30 minute McQuaid Interview on Eurosport

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Keith <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/

The guy is clearly out of his depth...

What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
big boosters of UCI. I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour.
All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
thinking.

So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
the war.
--
--
Sandy

" La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
pousse des impôts "
- Clémenceau

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Keith <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/

Quoted message said:

The guy is clearly out of his depth...

What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
big boosters of UCI.  I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour..
All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
thinking.

So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
the war.
--
--
Sandy

" La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
pousse des impôts "
- Clémenceau

He sounds seriously batshit crazy!
It's a great capitalistic conspiracy with the evil French
puppetmasters animating all the characters against the saintly UCI.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Keith <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/

Quoted message said:

The guy is clearly out of his depth...

What I found interesting resolves in only two elements: he equates being
anti-ASO and being anti-French and approves of this mindset ; second, he
praises specifically the Anglo-American cyclists as being the model modern
professional cyclists, for the obvious reason that they (in his mind) are
big boosters of UCI.  I recall his earlier speech where he generally lauded
the common law countries for their support of the new UCI and the Pro Tour.
All to the detriment of those who don't understand that system of law and
thinking.

So, really nothing new, aside from the fact that he admits that UCI has lost
the war.
--
--
Sandy

" La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
pousse des impôts "
- Clémenceau

He sounds seriously batshit crazy!
It's a great capitalistic conspiracy with the evil French
puppetmasters animating all the characters against the saintly UCI.

The riders really need to get together, like now, or last year.

Keith said:

http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/

The guy is clearly out of his depth...

I thought he sounded stronger than I expected. The stats on out-of-
competition tests were interesting: 150 two years ago, 1000 last year,
10,000 this year.(did I hear those numbers correctly?)

What I thought was missing was the reporter asking McQuaid to
understand the impact on the Tour of the fumbled whereabouts record of
Rassmussen. Surely this must have been a significant blow to the
Tour, and the UCI was supposed to be managing it...with a paper
system!?

I think the ASO problem goes back to mismanaging the doping issue, and
now the Tour wants to do something to restore it's image, and now
that's put it outside the UCI rules.

A better question would have been: " Don't you think the Tour was
justified in doing something to address the doping scandals at the
Tour, and don't you think the UCI contributed to the problem by having
such an inefffective anti-doping program up until now?"

And Pat should have said: " You're right, we discovered problems,
we've fixed them, and the Tour should work with us, not attack us."
But of course that would have raised the question of whether perhaps
[censored] Pound was right all along, and would not have been the right
thing to say when Hein has twisted your arm into suing him.....What a
tangled web we weave....

mtb Dad said:

And Pat should have said: " You're right, we discovered problems,
we've fixed them, and the Tour should work with us, not attack us."
But of course that would have raised the question of whether perhaps
[censored] Pound was right all along, and would not have been the right
thing to say when Hein has twisted your arm into suing him.....What a
tangled web we weave....

Dumbass,

Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?

Bob Schwartz

Bob

Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?

I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)

Lister

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?

Bob Schwartz

Bob

Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money. Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?

I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)

Lister

You don't get it.

Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.

And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
The disagreement is about money.

The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
are really talking about money. Poorly managed
doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
disagreement is all about money.

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
disagreement has money at the root?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

Bob

Quoted message said:

Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money.  Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?

Quoted message said:

I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Lister

You don't get it.

Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.

And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
The disagreement is about money.

The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
are really talking about money. Poorly managed
doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
disagreement is all about money.

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If poor doping control costs the sport money, it's about doping
enforcement. What don't you get?

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to

Quoted message said:

do with cleaning up the sport."

What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

It's about managing it

Quoted message said:

so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.

Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
me.

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to

Quoted message said:

do with cleaning up the sport."

What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?

What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to

Quoted message said:

do with cleaning up the sport."

Quoted message said:

What?  Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two?  If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping.  It's one case where we all win, business and
society.  Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?

What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Bob Schwartz

So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
> do with cleaning up the sport."
What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?

What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Bob Schwartz

So is it money or not? Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?

I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
with a doping scandal?

As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.

Are you going to answer my question?

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 3, 2:46 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>> do with cleaning up the sport."
> What?  Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
> baseball, how can you seperate the two?  If society doesn't want
> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
> it IS about doping.  It's one case where we all win, business and
> society.  Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
> popped.
Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
in July?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

So is it money or not?  Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?

I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
with a doping scandal?

As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.

Are you going to answer my question?

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bob

I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). But would the current
ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
weren't an issue? I doubt it. But then, you would argue that's only
about money too. I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
just their myopic habit.

