Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
the sceptic said:
Cycling has no credibility with Cookson giving favourable treatment to his friends. Bring back McQuaid.
Yes I do have evidence. The horse steroid TUE given to Froome is evidence of the UCI giving favourable treatment to their friends at sky.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Hawkwood said:
He gave these two as examples, he also said “The commission doesn’t have powers of subpoena, but there is a court of public opinion here which is really important; those two people and others as well need to bear that in mind if they want to continue to operate in our world, opinion in the world of cycling would be much more favourable towards them if they came forward.”
Yes, he did give them as examples. He mentioned them by name. He didn't mention anyone else.

If you can't see how that is biased, I have nothing further to say to you.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
thehog said:
Yes isn't it just lovely! Freudian slip? And very nice of Cookson to speak publicly about Riis and Vino, insinuating doping on the day of their victory and a resurgent Saxo.
Im sure he would say exactly the same if he was president in 2012.

"Hi friends at sky, while I did enjoy your win perhaps you could send the former dopers to my comission?"
 
the sceptic said:
Yes I do have evidence. The horse steroid TUE given to Froome is evidence of the UCI giving favourable treatment to their friends at sky.
The CiRC supposedly was meant to be confidential. There's goes that out the window for all the non-friends.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I'm sorry you don't believe in non-conflict of interest miracles.

He's also suggesting Riis and Vinokourov visit the CIRC. No other names are mentioned, curiously. As if there are only 2 ex-dopers in the management side of pro cycling at this time.

No Matt White.
No Vaughters.
No Neil Stephens.
etc
etc
He was specifically asked about those two and spoke in general terms after it. But of course don't let that get in the way of throwing mud at the sport once again.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
gooner said:
He was specifically asked about those two and spoke in general terms after it. But of course don't let that get in the way of throwing mud at the sport once again.
I'm throwing mud at Cookson. He's not the sport, so your accusation of "throwing mud at the sport" seems pretty wild.

ETA: And I read the article - there was no mention of a question of those 2 specifically. Perhaps you could link to the question that was asked?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
the sceptic said:
Cycling has no credibility with Cookson giving favourable treatment to his friends. Bring back McQuaid.
And as McQuaid said the other day, Lance is a victim.

Pull the other one that Cookson is worse off.
 
He has worked with Brailsford for a long time (~20 years IIRC), and formerly sat on the managing board of Sky (as the BC representative there)

I don't think friends is a wrong statement about the situation (and additionally why I think Ollie and conflict of interest is a red herring. If there is any conflict of interest, Ollie has little to do with it, its down to the long friendship between Cookson and various Sky folks.)
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
gooner said:
And as McQuaid said the other day, Lance is a victim.

Pull the other one that Cookson is worse off.
Did McQuaid refer to Lance as his friend? I dont remember that.

He had his faults, but he wasnt so obviously biased towards one federation as Cookson is. I see Cookson as the british version of McQuaid. I dont see any evidence of change.
 
Everyone seems to to be jumping the gun on this. Does Cookson actually know who has been to CiRC? I thought it was confidential? Surely he is just saying he would like them to? But yes, unless he was asked specifically about those two, and he could well have been, I don't see why he would single them out apart from the fact they are very high profile and in the news because their riders have been doing well. Maybe that prompted it?
 
Catwhoorg said:
He has worked with Brailsford for a long time (~20 years IIRC), and formerly sat on the managing board of Sky (as the BC representative there)

I don't think friends is a wrong statement about the situation (and additionally why I think Ollie and conflict of interest is a red herring. If there is any conflict of interest, Ollie has little to do with it, its down to the long friendship between Cookson and various Sky folks.)
Very well said and agree 100%.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I'm throwing mud at Cookson. He's not the sport, so your accusation of "throwing mud at the sport" seems pretty wild.

ETA: And I read the article - there was no mention of a question of those 2 specifically. Perhaps you could link to the question that was asked?
The quotes are from an interview with The Guardian, so it's not unlikely that he was asked a question that involved Riis and Vinokourov specifically. I don't think it matters much because he also says this: "those two people and others as well need to bear that in mind if they want to continue to operate in our world, opinion in the world of cycling would be much more favourable towards them if they came forward.”
 
the sceptic said:
Did McQuaid refer to Lance as his friend? I dont remember that.

He had his faults, but he wasnt so obviously biased towards one federation as Cookson is. I see Cookson as the british version of McQuaid. I dont see any evidence of change.
Considering how quick Cookson was to defend the Froome-TUE without mentioning the lack of a committee then he most certainly is compromised.

McQuaid sanctioned Ullrich, Armstrong & Contador.

3 of the sports biggest names. I don't think McQuaid was scared to do what's right in cycling once it became abundantly clear of their guilt.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I'm throwing mud at Cookson. He's not the sport, so your accusation of "throwing mud at the sport" seems pretty wild.

ETA: And I read the article - there was no mention of a question of those 2 specifically. Perhaps you could link to the question that was asked?
Cookson is in the most important position in the sport or did you not know that? His commentd carry significance for the way the sport is going.

Cookson's first comment was "I would like both of them" which clearly is in response to a question on them. He's right in what he ssid about them but you and your type look for ways to get controversy out of everything with the usual nitpicking and needless criticism for the sake if it when there is no basis for it.

You also fail to grasp the obvious fact he spoke in general terms about people comming forward to the commission.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
kingjr said:
The quotes are from an interview with The Guardian, so it's not unlikely that he was asked a question that involved Riis and Vinokourov specifically. I don't think it matters much because he also says this: "those two people and others as well need to bear that in mind if they want to continue to operate in our world, opinion in the world of cycling would be much more favourable towards them if they came forward.”
That's all well and good that you don't think it matters, but I do.

Riis was involved in a large investigation already, I thought? And it's currently ongoing. With the Dutch? So why should he now go and repeat everything? Cookson is the HEAD of the UCI - ie the head of all the national federations.

Why is it he doesn't already know about Riis's involvement in an investigation?

And if it comes down to it - if they (Riis and Vino) didn't tell everything before, WTF makes him think they are going to say anything else?

Anti-doping theatre.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Yes, he did give them as examples. He mentioned them by name. He didn't mention anyone else.

If you can't see how that is biased, I have nothing further to say to you.
How do you know he didn't mention anyone else? The article will have been based on an edited interview.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
Considering how quick Cookson was to defend the Froome-TUE without mentioning the lack of a committee then he most certainly is compromised.
remarkably quick indeed.
he was quick as well to threaten with legal action against those insinuating Brian is compromised by Oliver's Sky engagement.
If someone rushes in an aggressive defense mode like that that's never a good sign.
 
gooner said:
Cookson's first comment was "I would like both of them" which clearly is in response to a question on them. He's right in what he ssid about them but you and your type look for ways to get controversy out of everything with the usual nitpicking and needless criticism for the sake if it when there is no basis for it.

You also fail to grasp the obvious fact he spoke in general terms about people comming forward to the commission.
Nice try. But the first paragraph makes it clear what Cookson's "announcement" was. Cookson "told" rather than "responded" to a question.

The UCI president, Brian Cookson, has called upon Alexandr Vinokourov and Bjarne Riis, the heads of the two most prominent teams in this year’s Tour de France, to testify before the independent commission on cycling’s doping history as a way of helping the sport move on from its past.

Vinokourov, who is in charge of the Tour de France winner’s Astana squad, tested positive for blood doping in 2007. Riis, who is boss of Tinkoff-Saxo, winners of three mountain stages and the King of the Mountains prize, confessed to having used erythropoietin to win the 1996 Tour; he was initially expunged from the record but subsequently reinstated.

“I would like both of them to come to the commission,” Cookson told the Guardian at the Tour de France finish in Paris. “The commission doesn’t have powers of subpoena, but there is a court of public opinion here which is really important; those two people and others as well need to bear that in mind if they want to continue to operate in our world, opinion in the world of cycling would be much more favourable towards them if they came forward.”
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
King Boonen said:
Everyone seems to to be jumping the gun on this. Does Cookson actually know who has been to CiRC? I thought it was confidential? Surely he is just saying he would like them to? But yes, unless he was asked specifically about those two, and he could well have been, I don't see why he would single them out apart from the fact they are very high profile and in the news because their riders have been doing well. Maybe that prompted it?
You're right, in the article it states that he found out that Armstrong had been in front of it from a newspaper article.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
sniper said:
remarkably quick indeed.
he was quick as well to threaten with legal action against those insinuating Brian is compromised by Oliver's Sky engagement.
Give him time. With time everything can be fixed. Time heals all UCI wounds.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
thehog said:
Nice try. But the first paragraph makes it clear what Cookson's "announcement" was. Cookson "told" rather than "responded" to the question.
The reporter will have had a number of questions to put to Cookson, the article will have been developed from his answers, so `told' could easily mean `responded' to. The reporter's editor may well have told him or her what questions to put to Cookson. In the `good old days' of the British press the reporter might just as well have made the whole interview up.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
thehog said:
Considering how quick Cookson was to defend the Froome-TUE without mentioning the lack of a committee then he most certainly is compromised.

McQuaid sanctioned Ullrich, Armstrong & Contador.

3 of the sports biggest names. I don't think McQuaid was scared to do what's right in cycling once it became abundantly clear of their guilt.
Here's what Cookson might have said to the reporter (depending on how heavily edited the interview was ):

`They are allowed under the Wada code and we’ve been advised by doctors outside the UCI that TUEs are a necessary element, but to ensure the integrity of the process it was important to improve it. Having one person doing it was always going to leave us open to accusation that there was something untoward happening.

“So let’s not do that any more. Let’s have a panel to look at every TUE even if it takes more time, is more trouble and is non-controversial. We are in an environment now where there is total suspicion of anything that could be indicative of doping. We have to be whiter than white, stronger than strong in our structures and our processes. We have to have belt and braces.”'

and

`“The only issue there is is that of medical confidentiality. I think we need careful analysis, sit down with Wada, our own medical experts and the teams. We need to handle [TUEs] better, how we put that information into the public domain. If it was up to me I’d say let’s have no TUEs – if you want to take some medicine, fine but you have to go home. The moment we did that, we’d be outside the Wada code and the lawyers would have a field day.”'

And if I was a pro, had asthma, and was told I couldn't race I'd get lawyered up faster than Kittel in a sprint.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY