McQuaid...out of control? [UCI/Pat McQuad discussion]

[webvan]

McQuaid keeps going http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-there-has-never-been-corruption-in-the-uci? the more it goes the more he reminds me of...http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

 

[SC1990]

Interesting that McDudd says "It's impossible to be corrupt in the way we're being accused, in terms of bribery and assisting riders cover up doping positives,". Leaves it pretty open that there are plenty of other ways the UCI can be corrupt and no doubt is!

Reading way too much into it there. He's not exactly going to list every method of corruption possible just to ensure that it's covered, so that people can't go 'ooh, he didn't mention x, that must be corrupt' - he's assuming you have some common sense. Working back from the conclusion that the UCI must be corrupt then reading into quotes like this in such a way as 'proof' isn't very sensible.

 

[rickshaw]

If I close my eyes...

Reading way too much into it there. He's not exactly going to list every method of corruption possible just to ensure that it's covered, so that people can't go 'ooh, he didn't mention x, that must be corrupt' - he's assuming you have some common sense. Working back from the conclusion that the UCI must be corrupt then reading into quotes like this in such a way as 'proof' isn't very sensible.

I can actually SEE Richard Millhouse Nixon and hear his words. "I am NOT a crook..... (blah blah blah) You can keep the money (blah blah) but we're keeping Checkers.."

 

[Archibald]

Wrong. For 2 reasons.

One, 99.9999% of cyclists who have an analytical positive are found guilty. So for you to imply that McQuaid should (or even can) remain neutral is meaningless. If 99.999% certainty exists in a given process, why is it so 'important' and 'crucial' for McQuaid to be neutral? Do you think that by making statements, McQuaid will increase WADA's conviction rate from 99.99998% to 99.99999%?

Second, McQuaid never pronounces someone guilty or not. You misinterpret what he says and add all sorts of implications to his statements that he never actually made (or implied) himself.

Show me a link to a single post where McQuaid is quoted as saying Contador is guilty. Yet in everyone's mind - including yours - McQuaid has already done this. But in reality, he hasn't. You just misinterpret his quotes.

Show me 1 link with a quote from McQuaid where he says Contador is guilty. I'm waiting...

your earlier points were fine, but that lot didn't even address Aussie Goddess' point...
that's a straight lot of "watchya talkin' 'bout Willis?"

 

[SC1990]

I can actually SEE Richard Millhouse Nixon and hear his words. "I am NOT a crook..... (blah blah blah) You can keep the money (blah blah) but we're keeping Checkers.."

Going to have to explain that as I've no idea what you're on about sadly. Sorry.

 

[Benotti69]

NYT: USADA's Travis Tygart says UCI being in charge of dope testing is like “the fox watching the henhouse.”

yep that's about right. UCI have watched goodfellas to often but never got to the end.....yet

 

[Oldman]

Interesting that McDudd says "It's impossible to be corrupt in the way we're being accused, in terms of bribery and assisting riders cover up doping positives,". Leaves it pretty open that there are plenty of other ways the UCI can be corrupt and no doubt is!
QUOTE]

He forgot the part: "We've researched all possible ways to profit from operation of the UCI and this sort of small time cover up has too little reward for the risk. We prefer direct shakedowns than trying to suppress positive tests of "small" riders."
I imagine that planning discussion has happened in at least one Irish bar.