The UCI just don't get it

[Joachim]

I'm paid by Fran Millar to post on this forum

(according to one particular tinfoil-hatter on this forum)

Fnerk

 

[DirtyWorks]

The quote in the subtitle bowled me over before I could even begin the text:

UCI president says Lance Armstrong will be forgotten

Perhaps Pat is expressing envy. ...The truth is that Lance will absolutely be remembered long after Pat is forced from his cushy office..

I don't know. It's going to take a generation or two, but the specifics tend to get lost. As an example, Lemond's once-in-several-generations accomplishments have already been forcefully merged like a square peg pounded through a round hole with a sledge hammer into the EPO era. Hinault is only a vague recollection for younger generations! Doping and the UCI's complicity in cheating has destroyed any potential for another Hinault or Lemond.

Meanwhile, Hein has chose Pat and the UCI has a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. They don't have to "get" anything. There is no threat to their federation, little threat to their core business. Sure, a couple of bad years due to scandal, but there's no imminent threat to their business as long as the IOC backs them and that is looking good after London.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The quote in the subtitle bowled me over before I could even begin the text:

UCI president says Lance Armstrong will be forgotten

Perhaps Pat is expressing envy.

I don't know. It's going to take a generation or two, but the specifics tend to get lost. As an example, Lemond's once-in-several-generations accomplishments have already been merged into the EPO era. Hinault is only a vague recollection for younger generations. Doping and the UCI's complicity in cheating has destroyed any potential for another Hinault or Lemond.

Meanwhile, Hein has chose Pat and the UCI has a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. They don't have to "get" anything. There is no threat to their federation.

Perhaps what's needed is a canonical reference for "what was so bad about Wonderboy?" Internet reference. That's another thread though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know. It's going to take a generation or two, but the specifics tend to get lost. As an example, Lemond's once-in-several-generations accomplishments have already been merged into the EPO era. Hinault is only a vague recollection for younger generations. Doping and the UCI's complicity in cheating has destroyed any potential for another Hinault or Lemond.

Meanwhile, Hein has chose Pat and the UCI has a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. They don't have to "get" anything. There is no threat to their federation.

Perhaps what's needed is a canonical reference for "what was so bad about Wonderboy?" Internet reference. That's another thread though.

BD: before doping
AD: after doping?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Meanwhile, Hein has chose Pat and the UCI has a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. They don't have to "get" anything. There is no threat to their federation.

FIFA/UCI/IOC, all the same idiots. Never done anything for the sport besides selling it to Caco Calo, MickDinalds, Pipsi [not spamming] etc etc.

 

[Joachim]

Why don't you put that to a poll? I choose 'dopes'.

Dave.

*** tastes great! 1000 billion flies cannot be wrong!

 

[86TDFWinner]

I don't know. It's going to take a generation or two, but the specifics tend to get lost. As an example, Lemond's once-in-several-generations accomplishments have already been forcefully merged like a square peg pounded through a round hole with a sledge hammer into the EPO era. Hinault is only a vague recollection for younger generations! Doping and the UCI's complicity in cheating has destroyed any potential for another Hinault or Lemond.

Meanwhile, Hein has chose Pat and the UCI has a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. They don't have to "get" anything. There is no threat to their federation, little threat to their core business. Sure, a couple of bad years due to scandal, but there's no imminent threat to their business as longas the IOC backs them and that is looking good after London.

Very well said. I think the younger generation thinks that way about the riders in the 70s and 80s, ane like you said, they get a vague reference here and there, but imo I dont know if many know who Lemond/Hampsten/Hinault/Roche are or even what they've accomplished. Sad it's that way.

 

[Basecase]

Very well said. I think the younger generation thinks that way about the riders in the 70s and 80s, ane like you said, they get a vague reference here and there, but imo I dont know if many know who Lemond/Hampsten/Hinault/Roche are or even what they've accomplished. Sad it's that way.

Jaw dropping stuff from McQuaid.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-all-ive-done-since-i-became-president-is-fight-doping


Didn't do **** when Floyd blew the whistle, other than sueing Floyd and calling him a liar.

**** me...

got news for Phat: it's not just Paul who wants you out.


The UCI clearly has invested in Sky's success.

The journalist (@briancanty) involved in the Irish Examiner article with McQuaid seems to be looking for feedback or something as he's retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/matt_conn/status/286007945026752512

"@matt_conn: Lots of links to & comments on, the Pat McQuaid article in The Irish @ExaminerSport. Hardy a mention out there of journo @briancanty"

Thoughts anyone on the journalistic merits?

 

[sniper]

The journalist (@briancanty) involved in the Irish Examiner article with McQuaid seems to be looking for feedback or something as he's retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/matt_conn/status/286007945026752512

"@matt_conn: Lots of links to & comments on, the Pat McQuaid article in The Irish @ExaminerSport. Hardy a mention out there of journo @briancanty"

Thoughts anyone on the journalistic merits?

what does "Hardy a mention out there of journo @briancanty" mean?

Thoughts anyone on the journalistic merits?

when is a journo (other than kimmage, who won't be allowed near McQauid anyway) finally gonna go for McQuaid's throat? It's not that hard to find inconsistencies in his answers (see the posts in this thread for ideas). A good, critical journo should prepare a series of follow-up questions designed to put a bit of heat on Phat, to filter out the inconsistencies, and to not let him get away with such a shipload of BS.
Not that hard. But it could make for an unpleasant interview.

 

[Basecase]

what does "Hardy a mention out there of journo @briancanty" mean?

Probably a typo - probably meant to say "Hardly".

In reading the article, I found the following flaws:

- It seems to spend alot of column inches chatting about contextually irrelavant matters (like Pat's achievements in bringing the Nissan and TDF to Ireland). There's also McQ's rehash of Hamiltons and Landis flaws.
- Why did McQuaid who raced in the 70s, only come to find doping unacceptable around 1987? Unchallenged by Canty.
- Pat name drops current Irish PM, Enda Kenny with verbatim quotes - quite amazing for verbal exchanges almost 20 years ago.
- Not sure Pat would appreciate the verbatim "F***" word used by the journalist.
- Canty gives no context of how interview was arranged. Pat seems to go for easy targets like when he went on RTE's Pat Kenny radio show without Paul K or David W there.
- Pat's statement "I don’t see any reason why I should step down, to let somebody in [who] maybe doesn’t know as much, or is as capable, or isn’t as passionate, or as dedicated. I think I am the best man." goes unchallenged. The arrogance, how could he know such a person doesn't exist. Will this be his re-election mantra??
- He says he can't speak for the UCI 99-05 yet he was on the Road Commission, not challenged by journalist.
- McQ said it's sad all the USADA process was in the public arena, this goes unchallenged. Would McQ have preferred more private so possbility of non-disclosure?
- McQ says come 2013, Lance will be forgotten. Unchallenged by Canty. There's a plethora of legal cases to be resolved yet & UCI report due out in June so not over yet by long shot!
- McQ says no negative effect on the sport! Unchallenged again!
- Overall seems to be re-itterance of a McQ communique rather than what was needed, a real challenging interview. McQ knows how to pick his victims.

I wonder how accurate the interview was and how it was set up - would Canty be willing to share preceeding correspondence and interview tapes online? Was article edited by McQ/UCI?

Other matters must have been discussed? This article appeared on another site at the same time by the same journalist, yet quotes are different:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...sports-arent-targeted-over-drugs-like-we-are/

Odd that Canty in the link above doesn't give reference to context of the interview or reference the Irish Examiner - I wonder is he freelance or on the IE payroll?

 

[sniper]

snipped

good points.

the interview is mindboggling in terms of arrogance. unparalleled really. I don't see how he keeps getting away with this. How far down the UCI ranks do we find the first guy or girl with enough integrity to object to Phat?

Couple of other issues unmentioned in the interview: donations, Emile Vrijman.

And ask McQuaid how he knows Wiggins is any different from Armstrong?

 

[Brian Canty]

Probably a typo - probably meant to say "Hardly".

In reading the article, I found the following flaws:

- It seems to spend alot of column inches chatting about contextually irrelavant matters (like Pat's achievements in bringing the Nissan and TDF to Ireland). There's also McQ's rehash of Hamiltons and Landis flaws.

This is an interview into 'who is Pat McQuaid. This is what the Big Interview is about in the Irish Examinber every Saturday. The piece charts the three big stories in McQuaid's life. The Nissan, the Tour in 1998 and Armstrong. "Rehash"? we'll come back to that
- Why did McQuaid who raced in the 70s, only come to find doping unacceptable around 1987? Unchallenged by Canty.
He said he didn't know anything about it before that. Quotes to prove.

- Pat name drops current Irish PM, Enda Kenny with verbatim quotes - quite amazing for verbal exchanges almost 20 years ago.
Name drops? What I was amazed about was how the man could recall minute details of events from years ago.

- Not sure Pat would appreciate the verbatim "F***" word used by the journalist.
This is irrelevant.
- Canty gives no context of how interview was arranged. Pat seems to go for easy targets like when he went on RTE's Pat Kenny radio show without Paul K or David W there.
Irrelevant.

- Pat's statement "I don’t see any reason why I should step down, to let somebody in [who] maybe doesn’t know as much, or is as capable, or isn’t as passionate, or as dedicated. I think I am the best man." goes unchallenged. The arrogance, how could he know such a person doesn't exist. Will this be his re-election mantra??
Who knows. Pat McQuaid isn't a Johnny come lately. Getting to be President of the UCI isn't an easy thing to do. If it was a corrupt process - like you are intimating, then cycling might as well forget ever having a future.

- He says he can't speak for the UCI 99-05 yet he was on the Road Commission, not challenged by journalist.
Untrue. Though partly answered - see the points regarding what the UCI has done since 2005.

- McQ said it's sad all the USADA process was in the public arena, this goes unchallenged. Would McQ have preferred more private so possbility of non-disclosure?
Agreed.

- McQ says come 2013, Lance will be forgotten. Unchallenged by Canty. There's a plethora of legal cases to be resolved yet & UCI report due out in June so not over yet by long shot!
I can't challenge an opinion. I can challenge a fact. I could say I think Chelsea are better than United. If I disagreed, I am not being objective. I hope Lance is forgotten? So what?

- McQ says no negative effect on the sport! Unchallenged again!
See above.

- Overall seems to be re-itterance of a McQ communique rather than what was needed, a real challenging interview. McQ knows how to pick his victims.
Dunno where to go with this!! Your mind is made up it seems.

I wonder how accurate the interview was and how it was set up - would Canty be willing to share preceeding correspondence and interview tapes online? Was article edited by McQ/UCI?
Edited by McQuaid? Are you having a laugh?

Other matters must have been discussed? This article appeared on another site at the same time by the same journalist, yet quotes are different:
The interview was 90 minutes long. It wasn't a book I was writing

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...sports-arent-targeted-over-drugs-like-we-are/

Odd that Canty in the link above doesn't give reference to context of the interview or reference the Irish Examiner - I wonder is he freelance or on the IE payroll?

So what?


(edited because one was enough)

 

[DirtyWorks]

So what?

Interesting response. Denial and deflection seems to be a big part of your job as a journalist in 2012.

The piece charts the three big stories in McQuaid's life. The Nissan, the Tour in 1998 and Armstrong.

Here's a few you missed: multiple suppressed doping positives, multiple bribery allegations, riding as a pro in Apartheid-era South Africa when it was very publicly forbidden by the IOC, bio-passport as anti-doping theater. "Never tested positive." Race fixing. Suing a journalist. I can go on. Heaven forbid you would want to attract more readers though.

I get it though. In exchange for catering to the tinpot dictator you get a story. Complicity pays well!

Name drops? What I was amazed about was how the man could recall minute details of events from years ago.

Did you do no research at all before hand? The terrorist's creative application of the truth (lying) is a long-running theme in his PR efforts. You don't seem to mind being lied to. But, you got the story. Journalistic fe11ati0 pays well.

He says he can't speak for the UCI 99-05 yet he was on the Road Commission...
Untrue.

I see you don't do your own fact checking either.

 

[Brian Canty]

Interesting response. Denial and deflection seems to be a big part of your job as a journalist in 2012.



Here's a few you missed: multiple suppressed doping positives, multiple bribery allegations, riding as a pro in Apartheid-era South Africa when it was very publicly forbidden by the IOC, bio-passport as anti-doping theater. "Never tested positive." Race fixing. Suing a journalist. I can go on. Heaven forbid you would want to attract more readers though.

