Cycling Ireland nominate McQuaid > EGM Rejects

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

The irony of this rule change proposal is that it is a rule that actually does need changing.

But not when the ongoing process that it effects is nearing completion.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The irony of this rule change proposal is that it is a rule that actually does need changing.

But not when the ongoing process that it effects is nearing completion.

Sure.

But I'm against any rules or circumstances that prevent a legitimate candidate from standing in an election. I strongly feel that McQuaid should be able to stand for election (and hopefully lose).

bockers

McQuaid is just Vebruggen with a face lift. The two of them have done nothing for the sport of cycling other than attract controversy.

Here is another example of UCI madness being presided over by twat Pat:-
"UCI to require race wheel certification for 2014", is this really all they have to do, is there really nothing else that needs attention, teams going bankrupt, riders not being paid, and then there is the drug issues too. The UCI should be looking after the riders and be a body they trust. SO why piss about with seat angles, stickers and bloody weight limits.

Pat has presided over this horlicks, does anyone really think he needs another term... seriously?

Beatmaker

mr_poll wrote:

comparing him to a genocidal, corrupt dictator is a bit much.

I agree, poor Mugabe.

DeadCalm

I just hope Thailand has been guaranteed something worthwhile in return for this support.

thomthom

Malaysia will feel unfairly treated then

aztecboy

To the outside world, (and I talk about those who have recently been attracted to the sport) these mid election manoeuvres make the UCI look shifty and stupid.

One recent convert here heard our dear Pat on BBC Radio 5 last night, apparently the interviewer just let him ramble on for 2 minutes and then said thank you very much. He then cut short a response by Richard Moore after 20 secs for the news.

I would also like to know who is funding all PmQ's legal work? Finding that little loophole will not have come cheap.

If he does succeed in hauling the Irish goalposts all the way to Malaysia, I sincerely hope that in this act, he has damaged himself beyond redemption. I am all for free and fair elections but this looks crap. There was an existing election criteria which PmQ failed.

Talking of UCI rule changes on the fly, I am also minded their shameful and disgraceful "on the spot" rule changes during Graham Obree's world record attempt.

So I guess I am not surprised, definitely time for change IMHO.

TimB34

RichN95 wrote:

I'm against any rules or circumstances that prevent a legitimate candidate from standing in an election. I strongly feel that McQuaid should be able to stand for election (and hopefully lose).

Hold on, for the last 12 months or so a "legitimate candidate" has been defined as one with the backing of their National Federation, and everyone seems to have been fine with that - it at least gives a semblance of grassroots support.

Now there's a proposed rule change to allow a "legitimate candidate" to be redefined as "someone proposed by any two National Federations".

I struggle to see how this can lead to more legitimacy for proposed candidates, unless one makes the assumption that the best person for the job is one who can ruthlessly play shady international financial politics... hmm. :oops:

RichN95.

TimB34 wrote:

Hold on, for the last 12 months or so a "legitimate candidate" has been defined as one with the backing of their National Federation, and everyone seems to have been fine with that - it at least gives a semblance of grassroots support.

Now there's a proposed rule change to allow a "legitimate candidate" to be redefined as "someone proposed by any two National Federations".

I struggle to see how this can lead to more legitimacy for proposed candidates, unless one makes the assumption that the best person for the job is one who can ruthlessly play shady international financial politics... hmm. :oops:

No. The Irish shouldn't have blocked his candidature. They had no grounds to do so. A candidate does not need the 'backing' of their Federation, they need to have it confirmed that they meet the criteria to stand. To my mind the Irish acted against the interests of democracy and outside their rights (which is why the rule should be changed).

McQuaid does not represent the Irish Federation so he should not need their permission to stand - he just happens to be Irish. No candidate should have to have the support of a specific portion of the electorate who they do not represent to stand in an election. Support from any portion of the electorate should be sufficient.

If a Labour politician had to get the permission of the (Tory) council of his birthplace to stand in an election and was blocked, people would be up in arms - but this is exactly what has happened here.

People need to separate the legitimacy of the democratic process and the personalities involved.

TimB34

I haven't been paying attention to this, so I looked up Article 51, which simply states:

The candidates for the presidency shall be nominated by the federation of the candidate

There's nothing there about what or how that nomination should be obtained or validated by the federation (or any definition of "the federation of the candidate").

It's difficult to comment on the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the democratic process when it's so vaguely defined!

andrewjoseph

RichN95 wrote:

...
No. The Irish shouldn't have blocked his candidature. They had no grounds to do so. A candidate does not need the 'backing' of their Federation,
...

what does 'nominated' mean then, if not 'put forward'? you don't nominate someone that you don't support. ireland don't support him so withdrew the nomination. if this was not needed, why go to the swiss, and then the others? these others have backed him as he is, supposedly, a member of the federation/s.

he obviously needs backing from his federation. else why would they nominate?

RichN95.

andrewjoseph wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

...
No. The Irish shouldn't have blocked his candidature. They had no grounds to do so. A candidate does not need the 'backing' of their Federation,
...

what does 'nominated' mean then, if not 'put forward'? you don't nominate someone that you don't support. ireland don't support him so withdrew the nomination. if this was not needed, why go to the swiss, and then the others? these others have backed him as he is, supposedly, a member of the federation/s.

he obviously needs backing from his federation. else why would they nominate?

And this is exactly why the rule needs to be changed (and it's not the only one) - which has been my arguement all along.

Democracy is not served by a legitimate candidate (i.e. one that meets the minimum criteria for the job) being prevented from standing by a small section of the electorate of which the candidate himself is not a member or representative.

The Irish should have recognised his right to stand but not backed him.

andrewjoseph

RichN95 wrote:

...

The Irish should have recognised his right to stand but not backed him.

i'm failing to understand this, under the current rules a candidate needs to be nominated by his federation. how does pat have a right to stand if he is not nominated by his federation? if ireland nominated him, then they have backed him, if they don't nominate him, he has no right to stand. (not talking about the swiss fed nomination).

and pat is a member of the irish fed, he has a licence with them.

sadlybiggins

Interesting article on this point on inrng (apologies if already posted):

http://inrng.com/2013/07/mcquaid-uci-no ... -malaysia/

RichN95.

andrewjoseph wrote:

i'm failing to understand this, under the current rules a candidate needs to be nominated by his federation. how does pat have a right to stand if he is not nominated by his federation? if ireland nominated him, then they have backed him, if they don't nominate him, he has no right to stand. (not talking about the swiss fed nomination).

and pat is a member of the irish fed, he has a licence with them.

He has the right to stand because he fulfills the minimum universal requirements needed to be President - something which is undeniable seeing as he has been President for 8 years.

He is standing as an individual - not as a representative of the Irish Federation, he gets no supprt, financial or otherwise from them, and as such should not require their support.

In a fair democratic system any member should have the right to stand if endorsed by any sufficient section of the electorate and not by a specific section dictated by circumstance beyond their control.

My arguements are not specific to McQuaid. They relate to the philosophy of demcracy and whether it is, in this case, being served.

andrewjoseph

^^

yes, but the rules under which he has agreed to participate clearly state he has to be nominated by his federation. you can't get away from that fact.

Paulie W

RichN95 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

i'm failing to understand this, under the current rules a candidate needs to be nominated by his federation. how does pat have a right to stand if he is not nominated by his federation? if ireland nominated him, then they have backed him, if they don't nominate him, he has no right to stand. (not talking about the swiss fed nomination).

and pat is a member of the irish fed, he has a licence with them.

He has the right to stand because he fulfills the minimum universal requirements needed to be President - something which is undeniable seeing as he has been President for 8 years.

He is standing as an individual - not as a representative of the Irish Federation, he gets no supprt, financial or otherwise from them, and as such should not require their support.

In a fair democratic system any member should have the right to stand if endorsed by any sufficient section of the electorate and not by a specific section dictated by circumstance beyond their control.

My arguements are not specific to McQuaid. They relate to the philosophy of demcracy and whether it is, in this case, being served.

Well, if we're going to talk about the philosophy of democracy there shouldn't really be a president - all decisions should be made by a vote of the constituency as a whole!

RichN95.

andrewjoseph wrote:

^^

yes, but the rules under which he has agreed to participate clearly state he has to be nominated by his federation. you can't get away from that fact.

Yes. I know. But just because a rule is in place, it doesn't make it right.

My points are:
1. The rule, which McQuaid is seeking to change, should actually be changed (whether now or later)
2. By blocking his nomination, the Irish voters acted in their own interests rather than those of democracy. I don't think they should have had the right to do that, and I'm unconvinced that they actually did have the right to do it.

nic_77

Seriously, can't the man just take a hint?

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

In a fair democratic system any member should have the right to stand if endorsed by any sufficient section of the electorate and not by a specific section dictated by circumstance beyond their control.

But cannot McQuaid be a member of any federation and be nominated by them? Did he not foresee the Irish egm?

I perfectly understand the reasoning behind having federation nominees - otherwise every tom/dick & harry could want to put themselves forwards for election and you'd have too many to choose from.
Granted, this time round it looks to be a bit of a lopsided race - it would've been nice to have 3 or 4 candidates on the list - but nobody else is prepared to stand ... why would that be?!

UCI has gone through a lot of turmoil - with all the "I doped" confessions and revelations going on, it seems to me that it could do with a new broom.

McQuaid's "must get nominated at any cost" stance seems to me that McQuaid cares more about McQuaid than the UCI ... so for that reason, if I had a vote it would be cast against him.

Richmond Racer

nic_77 wrote:

Seriously, can't the man just take a hint?

No. For starters he and Hein are in a right old panic about the skeletons that are going to come tumbling out if Cookson gets in and does indeed start the process of cleaning out the stables

andrewjoseph

RichN95 wrote:

...

2. By blocking his nomination, the Irish voters acted in their own interests rather than those of democracy. I don't think they should have had the right to do that, and I'm unconvinced that they actually did have the right to do it.

the initial nomination by the irish fed was found to be invalid. the irish fed is responsible to it's members, said members then voted not to nominate pat.

what's undemocratic about that?

RichN95.

andrewjoseph wrote:

the initial nomination by the irish fed was found to be invalid. the irish fed is responsible to it's members, said members then voted not to nominate pat.

what's undemocratic about that?

Because a valid candidate - so valid he is actually the incumbent - is being prevented for standing in an election by people he does not represent purely on the grounds of political differences and not on constitutional grounds. The Irish have no right to choose who the rest of the world may or may not vote for.

It's like a local council deciding that only candidates born in their area can only stand in a general election if they are a member of their party.

How is democracy served by allowing a small section of the electorate to block the standing of an opposing candidate?

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

It's like a local council deciding that only candidates from their party can stand in a general election.

No it isn't .... because the Irish Fed cannot decide that other federations won't nominate someone.

The Irish Fed have withdrawn their support for the nominee because they don't want him as president - that's fair enough. That's like your local party deciding who to put forward for the council elections - or not bother at all - although the presidency isn't representing the Irish Federation, his actions may reflect on them too.

I feel that a federation should be able to nominate any individual they desire - not sure why two would be needed - unless each federation put one forward and everyone only voted for their own ...

RichN95.

Slowbike wrote:

The Irish Fed have withdrawn their support for the nominee because they don't want him as president - that's fair enough. That's like your local party deciding who to put forward for the council elections - or not bother at all - although the presidency isn't representing the Irish Federation, his actions may reflect on them too.

And there is the crux of the matter. He is not their candidate - and never sought to be so. He is an individual and therefore should not need specific support.

A local party as you say decides who to put forward as a candidate - but as a representative of their party. They cannot prevent those that they did not select from standing in the election as an independent or for another party.

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The Irish Fed have withdrawn their support for the nominee because they don't want him as president - that's fair enough. That's like your local party deciding who to put forward for the council elections - or not bother at all - although the presidency isn't representing the Irish Federation, his actions may reflect on them too.

And there is the crux of the matter. He is not their candidate - and never sought to be so. He is an individual and therefore should not need specific support.

Well - there is the crux of the matter - by the current rules he IS (or would be) their candidate.

Otherwise why can't you stand - or me for that matter ... ?

RichN95.

Slowbike wrote:

Otherwise why can't you stand - or me for that matter ... ?

Because I don't meet any of the the other numerous (non-Federation specific) criteria. You may meet some. McQuaid meets them all.

The rule is there. But in my opinion shouldn't be and it has been abused to undermine the democratic process. He is not and never will be 'their candidate'. He is just a candidate who is afflicated to them becuase he was born there.

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Otherwise why can't you stand - or me for that matter ... ?

Because I don't meet any of the the other numerous (non-Federation specific) criteria. You may meet some. McQuaid meets them all.

But he doesn't - well - not as far as Irish Fed are concerned - he's not their nominee ... he shouldn't automatically be a candidate just because he meets other criteria - should he? Or perhaps he (and anyone else who wants the job) should - at which point it's less of a political appointment and more of a job selection ...

RichN95 wrote:

The rule is there. But in my opinion shouldn't be and it has been abused to undermine the democratic process.

Maybe - but the rule shouldn't be changed in september just to allow him to stand. The rule is the rule - and in attempting to circumnavigate this one it just shows McQuaid as someone who will twist anything to get his own way - so how many other rules have been twisted ...

So, rules should stay as they are until this election is over - with or without McQuaid as a candidate.

deejay

I thought the UCI was responsible to the affiliated Federations.
That Federations are responsible to their members who then have voting rights.
That nominations are made by your own Federation.
I cannot stand until someone proposes me with a seconder which is then voted on by the members.
I don't think it is a Federation committee decision to nominate.

Maybe there is no democracy for a fair vote and as someone has stated it is now a Dictatorship Election like Zimbabwe.

andrewjoseph

RichN95 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

the initial nomination by the irish fed was found to be invalid. the irish fed is responsible to it's members, said members then voted not to nominate pat.

what's undemocratic about that?

Because a valid candidate - so valid he is actually the incumbent - is being prevented for standing in an election by people he does not represent purely on the grounds of political differences and not on constitutional grounds. The Irish have no right to choose who the rest of the world may or may not vote for.

It's like a local council deciding that only candidates born in their area can only stand in a general election if they are a member of their party.

How is democracy served by allowing a small section of the electorate to block the standing of an opposing candidate?

we're coming at this from opposing views and not likely to agree on this, so i'll not continue.