MacQuaid appears to be on cloud 9. It took a bit more time for the 2009 Giro results to be fully tested,,,,,does McQuaid speak to soon?



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-pr...-positive-tests

Lister was right - predicted this from the start.

Now that the UCI is back in charge, we can safely predict no doping positives.

This was an interesting bit

Walsh pointed to studies by Antoine Vayer, a former coach from the Festina team. Vayer analysed data from the Grand Tour's major climbs and rider's power outputs.

Didn't realize the Festina connection. Anyone associated with Festina minimally has a better eyeball test than JB.

Dave.

Yes Lister was correct.

Also if you believe that the UCI is on the take then this would ammunition to your argument. How can they just have no positives? When you compare the previous years and the positive tests then suddenly as if it is all clean we get none.

He (McQuaid) is nothing if not brazen, eh? All those who wanted to believe Anne Gripper was some sort of "honest broker" have now gotten their answer. Given the several apologias and p.r. toadie interviews she gave around the time of the Tour gives the lie to that. Either she's placed getting her own bread buttered and future employment at the UCI ahead of honest anti-doping, or she's not as competent as some had hoped, or ... perhaps she just put on a good con at the beginning and she was always in the pocket to begin with.

The best McQuaid quote comes from VN:



The futures so bright I gotta wear shades

Sing along now ....

Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss.

Yeah but if one is to try to understand what is happening it would make a person believe that there is some serious payoffs and back turning going on.

I am not saying ,,,,,,, I am just saying.

Of course this is all my opinion.

In a (slight) defense of the UCI, it is possible that there was a bunch of doping going on, but that there actually weren't any positive tests - at least in the traditional sense of actually detecting banned substances.

The doping action is probably all around undetectable products, micro-dosing, and mini-transfusions: all bio-passport stuff.

I wouldn't want to give the UCI a pass on the bio-passport, as their enforcement probably still includes 'protected riders'. The traditional tests have gotten pretty tight, though, so that is a positive step forward.

Not sure what I have predicted other than a need to keep on the UCI leadership to not let up on doping.

Also, as for the UCI being "in charge", AFLD was still a partner at this year's Tour, and muzzling Bordry would be a lot harder than, say, replacing or muzzling the head of the Tour.

"We can safely predict no doping positives" is also not what McQuaid said. The article said "cycling could be coming out of a difficult period", (note the conditional), and "It's been a difficult moment for cycling because of the doping scandals, but I think we're coming out of it and going into a good period," said McQuaid.(note the conditional). As head of the UCI, he has to say he thinks his are programs working, or else it will sound to the world like 'Yep, cycling is just as bad as it ever was, don't bother watching or sponsoring it.' I'd say the same thing in his shoes, except maybe adding, 'we have to stay on our toes though'.

Even Walsh pulls his punches: "...the biological passport is unable to catch some sophisticated cheats" , and " The evidence we have so far ..." (note the qualifiers).

That's quite a way from Verbruggen's "If you don't know, shut-up", and Walsh's earlier accusations, such as "Stephanie McIlvain makes it absolutely clear in the tape, "I was in the room, I heard it."

Still, I'd be a lot happier if a few more national federations would publicly keep up the pressure on the UCI, and publicly recognize real steps forward and riders willing to take a stand.

Indeed. When it comes to public rhetoric and PR spinning, McQuaid has proven to be more pragmatic than Verbruggen. But it is still entirely consistent with the UCI using it's anti-doping control as a public relations shield to promote pro cycling for profit.

Putting the rhetoric aside, McQuaid is still the guy who personally collaborated with the Spanish judiciary in burying the hard evidence from Puerto. He's still the guy who's framed the substance of an anti-doping protocol with Mack truck sized gaping holes for guys to be able to dope and still test clean. Sure, he's overseen creation of the Passport system as another feature of the program. But is that program just another p.r. tool? We've seen from Wiggins what a joke the frequency and parameters are. Anyone who thinks that can't be beaten like a rented mule by a doping program of any sophistication is either ignorant in denial. And any anti-doping program that is designed and operated in a way that can be beat, is not an anti-doping program, it's cynical public relations program.

