Home
British Cycling president insists he wants open and transparent election, accuses McQuaid of "retrospective rule bending"...

Brian Cookson has said that a demand from his UCI presidential rival Pat McQuaid for British Cycling to cease a legal challenge to potential changes to the process for next month’s election smacks of desperation on the current UCI president’s part, and has accused him of seeking to engage in “restrospective rule bending.”

Cookson, currently president of British Cycling and the sole challenger to McQuaid, who has been UCI president since 2005, also insists he wants an open and transparent contest ahead of the elections, due to take place at the UCI World Congress in Florence on 27 September.

Last month, the UCI revealed that the Malaysian Cycling Federation had proposed a rule change to be voted on in Florence that would allow candidates for the UCI presidency to be nominated by any two national governing bodies.

McQuaid, whose nomination by Cycling Ireland had been blocked by a vote at an Emergency General Meeting, has been nominated for re-election by Swiss Cycling.

However, the endorsement of his candidacy by the national federation of the country the UCI is based in and in which he lives is subject to a legal challenge.

Controversially, when it announced that proposed rule change in late July, the UCI said that it would allow national governing bodies to make nominations until 30 August and they would be considered valid retrospectively if the amendments were adopted, even though the original deadline was 30 June.

It also announced that besides Swiss Cycling, McQuaid had also been nominated by the Thai and Moroccan federations, which many saw as an attempt by the UCI president to manipulate the electoral process in his favour.

Cookson himself said at the time: “What sort of organisation attempts to rewrite the rules once an election has actually begun – it smacks of attempted dictatorship.”

In a statement released this morning, McQuaid rejected claims by lawyers acting for British Cycling that his nominations from the Thai Cycling Association and the Féderation Royal Marocanine federations were made after the closing date.

There had been no hint that those nominations had been made – or were even possible, under existing rules – prior to 30 June.

“That is an outrageous suggestion,” said McQuaid. “Brian must immediately make a statement on whether he believes that to be true and if he believes otherwise he has duty to ensure that this allegation is publicly withdrawn.”

He went on: “As the President of British Cycling, Brian Cookson must explain his decision to allow his federation - that is funding his campaign - to behave in this way and to use its considerable financial clout to employ lawyers to challenge issues in the election.

“I do not fear an open election and I am not at all concerned by my ability to secure the support and votes that I require to be re-elected as UCI President.

“While it would appear that Brian has lost confidence in his own ability I continue to challenge him to allow the UCI Congress and its voting delegates to decide,” he concluded.

However, Cookson said that the concerns of British Cycling and others about what he termed “retrospective rule bending” and also

“Sadly today we have seen yet another attempt by the existing UCI President, Pat McQuaid, to denigrate the current presidential election process,” said Cookson.



"I want nothing more than an open and properly conducted democratic election and vote for the UCI presidency. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.



"It is also true that I, and many in our sport, have legitimate and growing concerns about the retrospective rule bending and attempted manipulation that is taking place at present.

“In my view it is therefore absolutely correct that British Cycling and others have raised concerns regarding proposed rule changes which have a direct impact on the election process now under way. These concerns need to be addressed.
  


He added: "Far from ducking these issues, for the good of cycling and the reputation of the UCI, it is critical that openness and transparency guide our procedures and not desperate manoeuvres and outbursts by Mr McQuaid.”

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

21 comments

Avatar
cat1commuter [1420 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Pat's right. It's outrageous that Brian is using his "considerable financial clout" to employ lawyers. Oh, hang on. Come to think of it I think Pat might have used lawyers in the past himself, or am I misremembering?

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1673 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I distinctly smell the whiff of bullshit Mr McQuaid.

Avatar
ct [158 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It just, sigh, it just beggars belief.

Even if McQ is 'in the right' the sooner he is out of cycling the sooner it can move on and clean its name [McQ is too closely linked to the shambles in the past]

Avatar
atlaz [180 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

ct - are you saying that McQuaid is right here?

Avatar
d_jp [126 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

So... when did things change?  39

Last time I remember, if someone said "from what I understand, it didn't happen on that date" the other person would simply show evidence that it did...

I don't ever recall someone being ridiculed for suggesting a difference... even more so when they didn't do it personally!!!

So, Pat, just show everyone the dates & prove them wrong... simple... isn't it?!?!?

Avatar
Sniffer [272 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
d_jp wrote:

So, Pat, just show everyone the dates & prove them wrong... simple... isn't it?!?!?

Well if you can backdate a prescription.....

Avatar
pwake [374 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm just surprised the proposed rule change wasn't to allow a nomination by an Honorary President and BFF....

Avatar
northstar [1108 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

And everyone is sleep walking into more nonsense it seems.

Avatar
skippy [408 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

jim burn , aka , phat the rat has farted once again ? Can't you smell the stench of corruption that he has created ?

IOC must be a crock of sh#t to allow a person , they banned from competition in the 1970s , to be not only on their Payroll , BUT , to be involved in London 2012 Olympic Medal Ceremonies !

Jacques Rogge was thought to be an OK guy , but ,with 2 of the candidates for his job , later this year being involved in scandals in their Home Countries , it appears that to be a Member of the IOC , it is necessary to be mired in controversy ? Can't think they are ALL Tall poppies that the Jealous are trying to pull down ?

Right now we are nearly 4 weeks past the END of the 100th Le Tour , and i have yet to see ANY RACER named as having a Sanction for ANY Doping Substance ! Surely , of the 200 or so RACERS , there must have been a FEW , who were greedy enough to want to spend the money to achieve the CAREER Boost that the TDF creates ?

ALL those that claimed they STOPPED Doping in 2006 , then got caught in subsequent years , CANNOT have decided that 2013 Le TOUR , was the ONLY Event , to NOT risk their luck ?

Avatar
fatty [77 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

27th Sept... I really hope that is the date we get to stop hearing Pat's diatribe. His words are a waste of pixels on my monitor... Go away quietly Pat - leave cycling alone.

Avatar
700c [851 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

As an aside, did you see how quickly Cookson completed the ride London 100? Well impressed! This alone would get my vote, if I could!

Avatar
jarderich [92 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

To quote the late Mike Reid, "oh Pat - what have you done".

Avatar
TeamCC [146 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Embarrassing, let's return to civility. End this once and for all and bring back the duel!

Avatar
Alan Tullett [1566 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Think I might join BC at last. Give them some extra money and support.

Avatar
ct [158 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

No, not me gov, more a general point about McQuaid, no matter what, good or bad, right or wrong, stinks the place up and gives the UCI a very slippery and untrustworthy rep.

Avatar
Pitstone Peddler [104 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I just want it over. Im amazed Pat cant see his time is up. That said, whats he going to do for the rest of his life, sad

Avatar
The Rumpo Kid [589 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It's emerged today that those nice people in Aigle helped the Asian Confederation and Malaysian Federation with the wording of the motions to change the UCI constitution.

Avatar
timothy [38 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't know why you lot think Mcquaid will be out, who will vote him out given the level of "vested interest" that goes on in the various cycle federations. Mcquaid knows he'll be voted back in as long has he can secure a nomination. Cookson will not get in and he will bring a ton s..t down on BC and UK riders for going up against him. We under estimate Mcquaid and the other vested interests at the UCI.
Should there be a miracle and Cookson gets the job, the vested interests that don't want him at the UCI headquarters will make his tenure impossible. A bit like the Tony Doyle situation and the BCF thing of a few years ago but worse.

Avatar
stewieatb [292 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
TeamCC wrote:

Embarrassing, let's return to civility. End this once and for all and bring back the duel!

Alternatively, could the battle for the Presidency be decided by a bike race? If so, I know who my money's on.

Avatar
notfastenough [3665 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
700c wrote:

As an aside, did you see how quickly Cookson completed the ride London 100? Well impressed! This alone would get my vote, if I could!

Do tell - how long?

timothy wrote:

I don't know why you lot think Mcquaid will be out, who will vote him out given the level of "vested interest" that goes on in the various cycle federations. Mcquaid knows he'll be voted back in as long has he can secure a nomination. Cookson will not get in and he will bring a ton s..t down on BC and UK riders for going up against him. We under estimate Mcquaid and the other vested interests at the UCI.
Should there be a miracle and Cookson gets the job, the vested interests that don't want him at the UCI headquarters will make his tenure impossible. A bit like the Tony Doyle situation and the BCF thing of a few years ago but worse.

I think this is a very real possibility - ultimately, the vote of a small federation is worth as much as a vote from a European nation where cycling is much more established, and one thing Pat has been doing is pushing into new countries.

Avatar
Paul J [863 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

FWIW, it's likely well within the remit of UCI administrative and legal staff to help members with proposals.

The problem isn't that the UCI Director-General or its counsel helped with the wording, but that none of the UCI executive committee (comprising the president and the 3 vice-presidents of the UCI) saw fit to inform the rest of the UCI management committee about these proposals. Even though the director-general reports to the president, and the letter from the director-general was Cc'ed to a vice-president.

The agenda for the congress has apparently been sent out to UCI member federations without the management committee having seen or approved it, according to at least one management committee member. This runs contrary to the UCI constitution. If this is the case, these proposals can not be voted on at this congress.

One would assume this could not have happened without the President having been aware of it.