Pat McQuaid that famous Swiss/Moroccan/thai dude

feargale

Beasty wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure to what extent voting delegates get a "free vote". They represent Continental Confederations and it may be that they agree beforehand how they will vote. That's why there's a suggestion of block voting - Europe and Oceania in favour of Cookson, Asia and Africa in favour of McQuaid and Pan America unknown

Is the USA not a key player? Are they not most outspoken against the rot? Do they not carry a big punch in the Western Hemisphere?

thebionicdude

feargale wrote: »

Is the USA not a key player?

There are 9 votes from the Americas, the US is only one of them.

AnotherView

So basically Pat McQuaid was nominated by CI initially but when that was rescinded he moved to Switzerland cycling federation and now that that may be in trouble he is moving to Morocco with Thailand as a back up and if neither of these work out he has another 150 approx to try
And once nominated he is a shoe in or president as he has the major federations in Africa, Asia and S Americas sown up ???

Gosh he owns the UCI

Some of those dictators with their quasi democracy could learn a lot from Pat

I guess a he has it all sewn up and the UCI is such an opaque organisation with unfathomable rules and token democracy ……then there is nothing for it but to boycott the UCI and /or start another international governing body

buffalo

aloyisious wrote: »

One quote made by pat today is that he, as president of the UCI, is also the president of all the Federations linked to the UCI. Is that correct?

That bit stood out for me too, and I was wondering if I heard it correctly, but I see it in writing now at http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15131/McQuaid-asserts-he-doesnt-need-the-Malaysian-amendment-to-the-UCI-Constitution-to-accept-other-nominations.aspx

But I don’t have any ‘the’ federation of the candidate. The fact is that I am the president of 175 federations.

One more example of Pat making it up as he goes along?

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

That bit stood out for me too, and I was wondering if I heard it correctly, but I see it in writing now at http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15131/McQuaid-asserts-he-doesnt-need-the-Malaysian-amendment-to-the-UCI-Constitution-to-accept-other-nominations.aspx



One more example of Pat making it up as he goes along?

He's the president of the UCI. Each Federation his it's own president ....
IMO he's spinning the rejection by CI as a sign that he's representing global cycling rather than parish pump issues. The implication was that we rejected him as he wasn't doing enough for cycling in Ireland.
In fact the UCI has had little effect on cycling in Ireland but we rejected him largely due to his actions re doping in the sport. He thinks he's doing a great job while the majority of CI feels thats not the case.

morana

great to see Vaughters put the record straight about Pats claims that he introduced aload of anti doping initiatives.

Beasty

Crankpunk's take

I once described Pat McQuaid’s presidency of the world cycling governing body, the UCI, as resembling a banana republic.

In retrospect, that was a bit harsh on banana republics

Eamonnator

PMcQ is an honorary member of C.I.
Is there any way, that this membership can be withdrawn from him?.
Does anybody know, whether or not the board of C.I. still support McQ's
Candidacy for U.C.I. President?

Maidhci

RobFowl wrote: »

We don't have a voting delegate to this years congress. And no they are free to vote whatever way they wish.
As recent events have shown delegates mandated to vote one way often do the opposite....

Thanks Rob for the information and clarification. It is possibly not a bad thing that we don't have a voting delegate at this year's Congress, given the fiasco that surrounded PMQ's initial nomination by CI and the subsequent and very welcome reversal of that decision by the grass-roots of the organisation, at the EGM. Obviously, individual vested and self-serving interests come into play at the expense of the well-being of the organisation that these individuals purport to represent.

mcgratheoin

Suggestion - Let's change the rules so that presidents can only serve two terms
McQ's answer - sure, but that rule will only come into effect after the election

Suggestion - Let's change the rules so that presidential candidates can be nominated by anyone
McQ's answer - sure, but that rule has to be backdated to before the election

Maidhci

Eamonnator wrote: »

PMcQ is an honorary member of C.I.
Is there any way, that this membership can be withdrawn from him?.
Does anybody know, whether or not the board of C.I. still support McQ's
Candidacy for U.C.I. President?

Agree wholeheartedly with this idea - withdrawal of honorary membership, if possible, would send out a very clear signal to the global cycling organisation of the lack of esteem in which PMQ is held by members of CI.

In the event that the Board of CI still support PMQ's candidacy, although as RobFowl stated, we do not have a voting delegate at Congress, they are truly out of tune with the views of the membership - democracy!

RobFowl

Maidhci wrote: »

Thanks Rob for the information and clarification. It is possibly not a bad thing that we don't have a voting delegate at this year's Congress, given the fiasco that surrounded PMQ's initial nomination by CI and the subsequent and very welcome reversal of that decision by the grass-roots of the organisation, at the EGM. Obviously, individual vested and self-serving interests come into play at the expense of the well-being of the organisation that these individuals purport to represent.

