Bob Roll v the UCI

afx237vi

Bob spouts off about the UCI and their handling of Contador's TT bike and the testing at P-N:

http://www.versus.com/cycling/videos/bo ... f-the-uci/

Alain Rumpf responds on Twitter: @bobkeroll Pat McQuaid saw your err... interesting piece on Versus and would like to contact you. Can you DM me your email address? Thanks 10:37 AM Mar 1st via TweetDeck Retweeted by 1 person

Is it me, or is that just embarrassing? You'd think the UCI would have Versus' phone number, but apparently not.

redddraggon

Is Twitter an official method of communication now

Kléber

Roll is right, we have a bike that was fine for Cancellara to use in the UCI World Champs but almost overnight Astana are left scrambling for a new frame. This just shouldn't happen in pro sport, it's very slack.

Whether the UCI should have let AFLD in for extra testing at Paris-Nice is a less obvious point, if the UCI is doing things right then extra testing isn't needed. But it left the door open for Bordy to make a fuss.

Oddly, it appears Rumpf and McQuaid are having to scrabble for Roll's email. Note the UCI has a press spokesman in Enrico Carpani.

On top of Roll's rant, today it appears both UK journos Lionel Birnie and Richard Hallet are blocked from interviewing Pat McQuaid as they are "not UCI-friendly", Birnie apparently has this in writing from Pat himself.

BikingBernie

Kléber wrote:

... it appears both UK journos Lionel Birnie and Richard Hallet are blocked from interviewing Pat McQuaid as they are "not UCI-friendly", Birnie apparently has this in writing from Pat himself.

Much like being on Armstrong's 'blacklist', that should be regarded as being a mark of honor and integrity.

Kléber

Except Armstrong was/is always operating to market himself.

The UCI is a governing body and it should work to higher standards. No one is accusing the UCI of outright fraud, the likes of McQuaid could easily tackle a lot of misconceptions with some good interviews. Playing "chicken" only makes them look stupid. The UCI's biggest failing has been sweeping issues under the carpet, notably doping, in the hope they would go away. All the more reason to communicate with the likes of Cycle Sport and other magazines.

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

Much like being on Armstrong's 'blacklist', that should be regarded as being a mark of honor and integrity.

Hurray. I'm a man of honor and integrity

Rodrego Hernandez

Is the production Shiv slightly different to that used by Cancellara last year?

I can only assume that there is some difference between the 2 and the resulting financial loss Specialized will now incur is their own fault and not that of the UCI.

A few years ago Specialized approached the UCI about becoming the sole bike supplier for the Pro Tour so I would have thought they have decent communications that could have averted this embarrassing issue.

Someone has screwed up here, I just wonder who!!

pontarlier_pete

Kléber wrote:

Except Armstrong was/is always operating to market himself.

The UCI is a governing body and it should work to higher standards. No one is accusing the UCI of outright fraud, the likes of McQuaid could easily tackle a lot of misconceptions with some good interviews. Playing "chicken" only makes them look stupid. The UCI's biggest failing has been sweeping issues under the carpet, notably doping, in the hope they would go away. All the more reason to communicate with the likes of Cycle Sport and other magazines.

Have you read McQuaid's interview with the Irish Independent this weekend? Doesn't so much as tackle misconceptions as actively promote them. The French are a bitter, jealous race and the only ones to dislike Armstrong, who is a great hero etc etc. Yawn. Claims the Daddy Schleck asked for assurances on doping before allowing his boys to continue, and ignoring that Daddy Schleck was searched for dope by the po-leese and baby Schleck was linked to that blood doping ring. A joke of an interview from him. Fortunately the interviewer doesn't shy away from putting the sceptics' points across.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Much like being on Armstrong's 'blacklist', that should be regarded as being a mark of honor and integrity.

Hurray. I'm a man of honor and integrity

So am I

BikingBernie

That interview with McQuaid...

"The French?" McQuaid muses, carefully choosing his words. "They're an unusual race let's say. When it comes to cycling, they think they own the sport. They have this thing that France is cycling, cycling is French."

...McQuaid concedes there is a culture of doping in the sport. Although Kelly failed two drug tests in the 1980s, McQuaid has never questioned his former colleague's integrity. "He was the last of the really hard men of cycling," he says. Lance Armstrong, too. Though the weight of circumstantial evidence against the seven-time Tour winner is considerable and controversy stalks the Texan rider every step of his career, McQuaid believes in him and the value he brings to the sport.

"The only papers that were negative were the French," he said of Armstrong's return to race riding last year, "because they don't like him anyway."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 83523.html

McQuaid - Francophobe, in Armstrong's pocket and not fit to govern the sport...

