Newsflash. Brian Cookson, british cycling, to stand against Pat McQuaid (SUI) for uci

[sniper]

Even if Cookson and the management committee probably weren't sharing in McBruggen's corruption (which I think Moose McKnuckles acknowledges), they could and should have known about McQuaid's corruptness, and, fairly simply, they probably did know about it (which i think is Moose's main point).

McQuaid walking hand in hand with Verbruggen from, when was it, 1999 onwards...
What was there to overlook? McQuaid was there when the Vrijman report went down, when Armstrong was allowed back in against the rules. Everybody with two eyes could see the corruption and doping-coverups unfolding and could guess that McQuaid was part of it, years ago already.

So from that angle, indeed, Cookson's recent support for McQuaid doesn't look good at all, and sort of suggests he didn't really care too much about the corruption and doping-coverups, even if he didn't have a direct hand in it.

But in the meantime I could imagine that Cookson's gotten pretty emotionally invested in this whole mess, and, with guys like Jamie Fuller and Greg Lemond looking over his shoulder (for what it's worth), i have hopes that he might turn this (i.e anti-doping) into a principle matter and put his money where his mouth is wrt anti-doping.

 

[Benotti69]

UCI rotten to the core.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Well all I have to say on the matter is that Cookson is not the whiter than white character he claims to be. He would know exactly what I mean on that one when it comes to being corrupt!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Even if Cookson and the management committee probably weren't sharing in the corruption (which I think Moose McKnuckles acknowledges), they could and should have known about McQuaid's corruptness, and, fairly simply, they probably did know about it (which i think is Moose's main point).

McQuaid walking hand in hand with Verbruggen from, when was it, 1999 onwards...
What was there to overlook? McQuaid was there when the Vrijman report went down, when Armstrong was allowed back in against the rules. Everybody with two eyes could see the corruption unfolding and could guess that McQuaid was part of it, years ago already.

So from that angle, indeed, Cookson's recent support for McQuaid doesn't look good at all, and sort of suggests he didn't really care too much about the corruption within the UCI (i.e. within the executive committee).

Could and should.

What you write would be fair except you are writing this now. Indeed the could and should was the dossier, which only happened in June.

Cookson was not part of the UCI Mgt Comm until 2009. Most of what you state is well before that. Also, you included pretty irrelevant things like Vrijman report, while obviously in favour of clearing LA, the coverup was not obvious.

But in the meantime I could imagine that Cookson's gotten pretty emotionally invested in this whole mess, and, with guys like Jamie Fuller and Greg Lemond looking over his shoulder (for what it's worth), i have hopes that he might turn this (i.e anti-doping) into a principle matter and put his money where his mouth is wrt anti-doping.

This is part of what Cookson wrote back in October, long before Fuller & LeMond:

The UCI, in particular its former President Hein Verbruggen and its current President Pat McQuaid have received considerable criticism of their handling of these matters. Certain serious allegations have been made which have caused widespread concern. I am pleased that, at its meeting last week, the UCI Management Committee agreed to an independent review of all matters relevant to the current crisis, including those allegations. I understand that both of them will fully co-operate with that review.
The Management Committee agreed that the review should include a clear and transparent independent examination of all the UCI’s regulations and procedures, particularly those relevant to doping and the handling of disciplinary action. This review can and will include all matters which the review Commission itself may consider to have an impact on the current crisis, including the length of suspensions and other sanctions available for such offences. This review will also consider the possibility of amnesty, partial amnesty, truth and reconciliation processes, and any similar matters.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No, you're simply incorrect. Evidence breeds suspicion. Proof breeds certainty. People on the interwebs do seem to have trouble with the distinction between proof and evidence.

If someone knew nothing about Cookson and judged him (one way or another) because of some surface quality that they did or didn't like, that would be prejudice.

If someone knew that he had ties to existing teams and owners and regarded that as a conflict of interest, that's judgement. No pre involved.

You're welcome.

I find this a rather bizarre stretch of logic. Evidence breeds suspicion? Really? No, suspicion is unfounded doubts about motives, actions etc. Suspicion does not require evidence, just opinion, hearsay, gut instinct, anecdotes.

If you are confused, dictionaries are your friend;

1. The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof.

You see you have a major fail on cause and effect. Suspicion may breed evidence if investigated, evidence breeds proof, proof breeds certainty. A body of evidence is proof. Unless you have more information than me, as you see fit to try to condescend to me.

You're welcome, Jocko.

