Pat throws Hein under the (USPS) bus?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you sure? Let's have a look again.....

"I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI," he said

If - as you say - Hein is his friend, then why doesn't Pat "vouch" for Heins reign too?
I love how you make it sound like it's just my opinion that Pat is Hein's friend. It's common knowledge they are great friends.

But to answer your (stupid) question, a person cannot vouch for something to which he has no personal knowledge. But it doesn't mean he thinks it was corrupt or is even trying to imply that.

What Pat said was a nice way of telling reporters to stop asking him questions about other people's life to which he has no personal knowledge.
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
MacRoadie said:

Good research MacRoadie

From your link: Armstrong "drug free" - doctor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/tour_de_france/397095.stm

Medical faculty at the University of Indiana

Dr Einhorn "Like myself, he(LA) is a fervent supporter of the struggle against drugs. I can tell you he is only taking vitamins."

Is Dr Einhorn a delusional fan boy or has he been brainwashed?

LA is against drugs. I thought it was the opposite, while at the same time keeping the omerta.

Sometimes the journalists do not realize the entertainment they provide.

I get the the impression that when Novitzky finally releases all the information, some possibly innocent people will end up with mud on their faces.

have a good day
 
Oct 18, 2009
456
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
I love how you make it sound like it's just my opinion that Pat is Hein's friend. It's common knowledge they are great friends.

But to answer your (stupid) question, a person cannot vouch for something to which he has no personal knowledge. But it doesn't mean he thinks it was corrupt or is even trying to imply that.

What Pat said was a nice way of telling reporters to stop asking him questions about other people's life to which he has no personal knowledge.
Thats what I thought too. It's simply fabulous to believe that Pat is implying Hein was corrupt in this sentence.
"I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI," he said.
Really Doctor maserati youre a good poster but youve been scraping the bottom of the barrel and its all rotton s*** down there!
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
I just have a feeling the he knew all about the AC aquital and put this out there as a here look at the old doping news. See Floyd look at Floyd, See Lance, see hein, look at them ignore the immediate problem with AC and focus on a simmering issue he hopes will go away with retirement 2.0

.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
online-rider said:
Thats what I thought too. It's simply fabulous to believe that Pat is implying Hein was corrupt in this sentence.

Really Doctor maserati youre a good poster but youve been scraping the bottom of the barrel and its all rotton s*** down there!
You might want to take of the blinkers. We are talking about a people who are corrupt from top to bottom.

Their records prove it. do some research.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
TERMINATOR said:
I love how you make it sound like it's just my opinion that Pat is Hein's friend. It's common knowledge they are great friends.

But to answer your (stupid) question, a person cannot vouch for something to which he has no personal knowledge. But it doesn't mean he thinks it was corrupt or is even trying to imply that.

What Pat said was a nice way of telling reporters to stop asking him questions about other people's life to which he has no personal knowledge.
He was vouching for Hein in several previous interviews.
Now he doesn't vouch for Hein.
So you don't see a change there?

Also, Pat's admitting Floyd's probably right about the Verbruggen Era.

There are other ways of nourishing a great friendship.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
In this weeks Cycling Weekly magazine there is an interview with Pat McQuaid on various subjects.

I found this comment quite revealing:

"I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI," he said.
Referring to Landis:
With claims being repeated in the media and a federal investigation into alleged widespread doping at Lance Armstrong's former US Postal team nearing a conclusion, it seems the UCI can no longer simply discredit Landis.
"A lot of the stuff he says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true," admitted McQuaid. "But by the same token, he's very fond of zoning in on people and accusing them of things with absolutely no corroboration".
On Armstrong:
"Armstrong has never tested positive".
"There has been a lot of discussion about six samples that were used for research and showed evidence of EPO - the L'Equipe story - but we can only operate within the rules and those samples are not anti-doping samples".
I don't see anything wrong with these quotes.
Quote 1: How can he guarantee what happened when he wasn't in charge?

Quote 2: Anybody who takes a bit of time and look at the Landis-case (as well as the doping issues with ex-teammates like Hamilton & Heras) would be stupid to suggest that nothing ever happened. I like his statement, he says it looks like a lot was true (which is actually undeniable with guys getting busted) but he isn't throwing anybody under the bus, and leaving a door open for Armstrong to get away.

Quote 3: Totally agree with this one. If the Uci would have made a case out of this they would have their *** kicked in court for not following the procedures. So if you cannot get it in court then you can also not use the samples to say armstrong doped.

The points that i do not like is things like only 1% dopes, and today things are better (when you have cases like contador, kohl, schumacher, ricco(twice), mosquera, etc.). Those items imo just show the guy isn't interested in cleaning up the sport.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Dallas_ said:
Good research MacRoadie

From your link: Armstrong "drug free" - doctor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/tour_de_france/397095.stm

Medical faculty at the University of Indiana

Dr Einhorn "Like myself, he(LA) is a fervent supporter of the struggle against drugs. I can tell you he is only taking vitamins."

