McQuaid on Whistleblowers

Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
UCI president Pat McQuaid questioned Landis' credibility in a telephone interview Thursday with The Associated Press.

"What's his agenda?" McQuaid said. "The guy is seeking revenge. It's sad, it's sad for cycling. It's obvious he does hold a grudge."

McQuaid said he received copies of the e-mails sent by Landis to the U.S. cycling federation, but declined to comment on their contents. He said Landis' allegations were "nothing new."

"He already made those accusations in the past," McQuaid said. "Armstrong has been accused many times in the past but nothing has been proved against him. And in this case, I have to question the guy's credibility. There is no proof of what he says. We are speaking about a guy who has been condemned for doping before a court."

These guys coming out now with things like this from the past is only damaging the sport. If they've any love for the sport they wouldn't do it," he said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5203604
“I think Landis is in a very sad situation and I feel sorry for the guy because I don’t accept anything he says as true,” McQuaid said in a telephone interview on Thursday. “This is a guy who has been condemned in court, who has stood up in court and stated that he never saw any doping in cycling. He’s written a book saying he won the Tour de France clean. Where does that leave his credibility? He has an agenda and is obviously out to seek revenge.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/c...dis.html?src=mv

---------------------------------------------------------------
Former pro cyclist Jörg Jaksche once again drew attention to himself, when he contridicted UCI president on the present state of doping in pro cycling.

Pat McQuaid has a somewhat brighter look on the doping problems in pro cycling than various commentators as well as former riders. On Monday evening McQuaid said, that he believes the days of organized doping in cycling are over, and that doping violations today is an individual matter for some riders.

This statement made Jörg Jaksche roll his eyes and respond with a smile.

”Maybe I have just been unlucky, because I have been on six teams, and on all six there has been organized doping,” Jaksche said.

Pat McQuaid also drew attention to himself with his answer to a question from the crowd on how his positive look on todays doping problems is consistant with the fact, that the average speed in pro cycling has increased during the last 20 years.

”I do not necessarily think, that average speed has anything to do with doping. Every race is different, every mountain is different, and the wind is different,” McQuaid said.

The UCI president furthermore attacked some of the many riders, who in the past year have told stories about doping use to different newspapers and tv stations. Among them Jörg Jaksche.

”When you get paid enough money to do something, your objectivity tends to go out the window,” Pat McQuaid said.
http://cyclingforums.com/professional-cycling/434712-mcquaid-jaksche.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of controversial riders, Cyclingnews asked McQuaid about Bernhard Kohl, the disgraced King of the Mountains and podium-getter in the last Tour. Kohl said this week that he was able to dope despite being subjected to the biological passport, going as far as to say that his 'perfect' blood values had earned him a big contract with Silence Lotto.

"The statements Kohl makes are totally inaccurate," said McQuaid, when asked for his response to those claims. "I wouldn't accept anything. I haven't seen the full interview that he did, I only saw excerpts. But those excerpts I saw were totally inaccurate and not in line with the accurate facts. He is using things to suit himself."
[quote
"I would not put a lot of faith in what he [Kohl] says. It is always guys who get caught and thrown out who start reflecting a little bit, preparing a book, and they come out with anything. Unless we have proof, we can not go and do anything," McQuaid told gathered reporters.
[/quote]
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/may09/may30news
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

More to come.....
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Verbruggen: "No sport controls doping like cycling"

Speaking in Madrid at a meeting of the Professional Cycling Association, UCI president Hein Verbruggen has emphasized once again the extent of cycling's anti-doping efforts, according to Europa Press.

Verbruggen commented on the Jesus Manzano case, saying, "What Manzano has said has had a great deal of repercussions and I lament and deplore [what has happened]. I don't know if what he says is true, I expect not, but the fact is that he has spoken out and there is an investigation in motion that will clarify things. But when the press starts to pay for these type of statements always there will always be riders willing to tell 'their' stories, and we cannot do anything about that."

"However, let nobody forget that no sport controls doping as much as cycling. No sport does the blood tests that cycling does, or the health controls, and despite all this we have the same percentage of positive samples as other endurance sports. Only 1.5 percent of samples. The World Anti-doping Agency did 700 controls in cycling and only 0.5 percent were positive. What happens in these cases is that our sports gets more publicity than the others, and we can't do anything about that but learn to live with it."

Verbruggen also mentioned, as he has previously, that the UCI's anti-doping authorities have certain riders under suspicion. "We know many things about the pelotón and we know who are the doubtful ones,' he said. "We tested Rumsas in the Tour and he did not test positive, but he was caught six months later. Therefore, in spite of all these problems I am optimistic."