I also suggest no-one here knows much about Cookson at all, beyond their prejudice.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find anybody "on the inside" at the UCI who wasn't somewhat compromised. And if such a person exists, they probably don't have the connections and support to get very far in climbing the UCI ladder or getting elected. It's such a closed shop. It's not like this is a regular (popular) election. All the campaigning towards the fans doesn't necessarily mean a person will get much support from the actual voters.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Prejudice is to prejudge without facts and knowledge or examination of the facts. Prejudice can also be an attitude towards a person that is both favourable or unfavourable.

I have noticed on more than one occasion your posting trend appears to be very often prejudice in favour of Sky, for example. Or you may be prejudice (favourably) towards Cookson as he is British, as you may lack an analysis of the facts. Facts such as Cookson may have a conflict of interest with Sky sponsorship for example presiding on the board of BSkyB. Cookson has supplied us with a manifesto so we may prejudge and analyse the facts about what his intentions are should he become UCI president.

If someone puts themselves forward for candidacy for president and supplies us with a manifesto of his intentions then you are perfectly entitled to prejudge and analyse until your heart is content in that context. And more over is your democratic duty to do so. Similar to when you vote for a particular political party, vote at the ballet box having hopefully examined all the facts about a candidate and prejudged them accordingly.

Yes, only me on this board. You are a purely objective analyst of events here of course, without prejudice. I salute and ask you deliver us all from the coming darkness.

 

[Benotti69]

<snipped>

I also suggest no-one here knows much about Cookson at all, beyond their prejudice.

I think not. We know enough about his lack of doing anything while being on the UCI management committee.

Cookson is the lesser of the 2 evils on offer for pres of UCI.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Is that a fact or is it just a subjective judgement by you?

Bad card Jimmy.

Cookson is backed by the nice Makarov. Are we also anti - Russian? Cookson is backed by LeMond, are we anti - LeMond?

Etc etc.

Err,just a comment on the boards here in general old chum. Maybe you're reading too much into what I said. Didn't have you in mind when saying it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well all I have to say on the matter is that Cookson is not the whiter than white character he claims to be. He would know exactly what I mean on that one when it comes to being corrupt!

Then spit it out.

I am sure that there would (at least) a nice bottle of Irish Whiskey in it for you by releasing some details.

(and before you say you don't like/drink whiskey, thats fine - I will gladly find a nice caring short term home for it, you can keep the USPS Trek)

 

[red_flanders]

I find this a rather bizarre stretch of logic. Evidence breeds suspicion? Really? No, suspicion is unfounded doubts about motives, actions etc. Suspicion does not require evidence, just opinion, hearsay, gut instinct, anecdotes.

If you are confused, dictionaries are your friend;

1. The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof.

You see you have a major fail on cause and effect. Suspicion may breed evidence if investigated, evidence breeds proof, proof breeds certainty. A body of evidence is proof. Unless you have more information than me, as you see fit to try to condescend to me.

You're welcome, Jocko.

I also suggest no-one here knows much about Cookson at all, beyond their prejudice.

This is getting silly. Suspicion can be warranted or unwarranted and obviously can occur with or without evidence. However, predjudice...

prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment

There is no evidence of prejudice here.

People have reason (see above definition) to be suspicious of Cookson due to his connections and background. This proves nothing but the suspicion is based on reason (see above definition). There is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that his suspicion is based on his nationality.

Nor is there suspicion of Sky because of nationality.

It all sounds a bit paranoid.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

I find this a rather bizarre stretch of logic. Evidence breeds suspicion? Really? No, suspicion is unfounded doubts about motives, actions etc. Suspicion does not require evidence, just opinion, hearsay, gut instinct, anecdotes.

If you are confused, dictionaries are your friend;

1. The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof.

You see you have a major fail on cause and effect. Suspicion may breed evidence if investigated, evidence breeds proof, proof breeds certainty. A body of evidence is proof. Unless you have more information than me, as you see fit to try to condescend to me.

You're welcome, Jocko.

I also suggest no-one here knows much about Cookson at all, beyond their prejudice.

I've worked under Cookson, I know one or many things.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This forum is the only place I've ever heard of this rabid prejudice against the British by Americans.

Given history, I'd have thought if there were any prejudice would be favorable.

I don't recall mentioning Americans. Quote if I am wrong, else it's a strawman once more.

And the second sentence doesn't make sense, maybe lacking a word or two. Not sure.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't recall mentioning Americans. Quote if I am wrong, else it's a strawman once more.

And the second sentence doesn't make sense, maybe lacking a word or two. Not sure.

hu·mor
ˈ(h)yo͞omər/Submit
noun
1.
the quality of being amusing or comic, esp. as expressed in literature or speech.
"his tales are full of humor"
synonyms: comedy, comical aspect, funny side, fun, amusement, funniness, hilarity, jocularity;

Others seem to have gotten it.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Then spit it out.

I am sure that there would (at least) a nice bottle of Irish Whiskey in it for you by releasing some details.

(and before you say you don't like/drink whiskey, thats fine - I will gladly find a nice caring short term home for it, you can keep the USPS Trek)

I prefer single Islay malts if you want to be highly accurate on my choice of drink. Lets just say I left BC due to corruption at the top of the shop over the Olympics. Anything more with my evidence I hold is worth much more than a forum post.

 

[sniper]

Could and should.

What you write would be fair except you are writing this now. Indeed the could and should was the dossier, which only happened in June.

Cookson was not part of the UCI Mgt Comm until 2009. Most of what you state is well before that. Also, you included pretty irrelevant things like Vrijman report, while obviously in favour of clearing LA, the coverup was not obvious.




This is part of what Cookson wrote back in October, long before Fuller & LeMond:

Fair enough.
And to be sure, i'm one of those willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at least wrt his intent to put anti-doping in the hands of WADA.


(How convenient though that the next WADA president will be from...)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think not. We know enough about his lack of doing anything while being on the UCI management committee.

Cookson is the lesser of the 2 evils on offer for pres of UCI.

Really?

Where have you read about what he has or has not done on the Mgt Comm?
I have been looking for a particular piece but haven't found it yet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I prefer single Islay malts if you want to be highly accurate on my choice of drink. Lets just say I left BC due to corruption at the top of the shop over the Olympics. Anything more with my evidence I hold is worth much more than a forum post.

While I am intrigued - thats about it.

If you have something and you do care about the sport, then release it to the appropriate authorities.

 

[BroDeal]

Where was Cookson when the UCI sued Landis and Kimmage? Was he on a deserted island without news service?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Where was Cookson when the UCI sued Landis and Kimmage? Was he on a deserted island without news service?

And further to that, why did he not answer Kimmage's two questions during his twitter Q&A until pressed on it by several people, only to give a non-answer on his blog a day later? That looked evasive.

edit-
To be fair, he did say that if he were elected, he wouldn't have the UCI sue whistleblowers. But it still doesn't answer how much a fuss (if any) he and the rest of the Management Committee put up over the Landis/Kimmage lawsuits.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where was Cookson when the UCI sued Landis and Kimmage? Was he on a deserted island without news service?

That is my main reservation with Cookson.

What did he do, or not do when Hein/Pat said they were suing Kimmage.
His only response was through twitter to Kimmage about not being able to explain because it was legal matter. Which seems pretty hollow.

 

[ElChingon]

UCI rotten to the core.

Well we've known this all along, Brian Crookson will at the very least give us a new target and a new thread.

Who knows if it will end up good but at least it will end up different, if in name.

 

[Benotti69]

Really?

Where have you read about what he has or has not done on the Mgt Comm?
I have been looking for a particular piece but haven't found it yet.

the vortex has doubts?

See below.

Where was Cookson when the UCI sued Landis and Kimmage? Was he on a deserted island without news service?

His silence on Kimmage, Landis, Armstrong scream he is part of the rotting corpse that is the UCI.

 

[del1962]

UCI Management Commitee

President

Mr Pat McQUAID IRL


Vice-Presidents


Mr Hee Wook CHO KOR
Mr Renato DI ROCCO ITA
Mr Artur LOPES POR

Members


Mr Mohamed Wagih AZZAM EGY
Mr José Manuel PELAEZ CUB
Ms Tracey Gaudry AUS
Mr Sheikh Faisal Bin Humaid AL QASSIMI UAE
Mr Brian COOKSON GBR
Mr David LAPPARTIENT FRA
Mr Mohamed Jamel LOUAFI TUN
Mr Igor Viktorovich MAKAROV RUS
Mr Peder PEDERSEN DEN
Mr Mike PLANT USA


Coopted Member

Mr Joop ATSMA NED


Honorary President

Mr Hein VERBRUGGEN NED


Honorary Vice-presidents

Mr Ray GODKIN AUS
Mr Vladimir HOLECEK CZE
Mr Agostino OMINI ITA


The accusation is that Plant & Makarov (both dodgy) are the pupper masters behind Cookson.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the vortex has doubts?

See below.



His silence on Kimmage, Landis, Armstrong scream he is part of the rotting corpse that is the UCI.

No - I asked you a simple question;
"Where have you read about what he has or has not done on the Mgt Comm?
I have been looking for a particular piece but haven't found it yet."

Either you know, or you don't.