Pat McQuaid

13»

Comments

  • iainf72 wrote:
    Perhaps you should write to the ASO and ask them why they're supporting a race in Qatar then? McQuaid didn't create the system

    If Makarov was in charge it would be a lot worse.

    And if you suddenly created a void at the top, it wil be filled by something bad. This is a sport where people are in Monaco celebrating Vino at the moment. People like Froome and Gibert - cycling has a long way to go.

    Context is everything. If you create a void now, yes, Tchmil/Makarov might fill it. But the point is that for McQuaid to be forced out some serious sh*t (technical term) is going to have to go down in the coming months (which I think it might). Now if this happens, it effectively changes the mandate for the successor - to one with a much greater focus on cleaning up the UCI and cycling. Under normal circumstances Tchmil might be the obvious successor, but the ousting of the UCI President for corruption and basically helping f*ck over the sport he represents would not be normal circumstances!
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    The thing with the USADA report is, how much will really touch McQuaid? Hein V was the man in charge through most of Armstrongs Tour run.

    So, what should whoever is in charge do then? This is what I don't know - No one seems to know.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    iainf72 wrote:
    Perhaps you should write to the ASO and ask them why they're supporting a race in Qatar then? McQuaid didn't create the system

    If Makarov was in charge it would be a lot worse.

    And if you suddenly created a void at the top, it wil be filled by something bad. This is a sport where people are in Monaco celebrating Vino at the moment. People like Froome and Gibert - cycling has a long way to go.

    But that's not to do with pat or the sport. They're celebrating the career of a great. Albeit one that didn't feel obliged to prostrate himself in apology to some indignant people on the Internet .

    Hard as nails and exciting. I suspect most people don't give a hoot about vinos transgressions, those close ups of his calves in the mountains are what peope remember and that's why things aren't changing.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    It may not have a lot to do with Pat, but it's got a lot to do with the sport surely, and it's not just "indignant people on the internet" that Vino didn't apologise to. It's any clean cyclists that competed against him. Plus, at the end of the day those indignant people are the fans, whose support the sport relies on.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Jez mon wrote:
    It may not have a lot to do with Pat, but it's got a lot to do with the sport surely, and it's not just "indignant people on the internet" that Vino didn't apologise to. It's any clean cyclists that competed against him. Plus, at the end of the day those indignant people are the fans, whose support the sport relies on.

    +1

    and good riddance to Vino
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Do we all accept he's got a very difficult job?

    Er....No, not at all. He is presumably very well paid to be the un-sackable head of an organisation that is answerable to no one. No shareholders to upset, no order book to fill and then deliver. No customers to keep happy. No pressure to perform.
    You tell me what is difficult or stressful about his job? Top hotels, expense account, first class travel, being toadied up to by countries that want in on the world of cycling. I would do it for £1000 a year less than he gets, and probably do it much better, because I care about cycling rather than rather than building my own little empire.

    He's got to keep the IOC happy, the national federations happy, the race organisers happy, the teams happy, promote the sport at all level, try to deal with doping with a limited budget and legal constraints, bring in revenue to keep the organisation going. As for being unsackable, he's the elected leader of the UCI - If the committee decide he's not performing they can get rid of him

    He doesn't do a great job, but anyone who thinks his job is easy is deluded. I'm not a fan of Pat's at all but I can recognise he's in a crappy position with a tough job.

    There needs to be a credible plan in place for the next leadership, not just "get rid of Pat" or we'll end up with something worse.

    So....he spends his life keeping everyone happy, except for the people he is supposed to be representing. Cyclists. Pro or amateur.
    Lets face it, and get to the nitty gritty, niceties aside, the man is a disgrace. More interested in political maneuvering than doing what is best for cycling. As did his predecessor. Witness Verbrughen jumping onto the track to deny Obree a totally legal ride, and enforce a rule made up that minute to deny him a ride. They are from the same mould.
    Cycling and cycle sport needs to be run by cyclists, for cyclists, and the sooner the Pro Tour splits from the UCI the better.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Jez mon wrote:
    It may not have a lot to do with Pat, but it's got a lot to do with the sport surely, and it's not just "indignant people on the internet" that Vino didn't apologise to. It's any clean cyclists that competed against him. Plus, at the end of the day those indignant people are the fans, whose support the sport relies on.

    But there weren't any clean cyclists were there? They either did it too or knew about it and did nothing. The evidence is that despite the indignation, enough people are still interested for sponsors and therefore the sport to be ok. In fact in the uk, more people are taking part in organised cycling events than ever before; witness the rise and rise kin popularity of sportives, expensive bikes being bought and replica kits. It's not all down to our velodrome success or bradly wiggins.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    ThomThom wrote:
    Eh, Qatar has been given the WC in 2016. A race which is promoted by UCI.
    Qatar were the sole bidders.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    RichN95 wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Eh, Qatar has been given the WC in 2016. A race which is promoted by UCI.
    Qatar were the sole bidders.

    No, they weren't.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/norway- ... mpionships
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    ThomThom wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Eh, Qatar has been given the WC in 2016. A race which is promoted by UCI.
    Qatar were the sole bidders.

    No, they weren't.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/norway- ... mpionships

    And soon after that Norway withdrew, concentrating on 2017. When it came time for the UCI to choose, there was only one bid on the table.

    And why shouldn't they choose Qatar over Norway anyway?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    RichN95 wrote:
    And soon after that Norway withdrew, concentrating on 2017. When it came time for the UCI to choose, there was only one bid on the table.

    Because Qatar, somehow, were promised the race. Why focus to get a race when it's a lost cause..? As you can read in the link they were in there with a bid but were 2nd in the row - to their disappointment as well.
    RichN95 wrote:
    And why shouldn't they choose Qatar over Norway anyway?

    Because Norway has the most fantastic route in the hands: http://www.nettavisen.no/multimedia/na/ ... 47890a.pdf

    250km in total, 3170m total ascent and 7200m cobbles.

    Instead of playing 'spot a spectator' during the Qatar race Norway will provide masses as it is cycling crazy. And do I have to mention how insane the tv production could be on top of Ulriken with the view over Bergen.

    The real question would actually be why on earth a route in Qatar should be picked over pretty much anything.
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,224
    RichN95 wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Eh, Qatar has been given the WC in 2016. A race which is promoted by UCI.
    Qatar were the sole bidders.

    No, they weren't.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/norway- ... mpionships

    And soon after that Norway withdrew, concentrating on 2017. When it came time for the UCI to choose, there was only one bid on the table.

    And why shouldn't they choose Qatar over Norway anyway?

    What a ludicrous question.

    Especially as your contributions formed part of the thread (viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12879787) that proved convincingly that Qatar is a sh!t location for a flagship cycling event on the road in Summer. Or, indeed, for anything ever...
    No doubt the Qataris are giggling into their thoabs at the shameful spectacle of incessant waves of fawning federation (in)dignitaries flocking over on incessant jollies to discuss "how much money will you give us? Sorry - did I say that out loud? I meant to say 'how can we develop cycling amongst the twelve people who actually live in Qatar'?"
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    ThomThom wrote:

    Because Norway has the most fantastic route in the hands: http://www.nettavisen.no/multimedia/na/ ... 47890a.pdf

    250km in total, 3170m total ascent and 7200m cobbles.

    Instead of playing 'spot a spectator' during the Qatar race Norway will provide masses as it is cycling crazy. And do I have to mention how insane the tv production could be on top of Ulriken with the view over Bergen.

    The real question would actually be why on earth a route in Qatar should be picked over pretty much anything.

    First of all they don't just pick the course with the most climbing. They mix them up to provide some variety. This one will be a sprinter's race with crosswinds. The Tour of Qatar is usually a decent race.

    And for a supposedly 'cycling crazy' country, why does Norway only have one race?

    Qatar have been running their own tour for about a decade now and they also do a decent women's race. Their bid was probably a very solid one. And yes, it will have a lucrative financial aspect. Making money isn't corrupt. It's necessary for the UCI and the World's is their biggest money earner. Everyone expects them to do more testing, finance women's cycling and save failing Spanish races, but as soon as they try and get some income (Beijing is another example) some fools cry 'corruption'.

    Norway will get their chance, but Qatar are ahead of them in the queue.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    [
    What a ludicrous question.

    Especially as your contributions formed part of the thread (viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12879787) that proved convincingly that Qatar is a sh!t location for a flagship cycling event on the road in Summer. Or, indeed, for anything ever...
    My sole contribution to that thread seems to be supportive for financial reasons.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited October 2012
    RichN95 wrote:
    Their bid was probably a very solid one. And yes, it will have a lucrative financial aspect. Making money isn't corrupt

    That depends, doesn't it.

    And I'm not even going to comment on the 'financing women cycling' since we all know that is not a priority that Pat is intersted in what so ever.
    RichN95 wrote:
    First of all they don't just pick the course with the most climbing. They mix them up to provide some variety. This one will be a sprinter's race with crosswinds. The Tour of Qatar is usually a decent race.

    True. Tour of Qatar can be wonderful race with crosswinds and stuff. But the thing is. This WC will be in circuit of x amount of laps. That means these random crosswind parts on the route will not be that random at all, since the riders would have ridden the parts plenty of times. That means, if there even are winds - it's not like it's a certainty, is it.. - that instead of great action we will have 200 riders trying to postioning themselves on the dangerous parts with inevitable chaos to follow and the winner will be the one who managed to stay on his bike rather being the fastest.

    World Championships should have sprint profiles. Of course it should. But you can find such profiles in places where they actually give a f*ck about the sport. Did you watch the Copenhagen race? Horrible race, cycling wise, but the show up was incredible - and pretty much only beaten by the insane show up during the Olympics in London - and that atmosphere made a bit up for the poor race.
    RichN95 wrote:
    And for a supposedly 'cycling crazy' country, why does Norway only have one race?
    After Belgium, Denmark is most cycling crazy country measured on population. Out of 6 million the main channel had at times over 1 million viewers during the Tour De France 2011 - can you mention me a proper danish race that is not Tour of Denmark? Although Norway can't keep up with ratings like these, there have been a major interest in the sport after Kurt Asle, Thor and Eddy's performances in recent years. Not many countries have traditions of having many races - other than the ones who were in the sport right from the beginning. The amount of races tells absolutely nothing.
  • He will be lucky to still have a job by christmas now :x
  • Im amazed hes still there now , the sport will never move forward with this arrogant POS fraud in charge.
  • andyrac
    andyrac Posts: 1,123
    He's not going anywhere, neither is his Dutch mate. Most of the big sporting associations have had 'issues' - somehow they ride them out.....
    Unless, the remaining sponsors, and Race sponsors threatened to pull the plug..... Could that really happen?
    All Road/ Gravel: tbcWinter: tbcMTB: tbcRoad: tbc"Look at the time...." "he's fallen like an old lady on a cruise ship..."