Verbruggen said he still believes "the majority of the pelotón is clean, I guarantee it." He added that he was still happy to be UCI president, mostly because of the fierce loyalty of cycling's fans. "The fans are still loyal to this sport," he said, "you only have to see Paris-Roubaix, Flanders, Amstel... Paris-Roubaix had twice the audience of the tennis and that comforts us, but there is nothing you can do when the press pays for these stories."

[Note: In our recent interview with Jesus Manzano, he denied being motivated by money in telling his story. Cyclingnews did not pay Manzano for our subsequent interview.
http://survey.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/apr04/apr22news
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Digger said:
Pat said the same about Frankie: Had hidden agenda.
About Betsy: An axe to grind.

First class douche bag. He's as dirty as the cyclists and he doesn't want to get busted either.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
3
0
Cycling cannot move forward as a sport until the UCI is either completely restructured or replaced with a brand new organisation. It has lost all credibility.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Some more observations from Pat - this is from an interview that PMcQ did in South Africa in January - the full video is here on the UCI page.

21:29) PRESESNTER: A lot of people are very cynical still of certain results that riders are getting and ah, you read about poor old Lance coming back and ah, everybodys got something to say on whether he did or dope. What do you say to those people going forward now?

PMcQ:
Well, I mean when you talk about poor old Lance, ah, ah, certainly in 1999 the French raised questions about whether he used EPO in 1999 or not, when there was no test for EPO, am from 2000 right through til 2005 his last Tour de France he was tested the same as every other athlete, he is the most tested athlete in the world and he is..he is negative all the time so I think that speaks for itself. In relation to Lance as well you know I mean I have been following a little bit over the winter on his twitter and the attention to detail which he has put in to his preparation is incredible it’s a little bit likethe British system I spoke about earlier on. I mean he was doing 5 hour runs on the bike in Haiwaii and then going in to a sauna afterwards to test core temperature afterwards of the body and that sort of thing so its all..I think it really amounts..if you look at his preparation and the work that he puts in to his performances is justified he is an incredible athlete
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
I put this in another thread - but I will also put it here to show why Pat McQuaid has absolutely no credibility and add that Pro Cycling cannot move out of the mess it has created until those in power are removed:


Here (audio) is what Pat said in September 2007 about Lances donation.


The 15 months ago is quite revealing - as this would be in May 2006 - which is after the SCA case where Lance had admitted to already giving a donation to the UCI.

It also coincides with the the release of the Vrijman report!
 
May 15, 2009
205
0
0
McQuaid keeps going on that these riders have a hidden agenda, when its far more likely that it is he who has the agenda
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
1
0
Sum_of_Marc said:
McQuaid keeps going on that these riders have a hidden agenda, when its far more likely that it is he who has the agenda

They don't stand to make half the money outing dopers that he does keeping guys like Lance in the peloton.
 
Dec 18, 2009
164
0
0
The man's a hack, more concerned with keeping the status quo where he happens to be on top, than to bring meaningful change.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Digger said:
Pat said the same about Frankie: Had hidden agenda.
About Betsy: An axe to grind.

The further back in time, the harder it is to find good quotes. For example, I know Verbruggen publicly slammed Manzano, but it's gonna take some work to find the exact quotes.

If you can provide links with quotes I'd like to repost this entire thread with a complete list of every whistle blower McLame/Verdruggen have attacked.
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
through the whole flandis affair mcquaid continuously called floyd a liar and asked him to tell the truth.

now floyd finally tells the truth and mcquaid is more ****ed than ever. "tell the truth floyd, but only about yourself, not about everyone else."

hilarious.

sadly, floyd has really opened himself up to trouble here. we will see omerta in its full glory before the end. unless someone steps up to corroborate some of floyd's claims, he is open to libel suits from EVERYONE, armstrong, the uci, other named riders, etc. not to mention potential perjury charges.

the only one who will suffer here is floyd, methinks. as if he hasn't been through enough.
 
Dr will back this up, but McQuaid refused point blank to go on an Irish radio programme at the same time as Betsy. He would only go on after her or before her. She was taking serious issue with what he was saying.
 
May 12, 2010
17
0
0
McQuaid had the chance to show a progressive stance on doping, instead he dropped a clanger. Comparing the WADA response, shows just how backward and insular the UCI is. How can cyclist's speak out about doping issues if this is thrown back at them?
 
Oct 31, 2009
87
0
0
Ah come on! FFS! How stupid do he think we are? He's just not even trying anymore, the same lame BS given every time. Does he imply a large scale conspiracy?
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
asnicol said:
McQuaid had the chance to show a progressive stance on doping, instead he dropped a clanger. Comparing the WADA response, shows just how backward and insular the UCI is. How can cyclist's speak out about doping issues if this is thrown back at them?