The board were unanimous (once Anto Moran reigned on the issue) in their support for PMQ and presumably still are. They did however accept the decision of the EGM and CI did not support a nomination.

buffalo

Eamonnator wrote: »

PMcQ is an honorary member of C.I.
Is there any way, that this membership can be withdrawn from him?.
Does anybody know, whether or not the board of C.I. still support McQ's
Candidacy for U.C.I. President?

If CI withdraw his membership, and therefore his licence, then presumably he's free to get a licence with another federation who will definitely nominate him. Let's keep it for now.

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

If CI withdraw his membership, and therefore his licence, then presumably he's free to get a licence with another federation who will definitely nominate him. Let's keep it for now.

You can't change licence's mid year. They can only be changed when the old one expires (usually 31/12).
TBH as PMQ is a member and a licence holder of CI I find it astounding that he's claiming that it's not "his federation".
This playing games with the rules a regs and seemingly looking for loopholes really doesn't present our sport in a good light.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

The board were unanimous (once Anto Moran reigned on the issue) in their support for PMQ and presumably still are. They did however accept the decision of the EGM and CI did not support a nomination.

Not quite unanimous - one member abstained in the original vote and was not present at the EGM

However it's clear to me that if asked again certain members of the Board of CI would still think McQuaid should get our nomination

On the question of withdrawing his honorary membership, there is no specific provision in the articles other than as a result of disciplinary action for breach of CI rules (and I am not aware of any such breach). However the membership can vote to award such membership and therefore in my view could also vote to revoke it

One thing that I and a certain other Boardsie considered ahead of last year's AGM was asking for disciplinary action to be taken against McQuaid for bringing the sport into disrepute - that could result in a possible suspension

Of course, this is simply my own interpretation of the rules and I am not a lawyer

Junior

I do wonder about life at times .. http://mcquaidvscookson.wordpress.com/

quozl

Well that seems a remarkably unbiased blog, Junior

Guybrush T

Junior wrote: »

I do wonder about life at times .. http://mcquaidvscookson.wordpress.com/

Who in the name of G*d is writing that? :eek:

check_six

Beasty wrote: »

However it's clear to me that if asked again certain members of the Board of CI would still think McQuaid should get our nomination

This part is baffling me. As I understand it, the CI board were pro-McQuaid based on him being a friend of theirs, him doing work for CI in the past, him promising to introduce a two term only presidency (after his own unlimited tenure, of course), and mainly because he's Irish and isn't a great to have one of our lads in there working hard for us.

Now it turns out that he doesn't wish to have anything to do with CI, and doesn't respect their decision. He also claims to be far more invested on a fundamental base level in Switzerland/Thailand/Morrocco (delete as appropriate as backdated rule changes are processed and passed) as they are his "Home" federations.

Is this not a huge slap in the face for his supporters in CI? Do they not feel personally insulted that he has turned his back on them in such a public manner?

Or do they still think he's "one of us", one of the little guys trying to stand up to them fellas in the big house up there, and sure fair play to him anyway?

This whole farrago is embarrassing. Sepp Blatter is taking notes of all the wheezes that he never thought of at this stage.

Junior

quozl wrote: »

Well that seems a remarkably unbiased blog, Junior

Guybrush T wrote: »

Who in the name of G*d is writing that? :eek:

Honestly I have no idea, Daniel Benson from Cyclingnews tweeted the link out earlier. The only thing I know is it's 100% nothing to do with me in any shape or form.

buffalo

RobFowl wrote: »

You can't change licence's mid year. They can only be changed when the old one expires (usually 31/12).
TBH as PMQ is a member and a licence holder of CI I find it astounding that he's claiming that it's not "his federation".
This playing games with the rules a regs and seemingly looking for loopholes really doesn't present our sport in a good light.

In that spirit: http://gerard.cc/2013/08/01/mcquaid-quits-uci-race/

Pat McQuaid states here unequivocally that he doesn’t have ANY “the federation of the candidate”. Yet the rules clearly state, as even McQuaid agrees, that only “the federation of the candidate” can nominate a member.

Therefore, the conclusion has to be that NO federation can nominate McQuaid, since no federation is “THE federation of McQuaid”.

Expect McQuaid to withdraw from the UCI presidential race shortly.

Oryx

As a casual observer, I see a man playing fast and loose with the rules and not even being coy about it. This is about as blatant as it comes. He is using UCI to promote his personal agenda, and using his position as top man to tiptoe around the regulations. ANYONE in any other field would, in no uncertain terms, have been asked to resign by now. That he hasn't, shows that the rot goes deep.