Is Dr Einhorn a delusional fan boy or has he been brainwashed?

LA is against drugs. I thought it was the opposite, while at the same time keeping the omerta.

Sometimes the journalists do not realize the entertainment they provide.

I get the the impression that when Novitzky finally releases all the information, some possibly innocent people will end up with mud on their faces.

have a good day
vitamins is a code name for testosterone just like orange juice is a code name for epo:p
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
Roninho said:
I don't see anything wrong with these quotes.
Quote 1: How can he guarantee what happened when he wasn't in charge?

Quote 2: Anybody who takes a bit of time and look at the Landis-case (as well as the doping issues with ex-teammates like Hamilton & Heras) would be stupid to suggest that nothing ever happened. I like his statement, he says it looks like a lot was true (which is actually undeniable with guys getting busted) but he isn't throwing anybody under the bus, and leaving a door open for Armstrong to get away.

Quote 3: Totally agree with this one. If the Uci would have made a case out of this they would have their *** kicked in court for not following the procedures. So if you cannot get it in court then you can also not use the samples to say armstrong doped.

The points that i do not like is things like only 1% dopes, and today things are better (when you have cases like contador, kohl, schumacher, ricco(twice), mosquera, etc.). Those items imo just show the guy isn't interested in cleaning up the sport.
Excellent post Roninho. Good work.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Roninho said:
I don't see anything wrong with these quotes.
Quote 1: How can he guarantee what happened when he wasn't in charge?

Quote 2: Anybody who takes a bit of time and look at the Landis-case (as well as the doping issues with ex-teammates like Hamilton & Heras) would be stupid to suggest that nothing ever happened. I like his statement, he says it looks like a lot was true (which is actually undeniable with guys getting busted) but he isn't throwing anybody under the bus, and leaving a door open for Armstrong to get away.

Quote 3: Totally agree with this one. If the Uci would have made a case out of this they would have their *** kicked in court for not following the procedures. So if you cannot get it in court then you can also not use the samples to say armstrong doped.

The points that i do not like is things like only 1% dopes, and today things are better (when you have cases like contador, kohl, schumacher, ricco(twice), mosquera, etc.). Those items imo just show the guy isn't interested in cleaning up the sport.
The main problem and point of interest of these quotes is however the change in voiced opinion of Pat and the UCI compared to earlier statements about these incidents
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Barrus said:
The main problem and point of interest of these quotes is however the change in voiced opinion of Pat and the UCI compared to earlier statements about these incidents
+1

I think Pat's been talking more to his old lady lately.
"Hey Patty, don't you think it's time to let go of Hein? Stop looking like a complete fool yourself while trying to cover Hein's ***? Hein'll be looking for a ***** behind bars in a year or two from now...
It's not worth it honey, this guy Landis is outsmarting you and it makes you look old. You see that bus coming? Either jump on it, or be thrown under it.
Now, come to bed."
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
i wonder if Pat's change of tune has come from the IOC rather than his own personal opinion. Could the IOC be preparing to throw Hein under the bus and Pat gets his seat and Pat has been told this???
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Roninho said:
I don't see anything wrong with these quotes.
Quote 1: How can he guarantee what happened when he wasn't in charge?

Quote 2: Anybody who takes a bit of time and look at the Landis-case (as well as the doping issues with ex-teammates like Hamilton & Heras) would be stupid to suggest that nothing ever happened. I like his statement, he says it looks like a lot was true (which is actually undeniable with guys getting busted) but he isn't throwing anybody under the bus, and leaving a door open for Armstrong to get away.

Quote 3: Totally agree with this one. If the Uci would have made a case out of this they would have their *** kicked in court for not following the procedures. So if you cannot get it in court then you can also not use the samples to say armstrong doped.

The points that i do not like is things like only 1% dopes, and today things are better (when you have cases like contador, kohl, schumacher, ricco(twice), mosquera, etc.). Those items imo just show the guy isn't interested in cleaning up the sport.
What you appear to miss is the turnaround in Pats comments.

I have read from some here that Pat cannot "vouch" for Hein, as Pat was not in charge - that would be a fair assesment except that Pat was already Hein right hand man for years before he became President.

But more importantly it is a complete reversal to what Pat said just a few weeks ago:
"We'd welcome any investigation into the UCI. There has never been corruption in the UCI."
On Landis - McQuaid said this last month:
“I don’t believe a lot of what he says. He’s done a lot of damage to the sport and he continues to do so,” McQuaid said. “I wish him goodbye and good luck. But it’s not right for people like him to say that I am corrupt. There’s no proof and he has no credibility.”
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Granville57 said:
OK...:confused:

Two things here:

First, there's really no need for any court to prove that the "team" was involved with doping because we've already had more than one admission from team members. (And when is Armstrong going to be forced to reckon with that point, btw? OK, Lance, you say you didn't dope but your teammates say they did, and you have famously claimed over and over again that cycling is a team sport. So how does that reflect upon your "victories"?)

