Time for McQuaid to go.
aurelio_-_banned
Posts: 1,317
Surely, especially given the astonishing degree of unprofessionalism he has shown since taking office, it is time for Pat McQuaid to resign. His only real talents appear to be for megaphone diplomacy and hypocrisy. He argues that the organisers of the Tour of California have the full right to decide who rides their events, but denies that the ASO have the same right. He argues that it is wrong for the ASO to fail to invite Astana on the basis of their past record, and then goes ahead and bans Frank Vandenbroucke from all 'ProTour' events on the same grounds! He argues that the ASO are 'blackmailing' riders, claims he has the interests of the riders at heart and says that he will do everything to defend the supposed 'right' of Contador to ride the Tour (regardless of his implication in the Puerto affair), and yet he also threatens to ban any rider who takes part in the Paris Nice from all races held under UCI rules for 6 months!
To his disgrace McQuaid has also repeatedly resorted to narrow-minded, anti-French rhetoric. Perhaps McQuaid is simply a xenophobe. This might explain his claim that cycling's doping problem is due to the existence of "mafia Western European nations" whose values should be compared with those countries belonging to some mythical, whiter-than-white "Anglo-Saxon culture". This claim has a certain irony given that in the case of Astana it is "Anglo-Saxon'" McQuaid who opposes the implementation of more robust anti-doping measures. Then again consistency does not seem to be one of McQuaid's strong points! Xenophobe or not much of what McQuaid says, such as his fatuous claim that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana to ride the Tour "was a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public", gives every appearance of being calculated to gain support from those who themselves harbour anti-French prejudices. For example, those who seriously believe that the refusal by the ASO to offer an invite to Astana is part of a supposed 'plot' by the ASO (or should that be 'The French'?...) to 'stop Leipheimer winning the Tour'. (These are probably the same people who believe that Landis was clean but was 'framed' by 'the French', an absolutely ludicrous suggestion given that the ASO needed the Landis doping scandal about as much a bullet in the head!).
(Those who believe that all 'the French' are interested in is 'engineering' a French win or that the ASO are not genuinely concerned about doping should perhaps think back to the way Jean-Marie Leblanc of the ASO fought to have Richard Virenque - France's biggest prospect for a Tour win since Bernard Hinault - excluded from the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".)
In reality the McQuaid/ASO split is about 3 main issues, all one way or another related to the (in the words of Brian Cookson, head of British Cycling) "problematic and divisive" 'ProTour' concept. Firstly there is the desire of the UCI to dictate to the organisers of the sport's major events who gets to ride in those events. Relatedly there is the failure of the UCI to tackle (and even complicity in) the doping problem over the years, something which has led the sport to the brink. The result of this is that those with a financial interest in the sport can no longer risk another doping scandal and so, quite understandably, want to retain full control over who they invite to ride in their events.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all is number three. TV rights. The UCI clearly intends that race organisers should no longer have full control to the TV rights to the sport's major events on the basis that these form part of the 'ProTour brand'. In effect the UCI are telling organisers that the events they own and run no longer 'belong' to them and that the UCI is moving in with the intention of making a grab for the money to be made from the TV rights to events, in particular the Tour de France.
Even as the McQuaid/ASO battle rages, Hein Verbruggen (McQuaid's ever-present shadow) is reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in buying of the rights to televised cycle sport. These include the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. (See
http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).
If it wasn't bad enough that the UCI sold 'ProTour' licences on promises they were in no position to honour, now they are playing a role in selling of the TV rights to events they don't even own or organise! McQuaid has lost all credibility having made threats he will be unable to follow up without damaging the careers of half the peleton. He is autocratic, seemingly uninterested in negotiation or compromise and sees any voice of dissent as being proof of 'disloyalty', demanding that the dissenter resign from any UCI related post. (As with his demand that AIGCP president Eric Boyer resign from the ProTour Council). He clearly does not have the support of the riders themselves and is increasingly isolated having now suspended any official contact with the AIGCP. For the good of cycling it's time for McQuaid (and Verbruggen) to go and for the UCI to both stop acting outside it's remit and giving the impression that it believes that the role of the ASO is to act as a 'cash cow' for the UCI and the rest of cycling.
To his disgrace McQuaid has also repeatedly resorted to narrow-minded, anti-French rhetoric. Perhaps McQuaid is simply a xenophobe. This might explain his claim that cycling's doping problem is due to the existence of "mafia Western European nations" whose values should be compared with those countries belonging to some mythical, whiter-than-white "Anglo-Saxon culture". This claim has a certain irony given that in the case of Astana it is "Anglo-Saxon'" McQuaid who opposes the implementation of more robust anti-doping measures. Then again consistency does not seem to be one of McQuaid's strong points! Xenophobe or not much of what McQuaid says, such as his fatuous claim that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana to ride the Tour "was a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public", gives every appearance of being calculated to gain support from those who themselves harbour anti-French prejudices. For example, those who seriously believe that the refusal by the ASO to offer an invite to Astana is part of a supposed 'plot' by the ASO (or should that be 'The French'?...) to 'stop Leipheimer winning the Tour'. (These are probably the same people who believe that Landis was clean but was 'framed' by 'the French', an absolutely ludicrous suggestion given that the ASO needed the Landis doping scandal about as much a bullet in the head!).
(Those who believe that all 'the French' are interested in is 'engineering' a French win or that the ASO are not genuinely concerned about doping should perhaps think back to the way Jean-Marie Leblanc of the ASO fought to have Richard Virenque - France's biggest prospect for a Tour win since Bernard Hinault - excluded from the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".)
In reality the McQuaid/ASO split is about 3 main issues, all one way or another related to the (in the words of Brian Cookson, head of British Cycling) "problematic and divisive" 'ProTour' concept. Firstly there is the desire of the UCI to dictate to the organisers of the sport's major events who gets to ride in those events. Relatedly there is the failure of the UCI to tackle (and even complicity in) the doping problem over the years, something which has led the sport to the brink. The result of this is that those with a financial interest in the sport can no longer risk another doping scandal and so, quite understandably, want to retain full control over who they invite to ride in their events.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all is number three. TV rights. The UCI clearly intends that race organisers should no longer have full control to the TV rights to the sport's major events on the basis that these form part of the 'ProTour brand'. In effect the UCI are telling organisers that the events they own and run no longer 'belong' to them and that the UCI is moving in with the intention of making a grab for the money to be made from the TV rights to events, in particular the Tour de France.
Even as the McQuaid/ASO battle rages, Hein Verbruggen (McQuaid's ever-present shadow) is reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in buying of the rights to televised cycle sport. These include the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. (See
http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).
If it wasn't bad enough that the UCI sold 'ProTour' licences on promises they were in no position to honour, now they are playing a role in selling of the TV rights to events they don't even own or organise! McQuaid has lost all credibility having made threats he will be unable to follow up without damaging the careers of half the peleton. He is autocratic, seemingly uninterested in negotiation or compromise and sees any voice of dissent as being proof of 'disloyalty', demanding that the dissenter resign from any UCI related post. (As with his demand that AIGCP president Eric Boyer resign from the ProTour Council). He clearly does not have the support of the riders themselves and is increasingly isolated having now suspended any official contact with the AIGCP. For the good of cycling it's time for McQuaid (and Verbruggen) to go and for the UCI to both stop acting outside it's remit and giving the impression that it believes that the role of the ASO is to act as a 'cash cow' for the UCI and the rest of cycling.
0
Comments
-
I agree
Mc Fly resignation!
He just want money, no the protect cycling
It´s time for a changeIf you like Flandes, Roubaix or Eroica, you would like GP Canal de Castilla, www.gpcanaldecastilla.com0 -
I largely agreed. The UCI need to return to governing the sport and not trying to line their pockets. But at the same time, if that does happen, the ASO need to let go and leave the governing to someone else.
And both parties need to come to the table and figure out a consistant type of message about who gets invited to races - If everyone wants the sport to grow, sponsor need certain guarantees. That may be the top 15 UCI ranked teams get invitations to the biggest races unless they've had one in competition doping failure in the last 12 months in which case that right falls away.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Even as the McQuaid/ASO battle rages, Hein Verbruggen (McQuaid's ever-present shadow) is reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in buying of the rights to televised cycle sport. These include the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. (See
http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).
.
Watch this very carefully. My view is that Verbruggen is finished with the UCI. Now that he is on the gravy train that is the IOC, the machinations of cycling are of no use to him. I suspect that he trying to do an Ecclestone and have these rights assigned to himself.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
So who should replace him? Anyone on the horizon? I only know the situation in the German federation a little better and those who have come in from outside have struggled to lead the federation due to the resistance of the overall organisation.
And those from within the federation have been unable to provide a new way forward...=====================
Pas de progrŠs sans peigne.0 -
As you write aurelio, there are probably meetings amongst the UCI heirarchy with a view to dispensing with McQuaid's services.I say what I like and I like what I say!0
-
McQuaid, Verbruggen and an Australian, Ray Godkin run the UCI.
McQuaid was elected by a majority of federations. Although it was alleged that he got a list of key contacts at every national federation months before rival candidates for the post, so he could schmooze them whilst others were kept in the dark. Indeed many federations (like British Cycling) still seem to support him.
So in the end, it will come down to votes from the federations all around the world. Many, say the Chinese or Polish will be delighted about the status given by McQuaid to the Qinghai Lakes tour or the Tour of Poland etc, so it's not so certain he's in the ejector seat.
Still, the French, Italian, German, Belgian, Austrian, Luxembourg federations have all called for him to go already. When big people like this call in public, you can't ignore them.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Have you more details on this please!Kléber wrote:... the French, Italian, German, Belgian, Austrian, Luxembourg federations have all called for him to go already. When big people like this call in public, you can't ignore them.0