How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
doping?

Like this quote here:

"Baseball needs to fix these problems, change this culture,, Or, and
this is a promise not a threat, Congress will do it for you."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080115/spor...doping_politics

Lister

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
with a doping scandal?

When was the last time you heard of the Spanish watch company Lotus?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mtb Dad said:

Bob Schwartz said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 12:01 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Dumbass,

Quoted message said:

> Why are you yammering about doping enforcement when the
> disagreement has money at the root?

Quoted message said:

Because poor doping enforcement is costing (or has the potential to
cost) the Tour and cycling in general, money.  Yeah, yeah, I know the
Tour is still healthy financially, but teams are losing sponsors, and
why else would the Tour go on about doping if they didn't see a risk?

Quoted message said:

I'll take a clean-up any/every way I can get it. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Lister

You don't get it.

Poor doping enforcement has nothing at all to do with
UCI's selling access to ASO's races. Or selling
access to other races in competition with ASO's races.
The disagreement is about money.

And ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
do with cleaning up the sport. It's about managing it
so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.
The disagreement is about money.

The disagreement between ASO and the UCI is about
money. When they talk about doping enforcement, they
are really talking about money. Poorly managed
doping enforcement costs the sport money. The
disagreement is all about money.

If poor doping control costs the sport money, it's about doping
enforcement. What don't you get?

I think it is about money, not dope. The only concern
anybody in the governing bodies has about dope, and few
enough care about dope at all, is to have an appearance
of caring about dope.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to

Quoted message said:

do with cleaning up the sport."

What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

Sports fans want racing, not doping stories.
Fans of dope and scandal want stories about rampant doping.
You are confusing the two.

Quoted message said:

It's about managing it

Quoted message said:

so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.

Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
me.

--
Michael Press

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to

Quoted message said:

do with cleaning up the sport."

What? Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
baseball, how can you seperate the two? If society doesn't want
doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
it IS about doping. It's one case where we all win, business and
society. Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
popped.

It's about managing it

Quoted message said:

so that it doesn't damage the event, something that
WADA has made it very clear they care nothing about.

Funny WADA has sounded pretty much in support of the Tour position to
me.

That's absurd. WADA has been nothing but coldly indifferent to to the image of
the sport and its events. From where I sit, their only priority is to try to
prove riders are doping - preferably in a big headline sorta way. They have no
apparent interest in preventing doping or in fair races or any other damn thing.
If WADA catches guys doping they're happy. If not they are sad. If nobody were
to dope that would mess them up, too.

Their behavior is entirely like that of a lazy cop. Do nothing but get your one
arrest a week so everyone thinks you're working. Oh, and make damn sure you get
a solid conviction rate on those rare arrests, say whatever you must.

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 2:46 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

mtb Dad said:

On Apr 3, 2:07 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 1:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>> ASO's view of doping enforcement has nothing to
>>> do with cleaning up the sport."
>> What?  Never mind that ASO draws attention to it, vs hiding it like
>> baseball, how can you seperate the two?  If society doesn't want
>> doping and says so by not buying from businesses associated with it,
>> it IS about doping.  It's one case where we all win, business and
>> society.  Except of course bike fans who hate their heroes being
>> popped.
> Where are you getting this? From the empty stands at SF Giants
> games? From the plummeting values of TV time during broadcasts
> of the Olympics? From the empty space on French mountain slopes
> in July?

Quoted message said:

> What sponsor has lost business because of an association with
> a doping scandal? Can you name one?

Quoted message said:

> Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

So is it money or not?  Why would ASO be so visibly anti-doping if
they didn't see a threat to their business?

I asked you a direct question. You avoided it. I'll ask it
again, what sponsor has lost business because of an association
with a doping scandal?

As to your question, ASO loses money if doping enforcement is
poorly managed. This is not the same thing as being anti-doping.
WADA cares nothing about collateral damage.

Are you going to answer my question?

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bob

I think it's been debated here that sponsors have left, but that none
have explicitly blamed doping (maybe telekom?). But would the current
ones be running anti-doping programs as vigorously as they are if it
weren't an issue? I doubt it. But then, you would argue that's only
about money too. I would agree with you that cycling authorities have
ignored doping until it threatened to become an economic issue. That's
just their myopic habit.

How would you define the congressional hearings? About money or
doping?

C - A bunch of self-inflated morons in congress who like to hear their own
voices and meddle in the lives of others.

Hobbes@spnb&s.com said:

The riders really need to get together, like now, or last year.

A decent intro to the theory of groups:

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-printing-appendix/dp/0674537513/