I get it though. In exchange for catering to the tinpot dictator you get a story. Complicity pays well!



Did you do no research at all before hand? The terrorist's creative application of the truth (lying) is a long-running theme in his PR efforts. You don't seem to mind being lied to. But, you got the story. Journalistic fe11ati0 pays well.



I see you don't do your own fact checking either.

"Denial and deflection seems to be a big part of your job as a journalist in 2012?" could you elaborate on this?

 

[Brian Canty]

So if McQuaid says, 'erm, no I don't think I'm the best man to lead the UCI'..what do you guys think the headlines will be in the paper the following day?? Exactly, 'McQuaid: I'm not the best man for the UCI'...then the Board call him in, then they ask him what is this about and he has an all new set of issues to deal with.

 

[Benotti69]

What is the Irish Examiner's vested interest in a man who called 2 riders scumbags who gave testimoney about the biggest sporting fraud ever?

McQuaid has a history of looking out for number 1. His breaking of the sporting apartheid to make money up to his head of the UCI.

His record as the head of a sporting organisation is an absolute joke.

When he was told about doping by riders he failed to act.

 

[D-Queued]

What is the Irish Examiner's vested interest in a man who called 2 riders scumbags who gave testimoney about the biggest sporting fraud ever?

McQuaid has a history of looking out for number 1. His breaking of the sporting apartheid to make money up to his head of the UCI.

His record as the head of a sporting organisation is an absolute joke.

When he was told about doping by riders he banned compression socks, and non-level seats.

Fixed that for you. Think it makes your points even stronger.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Fixed that for you. Think it makes your points even stronger.

Dave.

Good one.

 

[Brian Canty]

Vested interest?? I'll engage in debate but don't be wasting my time with comments like that..

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Vested interest?? I'll engage in debate but don't be wasting my time with comments like that..

Let's put it another way: do you think u were being a journalist when interviewing McQuiad or were you happy at the oppurtunity? I have no idea of your credentials, if you are a cycling journo etc etc. Guess McQuaid is a big man in Ireland.

Seeing the interview you weren't too critical. Maybe there were some no go areas?

 

[Benotti69]

Vested interest?? I'll engage in debate but don't be wasting my time with comments like that..

Pity the Examiner didn't engage in Journalism when interviewing McQuaid

 

[MarkvW]

Let's put it another way: do you think u were being a journalist when interviewing McQuiad or were you happy at the oppurtunity? I have no idea of your credentials, if you are a cycling journo etc etc. Guess McQuaid is a big man in Ireland.

Seeing the interview you weren't too critical. Maybe there were some no go areas?

Since when is it an interviewer's job to be "critical?" Isn't it enough for the interviewer to get the subject to express himself? Maybe then, the audience can draw a more informed conclusion for themselves.

What questions should the interviewer have asked? That would be a more constructive criticism.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Since when is it an interviewer's job to be "critical?"

MArk, please re-read my post, I definitely said 'journalist'. An 'interviewer' doesn't have to be critical, a commentator on a cycling course neither, a 'journalist' on the other hand has to be in my book.

In plain English/American:
Walsh is a journo
Ligett is a commentator/interviewer

 

[D-Queued]

Since when is it an interviewer's job to be "critical?" Isn't it enough for the interviewer to get the subject to express himself? Maybe then, the audience can draw a more informed conclusion for themselves.

What questions should the interviewer have asked? That would be a more constructive criticism.

No, it is not.

Since when: Remember the whole thing about the US First Amendment, itself based on the English Bill of Rights? "When" is thus defined as 1689.

These canons on freedom of speech include 'responsibility' for what is spoken or written.

Freedom of speech, and responsibility for abuses of that freedom, in turn, provide the basis for freedom of the press. The concomitant responsibility for the accuracy of what is written give us Journalistic Ethics and Standards and the Canons of Journalism, which include "Fact Checking".

Thus, a 'constructive criticism' would include that the author conduct the most basic fact checking against Pat's statements. This is especially important when you are dealing with a well-known blowhard.

Dave.

 

[Brian Canty]

Benotti I think you've something against me!!