Brian Cookson/UCI Conflict of Interest

itisaboutthebike

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british ... redibility

How come Brian C ("I am also a member of the Operating Board of Team Sky") can sit on the UCI Management Committee AND be a mover and shaker in one of the major Pro Tour teams ?

Surely this is a conflict of interest and merely opens the UCI up for more criticism ?
Whose to say UK Postal aren't getting preferential treatment (akin to a previous potsal team)

What do others think ?

itisaboutthebike

Come come - don't be shy....................opinions please ?

Or are we all dodging the 'difficult questions' a la the UCI ?

RichN95.

He's not a 'mover and shaker' with Sky. As he says, he sits on the Operations Board (not The Board) to look after the interests of British Cycling (as the two share personnel and facilities).

If you want a conflict interest, then one of the UCI Management Board owns not one, but three pro teams, including a World Tour team.

eh

It is a bit dodgy, but I find his whole statement iffy. So British cycling / Sky are clean are they? really with Sutton et al. having been there since the big improvements that were made and certain riders being over the 50% limit. This we are British and therefore high and mighty is tosh.

Also what rubbish about transfusions being new they go back decades, and it is well known the USA cycling team did them to win at the LA Olympics.

itisaboutthebike

If you want a conflict interest, then one of the UCI Management Board owns not one, but three pro teams, including a World Tour team.

No wonder the UCI stinks.............

frenchfighter

He has been Chairman for 16 years. Wow. Is there no one to take on the job he does? Is he still so good he deserves this spot?

I'm very much against extended terms in the majority of places. There should be a set term and a max number of terms, with 10 years or so being the absolute max.

itisaboutthebike

He has been Chairman for 16 years

Getting very cosy isn't it ?

Hey boys - any jobs ?

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

He has been Chairman for 16 years. Wow. Is there no one to take on the job he does? Is he still so good he deserves this spot?

I'm very much against extended terms in the majority of places. There should be a set term and a max number of terms, with 10 years or so being the absolute max.

The problem is that it's not that great a job and just to be in contention for it you have to do crappy jobs for a decade or two to work your way up the ladder - and there aren't many people with sufficient dedication.

nathancom

He has done a brilliant job though and comes across as a decent guy in his blogs.

itisaboutthebike

He has done a brilliant job though

Yes I admit he did step into the fray when it all went t*ts up with Tony D.

I have nothing against him, my original issue is/was conflict of interest between him being involved with UK Postal AND on the UCI Management (i.e. main !) committee.

nathancom

itisaboutthebike wrote:

He has done a brilliant job though

Yes I admit he did step into the fray when it all went t*ts up with Tony D.

I have nothing against him, my original issue is/was conflict of interest between him being involved with UK Postal AND on the UCI Management (i.e. main !) committee.

At the UCI he has responsibility for road racing below the Pro Tour so that should largely exclude him from any potential conflict. But sports administration generally does seem like jobs for the boys. How do half these people get into the roles in the first place.

RichN95.

nathancom wrote:

But sports administration generally does seem like jobs for the boys. How do half these people get into the roles in the first place.

If it's anything like hockey, then you first have a position at your club and then just volunteer when there's an opening (and there's one of those fairly often). You work your arse off for free, sit on committees and generally eat sh!t. Do a good job for a few years then you can move up a rung.
I've been approached on several occasions to climb on the ladder, but I have a phobia of tedious meetings. And frankly I wouldn't be very impartial.

Pross

OK Cookson has been BC President for 16 years, so what? Why change for the sake of it especially when his tenure has seen Britain become a super power in track cycling and is now up there on the road. If he's doing a good job leave him be, as for his role with Sky it is just a liaison / over-sight role to ensure BC aren't losing out on the resource pooling and there is no conflict with his UCI role as far as I can tell. He is elected to his role of President of BC, if anyone doesn't think he is the man for the job then I would assume the first step would be to try to get your divisional rep to vote against him next time around but does anyone seriously think there is a reason to get rid of him? He's hardly Hein is he!

itisaboutthebike

Wrote to Cookson at BC

Got the stock letter back. T*sser.

nweststeyn

Brian Cookson is not the problem, let's not extend the witch hunt further.

iainf72

itisaboutthebike wrote:

Wrote to Cookson at BC

Got the stock letter back. T*sser.

What did you write to him about? And what did you expect back?

nweststeyn

If Brian Cookson wrote a personal reply back to each one of the thousands of us who wrote to B.C. then I would say that is a definite misuse of resources!

I'm glad I got a stock reply back.

Pross

itisaboutthebike wrote:

Wrote to Cookson at BC

Got the stock letter back. T*sser.

Takes one to know one?

Turfle

I was going to say that's a pretty good stock reply.

Tom Butcher

I'm not going to call the guy a tosser but I do think he's been there too long. The only thing I've really heard from him was in defence of McQuaid when he posted on Veloriders - ok so I don't know what he's saying behind the scenes but I think when things stay behind the scenes it's normally because the public wouldn't agree with what is going on.

Walter White

eh wrote:

It is a bit dodgy, but I find his whole statement iffy. So British cycling / Sky are clean are they? really with Sutton et al. having been there since the big improvements that were made and certain riders being over the 50% limit. This we are British and therefore high and mighty is tosh.

Also what rubbish about transfusions being new they go back decades, and it is well known the USA cycling team did them to win at the LA Olympics.

Really ? , never heard that one , got any links ?

eh

Rob Hayles got pinged for above 50% when on the track team. Yet Dave B supported him and pulled the old "he's been tested hundreds of times and is always clean" card.

Yet i'd heard rumours about Rob taking stuff even in the late 90's.

So the question is do the BC and Sky management walk around with their eyes and ears closed? Our are they like Arsene Wenger and never happen to notice a thing if it's one of their own :-(

andrewjoseph

eh wrote:

Rob Hayles got pinged for above 50% when on the track team. Yet Dave B supported him and pulled the old "he's been tested hundreds of times and is always clean" card.

Yet i'd heard rumours about Rob taking stuff even in the late 90's. ...

[fingers in ears] lalala, I can't hear you! lalalala. [/fingers in ears]