Another Paddy McQuaid FAIL
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
I wonder if the investigation is getting closer to the fat pat and he is now spilling the beans
0 -
McQuaid and the UCI: totally corrupt and in Armstrong's pocket.
It is very clear from that interview, as I have often argued, that McQuaid is convinced that protecting Armstrong is 'good for the sport' and that for much the same reason he is totally opposed to retrospective investigations into doping. It is also clear the McQuaid very much sees Armstrong as being a 'special case':
"if you look at cycling, there have only been two truly global stars: Eddy Merckx and Lance Armstrong,” he added. “If you go Kuala Lumpur, the man in the street would know who Lance Armstrong is. If you ask him who Fabian Cancellara is, he wouldn't have a clue."
It all reminds me of what Kimmage wrote in his book about certain champions being given the 'green light' to take anything they wanted, free from the risk of being busted for doping. I feel that is exactly what the UCI 'arranged' with Armstrong when he discussed his comeback with them, hence the role McQuaid played in getting rid of Patrice Clerc, the UCI being so desperate to get get full control of the 'dope testing' at the Tour and so on.
P.s. Are we all supposed to believe that McQuaid 'forgot' that Armstrong made two payments? Before long he will be revealing that he 'forgot' that Armstrong actually donated $500,000, as Sylvia Schenk reported. Whatever, McQuaid's credibility is zero.
The new admissions also tie the timing of that '$100,000 doonation' right back to the release of the hatchet job on the LNDD which was commissioned by the UCI in the wake of Armstrong's Epo 'positives' from the 1999 Tour, a 'coincidence' that McQuaid was desperate to play down.0 -
He does get special treatment though, he got special treatment when he came back to avoid having to go through six months of testing0
-
In last year's Tour the UCI testers also gave Armstrong's Astana team up to 50 minutes to prepare before giving testing samples.TakeTheHighRoad wrote:He does get special treatment though, he got special treatment when he came back to avoid having to go through six months of testing0 -
Is it true that Francis Ford Coppola is looking at Pat McQuadio to play the new DON ?
It is very sickening that this mafia is being allowed in Cycling - McQuadios "Armstrong can do nothing wrong in my book" is a total farce. - In any other world of sport or buissness these sort of backhand payments would get punished. Now i hear that the Tour organisers have let the "Livestrong" people on the tour selling merchandise.talk about a closed shop. I really hope something can be done about this with these recent Landis findings. Then we can finally be rid of the names that we all know of out of our sport and we can finally move on.0 -
One can only wonder how far the corruption goes. I have just read the comment below on the cyclingnews.com 'Clinic' forum, and I must say, I have often thought much the same.Gazzetta67 wrote:It is very sickening that this mafia is being allowed in Cycling - McQuadios "Armstrong can do nothing wrong in my book" is a total farce.
"I have heard it said that there is a mafia at work within the pro-ranks. Now with what looks like a cosy relationship between UCI and Armstrong, the unusually high amount ex- Armstrong/Bruyneel riders that got popped it makes one wonder if these were targeted tests ( or arranged to be positive results ) at those that posed a threat to his TDF success or in someway upset him."
We all know about the frictions between Armstrong and Landis, the 'blood bag down the sink' allegations and so on. Armstrong has also made much of the supposedly long-standing 'threats' made by Landis to go public. Who knows, perhaps Landis first made such 'threats' when he was still riding for Armstrong and was not happy with the way he was being treated. And prior to him being busted for doping...0 -
FFS indeed. So who monitors/polices the UCI? WADA? IOC? They need to pull their finger out - the contradiction between policing and promoting the sport couldn't be clearer...0
-
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Yet cheating basterd Landis's credibilty, according to Uncle Pat, is shot.
Go figure.
Still, he's probably making up the minds for a few fence sitters."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
"However, McQuaid said that even if the seven-time Tour de France champion is eventually found guilty of doping, he will remain one of the biggest champions in the sport." !!!!!!0
-
You don't need to be Nicolas Machievelli to realise that when a rider is under Federal investigation, it's time to stand back rather than take sides.
As for "what good did the Balco case do?", well it caught several people breaking the law and busted some of the biggest cheats in athletics.0 -
I see that this is originally from the AFP, so all the news sources would almost certainly have seen it. It is interesting to see just what some of the cycling 'news' sites choose to leave out of their reports...iainf72 wrote:0 -
I wonder if the donations came after positive tests?
Pure speculation theory of course.
He really is a useless non-cycling twat isn't he. Hates the UK when it dominates, hates any one who breaks the code of silence allowing Arstrong to effectively bully Simeoni out of cycling. Think of Andreu's and Simeonis careers and how much money the UCI has cost them by failing to admonish Arsmtrong. Wanker+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
I wonder what would happen if Pat McQuaid's professional cycling past came under the spotlight - I suspect much of his 'let's move on' schtick and sympathy for dopers is motivated by a few skeletons of his own.
BB case in point was CNs report on the Pevenage revelations - no mention of what he said about Armstrong in the Equipe piece
Interesting aside - in his SCA testimony, Armstrong 'couldn't remember' whether he'd donated to the UCI by cheque or not. Now McQuaid tells us it was a personal cheque with his wife as co-signatory - considering he wasn't even head of the UCI at the time, that seems a remarkable level of detail when even her husband doesn't remember it
0 -
And yet Verbruggen said Armstrong paid in cash...micron wrote:Interesting aside - in his SCA testimony, Armstrong 'couldn't remember' whether he'd donated to the UCI by cheque or not. Now McQuaid tells us it was a personal cheque with his wife as co-signatory - considering he wasn't even head of the UCI at the time, that seems a remarkable level of detail when even her husband doesn't remember it
UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=30880 -
a small amount of money for armstrong might be 100K
It would be loads for me
This negativity is not good for your health, try and love more.0 -
In the quote Armstrong specifically stated that the money he gave to the UCI "wasn't a small amount". I wonder what "a fair amount" is to Armstrong? $500,000 perhaps?westerburk wrote:a small amount of money for armstrong might be 100K...0 -
To be fair I think that Verbruggen quote may be a bad translation job, or crossed wires somewhere along the line.
If only I had $100k I could afford to not remember giving away0 -
its all so pathetically grubby...they didn't even bother to stitch together a decent cover from the get go...
doubt it will ever be proved thou"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
McQuaid is useless. Like his predecessor, he has failed to take the unambiguous anti-doping stance that the sport needs. Doesn't he see that the public (on whose attention professional cycling depends, as no spectators equals no sponsors) isn't the same as when Delgado got cheered on after his test?
Look at the credibility of cycling. The public just doesn't believe in men's road racing. If cycling is to maintain it's place as Europe's no.1 summer sport, it needs the pulic to believe in it. But McQuaid thinks that, so long as no-one tests positive, it's all hunky-dory.
Look at Spain. The cycling establishment rallies to Valverde's cause, cyclists and retired cyclists go around saying it's the biggest injustice ever or that the UCI were out to get him, but the public are less and less interested, despite 4 consecutive tour wins.
Look at McQuaid wants to do, and has done, to Olympic cycling. Scraps track events with tradition and which the non-cycling public can understand, and puts in the Omnium! That's gonna get the fans on the edge of their seats, isn't it? :roll: Why not scrap the madison instead? Shit, why not scrap the men's road events, we all knwo they'd rather win the Tour or a classic? And then, just to mak sure the Olympics don't get too near interesting, he stops some of the best riders competing, because they happen to be from the same country as other good riders. OK, I'm British and this country will suffer most, but I think the objective conclusion is that McQuaid is a disaster for cycling.0 -
Surely it's time for McQuaids resignation. LA may claim that Landis's credibility is shot but being defended by what is now appearing to be the most corrupt chief in world sport does him no favors either.
It's time for the UCI to do retrospective testing and have a third party lab publish the results publically without interference from anyone at the UCI as it is clearly not working and making cycling an international joke.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
McQuaid's making a mockery of the sport but he's got totalnjob security. He was parachuted into the top job thanks to cronyism and the same forces, plus support from odd corners of the world, keep him in position.0
-
The IOC aren't going to do anything - Verbruggen is now a member and McQuaid just his Swiss poodle. Even if some of the National Federations chose to have him removed, it would probably fail because because they'd get sanctioned by the IOC and be excluded from the Olympics. The only thing that might come of of this is a forensic audit as part of the Novitsky investigation as to where precisely certain sponsorship funds went - I expect it will be the money trail that could result in action.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Monty Dog wrote:The IOC aren't going to do anything - Verbruggen is now a member and McQuaid just his Swiss poodle. Even if some of the National Federations chose to have him removed, it would probably fail because because they'd get sanctioned by the IOC and be excluded from the Olympics. The only thing that might come of of this is a forensic audit as part of the Novitsky investigation as to where precisely certain sponsorship funds went - I expect it will be the money trail that could result in action.
... but there is already a money trail to the UCI from Armstrong. How can it be allowed without a formal public independent investigation.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
It's all very frustrating. We have someone who's clearly not up to the job but there's no obvious way to remove him.
One aspect is to force some democracy here. If you are a British Cycling member, then email board@britishcycling.org.uk and make yourself known. A quick paragraph saying you have little confidence in Mr McQuaid, that you'd like the UCI to be more transparent and that it's perhaps time for fresh leadership. Plus you can ask whether McQuaid has British Cycling's confidence and whether they are aware of the criticism.
It's fine to sit on forums and rant but a quick email here takes the same amout of time, only it's the first step to actually doing something.0 -
Sorry, but I feel British Cycling and Brian Cookson will continue to back the UCI to the hilt. Just look at the way they supported the UCI when the organisers of the big Tours tried to break away from the corruption of the UCI. Also, I have a feeling that British Cycling are as keen to play down the doping issue as McQuaid is, especially with everything that is at stake with Team Sky. On other forums comment has also been passed about the low level of testing at British events and their 'defensive' attitude when questioned about this. I wouldn't look to British Cycling to do anything about the 'staite' of the UCI.Kléber wrote:If you are a British Cycling member, then email board@britishcycling.org.uk and make yourself known. A quick paragraph saying you have little confidence in Mr McQuaid, that you'd like the UCI to be more transparent and that it's perhaps time for fresh leadership. Plus you can ask whether McQuaid has British Cycling's confidence and whether they are aware of the criticism. 0 -
I don't expect them to do much either but if you sit quiet then you can't hope for anything. At the very least it's worth letting BC know that a constituency of their membership is interested in knowing how their interests are being reflected.
As a point in hand, I discussed this with a BC official and he was fully behind McQuaid, citing the benefits of globalisation within the UCI and the doors that were opened for Team Sky. I pointed out how the track rules for 2012 were being changed and that many other competent people could oversee the sports growth and the tone got a bit shirty!
Like I say, an email takes the same time as a forum posting, it's easy.0 -
Email sent quoting my membership number.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
one thing i've always wondered is if LA is protected by the UCI when exactly did this relationship start.
So far the only blot on LAs past is the failed test in the 99 tour for corticoids. At that point he was a good one day racer who had been out of racing for a few years and had finished 4th in the Vuelta the year before as part of his comeback.
He wasn't a superstar at that point but according to Landis that night they dreamt up the story of the back dated TUE so he could continue the race. Not familiar with the process but if you had a TUE for something would it even be announced as a positive ?
If all this is true why did the UCI protect LA at that point when he wasn't even a superstar rider ?0 -
sherer wrote:If all this is true why did the UCI protect LA at that point when he wasn't even a superstar rider ?
He was leading the Tour, wasn't he?
The UCI drug testing should have picked up Lance's cancer early, if it was being done properly. The hormones generated when you've got testicular cancer would trigger a positive for testosterone.. Lance was tested a fair bit then but never tested positive (he was the Words #1 at that stage I think) So maybe that's got something to do with it? Who knows.
Tangled web.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
