Cookson V McQuaid who do you think ???

Nov 29, 2009
267
2
9,030
Ok all - 14 days to go before the election, threats have been made and promises made by both parties (providing McQuaid is actually nominated)..
So who do you think will win ???
My own thoughts are that McQuaid has too many members who owe him favours, and he has some very powerfull friends in the IOC.
So much as I hate to say it its McQuaid for me..
Unless Mr Armstrong spills the beans before the election ???
look forward to your comments..
 
Jun 12, 2010
519
0
0
I would appreciate any prorider speaking out. But with this current climate of fear going positive for no reason we won't see something like that happen.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
I don't see much hope for cycling either way. If Cookson wins, I think he'll have some debts to pay Makharov and Plant. If McFraud wins, then we get the same corrupt regime cycling has had for years.
Another question is how strong, reliable and effective will WADA be with Sir Craig Reedie in charge?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
I don't see much hope for cycling either way. If Cookson wins, I think he'll have some debts to pay Makharov and Plant. If McFraud wins, then we get the same corrupt regime cycling has had for years.
If Crookson wins we get anglo saxons winning in July for foreseeable future with a Russian every few years.......


Crookson less of a clown but I dont see a cleaner sport on the horizon.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Benotti69 said:
If Crookson wins we get anglo saxons winning in July for foreseeable future with a Russian every few years.......


Crookson less of a clown but I dont see a cleaner sport on the horizon.
Now that you put it so eloquently, I hope for his own sake Cookson does not win.

Because he would have a really stressful time trying to produce a Russian/Katusha Tour winner for Makarov , as well as a British/Sky winner for Murdoch, an American winner for Plant, not to mention Cycle Chics theory of the African winner who I assume has to come from MTN-Qhubeka.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
dunno.

I think Cookson actually has a lot to gain by handing over anti-doping to WADA.
And he's gonna be held accountable for that, as it's a big point in his current agenda.
I mean, if he doesn't do it out of a love for cycling, he might still do it out of self interest.
So why wouldn't he actually give it a try?
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
sniper said:
dunno.

I think Cookson actually has a lot to gain by handing over anti-doping to WADA.
And he's gonna be held accountable for that, as it's a big point in his current agenda.
I mean, if he doesn't do it out of a love for cycling, he might still do it out of self interest.
So why wouldn't he actually give it a try?
For once we agree!
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
sniper said:
dunno.

I think Cookson actually has a lot to gain by handing over anti-doping to WADA.
And he's gonna be held accountable for that, as it's a big point in his current agenda.
I mean, if he doesn't do it out of a love for cycling, he might still do it out of self interest.
So why wouldn't he actually give it a try?
Agree completely.

Also - if he farms out anti-doping he gets rid of the biggest stress in the sport. He can literally say he has nothing to do with it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
sniper said:
dunno.

I think Cookson actually has a lot to gain by handing over anti-doping to WADA.
And he's gonna be held accountable for that, as it's a big point in his current agenda.
I mean, if he doesn't do it out of a love for cycling, he might still do it out of self interest.
So why wouldn't he actually give it a try?
I would be surprised if he does. Be surprised if he gets elected first, but if he does why get rid of the thing that keeps the moolah rolling in and makes the UCI so powerful over the teams.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Crookson will win, the fact that McQuaid couldn't get his own federation to back him nor his backup and required a far fetched scheme to get on the ballot says it all. Only if Crookson could get rid of the honorary positions...
 
Feb 18, 2013
614
0
0
ElChingon said:
Crookson will win, the fact that McQuaid couldn't get his own federation to back him nor his backup and required a far fetched scheme to get on the ballot says it all. Only if Crookson could get rid of the honorary positions...
This is exactly what makes me think McQuaid knows he's got it sewn up - the fact that he's being so desperate to just get on the ballot means he knows he's got the support once he gets there.

