Brian Cookson to run for UCI President

meggiedude

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

I think its more a case of him effectively saying 'You shouldn't be in the contest - but I'll beat you anyway. Lets stop with the p*ss*ng around and vote".
In the end a better result all round.
Really rubbed Fat Pats face in it.
Result!!

Der Kaiser

I still get the feeling this won't be the last we hear of this.

Will McQuaid throw a spanner in the works by locking himself in the Presidents office and refusing to come out?

vinnymarsden

I think PMQ will lock himself in his office,, take LOADS of mind altering drugs and challenge Lance to a RollaPalooza race!!!!!

davidof

What's Cookson going to be like? How has he performed in the UK?

salsiccia1

davidof wrote:

What's Cookson going to be like? How has he performed in the UK?

Cycling in the UK has done really well, both in world level-performance and awareness/participation. That being said, the home pro/elite scene is having a struggle at the moment.

Quite honestly, I think his biggest attribute for most people is that he isn't Pat McQuaid.

tailwindhome

andrewjoseph wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

No, he proposed they move forward, this must have been seconded and agreed.

Must have been or was?

Let me understand this. Cookson says lets just vote and it's brave & strong leadership. McQuaid says that and he's conniving weasel?

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

Ah, ha! Don't worry fellas, I have very short hair, plus I like riding my bike more than I like having neat hair. Priorities!

Awesome girl is awesome

Twitter is suggesting that a certain Aaron Brown (Underpants) was at the conference working for one Mr Pat McQuaid...Man that fliptard really can't pick a winner can he?

kieranb

well, there is a slight difference in that with Cookson proposing Pat be allowed to stand he was handicapping his own chances, with Pat saying he could stand he was advantaging himself. In the end both agreed Pat could stand and Pat lost the vote.

wallace_and_gromit

TailWindHome wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

No, he proposed they move forward, this must have been seconded and agreed.

Must have been or was?

Let me understand this. Cookson says lets just vote and it's brave & strong leadership. McQuaid says that and he's conniving weasel?

McQuaid was trying to force a vote when there were questions about whether he was eligible to stand.

Cookson called for a vote when he was definitely eligible, even though it hadn't been established that he even had a legitimate opponent.

Therefore McQuaid could end up in no worse position by forcing a vote whereas Cookson could end up in no better position. (Unless delegates were swayed by Cookson's gesture.)

Thus, Cookson's actions were completely different in character to McQuaid's.

jonomc4

TailWindHome wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

No, he proposed they move forward, this must have been seconded and agreed.

Must have been or was?

Let me understand this. Cookson says lets just vote and it's brave & strong leadership. McQuaid says that and he's conniving weasel?

Unfortunately (for you) it is different - PMQ would have gained by the vote being allowed through - without it he couldn't stand for election. For BC to say that means he has to accept not being a shoe in and go to a vote. That is why it is brave leadership - but I think you know that already. Sadly your comment just made you look ignorant on this one, rather than just being you usual devils advocate.

Also now PMQ has no comeback - he lost the vote so can now not challenge on a technicality of whether he should have been allowed in the vote or not - as he surely would have done (even though he said otherwise). It will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few months regarding him :twisted:

andrewjoseph

TailWindHome wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

No, he proposed they move forward, this must have been seconded and agreed.

Must have been or was?

Let me understand this. Cookson says lets just vote and it's brave & strong leadership. McQuaid says that and he's conniving weasel?

If it wasn't seconded and agreed, then the proposal wouldn't have gone forward and been acted upon. So it it must have been and so was.

meggiedude

meggiedude wrote:

Someone change Fat Pat's Wikipedia entry - immediately, if not sooner.

Excellent. Someone has made the necessary changes.

Crankbrother

I kinda wanted Pat to win just to witness the fallout of the ridiculous scrutiny his presidency would have been under ...

But fair play to Cookson ... He let Pat chase his tail and offer his daughter's virtue to whoever would help him out (maybe , allegedly ... does he even have a daughter?) just to say 'fuck it' lets beat you by your own 'criteria' ...

Richmond Racer

Ah shame, Crankie

TheBigBean

Not sure this makes him look all that great. Cookson:

"I am writing to you shortly after my election as UCI President. As someone who has given my life to cycling, I am thrilled to have won. The campaign has been hard-fought and, if that has been particularly difficult for some of you, then that is to be regretted. I endeavoured at all times to make it an election in which the issues which cycling must confront were properly debated.

I believed that it was a battle which had to be fought, not least because there are some exceptional people working at the UCI. Unfortunately and too often, the good work has been overshadowed by controversies and unnecessary conflict.

However, right now is the best time to be involved in cycling. There are new opportunities and new markets opening up to the sport all the time - we just need to grasp them.

There is enormous potential in the sport and, I firmly believe, enormous potential within the walls of the UCI.

I look forward to working with you soon."

Le Commentateur

RichN95 wrote:

2000 years ago this would all have been settled by a fight to the death. I feel we've regressed somehow.

Brian, Pat and the UCI delegates in medieval Japan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9rhC2q ... NQ&index=6

Richmond Racer

TheBigBean wrote:

Not sure this makes him look all that great. Cookson:

"I am writing to you shortly after my election as UCI President. As someone who has given my life to cycling, I am thrilled to have won. The campaign has been hard-fought and, if that has been particularly difficult for some of you, then that is to be regretted. I endeavoured at all times to make it an election in which the issues which cycling must confront were properly debated.

I believed that it was a battle which had to be fought, not least because there are some exceptional people working at the UCI. Unfortunately and too often, the good work has been overshadowed by controversies and unnecessary conflict.

However, right now is the best time to be involved in cycling. There are new opportunities and new markets opening up to the sport all the time - we just need to grasp them.

There is enormous potential in the sport and, I firmly believe, enormous potential within the walls of the UCI.

I look forward to working with you soon."

Disagree. Thats his message to UCI staff, not to the greater world. As his first internal message, that's a decent one. The staff will be highly unsettled, fearful of jobs etc - and I dont mean the Verbiests etc, I mean the troops on the ground. He has to make sure the machine keeps going till he has a chance to sort the wheat from the chaff. You dont take over a workforce and pile straight in with 'right, you're all a bunch of wasters, dont let the door hit you on the way out'. And to be honest, I've generally heard that that many of the UCI staff are good people, who are genuinely committed to the best interests of cycling. But they've been led by dictators and donkeys.

TheBigBean

Richmond Racer wrote:

Disagree. Thats his message to UCI staff, not to the greater world. As his first internal message, that's a decent one. The staff will be highly unsettled, fearful of jobs etc - and I dont mean the Verbiests etc, I mean the troops on the ground. He has to make sure the machine keeps going till he has a chance to sort the wheat from the chaff. You dont take over a workforce and pile straight in with 'right, you're all a bunch of wasters, dont let the door hit you on the way out'. And to be honest, I've generally heard that that many of the UCI staff are good people, who are genuinely committed to the best interests of cycling. But they've been led by dictators and donkeys.

I agree entirely with your message - I just don't agree that is that is the way his message comes across.

iainf72

Nice piece from Kenny Pryde

http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/presiden ... g-cycling/

I think this ethics thing from today (the 25K etc) is going to come up some more. Saying you don't trust the ethics committee when you approved appointing them is slightly rich...

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Nice piece from Kenny Pryde

http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/presiden ... g-cycling/

I think this ethics thing from today (the 25K etc) is going to come up some more. Saying you don't trust the ethics committee when you approved appointing them is slightly rich...

I don't understand this 25K bribe thing.

The tweet said:

Allegation that Cookson gave 25.000 to Greece for their vote.

Yet, correct me if I'm wrong, Greece didn't have a delegate with one of the 42 votes.
If not, what are we talking about? :?

iainf72

Page 5

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... M&LangId=1

It's all a bit unclear, but it's been raised so it's out there.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Page 5

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... M&LangId=1

It's all a bit unclear, but it's been raised so it's out there.

I'm more interested in the first complaint. It seems some average fan put in a complaint. I didn't know we could do that. Chapeau, Wayne Gillon, whoever you are.

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Page 5

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... M&LangId=1

It's all a bit unclear, but it's been raised so it's out there.

Ta. Thought it might refer to the earlier Euro vote, but the timing suggested today.
Then again, I'd say the timing was obviously as intended.
Maka rather than Cooka?

andy_wrx

Lance Armstrong @LanceArmstrong 7h
Hallelujah!

Maybe someone else wants their money back?

blazing_saddles

andy_wrx wrote:

Lance Armstrong @LanceArmstrong 7h
Hallelujah!

Maybe someone else wants their money back?

Didn't take long.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson ... on-process

Pat gets an invite, too!

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Didn't take long.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson ... on-process

Pat gets an invite, too!

To be fair, you can't have a TRC and pick and choose who is eligible to attend. The same opportunities have to be extended to all.

andy_wrx

Interesting PR from LA perhaps, but seems he's in favour of a TRC
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-a ... -interview

I hadn't seen this interview until today, astonishingly it makes a lot of sense and I find myself agreeing with the man :roll:

He calls McQuaid "pathetic" and says he's only interested in covering his ass
- I thought he was a fan, lots of preferential treatment, etc : or was that just Hein ?

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Didn't take long.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson ... on-process

Pat gets an invite, too!

To be fair, you can't have a TRC and pick and choose who is eligible to attend. The same opportunities have to be extended to all.

To be fair, I'm not complaining.
Gets my vote.

tailwindhome

jonomc4 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Did Cookson just ignore procedure and constitution to unilaterally declare Pat McQuaid's candidancy valid to suit his own political agenda?

No, he proposed they move forward, this must have been seconded and agreed.

Must have been or was?

Let me understand this. Cookson says lets just vote and it's brave & strong leadership. McQuaid says that and he's conniving weasel?

Unfortunately (for you) it is different - PMQ would have gained by the vote being allowed through - without it he couldn't stand for election. For BC to say that means he has to accept not being a shoe in and go to a vote. That is why it is brave leadership - but I think you know that already. Sadly your comment just made you look ignorant on this one, rather than just being you usual devils advocate.

Also now PMQ has no comeback - he lost the vote so can now not challenge on a technicality of whether he should have been allowed in the vote or not - as he surely would have done (even though he said otherwise). It will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few months regarding him :twisted:

Cookson had nothing really to lose by pushing for the vote. Firstly he knew from the earlier vote he had 21 of 42 votes in the bag. There was a good chance that calling for the vote and letting everyone go for lunch would swing it in his favour. Finally if the worst happened he knew he could always rely on a friendly federation challenging the legitimacy of the vote.

It was brilliant politics but neither brave nor leadership. Had he made the same gesture a month ago then I'd agree. He wasn't being magnanimous, he was going in for the kill.

Going back to my original point. The candidates have argued procedure for months now, it was the most technical of procedural irregularities which invalidated the original Irish nomination. Now in the committee room one of the candidates is permitted to decide for themselves the validity of another candidate. That can't be right...

Oh and try to play the ball not the man..

tailwindhome

Quote of the Day.


Will Fotheringham

"Amid the oceans of Franco-Swiss legalese it was impossible to avoid the impression that McQuaid's nomination would be secured, come hell or high water, and that the UCI constitution resembled Captain Jack Sparrow's pirate's code: "more what you would call guidelines than actual rules"."