Cookson V McQuaid who do you think ???

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Who is going to query Cookson's presidency? Walsh or anyone else in the cycling media?

That UCI has made such a mess of the sport for so long and got a way with it, what has Cookson got to worry about on that score? McQuaid was looking at another 4 years till he made a complete mess of USADA's reasoned decision and bent over backwards, frontwards, sidewards to try and protect Armstrong till it was obvious Armstrong was under the bus.

Cookson will probably not make the same mistakes, just like Sky have (more or less) not made the same mistakes as USPS.

If Cooskon doesn't make anti doping independent it would be feasible to 'dedicate' himself to Sky as the doping results arrive onto his desk before going anywhere...........
He has to make it independent, otherwise he knows thats what everyone will say. Im confident this will happen and something i will judge him on instantly if it does not.
 
gooner said:
How so?

He has repeated on numerous occasions(including his speech after his win today)that he will strive to move the testing to a more independent body. Cookson said he wants longer bans and wants the people who facilitate doping also targetted. The new WADA code won't come into force until 2015 and the IAAF are also trying to enforce 4 year bans. That will probably happen.
Unless the NADO can open cases, it's the same system of hiding positives for favored athletes rearranged.

Best case scenario, I have grave doubts Cookson could get NADO's authority to open cases. Every other Olympic sport, and the national cycling federations would dream up ways to shut it down. I'd like to see him try though.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
AcademyCC said:
He has to make it independent, otherwise he knows thats what everyone will say. Im confident this will happen and something i will judge him on instantly if it does not.
Plenty make promises..........
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Just home from a music outing to be greeted by the news that McQuaid is out! :D

Without knowing any details about Cookson, and without having read through the collected wisdom of the Clinic, my gut reaction is to be delighted that the ancien regime is gone. I see from the comments made this evening by Marcel Wintels that the meeting was, uh, kind of rowdy, and that in his words, the only good thing to be said about what took place is the result that McQuaid is gone. That will do me for now.
 
Parker said:
Verbruggen resigned from the IOC in 2008. (He is an honorary member though). He was on the management committee, but I think he stepped down from that recently too.
Until very recently he was running SportAccord. A kind of second-tier IOC project trying to be the IOC's "xtreme sports" broadcast product. He ran the IOC's broadcasting business too. He was still listed there about two weeks ago.

The IOC stuff is strange and thoroughly corrupt. All kinds of hangers-on with no official IOC title seem to make loads of money somehow with the IOC's various events. Don't be surprised if Pat pops up somewhere somehow related to the IOC. He's one of the gentler, more professional personalities. That's no joke.

With Rogge out, Hein's influence was not great with the next King. In this way, Hein appears to be very talented.
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Plenty make promises..........
My only point would be, dont be so harsh on him til you see how this plays out. If after 6 months were still having the same conversation, fair enough, hammer the guy. Until that point give him a chance. I dont think hell be perfect, after all hes picked up a serious mess but dont knock the guy after 8 hours!!
 
Benotti69 said:
Plenty make promises..........
But it's unfair to criticize them before they break those promises.

Me, I don't trust Cookson. He was in the UCI, he approved of McQuaid, he didn't bat an eyelid as Kimmage was being sued. But he's not McQuaid. I'll wait and see what he does before rising against him - while I fully expect him to be better than McQuaid only in the same way that McQuaid was better than Verbruggen, it wouldn't be fair to attack him yet.
 
Benotti69 said:
Plenty make promises..........
I don't think you are very good at this game here.

If you criticise Cookson for not doing something, before he has a chance to do it, then if he does it you have sort of lost all your cards.

You are the guy who went after him on totally false grounds. Any time you thereafter complain about him, even if legitimate, people will see it as just you continuing your bias.
 
peterst6906 said:
Wasn't it the UCI Management Committee that stepped in on that and had the action by Phat/Hein halted?
I don't know, but at any rate that only happened when Kimmage was believed to have the fund to defend himself. For a time, when Kimmage was completely defenseless, the UCI Management Committee remained silent.
 
conflict of interest

As I've expressed previously- I do have my concerns on Cookson's Election, due to the sole point of him being former President of British Cycling while having SKY as a dominant team-all together appears to my eyes as a potential conflict of interest & likely a biased behavior will be embraced on his behalf towards matters related to UK cycling-and in general-all cycling interests covered by the English speaking industry.

People may say he just took over & time will tell, but just happens that his very first statement as a President of the UCI is to offer LA to join the so called "truth & reconciliation program" -that alone sets to me a big red flag-no matter how candid & good intentional may have sounded-We all know Mr Armstrong will not rest until he gets a way to get back to the sport to keep milking his beloved followers, even at the expense of sinking deeper the sport.
 
hrotha said:
I don't know, but at any rate that only happened when Kimmage was believed to have the fund to defend himself. For a time, when Kimmage was completely defenseless, the UCI Management Committee remained silent.
How do you know? Have you requested meeting minutes? Do you have records of private emails and phone calls? The fact that it took a while before it was halted is not proof nothing was said or being done about it.
 
hfer07 said:
People may say he just took over & time will tell, but just happens that his very first statement as a President of the UCI is to offer LA to join the so called "truth & reconciliation program" -that alone sets to me a big red flag-no matter how candid & good intentional may have sounded-We all know Mr Armstrong will not rest until he gets a way to get back to the sport to keep milking his beloved followers, even at the expense of sinking deeper the sport.
More FUD. Brian Cookson has already stated that he can't offer Lance clemency, that's up to WADA (or possibly the USADA I think, but WADA could complain about any decision to CAS). It seems obvious that an honest Lance (and yes that's unlikely) would be hugely beneficial to any truth and reconciliation process.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
hrotha said:
I don't know, but at any rate that only happened when Kimmage was believed to have the fund to defend himself. For a time, when Kimmage was completely defenseless, the UCI Management Committee remained silent.
Yes, they did remain silent but that still doesn't mean he was support of it either. Criticism is just for not speaking out but I think from his comments he was far from supportive of it. If he was in on any of this, you can be full sure McQuaid would come out publicly to call BS on Cookson's comments on it. This was entirely a Pat/Hein thing.

The question is will something like the Kimmage/Landis situations happen again under Cookson where the UCI try to silence whistleblowers or others that speak out?

I'd like to think we are past this nonsense.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
The Hitch said:
I don't think you are very good at this game here.

If you criticise Cookson for not doing something, before he has a chance to do it, then if he does it you have sort of lost all your cards.

You are the guy who went after him on totally false grounds. Any time you thereafter complain about him, even if legitimate, people will see it as just you continuing your bias.
Is it a game? Not for me, a discussion on a forum is all it is.

Cookson has been involved in cycling a long time. Cookson has been on the UCI management team acting the church mouse.

My bias is towards a clean sport. He is part of the solution or part of the problem. Till now he has not been part of the solution.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
gooner said:
Yes, they did remain silent but that still doesn't mean he was support of it either. Criticism is just for not speaking out but I think from his comments he was far from supportive of it. If he was in on any of this, you can be full sure McQuaid would come out publicly to call BS on Cookson's comments on it. This was entirely a Pat/Hein thing.

The question is will something like the Kimmage/Landis situations happen again under Cookson where the UCI try to silence whistleblowers or others that speak out?

I'd like to think we are past this nonsense.
Kimmage asked Cookson about this and he refused to answer him.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage asked Cookson about this and he refused to answer him.
And that certainly didn't help him at the time. This is what I was referring to when I say I fell he didn't support it. He still should have spoken out from early on about it, not that Hein and Pat would have still listened though.

So why did he dodge Kimmage's question when transparency is a central plank in his manifesto? "You're right. But I was trying to respect the management committee. If you're a board member you have to accept collective responsibility so I felt compromised at that point. But there was no consultation with the management committee about whether this was a good idea to take legal action against Paul Kimmage. Most of us threw our hands up in despair and said: 'This is the most counterproductive move that could've been made. Ridiculously, we're suing someone trying to uncover the truth.'

"At the next meeting we made those views known and the action was suspended. But it's a demonstration of the way the UCI has been led on an emperor-like model. When USADA announced its verdict on Armstrong, the management had no idea what Pat would say at that Geneva press conference. We didn't even get five minutes advance notice. That's entirely wrong. Why couldn't we be consulted on the most important issue facing the sport?"
 
Aug 29, 2012
1,008
0
0
So I heard that Mcquaid is out and Brian Cookson is in.

Whilst there are obvious concerns regarding how close he is to British Cycling and thus Sky (Pretty much the same entity), and some of the results Sky have had being almost too good to believe his initial words (Being more involved with WADA), promoting women's cycling more are encouraging.

Of course he will be judged by his actions, not words but I for one am prepared to give him a fair crack of the whip.
 
Digger said:
First time I've been linked in any way with supporting Pat, even if you did retract...
as regards my mental problems...maybe so...but cookson has shown himself to be extremely weak and is almost there only by default...ask the Greeks about the 35 grand.
that's ok for many, anything to get rid of Pat. and I agree
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
gooner said:
And that certainly didn't help him at the time. This is what I was referring to when I say I fell he didn't support it. He still should have spoken out from early on about it, not that Hein and Pat would have still listened though.
Why respect the management committee if what UCI was doing was wrong.

Weak excuse!
 
Anyway, I didn't fault him for supporting Hein McQuaid when it came to Kimmage, but for not speaking out.

Regardless, it could be argued that, when Cookson said he stood behind McQuaid just before presenting his candidacy, he was showing support for McQuaid's past actions.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Parker said:
Have you ever seen Apocalypse Now? Basically, Digger is Dennis Hopper to Kimmage's Col. Kurtz.
Well after almost thirty years of following this messed up sport where year after year has produced doped winners, I do think Kimmage is one of less than a handful who questions...or else we just accept the nonsense that cycling suddenly found religion all of a sudden, after a century of cheating.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
martinvickers said:
Em, about that no sky positives now Cookson's here...

You Couldn't make it up...

Cookson in.

24 Hrs later, from David Walsh, no less...

Jon Tiernan Locke, pulled from Worlds, asked to explain blood irregularities...
yeah, interesting. and interesting timing.
about time something started moving.

this one will be relatively easy for brailsfraud to explain away though.
if asked, he'll claim he never saw Locke's BP values prior to signing him.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY