Is it time for Pat to go?

buffalo

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You're all hillarious.

Ah Paul, you came all this way. Could you not respond in a constructive way? Maybe address the points in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81381756&postcount=33 ?

happytramp

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You're all hillarious.

I am truly, truly happy there is a least one person who finds this mind-blowingly embarrassing debacle funny.

witty username

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You're all hillarious.

Disappointingly brief. The last McQuaid visitor we had went on for ages. So I take it you don't love lamp then, Paul?

aindriu80

I heard Pat going over some of the things he has presided over since he has been in charge via sound clips on breakingnews.ie and it is high time he left. He isn't doing a whole pile, he can't condemn some of the things that some cyclists have slated and all he is doing is getting involved in the row.

Flandria

sheepfield

We all encounter bully-types in life: to get to the top of a world organisation (UCI) that has a proven track record of incompetence in dealing with cheats and other bully-boys takes a fairly thick-skinned operator with a pretty low sense of honour. Pat McQuaid probably doesnt give a tuppence about us mentioning him on boards; he sits in luxury in Switzerland; he can have a word with some minion round here to keep him updated if he cares enough, and can consider sueing if called "corrupt" or something horrific like that. He just needs enough brass neck to ride out this kind of controversy. And I dont think he is going anywhere too quickly. Which is a pity. A total new start is needed. And more people need to just ride the bike and not care about Pat McQuaid I reckon. All political careers end in failure anyway so it just takes time. I will be on my bike waiting.

I equate him to other adminstrators like Pat Hickey and John Delaney who have had to deal with other stormy times in their sport but somehow manage to wrangle their way out of things in their shiny new suit and no amount of negative press seems to dislodge them. Pat is the head of a world body so his profile is much higher, though the self-serving, "stroke-politics" agenda of the Irish political animal is much the same. (Cue Delaney buying pints for the lads in Poland or Hickey lambasting any irish federation that makes him look bad to the IOC... wont get that chief-exec job if his house isn't in order!!!)

Like many, I think it is an outright disgrace that he would sue Paul Kimmage. It speaks of targeting and bullying the small guy. Big guy in big house wearing shiny suit beats up on the humble, honourable man who points to the glaring problem at the heart of the community.

The only thing that will see him removed I believe, is if LA has an incredible Pauline-conversion and spills the whole truth about the affairs of late, possibly exposing McQuaid to some charge, or something like that, if the 2001 TdS sample/$100,000 donation has another explanation.
Or if the sponsors, en masse, decide to heave in some way. Money does talk. Those shiny suits are expensive.

Highly unlikely, but wouldn't that make for a spectacular OPRAH episode???

Cue Pat coughing outrageously into his meusli...

We will be waiting.

paulmcquaid

Ah I have to reply to sheephead. Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)?? Clearly you are so let me explain. Pat is suing Kimmage for 'calling him corrupt'. Simple. And Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers, IN JANUARY last! I'll repeat that, Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers informing him he was being sued, in January. How you can link the two is beyond me. Sure, Kimmage was correct about Lance. But that is completely separate to Pat taking umbridge to being called, 'corrupt'. Can ye not get that...?!? You guys crack me up!

paulmcquaid

I'm just waiting for ye all to come back with - 'sher how can you say they are NOT connected...???!!!' The movie, 'Sneakers'. Dan Akroyd. Replying to someone in the back of the van when they mentioned conspiracy - 'isn't everything?!' Classic.

Diarmuid

paulmcquaid wrote: »

Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)??

I think this is the latest McQuaid talking point.

McQuaid, the Pat version, pulled the same line this morning on RTE . And I bet, now that Kimmage's defence fund is up over $67,000, McQuaid and his side kick Hein (or is it the other way around) are deeply regretting the decision to sue Kimmage.

petethedrummer

Good man Paul. Have you had a go at trying to convince people on here yet.... http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2255967

Best of luck with it if you give it a shot.

Flandria

Classic indeed

happytramp

buffalo wrote: »

Ah Paul, you came all this way. Could you not respond in a constructive way? Maybe address the points in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81381756&postcount=33 ?

Seriously Paul! Just take a minute to look at this. Can you honestly say this is all nonsense???

mcgratheoin

paulmcquaid wrote: »

Ah I have to reply to sheephead. Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)?? Clearly you are so let me explain. Pat is suing Kimmage for 'calling him corrupt'. Simple. And Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers, IN JANUARY last! I'll repeat that, Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers informing him he was being sued, in January. How you can link the two is beyond me. Sure, Kimmage was correct about Lance. But that is completely separate to Pat taking umbridge to being called, 'corrupt'. Can ye not get that...?!? You guys crack me up!

The case is completely separate as a legal entity, however the allegations in question - Landis stating that the UCI covered up a test and Kimmage writing a story about it - are a part of the USADA report. Therefore they sued Landis (and are suing Kimmage) over a piece of information that was subsequently published worldwide by the USADA.

So some questions for you.

1. Why are Pat, Hein and the UCI suing Kimmage personally, instead of the outlets that published these allegations?
2. Why have they selectively targeted Landis and Kimmage (for reporting Landis' accusations) but ignored
   • Lance Armstrong - who told his teammates that the UCI was corrupt and he could get a test covered up
   • Betsy Andreu - who said that the UCI took money to cover up a positive test
   • Tyler Hamilton - who said that the UCI covered up a test for Lance
   • The USADA - repeated the allegation, much as Kimmage did
   • Dr. Martial Saugy - he claims that when he reported the suspicious drug tests for the 2001 Tour de Suisse that UCI’s Medical Commission head told him that "at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong, but that there was no way Mr. Armstrong was using EPO"

The anger over this case is about the bullying tactics of playing the man, not the ball. If Pat takes exception to something printed in a newspaper about him, let him sue the newspaper, not the journalist. It reeks of cowardice and creates the impression that personal ambition is the principal concern of those in charge of the UCI.

G2ECE

Polo will be around the week or so before the court case to answer questions should anyone want to visit Limerick.

Dermot Illogical

I don't closely follow cycling as a sport, mainly because I believe it is totally corrupt. I'm not having my mind changed by the powers-that-be any time soon by the looks of it.
However, I did follow the TdF in passing and two things struck me and stuck with me.
The first was a quote from Pat McQuaid. "Unfortunately, we didn't have either Andy Schleck or Alberto Contador here this year, but next year, they'll both be back – hopefully – and that will give it the panache," To me this was akin to Commissioner Gordon lamenting the demise of The Joker.
The 2nd thing that struck me was that nobody seemed to think it odd that the individual in charge of a sport though it unfortunate that a cheat wasn't there to liven things up.

Beasty

It perhaps speaks volumes that at this stage the polls shows a larger proportion of voters believe Armstrong is innocent than believe McQuaid should stay.

In my view the issue is that McQuaid, along with the other UCI management, have been given the opportunity to sort this whole mess out, but have failed to do so. With such a poor record why should they be given another chance? A failed chief executive in big business has 2 choices - resign or be sacked. I really cannot see the difference with the McQuaid situation. The sport will only move forward if it can regain the confidence of those who make a living out of it, the fans and the wider public. The current management team have shown no signs of being able to turn this round, and hence must go and give others a chance.

The Kimmage lawsuit is a good example where McQuaid and the UCI are focussing on the little picture, and completely missing the big one. It's both petty and bizarre - why sue the journalist, and not the publication? Why devote any resource to this when there are so many real issues facing the sport?

So Pat, why not try and regain some credibility for both yourself an the sport? All you have to do is resign to let someone else have a go at sorting out this mess. I'm sure you can do without all this flak, and I'm equally sure the sport can move in the right direction without you at it's helm (although it's going to be tough for anyone given the state it's found itself in).

ROK ON

Beasty
Well put. I do agree that PMcQ should go, but the more I think about it I believe that the point made recently by Junior - that is that those behind McQuaid in the UCI are worse than him.
The pro version of the sport is farcical. There are more people like Big Mig than Robert Millar. This is a seriously dysfunctional sport and probably needs to whiter on the vine and die.
I think Vaughters has a chance with a breakaway league - I hope that it happens soon. There are too many apologists within the sport. Too many guys with no desire to see the sort improve. Maybe like soft & hard drugs the war against doping is one ghat simply cannot be won.

I will still ride my bike do a few events (races, Audax, sportifs), watch races from the roadside. But I can't see pro cycling changing for the better. It's broken. Roche Snr is more worried about a bare chest then a needle in the arm - says it all really.