To me his actions speak volumes about the calibre of man he is, and if this debacle is any indication of how he ran UCI during his long tenure, then I can see why the organisation has faced criticism. Its being run by a despot.

Beasty

Rules - what do they matter ...

On the subject of blogs highlighting inconsistent behaviour, here's one about a certain Jim Burns

JimPat also knew that most of the world, except for a few athletes like him with a morality deficiency,...

Morality and transparancy certainly seem to be words missing from Jim's vocabulary

mcgratheoin

Guybrush T wrote: »

Who in the name of G*d is writing that? :eek:

It says it at the top...

"The true dope on the UCI presidential battle"

magicbastarder

as discussed down the pub a few years ago - if you want to make money, either invent or gain control of an entire sport.

e.g. bernie ecclestone, sepp blatter, vince mcmahon...

although the latter is mentioned with a loose definition of the word 'sport'.

mcgratheoin

magicbastarder wrote: »

although the latter is mentioned with a loose definition of the word 'sport'.

Pat McQuaid - the most electrifying man in sports entertainment...

morana

check_six wrote: »

This part is baffling me. As I understand it, the CI board were pro-McQuaid based on him being a friend of theirs, him doing work for CI in the past, him promising to introduce a two term only presidency (after his own unlimited tenure, of course), and mainly because he's Irish and isn't a great to have one of our lads in there working hard for us.

the firend bit is correct to an extent possibly just with 1 board member. He done 1 thing in my 5 years on the board and it was to do with a riders passport at the last worlds. Basically he got their legal guy to look at it after hours. He was never in favour of the 2 term rule as he stated at the April 12 meeting.

aloyisious

Given how Pat said that he left Ireland 8 years ago and has little to do with CI, maybe CI should just drop him from it's books, same as any group would for non-attendance over an extended period (under a general "lack of interest" club rule) to allow an "Ireland-domiciled" cyclist become a member............................................

Following from: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15131/McQuaid-asserts-he-doesnt-need-the-Malaysian-amendment-to-the-UCI-Constitution-to-accept-other-nominations.aspx

MD: But if the candidate can be a member of 170 federations, surely the candidate has to decide for himself which federation he is actively a member of. You are not an active member of the Moroccan federation, are you?

PMQ: You said yourself in the beginning that Ireland should be my federation. I have spent very little time in Ireland over the past eight years, so I am not an active member of Irish cycling.

MD: But that is where you came from, those are your origins, this is where your secured your initial nomination, your initial step up the ladder to the UCI. So are you not morally a member of Cycling Ireland?

PMQ: I am a member of Cycling Ireland. I have a licence from Cycling Ireland…

MD: ..But this is the federation of the candidate. There has to be an interpretation of that ruling. What is the actual federation of the candidate? You have no connection with Morocco, you have umpteen connections with Ireland. So therefore surely, morally, Ireland is the federation of the candidate in this case…

PMQ: You can talk about morally all you want. I am talking about the rules. I am not breaking any rules.

MD: Well, you have broken the letter of the rules, Pat…

PMQ: That is not even bending the rules… The UCI Constitution states, as you have just read out, the federation of which the candidate is a member. And I am a member of that federation.

Question-dodged and a perfect example of waffling to avoid it.

maryishairy

Interview with Pat McQuaid (31/07/2013) on RTE Radio 1

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_patkenny.xml

Undercover Elephant

aloyisious wrote: »

PMQ: That is not even bending the rules… The UCI Constitution states, as you have just read out, the federation of which the candidate is a member. And I am a member of that federation.

It doesn't say that, Pat.

check_six

morana wrote: »

the firend bit is correct to an extent possibly just with 1 board member. He done 1 thing in my 5 years on the board and it was to do with a riders passport at the last worlds. Basically he got their legal guy to look at it after hours. He was never in favour of the 2 term rule as he stated at the April 12 meeting.

So, their main reason for backing him was just because he's over there wearing the green jersey for us?

They maybe should have had a look in Pat's wardrobe first, as it would appear he has rather a lot of jerseys of different hues for the changing winds, and the green ones have just gone out of fashion!

I thought their reasoning for backing him was flimsy, but this takes the biscuit.

Thank god that you saw through the nonsense.

Andalucia

just listened to that podcast. My God, he is some embarrassment to the sport.

Its a tragedy if he somehow manages to succeed in his quest.

AnotherView

The great tragedy of Pat McQuaid is that he genuinely sees nothing wrong in what he is doing...in his election or in his presidency

I have worked with people like Pat who are so anachronistic and arrogant that they feel that without them the system would be bereft…failing to see that they are the problem not the solution
And if they could only make way for new blood we could find solutions to a lot of problems

hardCopy

AnotherView wrote: »

The great tragedy of Pat McQuaid is that he genuinely sees nothing wrong in what he is doing...in his election or in his presidency

I have worked with people like Pat who are so anachronistic and arrogant that they feel that without them the system would be bereft…failing to see that they are the problem not the solution
And if they could only make way for new blood we could find solutions to a lot of problems

He's like a deluded restaurant owner on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares.

AnotherView

He is like Ann Widdacome on Strictly Come Dancing ...( or any show or that matter)

Beasty

AnotherView wrote: »

The great tragedy of Pat McQuaid is that he genuinely sees nothing wrong in what he is doing...in his election or in his presidency

OK, I'm a cynic, but I believe he knows damn well there is plenty wrong with his behaviour - I suspect he just believes it's in his personal best interests to cling onto power as long as he can

AnotherView

II don't know of course but I think he feels that cycling needs him and what he does to stay in power is for the very best reasons...end justifying the means and all that

A bit like the delusion of many a 'great ' leader.........
Maggie was deluded ...she felt the Tories couldn't go on with out her as did Tony and Gordon about labour.......( and Charlie I surmise)

What these people fail to see is their own arrogance and that no one is indispensible and of course their time as gone

Andalucia

blinded by the power of power(and the benjamins)

Beasty

I suspect in Charlie's case it was more a matter of hoping to prevent anyone finding out what he'd been up to

AnotherView

Beasty wrote: »

I suspect in Charlie's case it was more a matter of hoping to prevent anyone finding out what he'd been up to

Of course Pat may have a few things he might not want in the public domain just yet ....

Maidhci

Beasty wrote: »

OK, I'm a cynic, but I believe he knows damn well there is plenty wrong with his behaviour - I suspect he just believes it's in his personal best interests to cling onto power as long as he can

That is exactly the position and here, personal best interest being the operative word - that is why a halt must be called to his gallop both at UCI level and also at CI level. I presume it is in the gift of the membership of CI to direct the executive to rescind his honorary membership as a signal of our discontent at his disgraceful behaviour?

Beasty

Maidhci wrote: »

I presume it is in the gift of the membership of CI to direct the executive to rescind his honorary membership as a signal of our discontent at his disgraceful behaviour?

I would suggest enquiring of CI on this point - I also suspect they won't be able to give an answer straight away but will need to take advice. Assuming something to the affirmative comes back it would then require a club to put a resolution to the AGM (I think my own club has already done more than its fair share on the McQuaid issue btw;))

Hermy

AnotherView wrote: »

Of course Pat may have a few things he might not want in the public domain just yet ....

Hence my previous comment re his enthusiasm to remain at the helm.

wexandproud

i have never read all the rules of ci,and frankly was never really interested in doing so, but i would imagine there is a clause somewhere about accepting decisions of committies etc. if mcquaid cannot accept the decision of ci the should cancell his membership
regarding the rules on nomination, the only times rule changes are backdated is to make something legal which when it was done was illegal,if ya get my drift. if the nomination from morocco or wherever was in on time why did we only hear about it now without a word of speculation or rumour and why. the whole situation about back dating stuff ,well he learned that from la

Beasty

wexandproud wrote: »

if mcquaid cannot accept the decision of ci the should cancell his membership

The decision of CI was not to nominate him. He fully accepts that decision and as a result chose an alternative route. The question is whether that route is within the UCI's rules

kenmc

Surely at this point in time it's time to set up the CUI. Or the Peoples popular front of CI. Or something.
And leave Pat as a splitter.... all alone in BillyNoMates land Morocco

morana

So gerard Vroomen, Mr cervelo, has indicated that there is no Paddy McQuaid on the the list of members of the Moroccan Cycling federation

@gerardvroomen

"So McQ isn't on member list for Federation Royale Moracain de Cyclisme? Maybe check Federation Royale Moracain de Cynisme #easymistaketomake"

RobFowl

morana wrote: »

So gerard Vroomen, Mr cervelo, has indicated that there is no Paddy McQuaid on the the list of members of the Moroccan Cycling federation

@gerardvroomen

"So McQ isn't on member list for Federation Royale Moracain de Cyclisme? Maybe check Federation Royale Moracain de Cynisme #easymistaketomake"

I wonder has he paid his membership fee?

manwithaplan

RobFowl wrote: »

I wonder has he paid his membership fee?

Of all the National Cycling Federations in all the countries in all the world, you had to walk into mine.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

I wonder has he paid his membership fee?

I wouldn't get too carried away on this point yet. It would appear to be based on a comment made by someone in Vroomen's blog who claims to have close ties to the Moroccan Federation - however they could be anyone

McQuaid stated in the interview earlier this week that Morocco made him a member of their Federation in 2009