I hope I am wrong, but suspect I am not...
 
heart_attack_man said:
This is exactly what makes me think McQuaid knows he's got it sewn up - the fact that he's being so desperate to just get on the ballot means he knows he's got the support once he gets there.

I hope I am wrong, but suspect I am not...
This worries me as well, I think you might be right.



I love the fact the Brian Cookson has been condemned as corrupt, perhaps more corrupt than Pat McQuaid, before he has even had a chance.

The fact of the matter is Brian Cookson has made several promises that he can easily be held accountable for. If he wins he will be under massive scrutiny from every sector of the sport, one slip up and everything will become incredibly difficult for him. He would struggle to get away with even a 1/4 of what Pat McQuaid has got away with over the past years. Everything he does is going to be put under the spotlight. I really can't see him doing anything other than what he has said he'll do.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
I would be surprised if he does. Be surprised if he gets elected first, but if he does why get rid of the thing that keeps the moolah rolling in and makes the UCI so powerful over the teams.
not sure what the advantages are of keeping anti-doping at uci.
the moolah will keep rolling anyways.
i think armstrong donations and contador bribes are relatively small time compared to other revenues.

you might be right about the (anti)doping-power aspect.
but you have to know how to handle/manage that aspect.
mcdruggen thought they knew, and it may have helped them on the short term, but it threatens to bring them down on the long term.
I'm not sure if crookson knows or wants to know how to control the teams by means of anti-doping. I guess it involves a lot of
head-aches.

and as mentioned, making anti-doping independent is a big point in crookson's election agenda, so if he'd fail to do it, it would be bad press and loss of credibility, when, again, the advantages are not directly clear.

so altogether, I find it easier to imagine the advantages for crookson of shifting anti-doping responsibility over to WADA:
less head-aches, good press, good credibility, perhaps more sponsors.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
sniper said:
not sure what the advantages are of keeping anti-doping at uci.
the moolah will keep rolling anyways.
i think armstrong donations and contador bribes are relatively small time compared to other revenues.
I suspect many other donations have been made since Armstrong's.

sniper said:
you might be right about the (anti)doping-power aspect.
but you have to know how to handle/manage that aspect.
mcdruggen thought they knew, and it may have helped them on the short term, but it threatens to bring them down on the long term.
I'm not sure if crookson knows or wants to know how to control the teams by means of anti-doping. I guess it involves a lot of
head-aches.
I think one thing that has kept McQuaid in power is the UCI's grip on anti doping. They can release a positive or hide it (with a few exceptions). The sport had no problem with Fuyu Li's clen positive being released before him being notified, yet is was against protocol.

sniper said:
and as mentioned, making anti-doping independent is a big point in crookson's election agenda, so if he'd fail to do it, it would be bad press and loss of credibility, when, again, the advantages are not directly clear.
The advantages are obvious. But the because we are unaware of the extent to which UCI uses the anti doping to control the peloton and teams in a manner that pleases the UCI means that the teams might become more powerful and that might not benefit Cookson's true agenda.

sniper said:
so altogether, I find it easier to imagine the advantages for crookson of shifting anti-doping responsibility over to WADA:
less head-aches, good press, good credibility, perhaps more sponsors.
The sport is in the gutter as far as public perception. Is Cookson here for the better of the sport or for himself, Sky and Brit Cycling?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
I suspect many other donations have been made since Armstrong's.
true.

I think one thing that has kept McQuaid in power is the UCI's grip on anti doping. They can release a positive or hide it (with a few exceptions). The sport had no problem with Fuyu Li's clen positive being released before him being notified, yet is was against protocol.
yes, but all this costs time and energy and thus head-aches.
From a strictly practical point of view, it would be easier for crookson not to have to deal with all this. (but i stress 'strictly practical'. You might be right that the power/financial gain compensates for the head-aches.)

The advantages are obvious. But the because we are unaware of the extent to which UCI uses the anti doping to control the peloton and teams in a manner that pleases the UCI means that the teams might become more powerful and that might not benefit Cookson's true agenda.
The scenario you sketch (teams becoming more or even too powerful) sounds like a possibility (but not all that obvious to me as an outsider with little knowledge of the actual structures and power relatiosn.)

The sport is in the gutter as far as public perception. Is Cookson here for the better of the sport or for himself, Sky and Brit Cycling?
Well, yeah, if Sky and Brittish Cycling are indeed his main agenda, then it doesn't look good, clearly.

(But that might not deter him from handing over anti-doping to WADA: after all, WADA will have Sir Craig Reedie pulling the stringsl as of next year. Imagine Sir Reedie bringing down Sir Brailsford and Sir Wiggins...not gonna happen.)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
sniper said:
true.

yes, but all this costs time and energy and thus head-aches.
From a strictly practical point of view, it would be easier for crookson not to have to deal with all this. (but i stress 'strictly practical'. You might be right that the power/financial gain compensates for the head-aches.)
not sure about how much time and energy goes into milking teams, as his press releases read like stuff written on beer mats late at night.:D

sniper said:
The scenario you sketch (teams becoming more or even too powerful) sounds like a possibility (but not all that obvious to me as an outsider with little knowledge of the actual structures and power relatiosn.)
I dont have inside info, but the little info that has come to light has shown that a lot teams are not happy with UCI management and wanted to form a breakaway league, (JV and Bruyneel were heading this idea). That there were big discussions in that direction showed that the teams want more of a share of the wealth and more importantly a say over the sport.

sniper said:
Well, yeah, if Sky and Brittish Cycling are indeed his main agenda, then it doesn't look good, clearly.

(But that might not deter him from handing over anti-doping to WADA: after all, WADA will have Sir Craig Reedie pulling the stringsl as of next year. Imagine Sir Reedie bringing down Sir Brailsford and Sir Wiggins...not gonna happen.)
True very true.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Gazzeta dello Sport saying McQuaid will win 23-19. Journalist below is very reliable too.

Christian Radnedge ‏@ChristianRad 19m
Sources here in Florence now claiming UCI election much closer than first thought. Gazzetta even claiming win for McQuaid
Not looking good.
 
Feb 18, 2013
614
0
0
gooner said:
Gazzeta dello Sport saying McQuaid will win 23-19. Journalist below is very reliable too.



Not looking good.
Just looking through the list of countries, I could only work out 18 votes that he would get (based on all of ECU (?) voting as mandated), so that sounds pretty close to what Gazzetta have worked on too. This is just a rough stab based on what I assume will go down.

More interesting is whether he'll get on the ballot in the first place - McQuaid needs 28 (2/3 majority) votes for that to happen, and I would be reasonably certain that they'll vote mostly according to their preferences on that.

By my guess, this is Cookson (18):
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
GB
Italy
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Russia
Slovakia
Sweden
USA
Australia
Fiji
New Zealand

Leaving McQuaid with (24):
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Mexico
Puerto Rico
St Vincent
Bahrain
China
Hong Kong
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Malaysia
Qatar
Thailand
Ivory Coast
Kenya
Morocco
Mozambique
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
South Africa...

Though I have a feeling I saw a press release a while back which South Africa said they were going to side with Cookson? Am I dreaming about that? If they are with Cookson, then the numbers add up to Gazzetta's...

I have a horrible feeling that there'll be some Machiavellian maneuverings happening this afternoon which will both see McQuaid get on the ballot, and then get voted in.

If McQuaid was petitioning to just be allowed the chance to be voted on to some countries that were sympathetic within the ECU (?) [this is what I would have been doing if I were McQuaid], then I fear it could be a disappointing afternoon.

I'm definitely not convinced that Cookson will be much better - he certainly still hasn't answered any questions about his involvement / knowledge of the UCI v Kimmage debacle - but I would definitely welcome the change.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY