Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[Basecase]

Let's vote

https://twitter.com/digger_forum/status/715480629312233473

 

[sniper]

Re:

can i dig it....no i can't.....anyone thinking brian is worse.....has

rather a short memory

Mark L

Mark, that's exactly the point. Everybody remembers how bad it was under McQuaid...and we see nothing has changed for the better.
Cookson had a unique opportunity to (a) learn from, and (b) do better than, his predecessor, McQuaid, who did not have such an opportunity as he was merely asked to continue the lines set out by Verdrug'm.
The fact that Cookson achieved neither a nor b, inspite of this unique opportunity, makes him worse than McQuaid, by some distance. All imo of course.

 

[thehog]

Re:

can i dig it....no i can't.....anyone thinking brian is worse.....has

rather a short memory

Mark L

Ones memory only needs to travel as far as last weekend. Your sport has been brought to a crisis point, two deaths in as many days, safety of your riders is in question, what do you do?

a) stand up, consult your peers by calling an meeting of your management team, the riders representive and team owners to devise a solution to the recent tragedy.

b) go into a cave, ignore offers from riders to talk, issue a wordy press release mentioning something about the issue being "complex" and wait for the problem to go away.

If your answer is b) then you have no place governing the sport.

 

[Benotti69]

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

Cookson doubtlessly anticipated this letter when a few days ago he said that riders need to take responsibility for their own safety. Sounds to me like he's telling them not to ride. Maybe they should stage a strike until Cookson resigns.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

Cookson doubtlessly anticipated this letter when a few days ago he said that riders need to take responsibility for their own safety. Sounds to me like he's telling them not to ride. Maybe they should stage a strike until Cookson resigns.

Its a complex issue...

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

Cookson doubtlessly anticipated this letter when a few days ago he said that riders need to take responsibility for their own safety. Sounds to me like he's telling them not to ride. Maybe they should stage a strike until Cookson resigns.

Its a complex issue...

Perhaps you both know he referred to riders having "a responsibility" not "the responsibility." What he said was true.

Among other significant issues facing cycling:

— Cookson insisted rider safety remains of paramount importance, and the UCI is considering more restrictions on the number of motorcycles and cars involved in races. But he also points out, "End of the day, it's the rider's profession. They have a responsibility here."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...kson-remains-in-cyclings-crosshairs/72420062/

Best to choose the right stick to beat him with and not be confused by the English language.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

Cookson doubtlessly anticipated this letter when a few days ago he said that riders need to take responsibility for their own safety. Sounds to me like he's telling them not to ride. Maybe they should stage a strike until Cookson resigns.

Its a complex issue...

Perhaps you both know he referred to riders having "a responsibility" not "the responsibility." What he said was true.

Among other significant issues facing cycling:

— Cookson insisted rider safety remains of paramount importance, and the UCI is considering more restrictions on the number of motorcycles and cars involved in races. But he also points out, "End of the day, it's the rider's profession. They have a responsibility here."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...kson-remains-in-cyclings-crosshairs/72420062/

Best to choose the right stick to beat him with and not be confused by the English language.

No, sorry. For Cookson, head of the UCI, to say that is complete BS, and it's highly offensive. Riders have a responsibility to race, full stop. It's Cookson's responsibility to make sure they have a safe environment to race in.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Riders like Gilbert and Rogers sent letters to Cookson asking for new safety rules. No response from Cookson

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/25507271/__Renners___Veiligheid_moet_prioriteit_krijgen___.html

Cookson doubtlessly anticipated this letter when a few days ago he said that riders need to take responsibility for their own safety. Sounds to me like he's telling them not to ride. Maybe they should stage a strike until Cookson resigns.

Its a complex issue...

Perhaps you both know he referred to riders having "a responsibility" not "the responsibility." What he said was true.

Among other significant issues facing cycling:

— Cookson insisted rider safety remains of paramount importance, and the UCI is considering more restrictions on the number of motorcycles and cars involved in races. But he also points out, "End of the day, it's the rider's profession. They have a responsibility here."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...kson-remains-in-cyclings-crosshairs/72420062/

Best to choose the right stick to beat him with and not be confused by the English language.

No, sorry. For Cookson, head of the UCI, to say that is complete BS. Riders have a responsibility to race, full stop. It's Cookson's responsibility to make sure they have a safe environment to race in.

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

It borders on "negligence", whether criminal or not remains to be seen. I sense is there is a hefty lawsuit coming the way of the race directors and/or the UCI. Riding inches behind the cyclists without the ability to stop in time is negligent.

Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

1. the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care;
2. a failure to exercise reasonable care;
3. cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct;
4. physical harm in the form of actual damages;
5. proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

It borders on "negligence", whether criminal or not remains to be seen. I sense is there is a hefty lawsuit coming the way of the race directors and/or the UCI. Riding inches behind the cyclists without the ability to stop in time is negligent.

Both these posts are obtuse. If you would accept a simple point without exaggeration the quality of any criticism would improve. You don't have to twist what Cookson said to argue for change. Cookson never said the responsibility all lay with the riders. Neither has it been shown, so far, that the motorcycle caused this death, though obviously it may well have. Where is this magic wand with which Cookson can immediately change the practices of race organisation that have developed over quite a few years? Would McQuaid have sorted it out already? I thought the original point of this thread was to contrast the two but it has changed into an opportunity to blame Cookson for just about everything that can be imagined. Good luck with the continuing campaign then.

