McQuaid surpresses Aldag interview

[spalco]

I agree that it's a stretch to assume the UCI had anything to do with the article getting pulled, but it's strange anyway. Maybe just an innocent mistake, someone clicking a wrong button or so.

It's certainly something that seems newsworthy for a site like cyclingnews.

 

[python]

i don’t know if the cn removed the article due to mc quaid pressure.

granted, the possibility can not be excluded but since a major german paper has left the original article in place, i very much doubt that pat is that stupid as to think he can silence dozens of other english-language outlets…oh well, perhaps pat’s not worth my credit given his previous public record…

that aside, aldag, as martin already noted, comes across as a relieved man speaking his mind.

does aldag have credibility ? no more and no less than the majority of the 'insiders' from his time. if i’m willing to listen to landis, i don’t see why aldag should be dismissed…

that said, aldag and his mouth were very much part of the system when he depended on the system.

in this 3 y o interview to sd (german) he dodged and deflected almost every doping related question, even when they did not relate to his team and he could afford being a little less defensive.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/942/481414/text/

human nature i guess

 

[cprior]

Always good for a laugh, our Dumbo.

"Mit 95 Stundenkilometern auf 21 Millimeter breiten Reifen und einer klassischen Seilzugbremse einen Berg runter rasen - Ist das schlau?"
*LOL*

 

[sniper]

(...)

granted, the possibility can not be excluded but since a major german paper has left the original article in place, i very much doubt that pat is that stupid as to think he can silence dozens of other english-language outlets…oh well, perhaps pat’s not worth my credit given his previous public record… (...)

Coverage of the interview in Cyclingnews I assume is much more damning for Pat's immage than coverage in the German press.

If the interview remains only in the German press, Pat can always play the 'Those-Germans-just-hate-cycling'-card, and pretend nothing happened.

 

[spalco]

But why would CN oblige by McQuaid's wishes? It's not like they have been especially favourable in their coverage of the UCI previously.

 

[thehog]

Do you think Aldag has any credibility (as an ex-doper) in what he says?

God are we going down this path again?

If anything ala Landis these "ex-dopers" know more than anyone on how the "system" works.

Why do we say such stupid things?

 

[python]

@sniper and @gooner..

i just carefully reread the pulled article. it certainly is a sharp criticism of pat.
but frankly, aldag did not say anything new that hasn't been in a long-standing public record or anything that the cn has not covered or quoted previously.

for example, i recall greg lemod quoted when speaking of the uci mafia-like dealings or the cn extensive coverage of landis lethal words about the uci...

again, not saying pat hasn't been involved, just saying the cn has shown plenty of courage before and i even recall a cn editorial (can't recall the name) that sharply stood to mc quide personally for his poor ethical handling of armstrong's 'contribution'.

just trying to be accurate and fair...and i hate the foxnews

 

[Stingray34]

It's back

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aldag-blasts-uci-mcquaid-and-pro-cycling

I'm not sure if it was ever pulled from the Aus servers.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

As noted, the story is back up with some changes.

Susan

 

[Daniel Benson]

Salut!

So to clear, i had several calls and emails yesterday - none of which were from Pat - regarding the story. I wasn't in the office or able to work and as there were several aspects of the story that were called up on, I decided to have the story hidden until I was back at work.

The story is back up now. It has a bit more background added. The writer was spot on with what they did.

Thanks

Daniel

 

[Stingray34]

If anything, the changes are no less damning of Pat, notwithstanding the disclaimer that he wasn't de prez at the time of the bribe...er, donation. The new version includes Aldag criticizing Pat over the Contador case.

So, if not from Pat, who was so adamant that the disclaimer must be included? Some other interested party, naturally. His secretary?

 

[thehog]

Salut!

So to clear, i had several calls and emails yesterday - none of which were from Pat - regarding the story. I wasn't in the office or able to work and as there were several aspects of the story that were called up on, I decided to have the story hidden until I was back at work.

The story is back up now. It has a bit more background added. The writer was spot on with what they did.

Thanks

Daniel

Daniel - Thanks for the explanation. Well stated and good policy to withdraw the story to clarify the points. This in my view maintains your already excellent integrity as a cycling journalist. Bravo!

Thanks again.

 

[Daniel Benson]

No one asked me to include anything in that story.

Pat has a secretary?

 

[Stingray34]

No one asked me to include anything in that story.

Pat has a secretary?

His bartender, then.

If not include, what did they 'call you up on' then? Seems pretty irregular for this site.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Salut!

So to clear, i had several calls and emails yesterday - none of which were from Pat - regarding the story. I wasn't in the office or able to work and as there were several aspects of the story that were called up on, I decided to have the story hidden until I was back at work.

Ya, but everyone knows Hein writes Pats emails for him.

The story is back up now. It has a bit more background added. The writer was spot on with what they did.

Thanks

Daniel

The updated article is materially the same however, there is this added:

It must be noted that the Amstrong donations were made to the UCI before McQuaid was president. In addition, the UCI in 2010 showed Cyclingnews the receipts for the donation, which show that the money was used for anti-doping, and also made it clear that it would not accept donations in the future.

....
How can we determine that? Pat became President in September 2005.

At the Play the Game conference in 2007 Pat actually suggests the 'donation' was paid in June/Jully 2006 (Second clip http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=80 )

Then Hein got in on the act:

Verbruggen said he checked with the UCI in 2005 or 2006 to see if they had received the money.

"They had forgotten about it," he said. "Then they went after the money and they got it. That's the whole story."

And finally in an interview to a German publication Carpani said the 'donation' was not until 2007.

UCI-Sprecher Enrico Carpani antwortete auf SZ-Anfrage: "Im Mai 2002 spendete Armstrong einen 25.000-Dollar-Scheck. Damit wurden Dopingtests in Juniorenrennen finanziert. 2005 beschloss Armstrong nach seinem Rücktritt eine weitere Spende an die UCI von 100.000 Dollar, die UCI benötigte eine Sysmex-Maschine. Wir bekamen die Spende erst im Januar 2007 - für die Gründe der Verspätung müssen sie Mr. Armstrong fragen." Carpani schließt, dies sei "das allerletzte Mal, dass wir uns zu der Sache äußern, wir haben alles gesagt". Hat die UCI das wirklich?
-------

Translated:
UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said on SZ-Request: In May 2002, gave Armstrong a 25,000-dollar check. "To have drug testing junior race financed needed. 2005 decided to Armstrong after his resignation a further donation to the UCI of $ 100,000, the UCI . a Sysmex machine we received the donation in January 2007 - for the reasons of the delay they have to ask Mr. Armstrong." Carpani concludes that this was the very last time that we give our opinion on the matter, we have said everything". If the UCI really?

As to the receipt - was that the time McQuaid produced the receipt from the 'confidential file' and would not allow a photograph be taken? If it was a different time, when was the receipt dated, how much was on it, who was paid?

And why did they not put that information on the UCI website as Pat said he would:

"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.

 

[sniper]

Ya, but everyone knows Hein writes Pats emails for him.



The updated article is materially the same however, there is this added:
....
How can we determine that? Pat became President in September 2005.

At the Play the Game conference in 2007 Pat actually suggests the 'donation' was paid in June/Jully 2006 (Second clip http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=80 )

Then Hein got in on the act:


And finally in an interview to a German publication Carpani said the 'donation' was not until 2007.


As to the receipt - was that the time McQuaid produced the receipt from the 'confidential file' and would not allow a photograph be taken? If it was a different time, when was the receipt dated, how much was on it, who was paid?

And why did they not put that information on the UCI website as Pat said he would:

+1000

to the final part:
It's rather typical of institutions that have something to hide to feign/promise transparency and then do nothing in the hope that everybody forgets.

A parallel case:

In Germany, the Bundespräsident is currently under attack for some dubious financial deal he made in the recent past. In an interview, he promised to publish online all the details about this financial deal, but then nothing came.
Clearly, he hoped the storm would blow over.
Unlike Pat, however, the German Bundespresident is not getting away with: the public pressure on him is rising each day and he's unlikely to stay in position. Now that is something Aldag also referred to in the interview: in a normal society, Pat could not have gotten away with the issue so easily.

 

[Cloxxki]

So, was CN hassled into replacing one half truth with the other?

I would be very interested to learn whom were sent to call back CN.
Does anonimity of a source in journalism apply to people demanding corrections, deletions and/or additions?

 

[Benotti69]

No name on the article.....probably written by software!

It must be noted that the Amstrong donations were made to the UCI before McQuaid was president. In addition, the UCI in 2010 showed Cyclingnews the receipts for the donation, which show that the money was used for anti-doping, and also made it clear that it would not accept donations in the future.

Pull the other one.

If CN saw this so called receipt and i call BS on that why was it not published as a separate article, with all the lovely details? It is big news, a TdF winner and the only one recorded in history of the sport makes a 'donation' to the international federation!

CN want their invites to the WT to remain intact and not withdrawn but aint got the pelotas to say it.

CN part of the omerta? It looks like it.

 

[thehog]

Daniel - Thanks for the explanation. Well stated and good policy to withdraw the story to clarify the points. This in my view maintains your already excellent integrity as a cycling journalist. Bravo!

Thanks again.

Thanks Hog excellent post.

 

[sniper]

No name on the article.....probably written by software!



Pull the other one.

If CN saw this so called receipt and i call BS on that why was it not published as a separate article, with all the lovely details? It is big news, a TdF winner and the only one recorded in history of the sport makes a 'donation' to the international federation!

CN want their invites to the WT to remain intact and not withdrawn but aint got the pelotas to say it.

CN part of the omerta? It looks like it.

+1

UCI (and unfortunately also CN) merely feigning transparency.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No name on the article.....probably written by software!

The 'original' piece was also posted without a name - so?
Many of the reports on CN do not have the name of the authour.

Pull the other one.

If CN saw this so called receipt and i call BS on that why was it not published as a separate article, with all the lovely details? It is big news, a TdF winner and the only one recorded in history of the sport makes a 'donation' to the international federation!

CN want their invites to the WT to remain intact and not withdrawn but aint got the pelotas to say it.

Here you go - an article from CN in 2010

McQuaid showed Cyclingnews a photocopy of the invoice of the Sysmex blood testing machine that a large part of Armstrong $100,000 donation was used to buy. He refused to let us take a photograph of it, keeping it in a file marked 'Confidential'.

CN part of the omerta? It looks like it.

Please buy a dictionary (or look online) for what the term omerta actually means.

 

[Benotti69]

Keep swallowing, the taste gets better....... so i am told.

 

[BroDeal]

Ya, but everyone knows Hein writes Pats emails for him.

The updated article is materially the same however, there is this added:
....
How can we determine that? Pat became President in September 2005.

At the Play the Game conference in 2007 Pat actually suggests the 'donation' was paid in June/Jully 2006 (Second clip http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=80 )

Then Hein got in on the act:


And finally in an interview to a German publication Carpani said the 'donation' was not until 2007.


As to the receipt - was that the time McQuaid produced the receipt from the 'confidential file' and would not allow a photograph be taken? If it was a different time, when was the receipt dated, how much was on it, who was paid?

And why did they not put that information on the UCI website as Pat said he would:

Good work. This calls for another edit of the article. I doubt they will do it, though.

It would be interesting to know what date was on the supposed receipt for the machine.

 

[DirtyWorks]

CN want their invites to the WT to remain intact and not withdrawn but aint got the pelotas to say it.

CN part of the omerta? It looks like it.

C'mon now. It's important to remember the stories related to the Omerta generate little demand on their own. Even if they would be more aggressive, it wouldn't draw more readers.

CN walks the line very well between cleaning up the sport and retelling the UCI's version of anti-doping.

If you want to read Omerta-press then visit what's left of velonews. 20+ years ago they blindly parroted the UCI's doping denials and it's still going strong.

 

[AussieGoddess]

the article linked by Dr Mas says that CN saw the receipt for the Machine that was bought .... not any evidence of how much the donation was or where it was from.

I dont doubt that the UCI spent the money on drug testing or whatever .... the fact that they accepted it at all is disgraceful, and is what Aldaig is complaining about.