Pat throws Hein under the (USPS) bus?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Cheat Or Be Cheated said:
You're free to believe that, but it's not what he actually said. He said he wouldn't be surprised if there was doping going on at Postal because teams could beat the system back then.
I am not sure what you are reading but here are the actual quotes:

"A lot of the stuff he says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true" - McQuiad, Pat

He does also go on to say "There was a lot of doping going on in those teams in those years. If it (the American Supreme Court decision) proves that the US Postal Service team was involved in a lot of doping, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. In those days it was possible to beat the system"

Has a ring to it that he's tossing the USPS, and by extension Lance, under the bus as well.

He is bluntly offering up that he knew that USPS was doping. He is in full retreat. Why the media is not pushing him to explain how if he knew it was going on, why did he sit on his hands? Why did he attack Landis? Why does he praise the Lance era if it is wrapped in a cloak of deceit?
 
My theory on Pat;s change of heart (in public at least).
Pat knows what's about to go dwon as regards indictments etc. He knows the potential damage. He is softening his stance in public towards Floyd and doesn't want to be associated with defending such a team as USP (and its personnel). He knows the these people are sinking, and he doesn't want to be seen as defending them. It's a political move, because when and if they do down, he can say, 'it didn't happen on my watch'. You would also have to say it's interesting he came out with this stuff, the same week that other chap, forgotten his name again, announced his retirement. If that other guy was planning on racing the Tour this year, no way would this statement have come out. He has served his purpose, now lets run away from the flames.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
hrotha said:
Landis is hilarious but I'm beginning to suspect he is, in fact, bat**** loco. Not complaining, though!
hm.
I'm also wondering. How is this being coordinated?
Is Landis all by himself? Is he really in business with Gray Manrod or is that part of the joke?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Digger said:
......................
I could at least ask, couldn't I?

I mean, there is still a lot at stake here, isn't there? So I'm wondering whether Landis is really operating without any tactics at all, or whether somebody's in on this.
 
sniper said:
I could at least ask, couldn't I?

I mean, there is still a lot at stake here, isn't there? So I'm wondering whether Landis is really operating without any tactics at all, or whether somebody's in on this.

Ah, and if I ask dumb questions, feel free to enlighten me, rather than playing clint frikkin eastwood.
lol you're being paranoid - i mdae a rubbish post myself and wanted to edit it. it had nothing to do with your one. All good. :)
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Personally, I think McQuaid's comments are quite interesting, especially with regard to Landis. However, I would read too much into them with regard to Verbruggen. I would have to agree with TERMINATOR that Dr M and others are reading too much into it although not for the reasons that they give.

Of course coming from a clever politician the statement about "after 2005" could be construed as insinuating something about the period prior to that. However, Mcquaid hasn't shown himself to be a clever politician in any of his other recent media statements show I don't think he has suddenly acquired this ability. In fact his comments are generally erratic, ham fisted and sometimes hare brained so I am not so sure that he is capable of such subtlety.

Also we should note that he wasn't exactly a clean skin outsider when he took over at the UCI since he had been intimately involved in the organisation for many years.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Pat seems to be more actively distancing himself from postal than Verbruggen IMO. Although his recent comments do allow more wiggle room for future throwing Verbruggen under the bus than his initial statements did.

Hilarious stuff from team Landis and fighting talk from the lawyers. One of the early lawyer emails asked Landis not to contact McQuaid et al without clearing it first. Did those oddly worded emails go with the lawyers blessing, or was Landis acting against the advice of his lawyer?

In terms of who is colluding with Landis, why not a simple, mutually beneficial business agreement with a lawyer that wants some high-profile entertainment?

It will be interesting to see if that lawyer represents Landis on future matters. (Any of you legal types know if lawyers usually "fire" their clients if the client does loose cannon **** they have been directly advised not to?)
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
hrotha said:
Landis is hilarious but I'm beginning to suspect he is, in fact, bat**** loco. Not complaining, though!
Not so batsh*t. What would you do if you opened up your email inbox tomorrow to find an int'l attorney was notifying you of pending legal action commencing against you in 15days?

Floyd simply fought bullsh*t w/ bullsh*t. Brilliant!
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
sniper said:
hm.
I'm also wondering. How is this being coordinated?
Is Landis all by himself? Is he really in business with Gray Manrod or is that part of the joke?
A very legitimate question....

GreyManRod Associates actually used to be part of the larger law firm, Dewey Cheatem & Howe. ManRod spun off after three of the original Cheatem partners (Jack MaDickoff, Hugh Johnson, and Colonel Angus) left to form their own firm.

Apparently a fourth, female partner (Linda Lovelace, Esq.) left the firm shortly after its founding, due to an undisclosed medical condition.

Most recently, ManRod's impressive and growing staff has been firming up plans for a vigorous penetration into new, 'untapped' markets.
 
I agree that the thread is brilliant.

But, also reckless.

And, am concerned for Floyd. Perhaps he should try and not cross the yellow line for a while since the officials are now watching closely.

Dave.
 
NashbarShorts said:
A very legitimate question.... ManRod Associates actually used to be part of the larger law firm, Dewey Cheatem & Howe. ManRod spun off after three of the original Cheatem partners (Jack MaDickoff, Hugh Johnson, and Colonel Angus) left to form their own firm.

Most recently, ManRod's impressive and growing staff has been firming up their plans to penetrate the global orifices market.
I recently visited Dewey et al's offices in Harvard Square, and can confirm that they are still in operation.



Dave.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
D-Queued said:
I agree that the thread is brilliant.

But, also reckless.

And, am concerned for Floyd. Perhaps he should try and not cross the yellow line for a while since the officials are now watching closely.

Dave.

Reckless, nah. I think he's just confirmed that the lion is old and toothless.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
To follow many others:

Pat Mc was in UCI for years and had a long term close association with HV.
Therefore reasonable to conjecture that:

1. PMc's knowledge of presence or absence of corruption within UCI would be as informed as HV's (yes assumes similar lines of information etc). That knowledge could be flawed.

2. PMc's "vouching" for no corruption is as strong as a "guarantee" or as weak as a wet tea bag (because we are assuming that he truly had knowledge of everything that occurred in the UCI AND he was being honest about it). I have assumed for the sake of argument that PMc did not directly partake in any corrupt action himself.

3. PMc could have equally "vouched" for the period he was a snr UCI administrator. That he did not, may mean little...or much.

Generally corruption is minimized when you have ethical management and business culture, strong relevant policy, good communication and appropriate equitable enforcement. Discounting everything else, recent communication from UCI appears to ignore recent history. Therefore if nothing else I recon this alone leaves UCI vulnerable to corruption currently.

By extension, given that the UCI are improving their act (are they???) I guess corruption was ever more likely as we go back through recent history...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts