Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[thehog]

Re:

What would happen if McQuaid said to ASO that rules meant their races couldn't be longer than 200 kms and then people started pointing out he hadn't read the rules and the actual distance was 240 km, with so many exemptions available that the rule was really more like guidelines?

(Maybe the 40k was confusing Cookson and he was taking that off ASO as well as HV? People can get confused by numbers.)

I did laugh at Cookson telling us Paris-Roubaix now had to be 199km! LOL! Brian and his folly

...The maximum distance for HC events is 200km, so are they going to shorten Paris-Roubaix or the longer Tour stages? They can’t pick and choose which rules apply to them if they want to be part of the sport.”

 

[Dear Wiggo]

"Those close to cycling know very well where the UCI went wrong in the past, including the conflicts it needlessly got into and which seriously damaged its credibility,"

How's the UCI-ASO relationship tracking these days?

...

 

[Nick C.]

Cookson seems to come off and, perhaps not as moneygrubbing or corrupt as his predecessors, but more as a doormat. It is a different kind of useless.

 

[Benotti69]

Spit in the soup (@Spitinthesoup) tweeted at 1:30 PM - 21 Dec 2015 :

https://t.co/VuntG4bzSB (http://twitter.com/Spitinthesoup/status/679051331911458817?s=17)

 

[Otchum]

If not Cookson who would you replace him with?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If not Cookson who would you replace him with?

Donald Trump.

 

[fmk_RoI]

For a laugh? Lappartient, just to see the Velon teams pull out of the WT and race as Pro-Conti.

 

[42x16ss]

If not Cookson who would you replace him with?

Michele Ferrari or Oleg Tinkoff.

 

[thehog]

Cookson's transparency goes further....

UCI Statement on Michael Boogerd
06 January 2016

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces today that Michael Boogerd has been sanctioned with a two years’ ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violations he committed during his cycling career.

The ban is effective until 21 December 2017.

The case has been resolved via an acceptance of consequences as provided for by the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

The UCI will not comment any further.

The Good Garmin Dopers (GGD) get 6 months but the Boogie has to suffer a 2 year ban 8 years later! Say whaaaaaat?!!!

 

[Benotti69]

Cookson's transparency goes further....

UCI Statement on Michael Boogerd
06 January 2016

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces today that Michael Boogerd has been sanctioned with a two years’ ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violations he committed during his cycling career.

The ban is effective until 21 December 2017.

The case has been resolved via an acceptance of consequences as provided for by the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

The UCI will not comment any further.

The Good Garmin Dopers (GGD) get 6 months but the Boogie has to suffer a 2 year ban 8 years later! Say whaaaaaat?!!!

Vaughters got no ban! Wegelius no ban. Plenty in the sport continue to enjoy the fruits after doping.

Boogerd is being made an example, probably a political thing or a brown bag type of thing....

 

[MartinGT]

Mr Armstrong isnt very happy!

 

[wrinklyvet]

Cookson's transparency goes further....

UCI Statement on Michael Boogerd
06 January 2016

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces today that Michael Boogerd has been sanctioned with a two years’ ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violations he committed during his cycling career.

The ban is effective until 21 December 2017.

The case has been resolved via an acceptance of consequences as provided for by the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

The UCI will not comment any further.

The Good Garmin Dopers (GGD) get 6 months but the Boogie has to suffer a 2 year ban 8 years later! Say whaaaaaat?!!!

Vaughters got no ban! Wegelius no ban. Plenty in the sport continue to enjoy the fruits after doping.

Boogerd is being made an example, probably a political thing or a brown bag type of thing....

Simply isn't it the case that Boogerd made an admission but failed to provide any extra info that might have entitled him to a reduction in the ban?

 

[thehog]

Cookson's transparency goes further....

UCI Statement on Michael Boogerd
06 January 2016

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces today that Michael Boogerd has been sanctioned with a two years’ ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violations he committed during his cycling career.

The ban is effective until 21 December 2017.

The case has been resolved via an acceptance of consequences as provided for by the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

The UCI will not comment any further.

The Good Garmin Dopers (GGD) get 6 months but the Boogie has to suffer a 2 year ban 8 years later! Say whaaaaaat?!!!

Vaughters got no ban! Wegelius no ban. Plenty in the sport continue to enjoy the fruits after doping.

Boogerd is being made an example, probably a political thing or a brown bag type of thing....

Simply isn't it the case that Boogerd made an admission but failed to provide any extra info that might have entitled him to a reduction in the ban?

Information like what Dr. Leinders is good at? Or other cyclists who have retired years ago?

Too funny.

 

[wrinklyvet]

If that's the best he could have done, yes of course. But the report says, "He added that he did not receive a reduced ban, “because I was always alone and am ready to tell my own story and not about other riders or coaches.” "
In his own words he says in effect that he added nothing of substance that would justify any reduction in the inevitable consequences. I don't follow how this reflects on Cookson, even if anything else does. The buck stops with Boogerd, not him. Boogerd believes it honourable not to spill any beans on others. That's fine of course. He may be right (many others may think the same) and I expect he understood his position when he took that stance.

 

[Benotti69]

If that's the best he could have done, yes of course. But the report says, "He added that he did not receive a reduced ban, “because I was always alone and am ready to tell my own story and not about other riders or coaches.” "
In his own words he says in effect that he added nothing of substance that would justify any reduction in the inevitable consequences. I don't follow how this reflects on Cookson, even if anything else does. The buck stops with Boogerd, not him. Boogerd believes it honourable not to spill any beans on others. That's fine of course. He may be right (many others may think the same) and I expect he understood his position when he took that stance.

Yeah, right and Vaughters told about one team yet rode on how many? Same goes for all those Garmin guys. They only admitted to doping at USPS. What about Hesjedal's doping at Phonak? Now there was a juiced team. Now racing as BMC!

 

[glassmoon]

Cookson's transparency goes further....

UCI Statement on Michael Boogerd
06 January 2016

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces today that Michael Boogerd has been sanctioned with a two years’ ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violations he committed during his cycling career.

The ban is effective until 21 December 2017.

The case has been resolved via an acceptance of consequences as provided for by the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

The UCI will not comment any further.

The Good Garmin Dopers (GGD) get 6 months but the Boogie has to suffer a 2 year ban 8 years later! Say whaaaaaat?!!!

Vaughters got no ban! Wegelius no ban. Plenty in the sport continue to enjoy the fruits after doping.

Boogerd is being made an example, probably a political thing or a brown bag type of thing....

Simply isn't it the case that Boogerd made an admission but failed to provide any extra info that might have entitled him to a reduction in the ban?

Information like what Dr. Leinders is good at? Or other cyclists who have retired years ago?

Too funny.

amusing to death

 

[sniper]

Should UCI still be banning riders if they claim to have an independent antidoping program?
On the UCI antidoping website (http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/) the word "independent" (and variants) occurs no less than 10 times in the space of a fairly small text.
I'm slightly worried about the meaning of the concept of "independence" in the context of sports government and antidoping. If the word is applied inflationary like that, in cases where it doesn't really apply, soon the word will be void of meaning.
And I don't see much of a grey area here. The program is either independent or it is not. Imo UCI is misleading the fans here and setting the wrong standards for other governing bodies.

Much the same with the term "conflict of interest". No grey area. Cookson's son working for Sky is a blatant example. Cookson hasn't acknowledged it yet let alone solved it. Coe-esque.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Should UCI still be banning riders if they claim to have an independent antidoping program?

What the UCI actually claims:

In general terms, the independence of anti-doping with regards to the UCI has been considerably increased, as UCI President Brian Cookson had promised in his Manifesto. This does not mean that the UCI is disregarding its responsibilities in the fight against doping. To the contrary, the UCI is now in a much better position to assume these responsibilities by avoiding the possibility of interference of its directors in the work of the anti-doping experts (both scientific and legal).

Much the same with the term "conflict of interest". No grey area. Cookson's son working for Sky is a blatant example. Cookson hasn't acknowledged it yet let alone solved it. Coe-esque.

It is acknowledged in the register of interests, so you're stretching the truth to say it isn't.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Should UCI still be banning riders if they claim to have an independent antidoping program?

What the UCI actually claims:

In general terms, the independence of anti-doping with regards to the UCI has been considerably increased, as UCI President Brian Cookson had promised in his Manifesto. This does not mean that the UCI is disregarding its responsibilities in the fight against doping. To the contrary, the UCI is now in a much better position to assume these responsibilities by avoiding the possibility of interference of its directors in the work of the anti-doping experts (both scientific and legal).

Much the same with the term "conflict of interest". No grey area. Cookson's son working for Sky is a blatant example. Cookson hasn't acknowledged it yet let alone solved it. Coe-esque.

It is acknowledged in the register of interests, so you're stretching the truth to say it isn't.

thanks for the link, i hadn't seen it. but it sort of proves my point doesn't it?
He denies there is any potential for a conflict of interest.

"i do not see any circumstances which could lead to a potential conflict of interest".