Kléber

Pontarlier Pete wrote:

Have you read McQuaid's interview with the Irish Independent this weekend? Doesn't so much as tackle misconceptions as actively promote them. The French are a bitter, jealous race and the only ones to dislike Armstrong, who is a great hero etc etc. Yawn. Claims the Daddy Schleck asked for assurances on doping before allowing his boys to continue, and ignoring that Daddy Schleck was searched for dope by the po-leese and baby Schleck was linked to that blood doping ring. A joke of an interview from him. Fortunately the interviewer doesn't shy away from putting the sceptics' points across.

Yes, that's quite a shocking interview. Meeting Johnny Schleck in Madrid, McQuaid says "Johnny, leave them in. I'm going to clean it up" but as you say, within no time Frank Schleck was sending money to Madrid, the recipient being one of the prime doping rings in Europe. As for "the only papers that were negative were the French", this ignores the article London's Sunday Times, the articles by Kimmage in the Irish press, the coverage from Eugenio Capodacqua in Italy not to mention many other articles around the world, from Australia to Canada to Turkey. McQuaid really shouldn't go around making statements like this, all the more reason for journalists to probe him on these matters.

BikingBernie

More insights into McQuaid...

McQuaid met with Frank Arokiasamy, the man behind the Tour of America, at the Tour of California. He also plans to meet with Michael Ball, another man with grand ideas. Ball is the owner of the Rock & Republic clothing line and the Rock Racing cycling team.

Ball has had some missteps, primarily the firing of nice-guy Frankie Andreu as team director and the signing of three riders implicated in Operacion Puerto doping scandal (Tyler Hamilton, Oscar Sevilla and Santiago Botero). McQuaid offered that Ball might have been better off going a different direction with his signings, but overall McQuaid likes what Ball brings to cycling.

“Michael Ball … comes in from a completely different industry with a completely different approach, but he creates media interest and livens up the whole thing,” McQuaid said. “More and more, the sport is being perceived as attractive, as sexy, as interesting and so forth for people to be involved in both as a participant and also as a viewer.

“There is a place for Michael Ball in the sport of cycling. I discussed it with some of his people as recently as four days ago, and I’m sitting down with him someday soon and discussing that. … He’s a guy who can bring a lot of color and a lot of energy to the sport and bring a new media and a new audience to the sport, but he needs to do that within the framework of the establishment that’s there.”

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10-spe ... n-america/

blackpanther

Bernie,

Youve got a serious downer on fat pat.



good one, though i didn't know hed banned most of the uci cycling press from interviews,

Dgh

It's simple, isn't it? McQuaid is an idiot. Just as his predecessor was.

iainf72

Dgh wrote:

It's simple, isn't it? McQuaid is an idiot. Just as his predecessor was.

.

I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport. He's got to grow it so what's he to do.

The issue is more around sports governing bodies being responsible for policing the sport.

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport.

Which is why he is so determined to stop anyone who might just open that particular can of worms again - such as the AFLD. (Unfortunately, it seems that the ASO have already been 'persuaded' that tacking the problem of doping in a robust manner is not in their short-term interests).

It is clear that he is especially determine to uphold the omerta when exposing doping might implicate Armstrong, as his view is that whatever is good for Armstrong is 'good for cycling'. Protecting Armstrong is also something that fits in with his plans views for the 'globalisation' of cycling and the destruction of the power of the traditional 'mafia' European nations, especially his pet hate figure 'The French'.

To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.

Kléber

McQuaid doesn't have to launch a "war on drugs". I think the UCI is getting a lot of things right these days but it's not getting the rewards for this. For example, on doping what has the UCI got to fear? McQuaid could easily be interviewed by the likes of Lionel Birnie, especially if Anne Gripper is wheeled into the room for moral/factual support. Similarly, the UCI can show it's tried to nail Valverde and it got blocked by the Spanish over Puerto. It could easily put the case that it's doing plenty here.

Hiding in a bunker won't help McQuaid or the UCI, blacklisting journalists who have only been mildly critical is not what a governing body should do.

BikingBernie

P.s. It is interesting that not only Is McQuaid a big fan of Michael Ball, in his view the doping of Fraud Landis in the 2006 Tour has only 'somewhat tainted' his 'exploit' on the stage to Morzine. :roll:

...I was with Jean Marie LeBlanc, the director of the Tour de France at the time, I was in the car with him following Floyd Landis, the day he re-took the jersey into Morzine. And genuinely we thought we were watching a superb exploit on the Tour de France, one of the great classical exploits on the Tour de France. It has turned out now to be somewhat tainted, that exploit.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10-spe ... f-cycling/

DaveyL

Wel, he did only test positive for testosterone. Y'know, one of those 80s drugs that doesn't really affect the result of races....

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.

How do you figure that?

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.

How do you figure that?

Because for those who actually know anything about the sport, the 'cat is already out of the bag', so to speak. Given this, and the widespread understanding that the results of most races are doping-fuelled shams, means that in the long term those who run the sport need to rebuild peoples' confidence in the sport by dealing with doping in a robust manner. For example:

---

The Sunday Times
June 29, 2008
How can we save one of sport’s greatest competitions, the Tour de France?
Paul Kimmage

A good friend, and great journalist, Pierre Ballester, sent me a copy of his latest work last week, ‘Tempetes sur la Tour’. A brilliant deconstruction on the state of the Tour, it makes for sad and sobering reading

Take the withering statistics Ballester produces on doping. Would you believe that 85% of the winners since 1968 have, at one point or other, contravened the antidoping rules? Would you believe that 72.5% of those who stood on the podium have cheated? What about the top-tens? Sixty per cent sound right? The damage to the credibility of the race has been irreparable

Take also the results of a recent survey (of a thousand French citizens) on their attitudes to the Tour… Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed: 90% Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France: 85% All top-level cyclists are doped: 69%

Or study how different people responded in the same survey when asked to give the reason why they watch the race...

I watch the Tour de France for the scenery: 22%

I watch the Tour de France for the mountain stages: 20%

For the competition: 16%

For the doping scandals: 16%

For the exploits of the champions: 8%

Out of childhood nostalgia: 7%

Because it passes quite near my house: 5%

For the publicity caravan: 3%

---

So much for McQuaid's belief that the 'unusual race' that is 'the French' " think they own the sport. They have this thing that France is cycling, cycling is French." In reality most of 'The French' couldn't give a monkey's for the 'sport' any more, largely due to the issue of doping.

For an even stronger illustration of the degree of public awareness about doping, and the impact this had already had on the sport, look at Germany! The way the UCI is continuing with its traditional 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' approach to doping won't undo the damage that has already been done.

iainf72

You've just quoted an article about what "The French" believe as if it's the most important opinion? Surely you've just reinforced Pat's view that "the French" think they own the sport.

If the sport is growing globally, why cherry pick the opinion of France?

Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

If the sport is growing globally, why cherry pick the opinion of France?

Odd, I thought I had mentioned Germany as well... :roll:

iainf72 wrote:

Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

And your argument is that 'we' would all stop watching if something was done to really address the problem of doping?

Kléber

On second thoughts, far from ducking interviews, perhaps McQuaid is banned from giving interviews? Because I don't really object to the UCI, the likes of Gripper are doing good things.

Instead it's McQuaid, happy to break apartheid rules when he can smell the money, happy to spout rubbish that only the French "race" cares about doping in the Tour de France and more media gaffs.

pontarlier_pete

iainf72 wrote:

Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

But how many more have turned off because of doping, and how many of us have less interest than we would otherwise?

I have to agree with Bernie. What's the point in attracting new fans when as soon as they know anything about the sport they see it's riddled with doping? Most will then just switch off again. If the problem was tackled head on, we would have a couple of years of pain, then the sport could rebuild in and turn to attracting new fans with a better chance of retaining them in the future. We had this opportunity after 1998, but it was wasted.

See that McQuaid's brother got a job with Oakley? I'm sure that was with a glowing CV and great interview, and nothing to do with Pat's Texan friend.

PauloBets

Pat Mcquaid is doing a good job, and both bio passport and toughened whereabouts system are very good. To read the comment of the silly whingers here makes me sick-no credit given to the UCI despite reform. Unfair.

pontarlier_pete

Kléber wrote:

On second thoughts, far from ducking interviews, perhaps McQuaid is banned from giving interviews? Because I don't really object to the UCI, the likes of Gripper are doing good things.

Instead it's McQuaid, happy to break apartheid rules when he can smell the money, happy to spout rubbish that only the French "race" cares about doping in the Tour de France and more media gaffs.

Gripper quit last week.

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.

So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If the sport is growing globally, why cherry pick the opinion of France?

Odd, I thought I had mentioned Germany as well... :roll:

You did but the article you quoted from only mentioned France.

iainf72 wrote:

Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

And your argument is that 'we' would all stop watching if something was done to really address the problem of doping?[/quote]

No, but I'm suggesting it's not turning people off as much as you suspect.

BikingBernie

PauloBets wrote:

Pat Mcquaid is doing a good job, and both bio passport and toughened whereabouts system are very good. To read the comment of the silly whingers here makes me sick-no credit given to the UCI despite reform. Unfair.

Yeah right! I understand that you also believe that Armstrong was / is clean. :roll:

Kléber

Pontarlier Pete wrote:

Gripper quit last week.

She's announced she's stepping down, what I meant was that the UCI shouldn't hide from tough questions on doping. But thanks to the clumsy presentation from McQuaid it is left open to attacks.

Like I say, rather than hiding - McQuaid has a nuclear fallout bunker in his house in Switerland, true story - the UCI could be putting the case that it's doing the right thing. Each time Gripper talks, it sounds good. Each time McQuaid appears, the cause goes back five years.