Pat McQuaid is a dxxk !!!!!

[meat puppet]

I agree with Polyarmor's point that Clara Hughes' WC 2011 performance was top notch and exciting, and I also don't get why the women's race gets more flak than the men's equivalent.

Also I don't seem to get why the alleged non-quality of women's races is the big deal here. For what it's worth, I find myself enjoying them.

In any case Hosking made a point I agree with; to me what she did was bold, if per se the demands are unattainable at the moment because of the current financial / power distribution within the sport. But the thing to keep in mind is that cycling is a commerce. Pro cyclists, gender aside, are workers as the prefix pro indicates. As commerces go, nothing happens if there are no workers. And these workers should be paid. When there is a sector of commerce that does not allow its professionals to get a decent pay, for whatever the reason, it's a bad one and reforms are to be made.

So hats off to the lady's initiative. The details and concrete reforms are hopefully discussed in more length and in a realist register, yet it is always so that it takes one to blow the whistle.

 

[jraama]

"I have to apologise for how I phrased my comments, I wasn't that eloquent," said Hosking

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hosking-to-apologize-for-remarks-to-mcquaid

Gee, I didn't see that one coming.

I like the way she went about her "apology".

In saying: "I'm not going to apologise for what I said, but I do apologise for how I said it.", she is reiterating that she really does think he is a d*ck.

I concur.

 

[Maxiton]

I like the way she went about her "apology".

In saying: "I'm not going to apologise for what I said, but I do apologise for how I said it.", she is reiterating that she really does think he is a d*ck.

I concur.

Yeah, the whole world concurs. Even D*ck's mom thinks he's a D*ck. She's the one who named him.

 

[Swabian Lass]

I like the way she went about her "apology".

In saying: "I'm not going to apologise for what I said, but I do apologise for how I said it.", she is reiterating that she really does think he is a d*ck.

I concur.

Yes, that was neat. The only question is how come a duck has held on to that position for so long? Surely the whole world can see that he's a quack?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Err, not so fast hypocrite. I think if you read my posts you can see I am a SUPPORTER of womens cycling. I think anyone reading your posts will see that you aren't. Why? Because you don't believe their performances are as good as mens and therefore are not worth watching. You said as much in a previous post.

Yes, I know you are a supporter of womens cycling, but when you suggest that that my logic applies to any female activity, you necessarily imply that women are 2nd rate at everything.

Your inability to apply reason is what implied that, not me.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes, that was neat. The only question is how come a duck has held on to that position for so long? Surely the whole world can see that he's a quack?

He won't be going anywhere. The election process is corrupt. McQuaid was handpicked by the outgoing president. He was moved to Switzerland, on the UCI's dime, in preparation for taking over before the election was held. Even if the main cycling nations wanted to get rid of him, there are too many other countries that can be "influenced" by the current regime.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, I know you are a supporter of womens cycling, but when you suggest that that my logic applies to any female activity, you necessarily imply that women are 2nd rate at everything.

Your inability to apply reason is what implied that, not me.

OK, rather than continuing to bicker, I thought I'd just ask directly:

What, in your opinion, would need to happen, in order for you to watch and enjoy women's cycling?

After all, given the opinions that you've expressed in various places on the forum you are not opposed to women's cycling or dismissive of it, but at the same time consider it as inferior and have stated that you have no intention of watching it because the standard is objectively lower than that of the men.

I'm querying because in order for women's cycling to progress, it obviously needs to understand what its audience is, what its potential audience is, and what is stopping that audience from coming to it. If we take your previous statement about watching the best and the standard being objectively lower literally, this would suggest that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that can be done to make you show an interest in women's cycling. Therefore, obviously, you would not be part of any potential audience. However, your willingness to contribute to several of these discussions (with something other than 'is she hot?' or 'women suck hurr hurr') shows that there is obviously some interest, otherwise you would not be willing to discuss.

Hence, I'd like to know what YOU think women's cycling would need to do for YOU to watch.

In fact, rather than expressing that as a direct question to you (then it seems confrontational), perhaps it should be an open question to the forum?

 

[Dancing On The Pedals]

OK, rather than continuing to bicker, I thought I'd just ask directly:

What, in your opinion, would need to happen, in order for you to watch and enjoy women's cycling?

Hence, I'd like to know what YOU think women's cycling would need to do for YOU to watch.

In fact, rather than expressing that as a direct question to you (then it seems confrontational), perhaps it should be an open question to the forum?

I think the main thing is to increase an awareness of women's cycling. Greater television coverage so that it becomes more visible to a wider audience - for the whole season. If more races ran a ladies race before the men, eg. like RVV and FW do already, then it would be beneficial if these received full(er) coverage.
One of the first cycling races I ever watched on tv was the Beijing women's race, which was fantastic to watch, but as we all know, the only time women receive such coverage is at either the Olympics or the World Championships (when in Britain we are subjected to Hugh Porter's inane commentary which does nothing for cycling in general).
As Emma Pooley has stated quite frequently, in this country, Sky have undoubtedly done great things for raising the profile of men's cycling, but seem to have no interest in women's cycling. Even if they don't want to run or support a ladies team, as a a broadcasting company, they could look to televise some events, or at least look to give it a more equal footing in news coverage etc. with men's cycling, especially as in Pooley, Nicole Cooke, and Lizzie Armistead, Britain has three of the top ladies in the Peloton.

 

[42x16ss]

I like the way she went about her "apology".

In saying: "I'm not going to apologise for what I said, but I do apologise for how I said it.", she is reiterating that she really does think he is a d*ck.

I concur.

The great thing here is that Hosking is only 21, and has all the impulsiveness you would expect from someone that age. Her comments about McQuaid have been so up front that they have gotten a bit of notice even outside the cycling media.

Maybe this could result in greater scrutiny, or other riders speaking out against the current administration. One can hope...

 

[greenedge]

Yeah, thats' a good point. It has garnered much publicity and might galvanise others.

Hughes attack this year was good but no one else even bothered. It was a nice sprint ( same outcome as the men's ) but no domineering team to have romantic associations with it.

I thought the Womens WC RR in 09 was great. McQuaid should have stepped in then and used that race as a foundation to get minimum pay for all riders, regardless of genders.

 

[karlboss]

If women want a minimum wage I don't see any problem with that, but in the short term expect there to be fewer female professionals.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The question that begs to be answered is exactly what is the wage that would be considered minimum? And what parameters would there be to achieve that?

As to McQuaid, he's not going anywhere. The governing bodies that choose his position won't even have another serious choice to consider. And his successor will be hand picked to follow the same path. There's too much money for them to consider anything different. Also, think of the alternative. In light of the Armstrong scandal it was discussed that Bruyneel and Armstrong would consider starting their own rival organization. How would you like that?

...lets say a sponsor is outlaying $100k to a team already, with wages now they need to outlay $150k (for example)... you think they will be ok with that? they are already getting zero return on their investment because there is no tv/quality cycling press coverage.

First, I wouldn't say this is "zero return on their investment". While it's not like counting SKU numbers on a ledger at all, it can stand to reason that sponsorship has some ROI in the fact that people show up to races, see ads in magazines, photos online, etc. and that drives at least some sales, or it really would be zero return.

As to TV/quality press, while mostly factual (Universal Sports has shown some women's cycling), there are ways around this, especially in the day and age of global webcasting. This does take some investment, but it mostly takes support, and promotion. There are plenty of people out there who would either volunteer some time, or work for low pay at least some, to help support the sport in such a manner. All it takes is leadership and organization. Several suggestions have been made in this thread already addressing this.

Do that, and the pay will follow. No, not likely ever on the equal that tennis is, but as has been noted, right now it seems as though women's cycling is shrinking, and that has as much to do with poor decisions and lack of leadership (as noted) than anything. And in that regard Hosking has absolutely nothing to apologize for. In fact, she should be praised for taking a stand.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

OK, rather than continuing to bicker, I thought I'd just ask directly:

What, in your opinion, would need to happen, in order for you to watch and enjoy women's cycling?

After all, given the opinions that you've expressed in various places on the forum you are not opposed to women's cycling or dismissive of it, but at the same time consider it as inferior and have stated that you have no intention of watching it because the standard is objectively lower than that of the men.

I'm querying because in order for women's cycling to progress, it obviously needs to understand what its audience is, what its potential audience is, and what is stopping that audience from coming to it. If we take your previous statement about watching the best and the standard being objectively lower literally, this would suggest that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that can be done to make you show an interest in women's cycling. Therefore, obviously, you would not be part of any potential audience. However, your willingness to contribute to several of these discussions (with something other than 'is she hot?' or 'women suck hurr hurr') shows that there is obviously some interest, otherwise you would not be willing to discuss.
Hence, I'd like to know what YOU think women's cycling would need to do for YOU to watch.

In fact, rather than expressing that as a direct question to you (then it seems confrontational), perhaps it should be an open question to the forum?

I'm afraid it's too late for me. Only sporting events which had genuine prestige when I first became aware of them are capable of overcoming my existential horror at the pointlessness of it all.

I'm a very big cricket fan, but I have no time at all for 20-20 rubbish.

The big events of mens cycling were already prestigious when I first came to know of them, so I was able to become invested in them.

I'm afraid regardless of women's cycling becomes, I'll always remember it as a bit of a sideshow.

-----

As a teenager, I would occasionally attempt to inform my mother I had just won the league on Championship Manager 98/99.

She would look at me careful and then point out it isn't real.

I have a similar feeling about womens cycling - it just requires me to work far too hard to pretend the results matter at all.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The first step to minimum wage would probably be a re-allocation away from the top earners within teams. i.e. no great change to team budgets.

Longer term perhaps women's cycling needs to restructure along lines of the mooted break-away setups, but within the UCI umbrella.

 

[barn yard]

the only way for women's racing to get to a point where riders can earn a living from the sport is if a few people with a lot of money are willing to throw some of that money at women's racing, and are willing to risk losing the lot.

yelling at pat mcquaid, although funny, isnt going to achieve anything.

 

[42x16ss]

the only way for women's racing to get to a point where riders can earn a living from the sport is if a few people with a lot of money are willing to throw some of that money at women's racing, and are willing to risk losing the lot.

yelling at pat mcquaid, although funny, isnt going to achieve anything.

This is starting to happen (albeit slowly). Specialized-Lululemon have taken the reins from the old HTC women's team, Rabobank are now sponsoring a women's team and Greenedge have included a women's team as well.

Another thing that is improving is the standard of women's geometry race bikes. From all reports the new Specialized Amira is superb, as are the new women's specific models from Cannondale, Giant and Orbea. Hopefully these manufacturers and others will come to the plate and sponsor women's teams as well, even if it is just to get a larger slice of the retail pie.