So far as safety is concerned, all involved in any aspect of it should sharpen their game.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

It borders on "negligence", whether criminal or not remains to be seen. I sense is there is a hefty lawsuit coming the way of the race directors and/or the UCI. Riding inches behind the cyclists without the ability to stop in time is negligent.

Both these posts are obtuse. If you would accept a simple point without exaggeration the quality of any criticism would improve. You don't have to twist what Cookson said to argue for change. Cookson never said the responsibility all lay with the riders. Neither has it been shown, so far, that the motorcycle caused this death, though obviously it may well have. Where is this magic wand with which Cookson can immediately change the practices of race organisation that have developed over quite a few years? Would McQuaid have sorted it out already? I thought the original point of this thread was to contrast the two but it has changed into an opportunity to blame Cookson for just about everything that can be imagined. Good luck with the continuing campaign then.

So far as safety is concerned, all involved in any aspect of it should sharpen their game.

<edited by mods>. Fortunately the law will see differently and protect those from a governing body who has lost interest in safety in preference for marketing and PR.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

Taylor Phinney takes a more balanced and nuanced view of the risks and responsibilities. I expect he knows what he is on about.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

Taylor Phinney takes a more balanced and nuanced view of the risks and responsibilities. I expect he knows what he is on about.

Taylor Phinney hasn't ridden in two years and hardly been around as long as Michael Rogers, who incidentally wrote to Cookson. Cookson's response? Nothing. Ignored. Clearly not important enough.

 

[thehog]

Cookson doing a better of McQuaid than McQuaid!

 

[Hawkwood]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

It borders on "negligence", whether criminal or not remains to be seen. I sense is there is a hefty lawsuit coming the way of the race directors and/or the UCI. Riding inches behind the cyclists without the ability to stop in time is negligent.

Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

1. the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care;
2. a failure to exercise reasonable care;
3. cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct;
4. physical harm in the form of actual damages;
5. proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.

Firstly RIP Antoine Demoitié. Secondly under which country's negligence laws would this come? The race is a Belgian one, however the crash happened in France, and the autopsy was performed in France. I suppose there could be a criminal case in France, and a civil one in Belgium, if there's enough evidence. The autopsy hasn't determined whether the crash itself killed Demoitié, or the motorcycle, although the investigation is ongoing and other evidence may well emerge. If it wasn't the motorbike was there a problem perhaps with the design or fitting of his helmet?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So would you say that while they are doing so they have no personal responsibility (for their safety) worth mentioning, whatsoever? Amazing.

Don't be obtuse. Riders safety worries should extend to daredevil descents and how fast to take corners. They shouldn't have to worry about being hit by cars or killed by motorcycles while doing their job. The fact they do have to worry about that is outrageous. That a rider actually has been killed by a motorcycle is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

It borders on "negligence", whether criminal or not remains to be seen. I sense is there is a hefty lawsuit coming the way of the race directors and/or the UCI. Riding inches behind the cyclists without the ability to stop in time is negligent.

Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

1. the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care;
2. a failure to exercise reasonable care;
3. cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct;
4. physical harm in the form of actual damages;
5. proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.

Firstly RIP Antoine Demoitié. Secondly under which country's negligence laws would this come? The race is a Belgian one, however the crash happened in France, and the autopsy was performed in France. I suppose there could be a criminal case in France, and a civil one in Belgium, if there's enough evidence. The autopsy hasn't determined whether the crash itself killed Demoitié, or the motorcycle, although the investigation is ongoing and other evidence may well emerge. If it wasn't the motorbike was there a problem perhaps with the design or fitting of his helmet?

First of all, thehog and wrinkley vet both took my post too literally. I wrote "It borders on criminal" (by which I meant criminal negligence), but bordering on something is not the same as actually arriving there. Second, I'm pretty sure France has some pretty stringent laws regarding workplace safety, if anyone cares to actually try and bring a case.

The point is, race organizers and UCI have both a moral and legal duty to ensure a reasonably safe working environment for riders. It's all well and good to claim they are doing that, but when someone is killed - and when such an accident is not an isolated case but rather part of a pattern of such accidents - then it really does beg the question. And if it doesn't, then I ask how many more such accidents have to occur before the question is posed?

I heard today, though, that as a result of this case the UCI is forming a commission to look into rider safety. So maybe it will be addressed after all.

 

[sniper]

Cookson doing a better of McQuaid than McQuaid!

cookson attacking the messenger, say it aint so.

rasmussen's thoughts on that:
https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/716725654868389888

 

[Nick C.]

Cookson doing a better of McQuaid than McQuaid!

cookson attacking the messenger, say it aint so.

rasmussen's thoughts on that:
https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/716725654868389888

wth, right. It's like he is the defense attorney for British Cycling rather than the head of the UCI, which is allegedly supposed to be against organized doping.

 

[Nick C.]

somehow I double posted. Go figure.

 

[sniper]

well said.
no surprises to see him and Reedie go in the defense so quickly and so decisively.

 

[thehog]

Re:

well said.
no surprises to see him and Reedie go in the defense so quickly and so decisively.

Agreed, the irony of them being all over Russia/Kenya/Ethiopia then suddenly wanting to shut down any discussion on the Boner.

I thought AD was anti-doping?

 

[Benotti69]

Really calls into question UKAD and how they handle homegrown doping.......Cookson failed big time with that statement.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Really calls into question UKAD and how they handle homegrown doping.......Cookson failed big time with that statement.

Yes it does. And yes he did. But since when exactly has the UCI shown itself to be interested in doing anything but sweeping problems under the carpet?