Ferminal said:"We've gone after Contador"
Right.
Indeed, that bit also struck me.
What about "The media and public opinion forced us to go after Contador, even though we were eager to let him off the hook"
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Ferminal said:"We've gone after Contador"
Right.
Fat Pat said:Also, the journalist who interviewed him should have asked him for proof.
Maxiton said:McQuaid: the only thing transparent about him is his dishonesty. An embarrassment to corrupt bureaucrats everywhere.
Benotti69 said:i think you are handing McQuaid a compliment by calling him a corrupt bureaucrat, the man is a bumbling mumbling idiot who keeps talking utter sh!te again and again. i bet he had to ring the irish independent and beg for an interview as no one would grant him one without him first answering their questions. guy is capitol Pr**k!
notcredible said:
The man on the very far left of this photo is the Irish Independent journalist who interviewed McQuaid. Something tells me Pat didn't have to beg.
notcredible said:
The man on the very far left of this photo is the Irish Independent journalist who interviewed McQuaid. Something tells me Pat didn't have to beg.
frenchfry said:You mean the one aiming his nose at Armstrong's @ss?
Cimacoppi49 said:Pat speaks:
"Landis won the Tour and we went after him, Rasmussen was a Tour leader and we went after him, and now Contador. Landis talks about Clenbuterol being used. We've gone after Contador with only 50 pictograms of Clenbuterol in his system. This again proves that Landis' statement is complete fabrication."
But that was then; this is now.
(emphasis mine)“It is known in the peloton that Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen or others responsible at the UCI over the last 20 years have protected some people and not others. That is the way they manipulate results and create stars.”
He added, ""as far as the UCI is concerned, nothing about a cover up or taking a bribe or some kind of race results manipulation would surprise me."
Beech Mtn said:What Floyd said was:
(emphasis mine)
Considering this, I don't see how Fat Pat McQuack thinks going after Lance's archenemy proves that the UCI doesn't play favorites. While I don't believe AC is clean, he is just another one in a long line of talented riders who left the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, only to pop positive the next year. In my opinion, the very predictability of AC's positive gives suspicions to undue influence at the UCI - some riders are protected and not others.
I would laugh so hard if Floyd found some way to sue McQuack over his latest claim that FL is a liar.
Beech Mtn said:What Floyd said was:
(emphasis mine)
Considering this, I don't see how Fat Pat McQuack thinks going after Lance's archenemy proves that the UCI doesn't play favorites. While I don't believe AC is clean, he is just another one in a long line of talented riders who left the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, only to pop positive the next year. In my opinion, the very predictability of AC's positive gives suspicions to undue influence at the UCI - some riders are protected and not others.
I would laugh so hard if Floyd found some way to sue McQuack over his latest claim that FL is a liar.
sniper said:And by choosing the exact same line of attack as LA does (i.e. calling FL a liar), McVague gives further support to FL's claims.
I agree with Benotti, though: I rather think AC was supposed to be the new star and enjoyed protection from above. His positives weren't supposed to ever see the light of day, if you ask me. Perhaps McQuaid was waiting for a pay-off by AC's team, which is why the positive came out so late.
Scott SoCal said:It seems to be fairly easy to connect the dots and I think your observation (and Benotti's) are correct.
As further eveidence of this all one has to do is look at McQuaid becoming unhinged when the ASO (under Patrice Clerc) decided they would not stand for the UCI "business as usual" model. The 2008 TdF was another example. The UCI lost the ability to conduct their pay-to-play scheme.
It really is too bad Clerc was booted from ASO. I think they would have (eventually) forced major change at the UCI and, furthermore, I think the sport would be much further down the path of cleaning itself up.
Plus, McQuaid would be back in an Irish pub somewhere instead of (still) having a mjor influence on pro cycling and its' future direction.
Benotti69 said:Clerc was definitely moving in the right direction. ASO were stupid to get rid of him. They might have had an 'almost' doping free tour by now...
sniper said:And by choosing the exact same line of attack as LA does (i.e. calling FL a liar), McVague gives further support to FL's claims.
I agree with Benotti, though: I rather think AC was supposed to be the new star and enjoyed protection from above. His positives weren't supposed to ever see the light of day, if you ask me. Perhaps McQuaid was waiting for a pay-off by AC's team, which is why the positive came out so late.
+1.biopass said:Pat is a funny old man with troubles remembering things.
UCI werent after Rasmussen when was leading the Tour. They were actually protecting him. Telling people why they allowed Rasmussen to start the Tour, even when he had a warning and the rules stated a rider wasnt allowed to participate in a grand tour if he was given a warning prior to the GT.
Beech Mtn said:Could be. Maybe Astana didn't want to pay up to keep the positive from coming out. Maybe AC didn't pay either, playing brinksmanship and threatening to retire instead. Maybe there was a bidding war between LA and AC. Who knows? Like Floyd said, nothing much about the UCI and bribes would surprise me.
We will probably never know what all actually goes on in cycling behind closed doors.
MadonePro said:Unless of course you work for the above (which you won't, because you wouldn't be in a forum), your knowledge of what the AFLD have or have not, is utter nonsense.
It comes as no surprise to me, that the organisations investigating this matter, are being thorough. That is part of the process, you know, find the truth, eliminate inaccuracies and lies, and examine all the evidence provided, and come to a mature, considered decision, based on that.
Shame most in here cannot understand that concept.
Personally, I couldn't care whether Lance et al are found to be cheating, my concern is that people are treated properly and decently.
Is it fair that lives and careers can be ruined because of this?
biopass said:Pat is a funny old man with troubles remembering things.
UCI werent after Rasmussen when was leading the Tour. They were actually protecting him. Telling people why they allowed Rasmussen to start the Tour, even when he had a warning and the rules stated a rider wasnt allowed to participate in a grand tour if he was given a warning prior to the GT.
Altitude said:Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour. Saying things like "it will be bad for the sport if Rasmussen wins" ect ect.
Altitude said:Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour. Saying things like "it will be bad for the sport if Rasmussen wins" ect ect.
“Verbruggen wanted to buy the Tour, but the price was too high, so now he wants to get the price down,”
thehog said:Really?
"there is no doping case of Michael Rasmussen" he said at the 2007 Tour. Defending the rider should stay ithe race.