Kimmage and the UCI

1…34689…11

Comments

  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    <<<<<detests bullys

    i hope kimmage gets the money together for a fair fight.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    I think you re on pretty thin ice suggesting that Kimmage and Walsh were involved in phone hacking. Other than saying it was wrong (and I admit I don't know if they did so), what more could they do?

    They re sports reporters, not political or opinion commentators

    Not saying they did.

    I bet they knew it went on.

    100% for Walsh.

    If not they're bad journalists.

    It's the cancer of journalism and journalists like them should speak out. Or are they worried they'll lose their jobs and fail to find one, apart from some weirdo namby pamby 'clean' paper like the Guardian, which probably isn't even that 'phone tapping' free, only they talk a good game?


    See where I'm coming from?


    You can see how it goes.

    "I first walked into the newsdesk. These guys were pulling exclusive after exclusive out of the bag. I had no idea how they did it. I kept plowing on, calling my sources, working the angle. I was never on the front or back page. Only a tiny column on page 42. But when the x story bloke, the editor came over to me. He said he had some things to show me.

    "I'd heard guys talking about it in the pub. Stories of "1234" passwords and intercepting voicemail. I couldn't believe it at first. Guys on arrival to the desk would receive the latest number of a celeb. I never got those numbers.

    "I walked into the editor's office. His desk was covered in postit notes of mobile phone numbers, 4 digits and famous people's names. John Terry, John Prescot, Johnathan Vaugn. And that was just the Johns. He handed me the postit of Pat McCaid. He suggest I dial the number and listen to the voicemail. His voice was serious, but made out what he was doing was light. Easy. Without consequence. 'it'll make you like those guys back there' he said, and he pointed to the back page of his newspaper copy lying around. 'That will be you soon son'.

    "I went back to my desk and sat there, staring at the postit in my hand. Was I really going to do this??...

    "The next thing I knew, I was already into the voicemail......"


    A familar tone?

    Jesus

    Youre a head hunter FGS. Surely one of them never told a lie to get a name, embelished the salary to get a CV or referral?
    Changed a CV, used a false name, or email address. stole candidate records and started their own business. Every industry has bad eggs

    "i know youve not hit your target sunny thats the third month in the row, let me help you, here are the records that the new bloke brought with him. Pretend youre someone elese from a different firm and see if you can get this filled. That quarterly trip to La Manga could include you this time.

    I couldnt believe what i was doing but i was going to lose my job, my girlfriend and it was this or Estate Agency. I didnt want to work on Sunday.........."

    Sure, but no-one's engaging in a mass blow-Idol to say how amazing I am in the fight of malpractice in exec search.

    ;)
    _
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    Well given the cynicism that met my genuine positive suggestion for standardised, auditable anti doping policies for teams it's hardly surprising that there are people who are convinced that cutting the head off the chicken is all that can be done. It seems cycling is too broken to fix the UCI and the UCI is too broken to fix cycling.

    That's a fairly depressing viewpoint, but what the hell, at least we'd get to guillotine McQuaid and Verbruggen.
    But the thing is lots has been done. Cycling has changed a great deal in the last half dozen years. More has been done against doping than the rest of cycling history. And it's been people on the inside that have done it - not people shouting from the margins. But that story isn't interesting, which is why people keep living ten years in the past.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Sure, but no-one's engaging in a mass blow-Idol to say how amazing I am in the fight of malpractice in exec search.

    ;)

    You've got to write the book first.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Sure, but no-one's engaging in a mass blow-Idol to say how amazing I am in the fight of malpractice in exec search.

    ;)

    You've got to write the book first.

    make it juicy, include commissions, rags to riches, nights fuelled by booze and lust, days fuelled by caffeine and coke, domestiques endlessly trawling the internet and databases, team leaders earning all the money,

    Throw in a few wall street references too. :D
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Jeez, you make it sound glamorous!
    _
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Who here's given him some cash?

    Been too busy perfecting my impersonation of Steptoe :wink:
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    Well given the cynicism that met my genuine positive suggestion for standardised, auditable anti doping policies for teams it's hardly surprising that there are people who are convinced that cutting the head off the chicken is all that can be done. It seems cycling is too broken to fix the UCI and the UCI is too broken to fix cycling.

    That's a fairly depressing viewpoint, but what the hell, at least we'd get to guillotine McQuaid and Verbruggen.
    But the thing is lots has been done. Cycling has changed a great deal in the last half dozen years. More has been done against doping than the rest of cycling history. And it's been people on the inside that have done it - not people shouting from the margins. But that story isn't interesting, which is why people keep living ten years in the past.

    Oh I don't doubt a lot has been done, but we're still in a place where the UCI can't even seem to announce Contador's +ve until a German TV station gets wind of the news. We've still got people running the sport who, if the allegations are true, allowed their key money-making rider to avoid all the fuss of being tested like anyone else. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the future.

    We also have e.g. Vaughters claiming that there isn't enough bio-passport testing to make the system strong enough.

    We've got the UCI denouncing Landis as a liar and engaging in a jurisdiction battle with USADA, in which they seem to have actively taken Armstrong's side. They've not investigated serious allegations and they've mistakenly claimed there is no way to sanction a team doctor.

    Meanwhile, who has changed cycling? You could argue that French politicians did in making doping illegal. You could argue that Slipstream did, by providing a model. You could argue that the IOC did, by effectively threatening to withdraw Olympic status.

    But the UCI leadership? Meh.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    But the UCI leadership? Meh.
    Who introduced the bio-passport? That's been a big difference. They need more money to fund it properly, but if they UCI try to make any money everyone cries foul.

    You have to remember that this is sport that was overrun by EPO for a decade before there was even a basic test. They had no way of stopping what went on. There was a huge pile of sh!t before Armstrong or McQuaid came along. And the UCI have been shovelling tha sh!t ever since, and no-one has stepped in to help them - just criticised. Slowly, things are starting to get better and rather than give credit, people want to go back in time and rub there noses in the sh!t again. Most of the UCI are good people who do a good job. Verbruggen needs to be retired to the IOC full time and McQuaid needs to be given a PR rep and a fixed term - but the rest are fine. There are far worse options out there and a power vacuum will be their opportunity.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    But the UCI leadership? Meh.
    Who introduced the bio-passport? That's been a big difference. They need more money to fund it properly, but if they UCI try to make any money everyone cries foul.

    You have to remember that this is sport that was overrun by EPO for a decade before there was even a basic test. They had no way of stopping what went on. There was a huge pile of sh!t before Armstrong or McQuaid came along. And the UCI have been shovelling tha sh!t ever since, and no-one has stepped in to help them - just criticised. Slowly, things are starting to get better and rather than give credit, people want to go back in time and rub there noses in the sh!t again. Most of the UCI are good people who do a good job. Verbruggen needs to be retired to the IOC full time and McQuaid needs to be given a PR rep and a fixed term - but the rest are fine. There are far worse options out there and a power vacuum will be their opportunity.

    But even once they introduced the EPO test, they still allowed riders to get away with testing positive. For sure, the UCI was powerless against EPO for years, but they still seemed pretty lax with regards to doping, allowing post dated TUEs etc.

    And now all the sh!t's hit the fan the UCI are continuing to pedal the same old rubbish, rather than facing up to the issues.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    Jez mon wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    But the UCI leadership? Meh.
    Who introduced the bio-passport? That's been a big difference. They need more money to fund it properly, but if they UCI try to make any money everyone cries foul.

    You have to remember that this is sport that was overrun by EPO for a decade before there was even a basic test. They had no way of stopping what went on. There was a huge pile of sh!t before Armstrong or McQuaid came along. And the UCI have been shovelling tha sh!t ever since, and no-one has stepped in to help them - just criticised. Slowly, things are starting to get better and rather than give credit, people want to go back in time and rub there noses in the sh!t again. Most of the UCI are good people who do a good job. Verbruggen needs to be retired to the IOC full time and McQuaid needs to be given a PR rep and a fixed term - but the rest are fine. There are far worse options out there and a power vacuum will be their opportunity.

    But even once they introduced the EPO test, they still allowed riders to get away with testing positive. For sure, the UCI was powerless against EPO for years, but they still seemed pretty lax with regards to doping, allowing post dated TUEs etc.

    And now all the sh!t's hit the fan the UCI are continuing to pedal the same old rubbish, rather than facing up to the issues.

    Perhaps part of the reason people play foul when the UCI try to raise money is that their accounting up until recently has been opaque and is still fairly creative. Like siphoning money out of an emergency fund that is largely paid for by teams to fund a private company.

    As for the bio-passport, unless it's used effectively then it risks becoming little more than PR fluff. Right now it seems to have placed a cap on how much doping a rider can get away with, and yes, this makes it possible for clean riders to win races again. I back it fully, but would like to see it used to full effect.

    I don't really know how much credit the UCI can take for it either. It was a WADA-UCI joint venture, but as far as I understand (and I might be wrong, corrections welcomed) it was developed by WADA. It appeared at a time when not implementing it would have been close to suicidal for cycling.

    We've been hearing the "bright new clean dawn" speech for years now. I genuinely think there is a possibility of one, or I wouldn't bother watching cycling. But it won't happen by itself, and as things currently stand, it will happen in spite of, not due to McQuaid and Verbruggen.

    Are there worse options than McQuaid out there? Quite probably.
    Can we simply remove him? Probably not.
    Does this mean we shouldn't complain? Not at all.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I think Rich's point, and it's one I also make, is most of the people at the UCI are fine and want to do the right thing. HV and PM have no place in the sport anymore, but they are not the organisation as a whole.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    iainf72 wrote:
    I think Rich's point, and it's one I also make, is most of the people at the UCI are fine and want to do the right thing. HV and PM have no place in the sport anymore, but they are not the organisation as a whole.

    I'm certainly prepared to accept that, but to all extents and purposes the UCI seems to be run like a medieval fiefdom. There's too much smell of back-room deals rather than transparent processes. And for decent people to thrive and make a difference the processes have to be transparent, or they just get bypassed.

    Rich's point does go a little further than that though - while you say HV & PM have no place in the sport anymore Rich seems to view PM at least as something of the least bad current option.

    Now I can't see how to remove McQuaid simply while ensuring a good replacement is found, but I think the process has to start by presenting some opposition to him.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Rich's point does go a little further than that though - while you say HV & PM have no place in the sport anymore Rich seems to view PM at least as something of the least bad current option.

    Now I can't see how to remove McQuaid simply while ensuring a good replacement is found, but I think the process has to start by presenting some opposition to him.

    I don't think PM is terrible, but the big problem is his seriously damaged goods now. He's got an incredibly difficult job to do and we shouldn't ignore that. Whoever is doing it will have a tough time. Sometimes he's dictated to by the lawyers, sometimes there are budget problems.

    That's why I suggested someone like Bob Stapleton should do it rather than daft suggestions like Millar or Kimmage. It's basically a big business with a broken structure.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    As usual INRNG lays out the many challenges in replacing McQuaid...

    http://inrng.com/2012/09/how-to-replace ... more-11061

    I know this has been discussed before on the forum but worth repeating: there's unlikely to be an internal revolution because generally the UCI delegates think he does an OK job, and they tend to be primarily involved with Olympics and amateur racing in their respective countries. Its going to take something of the magnitude of the IOC throwing cycling out of the Olympics, threatening the very existence of the UCI and of the delegates themselves.

    And for Cuddly Bob can only get anywhere near the UCI he'd have to be heading up USAC (a fitting aconymn given their involvement and behaviour with Armstrong), as per Cookson's role with BC.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    I think Rich's point, and it's one I also make, is most of the people at the UCI are fine and want to do the right thing. HV and PM have no place in the sport anymore, but they are not the organisation as a whole.
    Rich's point does go a little further than that though - while you say HV & PM have no place in the sport anymore Rich seems to view PM at least as something of the least bad current option.

    Now I can't see how to remove McQuaid simply while ensuring a good replacement is found, but I think the process has to start by presenting some opposition to him.

    You both understood. Kimmage called the UCI corrupt and inept. He was wrong. One of them is corrupt and one of them is inept. The corrupt one needs to spend more time with his family and the inept one needs to stay until the next election when viable candidates can stand - I fear some sort of Russian takeover if he resigned suddenly.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    I think Rich's point, and it's one I also make, is most of the people at the UCI are fine and want to do the right thing. HV and PM have no place in the sport anymore, but they are not the organisation as a whole.
    Rich's point does go a little further than that though - while you say HV & PM have no place in the sport anymore Rich seems to view PM at least as something of the least bad current option.

    Now I can't see how to remove McQuaid simply while ensuring a good replacement is found, but I think the process has to start by presenting some opposition to him.

    You both understood. Kimmage called the UCI corrupt and inept. He was wrong. One of them is corrupt and one of them is inept. The corrupt one needs to spend more time with his family and the inept one needs to stay until the next election when viable candidates can stand - I fear some sort of Russian takeover if he resigned suddenly.

    No, Kimmage is right. The UCI has to be judged on its actions. While these are controlled by someone who is inept and someone who is corrupt the actions are inept and corrupt. PM and HV have far too much power within the current structure. A good president - of any organisation - determines the direction of the organisation and is responsible for putting in place processes for ensuring the goal of that direction is reached. PM isn't near so hands-off... Even the most fundamental processes of results management in doping seem to have been circumvented. Decisions seem to be taken ad hoc, rather than as the result of following standard operating procedures.

    This isn't the same as saying every employee and member of the UCI is inept and corrupt.

    As for who is inept and how is corrupt, the two in question seem to operate far too closely for a simple distinction to be made, imo.

    I understand there is a presidential election next year. I sincerely hope there are some decent alternatives available, and that the lobbying is in place to give them a good chance.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    We done this yet?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udFWNqymfY
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    iainf72 wrote:
    We done this yet?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udFWNqymfY

    fuck1ing genius!!
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,651
    iainf72 wrote:
    We done this yet?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udFWNqymfY

    Hitler Downfall parody vid = window closed in less than a second.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • itisaboutthebike
    itisaboutthebike Posts: 1,120
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udFWNqymfY

    From the interviews I've read with HV I thought he was modelling himself on the Fuher...........
  • markwb79
    markwb79 Posts: 937
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    andyp wrote:
    He must have a permanent rash then, given he lives in Cambridge.


    Really?

    As in actually in Cambridge? As opposed to people who say they live in Cambridge when they actually live in Peterborough?

    Surprised I haven't seen him around.

    Oi.....no need for that. I have to say I am from Cambridge or people over here just assume I am from London!
    Scott Addict 2011
    Giant TCR 2012
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    A spot of Kimmage comedy on twitter at the mo'
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • aspender
    aspender Posts: 96
    Well, they can now sue for defamation or something as Kimmage has yet to grasp Twitter usage :-)

    https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/ ... 4526992384

    David, good news, found a real pitbull of a lawyer to go after those two fcukers.
  • rebs
    rebs Posts: 891
    do people really sue if you call them duckers?
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Kimmage also sent a tweet claiming that mini-McQuaid knew about Landis's 06 positive the day before Landis was told

    I think Kimmage is getting a little carried away with this new-found freedom of an outlet and an eager audience....
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Kimmage also sent a tweet claiming that mini-McQuaid knew about Landis's 06 positive the day before Landis was told

    I think Kimmage is getting a little carried away with this new-found freedom of an outlet and an eager audience....

    Damned if he does damned if he does'nt eh :roll: .. At least he's the ONLY one apart from walsh thats had the balls to speak up against the UCI good on him.i hope McQuaid is booted out on his fat pat ar*e.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Most people are loving it because they want HV and PM brought down. Totally understandable.

    My point is that the 'pitbull' of a lawyer Kimmage has lined up might very well tell him to cool his jets re what he's saying in the public domain, in case it prejudices his case. Do you want to see a risk of things he says over Twitter being used by the UCI's lawyers and end up going against him in the hearing?
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    Kimmage Fund currently stands at

    $38,881.99


    (.......and 99 cents?..........)

    Fund ends Dec 1st
  • bartman100
    bartman100 Posts: 544
    Gazzetta67 wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Kimmage also sent a tweet claiming that mini-McQuaid knew about Landis's 06 positive the day before Landis was told

    I think Kimmage is getting a little carried away with this new-found freedom of an outlet and an eager audience....

    Damned if he does damned if he does'nt eh :roll: .. At least he's the ONLY one apart from walsh thats had the balls to speak up against the UCI good on him.i hope McQuaid is booted out on his fat pat ar*e.

    Yup. There's no obligation to like Kimmage, but it's a mighty shame that some are on here sniping away in the manner they are. The fact that he's proving popular seems enough of a reason to dislike him - like that's his fault. They haven't mentioned that he's avoided twitter until now. But no, he's an attention seeker. I guess it's just cool to go against the grain.

Categories