Yikes, that's Coe all the way.
The concept 'conflict of interest' is a quite clearly defined, objective concept. Nobody can deny it applies here. Yet Cookson denies it. I.e. he doesn't acknowledge it.
At best he could say: "it's a conflict of interest, but I do not see any ciccumstances which could lead to corrupt behavior".

as for "independence", I know what they claim, it's all there tucked away in opaquely formulated paragraphs. The point remains: UCI using the term 10 times on the antidoping website (a small text) is deliberately misleading for all intents and purposes. It's not independent by any stretch of the meaning of the word.

 

[sniper]

Reading that register of interest...
Yikes, Cookson seems deliberately misleading in that paragraph, calling Ollie's appointment a "particular technical" position and suggesting that therefore there is no reason for a CoI.
Suffice to recall this episode:
https://twitter.com/mundociclistico/status/460593461604155392

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

it sort of proves my point doesn't it?

No it does not prove your point. You point was that he doesn't acknowledge it when it is obvious he does.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

it sort of proves my point doesn't it?

No it does not prove your point. You point was that he doesn't acknowledge it when it is obvious he does.

he acknowledges that his son works for sky, not that it's a conflict of interest, which is what I meant and in fact the only possible interpretation of my initial post. The object of "solved it" is clearly the CoI, not Ollie's job.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/17/41/07/RegisterofinterestsB.Cookson_Neutral.pdf

"(...) My son Oliver Cookson currently works for (...) Team Sky (...) I do not see any circumstances which could lead to a potential conflict of interest".

the phrase are you *** shitting me springs to mind.

Speaking of Cookson’s presence in Colombia, [Henao] said: “He’s not here so much for the tests but more to learn to understand about our surroundings, our environment, how we live, and about the question of altitude – he trains with us each day.

“I think he is gaining a real impression of our region, Oriente Antioqueño, and I’m hope that the information he is getting might open the doors for the team to plan training camps in Colombia as it does on Tenerife.”
AdTech Ad

Henao added that Cookson was also there to assist with securing visas for himself for the Tour de France, which starts in Yorkshire in July, and his cousin for next month’s Giro d’Italia, which begins in Belfast a week on Friday.

When Sky stood Henao down from its active roster last month, team principal Sir Dave Brailsford said: "We have strong monitoring and compliance processes in this team, with the full co-operation of riders and coaches.

“In our latest monthly review, our experts had questions about Sergio’s out-of-competition control tests at altitude – tests introduced this winter by the anti-doping authorities. We need to understand these readings better.

“We contacted the relevant authorities – the UCI and CADF – pointed to these readings and asked whether they could give us any insights. We've also taken Sergio out of our race programme whilst we get a better understanding of these profiles and his physiology.

“We want to do the right thing and we want to be fair. It’s important not to jump to conclusions.

He added: “Sergio was raised in the mountains, goes back in winter and lives and trains at different levels. We’ve looked as far as we can at the effects of this, but our own understanding is limited by a lack of scientific research into ‘altitude natives’ such as Sergio.

“We are commissioning independent scientific research to better understand the effects of prolonged periods at altitude after returning from sea level, specifically on altitude natives.

“The independent experts are looking to use WADA-accredited laboratories and Team Sky will make the data and findings available to WADA, the UCI and CADF.

“Sergio will help with this programme and we expect him to be out of the race schedule for at least eight weeks. Once we have completed our assessment, we’ll decide on the right steps and give a full update.”

Speaking to Lionel Birnie for a Cycle Sport article in 2011 (link is external), when his father was president of British Cycling and also on the board of Tour Racing Limited, Team Sky’s holding company, Cookson was at pains to point out that nepotism had nothing to do with his securing the position with the team.

http://road.cc/content/news/117574-team-skys-sergio-henao-currently-active-roster-altitude-tests-says-team-hope-he#sthash.BDfZWjM8.dpuf

 

[Nick C.]

What would happen if Sky were faced with an Astana type situation? Was the first question that popped to mind and thinking dad might not want to shut down his sons's place of business.

The link says he is a "performance co-ordinator," Unless my interpretation of that job is completely off, it is hard to see how that is not an inherent conflict of interest.

 

[sniper]

Re:

What would happen if Sky were faced with an Astana type situation? Was the first question that popped to mind and thinking dad might not want to shut down his sons's place of business.

The link says he is a "performance co-ordinator," Unless my interpretation of that job is completely off, it is hard to see how that is not an inherent conflict of interest.

indeed.

Dad is strikingly vague about his son's role at sky:

"However, considering his particular technical position with the team, I do not see any circumstances which could lead to a potential conflict of interest"
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/17/41/07/RegisterofinterestsB.Cookson_Neutral.pdf

#elephant in the room