And then there's the matter of McQuaid openly and brazenly covering up the earlier Passport violations, admitting directly that he preferred to discuss the matter privately with the riders and see if he could get everyone to clean up their acts. You know, kind of the like the cop who's buddy-buddy with the drunk who caused the fatal accident, comes upon the scene, clears off the evidence of the booze bottles in the road, dummies up the accident report, throws out the videotape of the field sobriety test, and claims to be doing all that because he's actually in favor of getting drunks off the road, but has a better way of making that happen by having a heart to heart with the guys he catches.

And he's still the guy presiding over a system that too many guys have made clear, leaks knowledge of upcoming out-of-competition testing to those about to be tested. He knows of the leaks just as we all do, yet has not taken the first step to find the leaks and plug them, hasn't dismissed the first employee. The mildly more PR savvy means nothing. It's the actions that count. And his actions (and inactions) speak volumes.

Between the menacing thug who says "give me your wallet, I'm going steal what you've got or beat you senseless" and the more sophisticated, well-groomed, polite and friendly, seemingly well-meaning con man who says "I'd never steal from you, I donate to the Police Benevolent Society, and as good faith I'll even give you this little roll of my own bills while I work on the deal with you -- meanwhile robbing you blind," there is no difference. Not one bit. They are both crooks. It just until you figure out the con, you can hang onto the belief the latter is a "good guy".

Which one is more dangerous, btw? Which one will ultimately manage to steal more from you? The latter.

That is Pat McQuaid.

I thought the Spanish judge was the one withholding the evidence? And didn't the Italians have to trick the Spanish into releasing the evidence during his holiday to get Valverde?

As I remember it, UCI co-operated with some riders (among others Contador) who would get away cleaned from Puerto if just they told what they knew. Other than that, I thought it really positive that UCI invited Kohl to tell them about his doping-manoeuvres instead of dismissing him as just a sour apple.

I think a lot are opposing to the UCI just because they're the UCI with all that means and involves, especially before 2006 - like Danes hate Frenchmen because they're French and because their only objective is to do all possible hate-crimes against Danish cyclists.

I guess one man's "cooperation" is another man's coverup. As for the contention that Contador "told what [he] knew," that's 100% at odds with everything we know. IF Contador had told what he knew, then there'd be a whole boatload of doctors, riders, and others who would have been busted. IF Contador had told what he knew, then none of his former teammates who were on the same program (including Vino) never would have started the TDF the year before last.




This is the worst kind of revisionist history. Not only did the UCI not genuinely try to gather what Kohl knew from him in a manner that would enable them to bust things wide open, the UCI, via public comment from both McQuaid and Gripper mocked Kohl, ripped him personally, and attacked his credibility.




I'm curious, can you name a single individual who you believe is among this "lot" of people who "oppose the UCI just because they're the UCI"? Who are these people? Hate-crimes against Danish cyclists? You just funnin'? Or is your tin-foil hat picking up strange signals recently?

Yikes. You missed a big chunk of the movie. The UCI got a huge Puerto dossier. First it said it needed time to read it and see what was there. Then came radio silence. Months later, some timid media inquiry asking, in effect, "Gee, exactly how long does it take for UCI staff to read a few hundred pages?" Then McQuaid basically said, "be patient, we're not stalling or covering up, honest, we'll get back to you ... soon." Months more passed, and after an entire YEAR had passed the media pressed for answers. This time, McQuaid basically said, "Buzz off".

Then came media asking McQuaid why the UCI still hadn't at least sanctioned Manolo Saiz. McQuaid refused to sanction even the guy caught red-handed with the cash and the briefcase full of blood bags that started the whole public avalanche, and had a different reason or coverup rationalization with each passing week. The ridiculous nature of the excuses were right up there with Landis' "Jack Daniels" excuse. As each one was debunked and proven false (mostly administrative and procedural obstacles McQuaid claimed, that didn't really exist), out he came with another. Then came the questions about why no Phonak sanctions, what with 3/4 of the guys on the team having been busted in the past couple years, and McQuaid again came out defending no action claiming "I think they're really genuine when they say they're against doping".

This, of course, is the same McQuaid who ordered all past Giro and Tour samples be grabbed up by the UCI, then personally ordered them not to be re-tested.

One can argue (perhaps persuasively) that McQuaid has been acting all along in the best interest of cycling, that doping is here to stay, and that being the case, he's doing what needs to be done to spin PR and cut down on the negative press (by burying a whole lot of mess), and that all the cynical double-talk and coverups are just the price of achieving that end. But it's pointless to deny that McQuaid is actively, unambiguously using his full power and authority at UCI to block dopers' identities from being revealed, has blocked tests that would have revealed doping, has by refusing to root out the tipsters, aided and endorsed seeing that out-of-competition testing is eviscerated and fails to catch dopers, has covered up for entire teams and organizations, has run interference with the media to hide the contents of the Puerto dossier, and has covered up for the few guys who've doped to the point they've tripped the new Passport.

Not sure if it is revisionist or not (but not stepping into that argument). The bigger problem, for me, is whether Kohl's information leads to any real action or not. If it doesn't, the optics are that they were just using him to plug holes in the leaky boat of the dopers.

That could be 'conspiracy' theory, but others (Manzano, etc.) have certainly underscored the possibility that coming clean on their part not only ostracizes them, but the information is arguably utilized to shield the dopers instead of reveal them.

Now, I suppose you could say that I don't like the UCI because they are the UCI. But, I have nobody else to complain about when it comes to managing the sport.

Certainly there are things I don't like about the UCI. I don't like things the UCI does like some of their really stupid rules, AFAICT, on configurations for TT bikes, etc. This same concern about stupid rules applies to the no feeding rules within 30k of the finish line, etc. (that one works great for grand tours, but is really stupid when applied for amateur races all the way down to Cat 5). I don't like the fact that we lost a classic Olympic track event, with a lame excuse from the UCI about the IOC forcing them to do it in order to add BMX. How much money was saved by cancelling a single track event? Stupid.

And, of course, I don't like the fact that the UCI remains one of the doping world's laggards when it comes to actually cleaning up the sport.

There are probably things I don't mind about the UCI, and there might even be things I like about them. But, on balance, it does appear that there are more things that I don't like about them.

Dave.

McQuaid continues his attacks on AFLD (or continues to defend the UCI against AFLD's attacks, depending on your point of view).

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2009/...s-continue.html



Rough translation: "We did everything possible to achieve our objective of no positives at the 2009 TDF, but AFLD undermined us by insisting that we not inform teams of planned controls. Even worse, they wouldn't let us quietly sweep the truth under the carpet. If this continues, our ability to collect secret contributions from active riders will be seriously compromised"

[quote name='frenchfry' date='Dec 2 2009, 12:36 PM' post='161404']
McQuaid continues his attacks on AFLD (or continues to defend the UCI against AFLD's attacks, depending on your point of view).

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2009/...s-continue.html
Rough translation: "We did everything possible to achieve our objective of no positives at the 2009 TDF, but AFLD undermined us by insisting that we not inform teams of planned controls. Even worse, they wouldn't let us quietly sweep the truth under the carpet. If this continues, our ability to collect secret contributions from active riders will be seriously compromised"
[/quote

LMAO

Legacy of Hein Verdruggen !

The saddest thing McQuaid's web of illusion is it leaves fans uncertain how to best support the athletes.

On the one hand, it would appear that pro cyclists are content to rally around McQuaid and the omerta code, with the occasional lamb being sacrificed, and marginal improvements in detection from the bio-pass.

On the other hand, it could be that some athletes are disgusted. But if they were, they could hardly speak up without getting the boot from pro cycling.



Don't remember any of this. There were some riders willing to testify, but all that was quickly swept under the rug, much like Basso and Scarponi's all-to-brief willingness to testify. The UCI has done everything possible to bury Puerto, with success.

As for Kohl...what support has he gotten from the UCI? I don't remember them explicitly condemning him as a liar and gold-digger a la Jaksche, but frankly I'd be surprised if they didn't...

Cyclingnews reports McQuaid is saying that UCI will seek to handle all testing at next year's Tour.

Naturally, the AFLD aren't going to be happy, and neither am I.

If this does indeed happen, the Tour will no longer be worth riding, or watching.

Trends can't be ignored: the 2006 chaos, even after the event, the 2007 Rasmussen/Astana cases, the 2008 AFLD crackdown, where riders (and teams) went down like houses of cards, and then in 2009 ... nada.

I just can't accept that as credible.