McQuaid's Last Stand ?

Looks like he's going for the ultimate bluff here
http://assets.rug.be/img_art/site/im...A31F72280A.pdf
!

So is the UCI going to suspend 160 races ? Nice try, but that means
the season is over then ! Ridiculous, everyone should just tell him to
get stuffed.

Also nice to see that the UCI is dragging their feet on a "hair doping
test"...what a surprise

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

The root of the problem is money, as usual...
Unlike the UCI, the promoters experience direct financial loss when
events and teams disappear as the result of sponsor remorse. ASO and
the other organizers don't perceive they get enough value from ceding
control to UCI structures, and they're determined to protect their
franchises.
The UCI has an unimaginative figurehead who brays in simple-minded
fashion about the rules; on the continent, they know the rules usually
exist for someone else's benefit.
The organizers don't have to call McQuaid's bluff. The crisis will
reveal the internal fault line of the UCI between the federations of
the traditional cycling nations, and the federations which depend on
sucking the IOC tit.

Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
Keith a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

Thanks for the easy target. You are wrong. Hope this helps.

I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
a well thought out plan.

Bob Schwartz

On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

You're wrong.

On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
a well thought out plan.

The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
Olympic sport.

On Mar 5, 2:03 pm, "Sandy" wrote:

Messy maquereaueconomic planning.

It's time for you to stop this with a "Fin."

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:33:53 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 5, 9:43 am, Keith wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the root of the problem here is
that ASO don't want Astana on board, right?

You're wrong.

Great, care to elaborate ? Obviously I was referring to what triggered
the CURRENT stand-off, so prove me wrong now.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mar 5, 2:03 pm, "Sandy" wrote:

Messy maquereaueconomic planning.

It's time for you to stop this with a "Fin."

Is he thinking of mackeraleconomics (to get that stuff going again)?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mar 5, 1:35*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
a well thought out plan.

The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
Olympic sport.

Abso****enlutely right.

On Mar 5, 10:24*pm, DA74 wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:35*pm, wrote:

On Mar 5, 1:15 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

I've heard that the root of the problem was the lack of
a well thought out plan.

The root of the problem is that cycling thought it should be an
Olympic sport.

Abso****enlutely right.

So what's wrong with cycling being an Olympic sport? It's the only
way many countires can get support for the sport. Look at the
struggle even cx gets in the US as a non-Olympic sport. And it did
give us a serious method to attack doping in WADA. You can't say the
traditional Euro-pro model did anything except tolerate, maybe even
encourage doping, the kind that cost those 30 young riders their heart
attacks.