Veesport

LA will never be the 'Scapegoat' in the Rene Girard meaning of the word.

LA may eventually 'come clean' do a bit of crying on ESPN with the entire US sporting population watching, blame it on culture, commercial pressure, that he believed the other bastards were doping even more, what was he to do? that he was exploited, misguided....and ultimately be accepted back and now as a doping martyr.
The new champion of clean sport...Who I ask wouldn't like to see that? ...NIke, Oakley, all back hugging LA like the Skywalkers in Star Wars.

The Scapegoat will have to be part of the institution of cycling, the organisation that failed to stamp out what it appears everyone knew and what was widely reported.

UCI President will have to pay...and pay sooner...Veesport

tfrancer

Beasty wrote: »

As linked by Diarmuid above, it is expected that a motion will be put forward from the floor on the day.

Anyone going?

No, lynch mobs are not really my scene.

High Nellie

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I don't closely follow cycling as a sport, mainly because I believe it is totally corrupt....

I think that's a bit harsh on those of us in the A4 pack!
I'm serious though. Along with all the other mass of amateurs around the world we are 'the sport'. Top level professional cycling may be 'corrupt', but cheating takes place everywhere. It's just exacerbated by power and money.
Tell me, what's the difference between a professional cyclist cheating by dope and a professional soccer player cheating by taking a dive in the box?
We see the latter done openly all the time with millions at stake. It doesn't mean that 'the sport is corrupt'

sled driver

High Nellie wrote: »

Tell me, what's the difference between a professional cyclist cheating by dope and a professional soccer player cheating by taking a dive in the box?

As far as I'm aware, no professional soccer player had died from taking a dive in the box

petethedrummer

High Nellie wrote: »

Tell me, what's the difference between a professional cyclist cheating by dope and a professional soccer player cheating by taking a dive in the box?

The two are not equivalent. A footballer taking a dive is akin to a rider hanging on to a car on a climb or taking a magic bottle.

A cyclist going to Fuentes to blood dope is akin to a footballer going to Fuentes to blood dope.

leftism

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You're all hillarious.

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You guys crack me up!

Ya know Paul, for someone who makes a living from the sport of cycling, i wouldn't find any of this a laughing matter...

Most of us on here have jobs outside of cycling and we're just passionate about the sport. And yet those who actually make a living from cycling (yourself and your brother included) don't seem to give a flying f$ck, and actually find the whole thing hilarious!?!? Do you know what i find hilarious?

That your brother and his supporters are going around bragging about all the "great work" he's done in the fight against doping! Exactly what great work would that be?

The Festina Case?

Operation Puerto?

The Italian investigations into Conconi and Ferrari?

Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu confessions?

The USADA case?

What role did your brother have in any of these? By exposing the truth in cycling (and lets face it Paul, it is the truth), and by encouraging cyclists to come forward and confess, journalists like David Walsh and Paul Kimmage have done more to fight the war on doping than Pat could ever accomplish. And that really is a joke, because your brother is the man in charge! He's in the best possible position to make a difference. And whats he doing? Blaming everyone else and taking out defamation cases against Paul Kimmage and Dick Pound.

But go ahead and keep laughing away to yourself. Its the least i'd expect...

AngeGal

paulmcquaid wrote: »

Ah I have to reply to sheephead. Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)?? Clearly you are so let me explain. Pat is suing Kimmage for 'calling him corrupt'. Simple. And Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers, IN JANUARY last! I'll repeat that, Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers informing him he was being sued, in January. How you can link the two is beyond me. Sure, Kimmage was correct about Lance. But that is completely separate to Pat taking umbridge to being called, 'corrupt'. Can ye not get that...?!? You guys crack me up!

To be honest, even if one considers them separate that's irrelevant right now. I am not as well informed or knowledgeable as the other posters here, but I will say from a purely PR perspective (which is surely more important now than ever before), Pat McQuaid/the UCI is committing hara kiri with this case.

leftism

Bang on the money there AngeGal!

At a time when cycling needs strong leadership, the president is off suing the worlds most outspoken anti-doping journalist!

What sort of message is the UCI trying to send out?

