeks, utterly at a loss. When members of his Politburo finally summoned the courage to go to the dacha to solicit his guidance, Stalin was convinced they were coming to arrest him. It's all in Krushchev's book.

The truth is, the Soviets triumphed in the war, amazingly, despite "frank thuggery and strongman rule". In part this was because Germany's frank thuggery and strongman rule was even more idiotic and inept than the Soviets' own.

 

[Hawkwood]

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

I beg to differ. The British, the Americans, and even people in his own government tried to warn Stalin that Hitler was planning a surprise attack. Stalin thought they were all trying to provoke trouble and ignored the warnings. When Hitler in fact did attack, what did Stalin do? Unbelievably, he retreated to his country dacha for two weeks, utterly at a loss. When members of his Politburo finally summoned the courage to go to the dacha to solicit his guidance, Stalin was convinced they were coming to arrest him. It's all in Krushchev's book.

The truth is, the Soviets triumphed in the war, amazingly, despite "frank thuggery and strongman rule". In part this was because Germany's own frank thuggery and strongman rule was even more idiotic and inept than their own.

And the Soviets relied on Arctic convoys from Britain and its allies for supplies of important war material, something that they acknowledge today was `essential to our war effort'.

 

[Maxiton]

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

I beg to differ. The British, the Americans, and even people in his own government tried to warn Stalin that Hitler was planning a surprise attack. Stalin thought they were all trying to provoke trouble and ignored the warnings. When Hitler in fact did attack, what did Stalin do? Unbelievably, he retreated to his country dacha for two weeks, utterly at a loss. When members of his Politburo finally summoned the courage to go to the dacha to solicit his guidance, Stalin was convinced they were coming to arrest him. It's all in Krushchev's book.

The truth is, the Soviets triumphed in the war, amazingly, despite "frank thuggery and strongman rule". In part this was because Germany's own frank thuggery and strongman rule was even more idiotic and inept than their own.

And the Soviets relied on Arctic convoys from Britain and its allies for supplies of important war material, something that they acknowledge today was `essential to our war effort'.

Yep. They'd have been lost without "lend-lease".

 

[wrinklyvet]

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

I beg to differ. The British, the Americans, and even people in his own government tried to warn Stalin that Hitler was planning a surprise attack. Stalin thought they were all trying to provoke trouble and ignored the warnings. When Hitler in fact did attack, what did Stalin do? Unbelievably, he retreated to his country dacha for two weeks, utterly at a loss. When members of his Politburo finally summoned the courage to go to the dacha to solicit his guidance, Stalin was convinced they were coming to arrest him. It's all in Krushchev's book.

The truth is, the Soviets triumphed in the war, amazingly, despite "frank thuggery and strongman rule". In part this was because Germany's own frank thuggery and strongman rule was even more idiotic and inept than their own.

And the Soviets relied on Arctic convoys from Britain and its allies for supplies of important war material, something that they acknowledge today was `essential to our war effort'.

Yep. They'd have been lost without "lend-lease".

Some sensible comments here from you and Hawkwood, dealing with the over-simplification of WWII history. Coming back to the issue, it is clear that a "strong man" or thug has no place in either the UCI or the IAAF and whatever lack of suitability the presidential incumbents may demonstrate they would be no better if they tried to be dictatorial. I doubt whether the constitution of either body would permit it. We should not be surprised if progress is slow and whoever has the job is some sort of disappointment.

 

[thehog]

Frank thuggery and strongman rule by the Russians is what saved the British from the Germans in WW2.

I beg to differ. The British, the Americans, and even people in his own government tried to warn Stalin that Hitler was planning a surprise attack. Stalin thought they were all trying to provoke trouble and ignored the warnings. When Hitler in fact did attack, what did Stalin do? Unbelievably, he retreated to his country dacha for two weeks, utterly at a loss. When members of his Politburo finally summoned the courage to go to the dacha to solicit his guidance, Stalin was convinced they were coming to arrest him. It's all in Krushchev's book.

The truth is, the Soviets triumphed in the war, amazingly, despite "frank thuggery and strongman rule". In part this was because Germany's own frank thuggery and strongman rule was even more idiotic and inept than their own.

And the Soviets relied on Arctic convoys from Britain and its allies for supplies of important war material, something that they acknowledge today was `essential to our war effort'.

Are you suggesting the Soviets had a tailwind?