Precisely.

There is a pattern to omerta. Speak out, get slammed in the media, get shut out of the sport.

The best that McQuaid and co. can do is suggest (every time) that the whistle blowers are acting out of spite, or are acting for financial gain.

In practice, this wasn't the case with Manzano, Jaksche, or Kohl. It's highly unlikely this is the case with Landis either.
 
The point I would like to raise is that in law (well certainly English law) 'whistleblowers' have protection- Protection from Harrassment. This is in order to encourage malpractices being exposed.

Whenever a story like this breaks, I always note with interest the reaction of those in charge of the sport. I think inferences can be drawn from their reactions; often their reaction reveals more about the state of the sport than anything that has been 'exposed' by the 'whistleblower'.
 
Jan the Man said:
The point I would like to raise is that in law (well certainly English law) 'whistleblowers' have protection- Protection from Harrassment. This is in order to encourage malpractices being exposed.

Whenever a story like this breaks, I always note with interest the reaction of those in charge of the sport. I think inferences can be drawn from their reactions; often their reaction reveals more about the state of the sport than anything that has been 'exposed' by the 'whistleblower'.

I agree. Anti-doping policy should be out of the hands of the UCI, because they are an interested party. Hopefully USADA and the courts will unmask Armstrong, because the UCI will never do it.
 
Mar 20, 2009
406
0
0
all you lot here have the "little-***" syndrome. so eager to condem people because you think you know the truth which noone is telling you.
when you personally have had interaction with the people in question - and have seen it all first hand - then make your stupid calls.
so far i've witnessed a forum full of sad people who need help themselves.
atleast landis has an excuse to be a ***** about it all. and your excuses are? because you're a fan? LOL - give me a break and get a new interest!
 
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
danjo007 said:
all you lot here have the "little-***" syndrome. so eager to condem people because you think you know the truth which noone is telling you.
when you personally have had interaction with the people in question - and have seen it all first hand - then make your stupid calls.
so far i've witnessed a forum full of sad people who need help themselves.
atleast landis has an excuse to be a ***** about it all. and your excuses are? because you're a fan? LOL - give me a break and get a new interest!

It seems your definition of "fan" requires a head in the sand approach to the widepread, systematic doping in the pro peleton and ignoring the corrupt UCI leadership running the sport.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Amazingly, McQuaid continues to comment on these issues...

Today he actually brought up the pay-off for Tour de Suisse allegation...which I find funny because Lance only rode the TdS once, in 2001, so that's the only TdS win Landis could be talking about. McQuaid is so desperate to paint Landis as crazy that he misinterpreted Landis' email to suggest Landis is talking about a pay-off in 2002.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Ludwig - I wrote this elsewhere, but you are spot on. This seems to be deliberate spinning of what Landis wrote.

2002: [..] Mr Armstrong was not witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the inconvenience of the new test. He also divulged to me at that time that in the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden.

Now, in this story they are blood doping and not using EPO which is 2002. He refers to Armstrong explaining to him about why they are not using EPO in 2002 - the why being because in 2001 Armstrong had used EPO against Ferrari's advice and tested positive in the TDS.

So I think the Armstrong didn't ride the 2002 TDS is a red-herring because they weren't using EPO in 2002 but they had been in 2001.

2002 refers to when he was told by Armstrong (my assumption) about the event.

So really this is the UCI twisting what is in the leaked emails rather than evidence that Landis is lying.

Put this alongside the Sylvia Schenk allegations as well. McQuaid has said $100,000 was all that was given, Schenk says it was nearer $500,000.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Ludwig - I wrote this elsewhere, but you are spot on. This seems to be deliberate spinning of what Landis wrote.



Now, in this story they are blood doping and not using EPO which is 2002. He refers to Armstrong explaining to him about why they are not using EPO in 2002 - the why being because in 2001 Armstrong had used EPO against Ferrari's advice and tested positive in the TDS.

So I think the Armstrong didn't ride the 2002 TDS is a red-herring because they weren't using EPO in 2002 but they had been in 2001.

2002 refers to when he was told by Armstrong (my assumption) about the event.

So really this is the UCI twisting what is in the leaked emails rather than evidence that Landis is lying.

Put this alongside the Sylvia Schenk allegations as well. McQuaid has said $100,000 was all that was given, Schenk says it was nearer $500,000.

Of course.

The first year that the EPO test was used = 2001. This is a deliberate misinterpretation by Patty.