For that action alone, he should resign! It doesn't matter if its a personal legal case or not, the optics are just appalling. Pat must realise he's bringing the sport even further into disrepute...

sled driver

AngeGal wrote: »

To be honest, even if one considers them separate that's irrelevant right now. I am not as well informed or knowledgeable as the other posters here, but I will say from a purely PR perspective (which is surely more important now than ever before), Pat McQuaid/the UCI is committing hara kiri with this case.

Hara kiri is based on an honour code, a set of rules or ethical principles that define honourable behaviour, carried out to maintain personal integrity. Alot of words I would not associate with them at present.

Veesport

rotten to the core...


http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?cat=sport&type=article

RobFowl

paulmcquaid wrote: »

I'm just waiting for ye all to come back with - 'sher how can you say they are NOT connected...???!!!' The movie, 'Sneakers'. Dan Akroyd. Replying to someone in the back of the van when they mentioned conspiracy - 'isn't everything?!' Classic.

They are not directly connected, but are 2 clear seperate examples of a stunning lack of judgment.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

They are not directly connected, but are 2 clear seperate examples of a stunning lack of judgment.

... and I think another is on it's way

How embarrassing will it be for McQuaid if the the membership of his own federation carry a vote of no confidence and turn down any request for him to be nominated for re-election? He could of course avoid that by announcing his intention to stand down. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but if the guy has any self-respect he must surely be considering his own position.

happytramp

Beasty wrote: »

... and I think another is on it's way

How embarrassing will it be for McQuaid if the the membership of his own federation carry a vote of no confidence and turn down any request for him to be nominated for re-election? He could of course avoid that by announcing his intention to stand down. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but if the guy has any self-respect he must surely be considing his own position.

Do you think the motion has a realistic chance?

mcgratheoin

Veesport wrote: »

rotten to the core...


http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?cat=sport&type=article

It beggars belief really - we'll have a press conference, say that we endorse the USADA decision, Lance has no place in cycling and Landis/Hamilton are scumbags. Then when nobody's looking or there to ask questions, we'll have a dig at USADA (again).

Do the UCI have PR advisors or is it all internal stuff? Is there somebody within the organisation telling them that it's a good idea to publish these types of responses?

Beasty

happytramp wrote: »

Do you think the motion has a realistic chance?

Yes - McQuaid's supporters will try to get it thrown out on a technicality, but they may struggle particularly if they don't find out the precise wording of the resolution until the day

Look at the vote in this poll. I'm not claiming that this is reflects the CI membership as a whole, but does indicate widespread support for change. If it does get to a vote I would be surprised if it then gets turned down

As I've said previously though, even if they find some way of preventing a vote at the AGM on a technicality, the headlines will still be made. I would then think an EGM is likely to be called to discuss the whole issue. Hence stopping open debate within CI now will only in my view delay things.

ROK ON

A couple of tweeds this morning seem to imply that discussions around a breakaway league are taking place.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

A couple of tweeds this morning seem to imply that discussions around a breakaway league are taking place.

Dirty rotten scoundrels!

ednwireland

ROK ON wrote: »

A couple of tweeds this morning seem to imply that discussions around a breakaway league are taking place.

looks like the only way anything s going to change

Beasty

ROK ON wrote: »

A couple of tweeds this morning seem to imply that discussions around a breakaway league are taking place.

Will there be a proper Masters category, or will we get lumped in with the ladies again?

kerash

paulmcquaid wrote: »

You're all hillarious.

Eamonnator

Beasty wrote: »

Yes - McQuaid's supporters will try to get it thrown out on a technicality, but they may struggle particularly if they don't find out the precise wording of the resolution until the day

Look at the vote in this poll. I'm not claiming that this is reflects the CI membership as a whole, but does indicate widespread support for change. If it does get to a vote I would be surprised if it then gets turned down

As I've said previously though, even if they find some way of preventing a vote at the AGM on a technicality, the headlines will still be made. I would then think an EGM is likely to be called to discuss the whole issue. Hence stopping open debate within CI now will only in my view delay things.

A couple of questions.
1) Is it only Cycling Ireland, who can nominate Pat McQuaid for President?
2) Who instructs C.I. on whom to nominate?
3) If a motion at C.I. AGM is in favour of not nominating Pat for President, would this motion be binding on C.I. reps at the U.C.I. AGM, which elects President?

Thanks in adveance.

el tel

8 people have voted that Pat is doing a great job and should stay.

That's not a lot, especially considering he has 9 siblings according to Celtictrails.com.

I think there might be a few awkward questions at Christmas dinner this year.

RobFowl

CI President Pat McQuaid has said journalists in Ireland and Britain won't decide his future.

McQuaid, who has been under pressure to resign from his position, has once again defended himself in the wake of the Lance Armstrong crisis.

The Dubliner has said the federations in each of the 175 countries that elect him will decide his future.


http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/mcquaid-irish-journalists-wont-decide-my-future-571512.html

Se there you go, the man himself says it's up to the National federations to decide......

Beasty

Eamonnator wrote: »

A couple of questions.
1) Is it only Cycling Ireland, who can nominate Pat McQuaid for President?
2) Who instructs C.I. on whom to nominate?
3) If a motion at C.I. AGM is in favour of not nominating Pat for President, would this motion be binding on C.I. reps at the U.C.I. AGM, which elects President?

Thanks in adveance.

From Article 51. 1. of the UCI Constitution:

The candidates for the presidency shall be nominated by the federation of the candidate.

I don't think anyone "instructs" CI who to nominate, but if the membership express their dissatisfaction with McQuaid as President it would be very difficult for the Board to ignore the wishes of it's membership

Lusk Doyle

http://m.rte.ie/sport/touch/cycling/2012/1024/342902-uci-go-on-the-offensive-against-usada/

What a sap. Give the evidence to an independent body! That would be a judge, right? Didn't a certain Lance Armstrong say no to that option?

Really Pat? Seriously? You must be on something yourself to come out with crap like that.

Go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect €200.

Lumen

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

What a sap

Rather than analysing the news coverage it might be an idea to read the actual document.

Pat seems to have conceded all points, albeit with a great deal of moaning.

Lusk Doyle

I don't have the time to read it. Just give me the gist of it.

Oh, maybe that's what pat said.

My point was intended to point out the pointlessness of the statement when they agreed with the usada findings.

el tel

Say Pat was to 'go' (go where I wonder, maybe a town called Fukyasilf?) is there a likely replacement CI nominee waiting in the wings?

Would the CI nomination normally go to the CI president, or could be any CI member, or other?

Is having had Pat as UCI chief been of any specific benefit to CI?
Could he have an ace in the hole whereby he's got CI by the bollocks on some other front?

Too many questions!! I will hold off renewing my membership pending the outcome! We need to have faith in our national body to do the right thing.

morana

el tel wrote: »

Say Pat was to 'go' (go where I wonder, maybe a town called Fukyasilf?) is there a likely replacement CI nominee waiting in the wings?

Would the CI nomination normally go to the CI president, or could be any CI member, or other?

Is having had Pat as UCI chief been of any specific benefit to CI?
Could he have an ace in the hole whereby he's got CI by the bollocks on some other front?

Too many questions!! I will hold off renewing my membership pending the outcome! We need to have faith in our national body to do the right thing.

Nobody has CI by the bollocks!

Lusk Doyle

morana wrote: »

Nobody has CI by the bollocks!

Except your respective missuses!

AngeGal

sled driver wrote: »

Hara kiri is based on an honour code, a set of rules or ethical principles that define honourable behaviour, carried out to maintain personal integrity. Alot of words I would not associate with them at present.

Thanks. I thought it meant being so stupid/stubborn as to cause the death of yourself without meanng to do so, learn something new every day!

el tel

Has it been required that Pat was nominated by CI every year through his tenure at the UCI? Just wondering how he's managed to stay at the top for so long.

noddy69

How he can stand and face the press and say what he does is beyond me. Along with V he makes the UCI look like a pack of jokers to the cycling world. To actually say Lance has no place in cycling...on the back of a USADA case that he did everything he could to obstruct, then took his time looking for faults is ridiculous. You would swear he actually did something. The taking no responsibility for any of it, passing the book to the cyclists. It is not professional nor what is needed in cycling.

What I get from Pat's time is.

The UCI are not responsible for what happened, thats all the bad cyclists dont ye know.
The Uci are not responsible for catching them, thats the tests dont ye know.

What the f are the UCI responsible for and what is Pat getting paid for. Get rid now.