....and then Pat McQuaid happened....

ddraver

and again, calamity Pat plays a blinder!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-per ... california

dougzz

Inrng
http://inrng.com/2011/10/uci-california-testing/

andyp

McQuaid will be glad when this week is over.

The UCI lurches from crisis to crisis and needs someone who can provide clear and strong leadership, clearly McQuaid is not that person so he should do the honourable thing and resign.

sherer

seems the UCI are learning from football and tennis. Don't test for anything then you can stick your head in the sand and say everything is clean

StageWinner

I don't see this as a problem unless the teams/riders knew there was going to be no BLOOD testing and were therefore able to put in place some form of doping that couldn't be detected through urine testing (which was still done).

As the whole testing agreement fell apart on the eve of the race - it's unlikely that any riders would have been able to take advantage of the situation.


(The above is in response to anyone that thinks that the lack of blood testing suddenly opened the door to mass doping practices at the race. It still doesn't negate the fact Fat Pat is a buffoon.)

OffTheBackAdam

They couldn't have done a worse job if they'd tried.
The synics will now say that all the rumours about the UCI basically aiding & abetting PED taking, are true, because here's a race trying to introduce independant testing and the UCI blocks it.

Crankbrother

I can't wait to hear what the CYNICS (and pedants) have to say ... or type ...

OffTheBackAdam

I thought I'd spelt it wrong! :oops:

dulldave

Crankbrother wrote:

I can't wait to hear what the CYNICS (and pedants) have to say ... or type ...

#

Wow pulling someone up on a web forum for spelling a word wrong. Do you shoot fish in barrels often?

We don't know enough about the internal workings of bike racing to know how much of a carte blanche this gave people. But when I hear about this I just think of Horner's amazing ride on that Tour and if anything else it adds a bit of skepticism to that performance.

andrewjoseph

I was skeptical of horners performance before I heard of this, now it seems even more 'enhanced'.

ddraver

It's not about the doping for me, it's the fact that such a stupid decision was made purely because someone said something a bit naughty about poor poor Pat and that the man in overall control of our sport is acting like a petulent child with a toy!

Bakunin

Crankbrother wrote:

I can't wait to hear what the CYNICS (and pedants) have to say ... or type ...

Geez, Bless me father for I have sinned...

emadden

The reason? Strong statements made at the February press conference by USADA CEO Travis Tygart, a vocal proponent of independent testing, who believes sports should not be responsible for policing themselves. "You've heard the expression 'the fox guarding the henhouse' over the years," Tygart said in the press conference. "There's this natural tension when the sport attempts to police itself of enforcing firmly and fairly the rules versus the other interest which is to promote and raise revenue for the sport."

If that Fox statement were made at a conference where UCI representatives were present, then I can honestly say the UCI reaction was hardly unexpected. Whilst, I agree that the UCI has a long way to go - it appears to me that this Travis guy could be a loose cannon. Surely, a more diplomatic way to handle this press conference would have been a statement that the UCI and USADA are working together blah blah rather than USADA slinging mud in a public forum designed to announce the testing regime for the race.

No matter what you think about Pat, it is his job to defend the UCI (as freaking difficult as that is at times) and he would have been right to take protective stance of the UCI in a public forum such as that.

t was seen as an affront to Pat McQuaid's honour and fuck the sport if Pat McQuaid's honour is impeached.

Classy.

ddraver

And the correct way to protect the UCI is to throw your toys out of the pram and storm off like a teenage girl who not allowed to get her ears pierced is it?

Crankbrother

Bakunin wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

I can't wait to hear what the CYNICS (and pedants) have to say ... or type ...

Geez, Bless me father for I have sinned...

FFS ... It was meant in good spirit (hence calling myself a pedant at the same time) ... Lighten up, it's getting dark of an evening ...

emadden

ddraver wrote:

And the correct way to protect the UCI is to throw your toys out of the pram and storm off like a teenage girl who not allowed to get her ears pierced is it?

Of course not - but what would you expect at a live press conference. Party A says Party B as a governing body has effectively contributed to doping? Anybody with a sense of diplomacy would know that was an entirely inappropriate forum to voice thatand bound to result in the sort of reaction that did. As I say, I am not a fan of the UCI but I can understand why somebody in the position of McQuaid would have responded in that position.

No_Ta_Doctor

emadden wrote:

ddraver wrote:

And the correct way to protect the UCI is to throw your toys out of the pram and storm off like a teenage girl who not allowed to get her ears pierced is it?

Of course not - but what would you expect at a live press conference. Party A says Party B as a governing body has effectively contributed to doping? Anybody with a sense of diplomacy would know that was an entirely inappropriate forum to voice thatand bound to result in the sort of reaction that did. As I say, I am not a fan of the UCI but I can understand why somebody in the position of McQuaid would have responded in that position.

While I agree that Tygart's comments were a little less than diplomatic, the UCI response wasn't in a "live press conference". The initial comments were in a press conference in February, to announce the deal, which collapsed in May, a couple of days before the race. Meanwhile USADA had performed the pre race testing that was also part of the deal.

The UCI response does little to contradict Tygart's position about Foxes guarding hen-houses, and even less to suggest that they are any good at promoting the sport.

There was only one possible correct response from the UCI. Their press statement should have sounded something like this:

"The UCI strongly disagree that there is any conflict of interest between our role as promoters of cycling and the enforcement of rigorous doping controls. Ensuring a clean and fair sport is essential to being able to promote it as it deserves. To this end we welcome the collaboration with USADA, which shows our commitment to our anti-doping program".

Case closed, everyone comes up smelling of roses, instead of stinking of "fertiliser".

emadden

Thanks for pointing out that wasnt a live press conference - I agree with you No TA Doc.

Kléber

You can excuse a one-off mess but it's the consistency of the UCI that gets to me. They've been picking fights with anti-doping agencies in France, upsetting WADA and now sticking it to USADA when these are the guys they should be working with.

rick_chasey

There must be something going on behind the scenes which make this behaviour rational.

From the limited information we do have, it isn't remotely rational.

BikingBernie

Rick Chasey wrote:

There must be something going on behind the scenes which make this behaviour rational.

Isn't the reason simply the fact that the UCI want to have full control over the testing procedures so as few things as possible happen that are 'bad for the sport', such as 'embarrassing' doping busts? I think that things probably haven't changed much at the UCI since the early days of the '50% limit' and Epo testing, when Verbruggen said that he thought testing should be kept out of the public eye, with riders who failed a test simply being ‘sent a red card' by the UCI.

Airmiles

@bernie



..mois non plus

dougzz

Airmiles wrote:

You got to change your name, it's Avios now I think