What McQuaid SHOULD have said/done
I know a lot of us were disappointed by McQuaid's comments (i was) but after thinking about it, I think while he didn't mean it this way, there's perhaps a good idea in there. So here's what I would have said in his position:
Definitely, there's a chance that a lot of what Floyd says is true. We acknowledge that a large number of cyclists doped in the past. That's exactly why we took the lead in the world of professional sports in introducing not only more anti-doping tests, but also the bio-passport. It helps us discover doping trends and anomolies that normally could have been hidden by microdosing and off-season doping. While we know there will always be dopers, we feel confident that these strong steps have made greater inroads into removing doping from our sport than anything any other professional sport has done.
As for the past transgressions Mr. Landis refers to, yes we will do some investigation but we will not pursue these relentlessly and without regard to finances. That's because we have a limited amount of money. And the sport of cycling and our fans are much better served by us using those funds to keep doping out of cycling TODAY. Would you rather we spend $1 million testing samples from 8, 6 and 4 years ago or cyclists riding in our races today? Because we DO have to make that choice.Testing costs money and we're not billionaires.
I would encourage governments and police to conduct those tests if they can, but for cycling, testing current riders will go further towards keeping our sport clean than trying to find doping violations of 8 years ago.
0
Comments
-
I think that Mcquaid has made some good points. I do think that he has handled the initial "quote" amazingly badly though....http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
What is particularly disappointing about the UCI's response is that rather than dealing with the important issues raised they have tried to personally smear Landis, which is not what International sporting bodies should be in the business of doing.
In addition the UCI is being obfuscatory by suggesting that Landis is referring to the 2002 Tour de Suisse when it is obvious he is referring to the 2001 Tour de Suisse (i.e., the one after the introduction of the EPO test at the 2000 Sydney Olympics).
As ever the UCI and McQuaid are more concerned with arse-covering and protecting their own image rather than doing what's best for cycling. No matter how much the UCI would like it to ignore it, this scandal isn't going to just go away.
At least WADA were able to make a grown-up, considered response0 -
bipedal wrote:What is particularly disappointing about the UCI's response is that rather than dealing with the important issues raised they have tried to personally smear Landis, which is not what International sporting bodies should be in the business of doing.
In addition the UCI is being obfuscatory by suggesting that Landis is referring to the 2002 Tour de Suisse when it is obvious he is referring to the 2001 Tour de Suisse (i.e., the one after the introduction of the EPO test at the 2000 Sydney Olympics).
As ever the UCI and McQuaid are more concerned with ars*-covering and protecting their own image rather than doing what's best for cycling. No matter how much the UCI would like it to ignore it, this scandal isn't going to just go away.
At least WADA were able to make a grown-up, considered response
OK, but did you read my "response"? Does it make sense? Do you agree/disagree?0 -
Yes, ok. i read it. you should indeed be running the UCi. :roll:
say what you mean to bipedal; "shut up, stop waffling...loook at me!"
0 -
aarw wrote:Yes, ok. i read it. you should indeed be running the UCi. :roll:
say what you mean to bipedal; "shut up, stop waffling...loook at me!"
Um..no. My point of it was that maybe McQuaid is right that it's not worth worrying about what happened in the past. Maybe they should spend their money on the here and now, but that he stated it poorly.0 -
this mcquaid guy sounds like a right twat.
he seems to think everyone who whistleblows is bitter, spiteful or doing it for money or has an agenda etc.0 -
Best thing McDead can do is disappear up his own jacksy...................0
-
The reason why Landis is speaking out now goes absolutely to the heart of this 'why dig up the past' issue. Statute of limitations is 8 years and Landis has made it quite clear that this is why he's speaking out now - not next month when what he has to say will be meaningless. If the UCI want to make the 'past' 5 years, or 2 years or 6 months then fine - but, under the guidelines, Landis is not digging up the past and any attempt to say so is to obfuscate and defend omerta.0
-
More Mqdead rubbish .....................McQuaid concluded by saying: “Floyd should have met with USADA directly and I was involved in trying to get him to do that. But instead he’s gone to the media. I know one thing that could be playing a role in this. He wanted to ride the Tour of California, but the organisers wouldn’t take him into the race. He tried to blackmail the organisers of the Tour of California and if they didn’t take him in he was going to come loose with a big story, and this is exactly what he’s done.”
Did Flandis go to the media ? B*llocks did he go to the media - hsi letters or emails were to US cycling, NOT to the media Mr Mqdead...............you fooking t*sser. It was somone at US cycling who leaked this (apparently).0 -
Landis is 'speaking out' now because he's peed off he can't get his own way following the code of silence path. He exhausted all the legal crap, finished off his money and is now lashing out. There is probably a lot of truth in what he says, but this is Flandis and he's been full of it for years. In general we like what he says now because it confirms the common held view on this forum that Lance is a bad guy, and that doping is/was common place. I do feel for Floyd but he's still a dirty rotten cheat who's only interests are self serving.
If he'd have got a worthwhile team and a decent salary he'd have followed the comeback path like the rest of 'em.0
