Pat McQuaid strikes back

iainf72

Is he a complete idiot or are parts of him missing?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/10/21 ... tion_sport

FFS

vermooten

He could certainly teach Bush a lesson on how to be a poor leader.

Maybe he's punch-drunk that he won the ProTour war.

Jeez what a moron, but at least he isn't Verbruggen.

(Sorry this post is just the textual equivalent of a grunt or big sweary session.)

Kléber

"From the UCI's point of view, we prefer to look forward rather than look backward," McQuaid told the Associated Press. "To randomly say 'OK, let's take all the samples from 2007 from the Tour de France and put them all through testing processes' ... it's futile, it's expensive and it's not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today."

The guy is bonkers. He should be saying "we're going to try to check everything we've got" and that anyone contemplating cheating in the future knows they can be caught at any time. Rather he's saying, we need to move on, to cover up the past and to let any potential cheats prosper.

If people have broken the rules, supposedly enforced by McQuaid, they should be held to account, especially if we can finally catch a few. The last time I checked, there's no clause in the anti-doping rules saying "if you get away with it, well done".

In answer to your question Iain, I rest my case.

iainf72

I give up with him.

How is he still in charge? I mean, seriously, WTF?

I could do a better job in my spare time.

micron

Then you should apply because McPrat is bringing the sport further and further into disrepute - he might as well simply announce that he's in he who shall not be named's back pocket - he doesn't even bother to use different rhetoric. What a liability :roll:

Patrick1.0

He should be fired. He's basically saying: OK boys, find a new, undetectable way to dope and all is forgotten. Which pocket is he in? Why keep covering up for the dopers? Test the samples you've got. And yes, if we have to, rejig each and every podium affected. It's what the sport needs. Not more cover ups. The fans aren't stupid.

If they take the stance: "we're going to go back and test samples from previous years every year" then new, undetectable ways to dope become detectable and less riders will take the chance on the next undetectable drug as they could be banned two/three years down the line. Is he too stupid to realise this opportunity? He must be either stupid or in somebody's pocket. Either way, he has to go for this.

The people who doped two/three years ago are the people who dope now. Root them out.

deltadawn

Every time I hear McQuaid mentioned it reminds me that humorous piece on cyclingfans.com a while back. Have you guys seen it? It’s called, "Cycling Wars: McQuaid takes control", and has photos of Star Wars characters as different cycling personalities. In it McQuaid is a bumbling C3PO who is having a very difficult time. LOL! Pretty funny stuff!

http://www.cyclingfans.com/Cycling_Wars ... es_control

Dawn

SpaceJunk

"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organiser and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium'... it makes a complete mockery of sport. You need very good information in order to do that in the first place.

Above from cyclingnews.com


What a joke.

So Pat thinks it makes a mockery of he sport if they have to change past podiums.

So cycling remains 'credible' by allowing dopers to get away wtih cheating and taking podium spots????

Gee wish, if rider x doped his way to a major tour win on a drug that at the time wasn't detectable, and when the new tests comes out, no retro testing is done, Where's the incentive not to dope????

I reckon Kohl and Schumacher weren't stupid afterall. Just unlucky. Imagine if that test only came out in 12 months.

Kohl lives off the accolades for coming third (no doubt increasing the value of his new Silence Lotto contract). Stefan is the same - he remains a two time ITT stage winner.

Poor old Vino - the UCI may as well let him complete the 07 TdF. By the time he was busted there was no chance he could get a podium place (my tounge is firmly in my cheek!).

And the UCI wonder why there is a doping problem....

Kléber

[quote"]"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organiser and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium'... it makes a complete mockery of sport.[/quote]Doping makes a complete mockery of the sport.

Some riders have been robbed of wins and placings thanks to doping but McQuaid thinks it "makes a mockery" to award them the correct result.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I'm still seeing Chief Wiggum in my head everytime McQuaid pops his buffoon laden head above the parapet.

DavMartinR

Is he in somebodies pocket? Or Did he open the can of worms couldn't believe how many worms there were?

Forearms van Pettegem said on another thread that 50% of the peleton are dirty? With that Anna Gripper says that they are testing 700 odd riders on the bio-passport. That would make it over 350 dirty riders??

Can't see the UCI wanting figures like that getting out? I mean you catch one or to now and again,but to have half the peleton?? That would would be vurtually the end of pro-cycling.

I think its going to have to be line in the sand time soon? Or head in the sand time and carry on as if nothing is happening. :roll:

skavanagh.bikeradar

Wiggum is declaring himself firmly on the side of head in the sand. As usual.

mididoctors

retro active testing is a pretty powerful deterrent.. especially given that appears to be flushing people out

keep going..if they can test for transfusions and discover in 8 years time 90% of the top 100 on gc were packed I'm all for it..

his position is so biased towards those investing in doping it makes you wonder if he is being blackmailed...

what is his motivation here...?

I think most observers of the sport here are not going to be shocked to discover that the majority are cheating... which beggars the question.. is it a majority?

whats going to surprise me more and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of is the depth of blood vector doping is NOT as extensive as I first thought... (recovery products aside for the mo)

what is the ratio of blood vector doped riders to those rider clean Hct?

we need to know and we need these retroactive tests?

are things improving..how will we know without retroactive testing?

if you want riders to enforce a omerta of clean riding you have to support those riders that do it clean.. if we continually have a section of the peloton that has the latest way of cheating at there disposal AND know this method will never be retro actively checked even if these new methods are detectable in time we are doomed to this never ending cycle of dopers vs testers... with the testers playing catch up

with retroactive testing the doping arms race tilts in favour of the testers because they don't need to "keep up" in time. AND if everyone knows this then the risk of some new method being detectable in the future is a very genuine deterrent... irrespective of how undetectable it is the present.

no wonder pressure is coming to preclude retroactive testing..

the guy is a villain or at best a weakling succumbing to pressure

mididoctors

in a way armstrong coming back is forcing the issue.. so perversely it may be a good thing

LangerDan

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

I'm still seeing Chief Wiggum in my head everytime McQuaid pops his buffoon laden head above the parapet.

You rang?

Kléber

Even the timing is bad, making this statement on the eve of the Tour presentation is a very stupid move. Was he deliberately trying to annoy ASO?

skavanagh.bikeradar

You can only assume he was. But what on earth is his motivation for the content or the timing? He needs to be held to account for his statement it is, with the best interpretation, lazy and muddled. At worst of course it is a dopers charter. It does leave you feeling that he's being pressured in some way. I wonder what Gripper thinks of his comments?

Retroactice testing is the way FORWARD you numpty. It gives cycling a way out of the arms race and as has been said before on here it tilts the fight back towards the testers. Why on earth would you want to hinder this? Muppetry of the highest order Pat.

DavMartinR

I wonder what Gripper thinks of his comments?

She must be thinking we are not even in the same church? let alone the same hyme sheet??

What an idiot :roll:

Patrick1.0

I keep coming back to this and thinking: it's got to be a joke or a mistake of some sort. This guy's an absolute moron and a disgrace. Get some balls, Pat, and do what's right.

vermooten

I'm trying to see it from his point of view, trying to work out why he's saying this. All posters 9including me) seem to agree that he's made an idiot of himself again, and I'm trying really hard to play devil's advocate and support him... but it only makes sense is that he wants to cover up. He knows as well as any of us that honesty is not always the best policy, so maybe he just wants cycling to become more like other sports and for once not lead the way in uncovering dope cheats?

cswebbo

This is the most bizzare comment from McQuaid yet. I was cutting him some slack as he could NEVER be as bad for the sport as Hein Verbruggen. Now he comes out with this. I just hope its a mis-quote, otherwise he should be sacked asap for bringing the sport into further disrepute.

mididoctors

vermooten wrote:

I'm trying to see it from his point of view, trying to work out why he's saying this. All posters 9including me) seem to agree that he's made an idiot of himself again, and I'm trying really hard to play devil's advocate and support him... but it only makes sense is that he wants to cover up. He knows as well as any of us that honesty is not always the best policy, so maybe he just wants cycling to become more like other sports and for once not lead the way in uncovering dope cheats?

you could be right but this let sleeping dogs lie status quo thing is never going to fly... its just going to prolong the agony...

if retrospective testing comes the norm and is aplied to some era where they thought this was never going to happen a door opens for limited 1 yr bans or amnesties for those coming forward before they are caught....

but OTOH if guys carry on from now on in I have very little sympathy if they continue to operate in such a climate.. McQuaid is just putting them further in jeopardy by opening the window to these practices

idiotic

the transition from one era to the other is going to be a mish mash of hypocritical and unbalanced punishments for those caught in the back wash

tough on them

at some point you have to cross over and we all take on the reality of the situation for better or worse..

He is part of the problem.. he is also puerile and weak

Kléber

He seems to imply the doping rules exist to protect race organisers. Surely that's rubbish, they are there first for rider health and second for fair play. And if he can't stand up for health and sport, what good is he?

What about all those honest riders denied results because they were beaten by a cheat? Do the UCI care?

donrhummy

Actually, this is a VERy good point.

"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium' .. it makes a complete mockery of sport," he said. "You need very good information in order to do that in the first place."

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner. Who would ever want to watch a sport where you may not know the true winner even 10 years later? And how are they going to handle getting money back from events that happened in the past? Starting that precedent is dangerous.

At a certain point, you have to create a line and say you won't go back beyond that.

Kléber

Surely if someone broke the rules and there's a way of catching them for it, they should be nabbed, not left in peace.

If a murder took place 10 or 20 years ago and new DNA techniques now allow the criminal to be tried in court, they should be used, no? Why should this be different for sport?

Patrick1.0

donrhummy wrote:

Actually, this is a VERy good point.

"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium' .. it makes a complete mockery of sport," he said. "You need very good information in order to do that in the first place."

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner. Who would ever want to watch a sport where you may not know the true winner even 10 years later? And how are they going to handle getting money back from events that happened in the past? Starting that precedent is dangerous.

At a certain point, you have to create a line and say you won't go back beyond that.

No, it's not a good point. In fact, it's a lousy point.

Look, if they say: "we're going to test, from this year forward, stored samples from previous years each and every time a new drug test becomes available to us." Most riders will not take the risk on the new, undetectable drug because they'll think: what's the point? It's not detectable now but who's to say that in a year or twos time that will still be the case? And if they go through all our samples again when it does become detectable, I'll be found out."

What we have at the moment is riders who are more willing to take the risk on the next undetectable drug because nobody is retrospectively testing. By the time a test for that drug becomes available, they hop on to the next undetectable one. If you test retrospectively you stop that from happening. You don't have to catch them for what they're on today, you can catch them for what they were on two years ago if it's easier for the testers.

moray_gub

Patrick1.0 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

Actually, this is a VERy good point.

"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium' .. it makes a complete mockery of sport," he said. "You need very good information in order to do that in the first place."

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner. Who would ever want to watch a sport where you may not know the true winner even 10 years later? And how are they going to handle getting money back from events that happened in the past? Starting that precedent is dangerous.

At a certain point, you have to create a line and say you won't go back beyond that.

No, it's not a good point. In fact, it's a lousy point.
.

So it would be ok to go back say 20 or 30 years then ?

cheers
MG

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

Surely if someone broke the rules and there's a way of catching them for it, they should be nabbed, not left in peace.

If a murder took place 10 or 20 years ago and new DNA techniques now allow the criminal to be tried in court, they should be used, no? Why should this be different for sport?

A murder is a criminal matter and is in no way comparable to the of taking PEDS, especially when taking of PEDS might not even have been illegal at the time. Sure retest but let be realistic about and not get carried away...........murder and taking PEDs............jeezo.......


cheers
MG

Patrick1.0

Moray Gub wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

Actually, this is a VERy good point.

"If we're going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying 'you've got to rejig your podium' .. it makes a complete mockery of sport," he said. "You need very good information in order to do that in the first place."

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner. Who would ever want to watch a sport where you may not know the true winner even 10 years later? And how are they going to handle getting money back from events that happened in the past? Starting that precedent is dangerous.

At a certain point, you have to create a line and say you won't go back beyond that.

No, it's not a good point. In fact, it's a lousy point.
.

So it would be ok to go back say 20 or 30 years then ?

cheers
MG

Nobody who was riding 20 or 30 years ago is riding today. There are many who were doping, one, two ,three, four and five years ago and are still riding now. I think uci and aso should follow the Olympics example and store all samples for eight years. This should happen for each of the three major Tours, also for the cycling world championships. Maybe a bit later down the line, a similar thing could be organised for the classics and smaller Tours and so on.

dennisn

So now the thinking is that pretty much everyone is using completely undetectable drugs which will be detectable in a year or so but by then the undetectable drug making companies will have a new undetectable one for everyone to replace the previous undetectable one which, of course, has now become detectable or undetectable, I can't remember which?? Hmmmmm, makes sense to me.

Dennis Noward

Patrick1.0

dennisn wrote:

So now the thinking is that pretty much everyone is using completely undetectable drugs which will be detectable in a year or so but by then the undetectable drug making companies will have a new undetectable one for everyone to replace the previous undetectable one which, of course, has now become detectable or undetectable, I can't remember which?? Hmmmmm, makes sense to me.

Dennis Noward

It's all hypothetical, Dennis. More than anything else, it's the sentiment of an organised hunt which is prepared to test in the present and indeed go back into the past and bust drug cheats. If we want a cleaner pro peloton surely this is what has to happen?