Second, based on the above quote from Pat, won't it soon be time to return Floyd's name to the record books?
Excellent point! Lance was very critical of his team if they"abandoned" him early on a climb. We all know there is no I in team (except when LA decides otherwise). I wonder how well LA would have gone without his riders being PED "fueled". That is of course with LA not PED participating. And with LA in NO way condoning PEDs!!!!

Sorry for late delivery.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
People seem to be willfully ignorant of the fact that McQuaid worked at the UCI, and was in charge of road cycling, for 8 years prior to becoming UCI president. Before that he ran Irish cycling.

He became president because he had worked so closely with Verbruggen (often referred to as "hand picked" or a "right hand man"), and because he ensured a smooth continuation of the status quo as Hein moved up the ladder to the IOC.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
MacRoadie said:
People seem to be willfully ignorant of the fact that McQuaid worked at the UCI, and was in charge of road cycling, for 8 years prior to becoming UCI president. Before that he ran Irish cycling.

He became president because he had worked so closely with Verbruggen (often referred to as "hand picked" or a "right hand man"), and because he ensured a smooth continuation of the status quo as Hein moved up the ladder to the IOC.
Didn't Verbruggen send all the voting members a bottle of Irish whiskey when McQuaid was running? So thoughtful of him to look after his boy like that
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Race Radio said:
Didn't Verbruggen send all the voting members a bottle of Irish whiskey when McQuaid was running? So thoughtful of him to look after his boy like that
Not ALL of them, just those on-side. Didn't Schenk say she got snubbed, in the whiskey department anyway?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Cheat Or Be Cheated said:
No it's not. He said it was possible to beat the system before he's tenure. He did not say the UCI was corrupt before he took over. It's a statement about how the testing and checks have improved, not a statement about corruption.

Also this story is about three weeks old.
Last month he said there was no corruption in the UCI..... now its from 2005.

This from earlier on in the month:
It's impossible to be corrupt in the way we're being accused, in terms of bribery and assisting riders cover up doping positives," McQuaid told Cyclingnews.
"We'd welcome any investigation into the UCI. There has never been corruption in the UCI."
Then Pat said this last week:
"I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI," he said.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Cheat Or Be Cheated said:
I think it's semantics. He's just stating the obvious that he thinks there is no corruption in the UCI but of course he can only directly be responsible for his time in charge.

McQuaid and Verbruggen have just launched a joint legal action against Landis - after this interview was done - so there doesn't seem to be much disharmony between them.
Semantics. Right....

He has back-tracked. Before it was one thing, now its something else.

He attacked Landis. Now he says what he'd said is probably true. Once, there was no corruption, now he can only "vouch" for when he was president. Those are different things. He cannot claim ignorance, as he was most certainly there and heavily involved with the daily work at the UCI.

Regarding disharmony, how can these two blokes be on the same page, when one has now made it plain that he accepts that what Landis has said is true?

With a name like "Cheat or be cheated" you tip your hand regarding your views, unless it is just semantics.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sniper said:
epic stuff.

Mr. Dip****. :D

By the way, there is also a link in it to the Pat-interview discussed in this thread.
Yes, I know, was me put it online but i deliberately didnt put it in this thread as CN has a rule against posting links to copyrighted material in threads ;)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Cheat Or Be Cheated said:
I think it's semantics. He's just stating the obvious that he thinks there is no corruption in the UCI but of course he can only directly be responsible for his time in charge.

McQuaid and Verbruggen have just launched a joint legal action against Landis - after this interview was done - so there doesn't seem to be much disharmony between them.
The lawyers letter was sent on 7th Feb - and it was do with the interview Floyd with ARD. It was not a 'legal action', it was an attempt to silence Floyd.

If they were so concerned why not actually sue - even though Floyd has no money it would restore their 'honour'..... of course they would have to show that they had some in the first instance.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Last month he said there was no corruption in the UCI..... now its from 2005.
:
Do you believe either of those two statements from Pat?
The UCI has not been corrupt since 2005?

Careful, don't let Pat distract you.

Don't take your eyes off Pat to look at Hein.

Keep your eyes on BOTH of them.
Although you may have to shift your eyes back and forth really fast.

Hein has already said there was no corruption on his watch either.
What the heck does that mean? He's clean and Pat's dirty?

Dart your eyes back and forth really fast. Dart Dart.
Hein Pat. Hein Pat. Hein Pat. You get the idea.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY