• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Cookson legacy

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson-versus-lappartient-a-race-too-close-to-call/
Perhaps the most important piece of information is that the 15 European delegates have been granted the freedom to vote individually. This could be key to victory. In 2012 the European delegates voted as a block and backed Cookson, giving him a firm foundation for victory. This time Cyclingnews understands that it is Lappartient who has strong support in Europe. However, the news that delegates can vote individually could suggest that Cookson has retained more support in Europe than originally thought.
No UK delegates to vote but sounds like BC has got this - if it goes to 23-22 will someone demand a new vote though? Could be some fun and games.
Only one more sleep to go! :cool:

Europe I believe is not voting as a block to avoid any issue of “conflict”, if LLappartient wins by one vote, Cookson will protest and the fact that Europe had to the freedom to vote individually will null that protest.
Given it's a secret ballot, just how to you imagine such an appeal actually working in the real world?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Robert5091 said:
study of 10 anonymous Norwegian semi-pro continental level cyclists
So this is based on anecdotes from 10 people who don't ride for WT squads?
Described as young promising Norwegian semi-pro Continental level. As all are just called as cyclist 1, cyclist 2, etc it's hard to know exactly but a bit of research should narrow it down.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
Norway's Public TV/Radio/news NRK have also a report on Malin Hansen Skjelstad study
https://www.nrk.no/telemark/forsket-pa-doping-blant-unge-syklister-1.13695102

Her Masters study is "Cyclists in the grey zone" and is not about illegal doping but the use of currently legal substances and TUE's. All 10 cyclists said they were against doping, but were using stuff in the "grey zone."
No surprises as this because athletes will use any aid to assist performance - It lead's to a philosophical question as to whether the grey zone is doping - And I separate TUE's from this question.
 
Re: Re:

Electress said:
Robert5091 said:
Get those MPCC rules in there! Bye bye Tramadol etc
Yes. Should have happened some time ago. Got to get a lot tougher on the OOC use of 'medicines' too.
You get the feeling Lappartient was asked to run by teams and the federations. He appeared to be fully aware of his strong position along with the Stade 2 documentary suddenly appear 3 weeks before the election. I’d say many were concerned with the lack of Cookson’s response to the motor fraud.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
You get the feeling Lappartient was asked to run by teams and the federations.
Feds maybe, but not the teams, not the way it looked when you consider JV's exchange with him in June. French teams, mais oui, Madiot certainly supported him. But the rest? Let's see how easily they bow to things like no race radios...
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
You get the feeling Lappartient was asked to run by teams and the federations.
Feds maybe, but not the teams, not the way it looked when you consider JV's exchange with him in June. French teams, mais oui, Madiot certainly supported him. But the rest? Let's see how easily they bow to things like no race radios...
As a rule of thumb, never use JV as a representation of anything... you know much better than that.
 
thehog said:

DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.

I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.

In other words, Sky have got away with it.
 
macbindle said:
thehog said:

DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.

I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.

In other words, Sky have got away with it.
Great coining MacB!: Bradley Jiffins
:lol:
 
macbindle said:
thehog said:

DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.

I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.

In other words, Sky have got away with it.

True but hilarious to think Cookson has been head of BC, help set up Team Sky and the UCI President and presided all over these collective shambles and then asks for Sky’s reputation to be ‘reinstated’. What a total loon.
 
thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:

DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.

I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.

In other words, Sky have got away with it.

True but hilarious to think Cookson has been head of BC, help set up Team Sky and the UCI President and presided all over these collective shambles and then asks for Sky’s reputation to be ‘reinstated’. What a total loon.
I've several thoughts about Cookson. Firstly, that I am amazed he could ever get to be head of BC, let alone head of UCI. How the hell did he manage it?

It's worrying on a couple of levels in so far as it reveals the paucity of talent in BC, in that he was the best they could do. In a sense that should inform the reasons behind the shambles that we watched unfold with the whole BC/Sky jiffy stuff. But I also wonder the motivations behind those who voted him in to the stewardship of the UCI. They knew they weren't voting in dynamism and drive. Maybe they wanted somebody too inept to be able to rock the boat. Of course, on a large salary, he wasn't going to say no.

I'm also minded of something a friend, who does logistics for a pro team, told me about just how difficult it is for an aspirationally clean team to spot and stop a rogue rider who covertly dopes.

I'm not referring to Sky here (I don't think they are aspirationally clean), but more the larger issue of whether an utterly inept BC could even have the wherewithal to counter a clever and underhand manager like Brailsford.

I think in some respects this has been reflected in the UKAD letter you posted here, as well as the DCMS findings.
 
macbindle said:
I've several thoughts about Cookson. Firstly, that I am amazed he could ever get to be head of BC, let alone head of UCI. How the hell did he manage it?

It's worrying on a couple of levels in so far as it reveals the paucity of talent in BC, in that he was the best they could do.
It's a pretty well known story, at this stage. The Federation was in crisis, Lottery funding coming on tap, Manchester looking like a white elephant, a mutiny against the newly elected Tony Doyle, allegations of financial impropriety getting tossed left right and centre, questions in the House, Verbruggen expressing his concern on the BBC. In the midst of this, Cookson was a relative unknown and so untainted and so a good thing. A safe pair of hands while others managed the money side of things and others managed the performance side of things. Not for nothing was he referred to as The Wallpaper.
macbindle said:
But I also wonder the motivations behind those who voted him in to the stewardship of the UCI. They knew they weren't voting in dynamism and drive. Maybe they wanted somebody too inept to be able to rock the boat.
Save the conspiracy theories, people hereabouts remember this, it's recent history. He wasn't Pat McQuaid. Again, it's the same as the BC story: a safe pair of hands in a crisis.
 
macbindle said:
thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:

DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.

I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.

In other words, Sky have got away with it.

True but hilarious to think Cookson has been head of BC, help set up Team Sky and the UCI President and presided all over these collective shambles and then asks for Sky’s reputation to be ‘reinstated’. What a total loon.
I've several thoughts about Cookson. Firstly, that I am amazed he could ever get to be head of BC, let alone head of UCI. How the hell did he manage it?

It's worrying on a couple of levels in so far as it reveals the paucity of talent in BC, in that he was the best they could do. In a sense that should inform the reasons behind the shambles that we watched unfold with the whole BC/Sky jiffy stuff. But I also wonder the motivations behind those who voted him in to the stewardship of the UCI. They knew they weren't voting in dynamism and drive. Maybe they wanted somebody too inept to be able to rock the boat. Of course, on a large salary, he wasn't going to say no.

I'm also minded of something a friend, who does logistics for a pro team, told me about just how difficult it is for an aspirationally clean team to spot and stop a rogue rider who covertly dopes.

I'm not referring to Sky here (I don't think they are aspirationally clean), but more the larger issue of whether an utterly inept BC could even have the wherewithal to counter a clever and underhand manager like Brailsford.

I think in some respects this has been reflected in the UKAD letter you posted here, as well as the DCMS findings.
Bobbins who used to post here with insider information suggested that Cookson was well liked because he was so clueless. Brailsford and co. could run the sham medical department, bully and demonise riders whilst Cookson went off to the management meetings to report “everything was on track and clean Cycling was being obeyed”. Brailsford’s masterstroke was getting Cookson’s son into Team Sky to do not much else this ride about in Spain with the riders and drink coffee. It was the same at the UCI, Gibbs and Barfield ran the show, taking orders from Brailsford, whilst Cookson went off to management meetings thinking he was doing something.

As this is the Cookosn legacy thread, Cookson will be remembered as nothing short of an embarrassment to the sport. To think after the Armstrong affair the sport actually went backwards.
 
He had a golden opportunity on election, and if ever there was a mandate for change it was the Armstrong ban and confession. What a wet fart he has been.

Cookson didn't get the £77,000 of UKsport money towards his campaign this time, and he also had people wanting to see the back of Gibbs, who had rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. But a big part of it may have been to do with the dubious success of Team Sky.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
He had a golden opportunity on election, and if ever there was a mandate for change it was the Armstrong ban and confession. What a wet fart he has been.

Cookson didn't get the £77,000 of UKsport money towards his campaign this time, and he also had people wanting to see the back of Gibbs, who had rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. But a big part of it may have been to do with the dubious success of Team Sky.
That he did. But he was so fixated on previous corruption to not notice how new corruption was operating. Additionally his management by press releases was appalling.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
macbindle said:
He had a golden opportunity on election, and if ever there was a mandate for change it was the Armstrong ban and confession. What a wet fart he has been.

Cookson didn't get the £77,000 of UKsport money towards his campaign this time, and he also had people wanting to see the back of Gibbs, who had rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. But a big part of it may have been to do with the dubious success of Team Sky.
That he did. But he was so fixated on previous corruption to not notice how new corruption was operating. Additionally his management by press releases was appalling.
Prior to not noticing things at the UCI our friend Brian was honing his not noticing skills at BC...

...like that time Uncle Brian failed to notice Peter King's 2012 culture of fear report
 
Re:

macbindle said:
I mean, actually, really, Cookson's legacy?

It's Froome's positive and likely ban.
McQuaid’s problem is he personally got involved in each doping case and publicly commented. Cookson pretended doping didn’t exist and buried most in the back pages of a PDF file. He avoided at all costs a high profile cyclists being suspended in favour for 37 year old Iranian cyclists.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS