# Why do people hate Pat McQuaid?



## TehYoyo (Sep 16, 2012)

Just wondering, but why do people hate Pat McQuaid?

I'm sure this will turn into one huge rant, but try to stay civil - if this is too controversial/inflammatory, close it, please.

Note: I'm not defending him. I'm just wondering, as I'm new.


----------



## Crab Balls (Dec 23, 2012)

Who the Fvck is he? Never heard of him.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I dont follow the UCI and all that hooplah too closely but I think he is at the point of some really stupid ****.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

It's generally believed that he has long been complicit in covering up performance enhancing drug use in the pro peloton and is just generally an ass[email protected]


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ibtm!


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

neva heard of him. NEXT!!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

He's a liar. He's a BS artist. And he's hellbent on turning cycling into a sideshow.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

Both as current president of the UCI, and as right-hand man of the previous president, he has presided over the longest-running, most intensive, and most-widespread era of doping in sports history, with an Alfred E. Neumann "What, me worry?" attitude.


----------



## TehYoyo (Sep 16, 2012)

So his problem is he's oblivious?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

TehYoyo said:


> So his problem is he's oblivious?


Yes, it's his fault that athletes are willing to cheat. He's despised because MAMILs are angry.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> He's a liar. He's a BS artist. And he's hellbent on turning cycling into _*his own personal cash-cow*_.


FIFY.


BTW; I agree, and agree as well.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

brucew said:


> Both as current president of the UCI, and as right-hand man of the previous president, he has presided over the longest-running, most intensive, and most-widespread era of doping in sports history, with an Alfred E. Neumann "What, me worry?" attitude.


And the Claude Rains act when it started coming to light.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

TehYoyo said:


> Just wondering, but why do people hate Pat McQuaid?
> 
> I'm sure this will turn into one huge rant, but try to stay civil - if this is too controversial/inflammatory, close it, please.
> 
> Note: I'm not defending him. I'm just wondering, as I'm new.


More to the point, why isn't this in the Pro Cycling/Race forum? 

Oh, and he's an aho (and that's not his Finnish last name).


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Yes, it's his fault that athletes are willing to cheat. He's despised because MAMILs are angry.


I've PM'd Thien to please allow me to rep you more frequently.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Thread needs a caption contest: GO


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

TehYoyo said:


> So his problem is he's oblivious?


Oh, far from it. Hence, the problem.


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

This may be a lame answer, but here goes nothing. I don't know McQuaid to hate him, but as a big fan of LeMond, if he says McQuaid is corrupt, then he is in my eyes he is corrupt until proven otherwise. I think LeMond could do a better job because he truly loves the sport and is not gunning for power and money. The UCI has taken a big reputation hit with McQuaid's handling of the Armstrong fiasco and you know something is very wrong when WADA is upset about it as well.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> Oh, and [McQuaid's] an aho (and that's not his Finnish last name).


"You must spread some more Reputation around before giving it to Kerry Irons again." :thumbsup:


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> Thread needs a caption contest: GO


Ho about dis? Adaptable to any of the moreonic asshat bike spec decisions of the UCI of late.













SystemShock said:


> "You must spread some more Reputation around before giving it to Kerry Irons again." :thumbsup:


Handled


----------



## Andydetrw (Oct 1, 2012)

It's because he's Irish.....I hate them so much!!!


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

Andydetrw said:


> It's because he's Irish.....I hate them so much!!!


Heck, even the Irish hate him!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> Thread needs a caption contest: GO


Man, I wish I had this in the '86 TdF.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Why all the hate for fat people?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Why all the hate for fat people?


They hog up all the pizza and beer?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't hate him, but I like him a lot less than I like Lance, and I don't like Lance an awful lot. I'd be much happier if McPaid were pulling pints in Dublin instead of pulling the wool over people's eyes in Aigle.

Mind you, he has a long pedigree as a f*ck up artist. He went to South Africa during the apartheid years under an alias, and rode in a few races there as prep for the Montreal Olympics in '76. He did this in defiance of the Irish Cycling Federation, hoping no-one would notice. He was denied a place in the Irish Olympic squad for his troubles, the dumb ****. So don't count on Pat to be anything other than an unprincipled, self-serving hypocrite who puts the interests of the sport way behind his own. Maybe I _do_ hate him...


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

Didn't we do this already? It is not thread-dredge Thursday.

https://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/friday-caption-contest-293422.html

I'll go with my original: "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".











Creakyknees said:


> Thread needs a caption contest: GO


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

sir duke said:


> I don't hate him, but I like him a lot less than I like Lance, and I don't like Lance an awful lot. I'd be much happier if McPaid were pulling pints in Dublin instead of pulling the wool over people's eyes in Aigle.
> 
> Mind you, he has a long pedigree as a f*ck up artist. He went to South Africa during the apartheid years under an alias, and rode in a few races there as prep for the Montreal Olympics in '76. He did this in defiance of the Irish Cycling Federation, hoping no-one would notice. He was denied a place in the Irish Olympic squad for his troubles, the dumb ****. So don't count on Pat to be anything other than an unprincipled, self-serving hypocrite who puts the interests of the sport way behind his own. Maybe I _do_ hate him...


that's really unfair. If there had been no boycott of SA he would not have violated any rules. see it's not really his fault he breaks rules made by others. Similarly, if no one offered "donations" he would not have been in any trouble accepting them.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

den bakker said:


> that's really unfair. If there had been no boycott of SA he would not have violated any rules. see it's not really his fault he breaks rules made by others. Similarly, if no one offered "donations" he would not have been in any trouble accepting them.


You're right of course. Rules are just there to stop us having fun, and maybe getting rich at someone else's expense. But Pat isn't really a 'rules person', is he? Well maybe just making them for others, and enforcing them (unless the price is right). He was also a maths teacher. Ah hates maths teachers..


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

McQuaide calling on LA to help clean up the sport?
I don't know how more of this I can stand. I am beyond agitated,
I'm incensed. When will this outrage cease?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yes, it's his fault that athletes are willing to cheat.


Of course it is, he _wanted_ them to cheat. Like his mentor Hein. Faster speeds, more exciting racing, the clean 'golden boy' who got off his deathbed to rescue pro racing after the embarrassment of the Festina Affair. (BTW you do know that Bassons's teammates plainly stated that he was the only clean member on that team?). Pat wants them to _cheat_, but he doesn't want them to get _caught_. That makes for all kinds of mess and awkward questions.


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

I don't hate him>


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

phoehn9111 said:


> McQuaide calling on LA to help clean up the sport?
> I don't know how more of this I can stand. I am beyond agitated,
> I'm incensed. When will this outrage cease?


Calling on Lance to clean up the sport is like wiping your but with poop.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Calling on Lance to clean up the sport is like wiping your but with poop.


I _was _ kinda enjoying this turkey sammich. Now, not so hungry.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Lance fires back to McQuaid. Should a lot of riders be nervous?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Calling on Lance to clean up the sport is like wiping your butt with poop.


Sums it up.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Calling on Lance to clean up the sport is like wiping your but with poop.


Well, not really. Think about it. Who knows more intimately than Lance how the system works (or doesn't)? The guy spent his entire pro career, subverting and later working with the UCI to cheat the sport. He knows the best ways to dope, the best doping products, the dopers timetable, the dopers mentality. He knows how the drugs are concealed and transported. He knows which sponsors are complicit. He probably knows every dirty DS in the game.
If, and it's a huge 'if', if he is sincere about repentance and his own redemption, he might possibly be able to get rid of an awful lot of poop, or at least do something about the rotten smell. He owes it to us to at least pull the plug on McPaid and his puppet-master Hein.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Lance fires back to McQuaid. Should a lot of riders be nervous?


Nope. Lance isn't going to throw away millions of Greenbacks by gift wrapping court cases for SCA, the Times, maybe even USPS. 

McQuaids posturing. Armstrongs posturing. Neither will ever change their spots.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

sir duke said:


> Well, not really. Think about it. Who knows more intimately than Lance how the system works (or doesn't)? The guy spent his entire pro career, subverting and later working with the UCI to cheat the sport. He knows the best ways to dope, the best doping products, the dopers timetable, the dopers mentality. He knows how the drugs are concealed and transported. He knows which sponsors are complicit. He probably knows every dirty DS in the game.
> If, and it's a huge 'if', if he is sincere about repentance and his own redemption, he might possibly be able to get rid of an awful lot of poop, or at least do something about the rotten smell. He owes it to us to at least pull the plug on McPaid and his puppet-master Hein.


The problem is, to quote Tony Soprano, "With us made guys, the hustle never stops."

Lance very likely isn't sincere, and is only hoping to rehabilitate his own image. 

He wasn't even sincere or fully truthful in the Oprah interview, for christ's sake. So is it possible that he'd continue to 'triangulate', even as part of some 'deal'? Well, yes.

Lance will only do what's best for Lance, and I'm not sure you can trust him to give the full 'straight dope' (LOL) on all the ins and outs of doping. 

There are probably other, slightly more trustworthy characters who could do so, and at less than the cost of giving the biggest, most obvious example of doping in the sport's memory something of a partial free pass.

My feelings on this might change if he could, for certain, take down the top complicit UCI fat-cats, as you speculate. 

That would be a good time. :thumbsup:


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

I see a symbiotic relationship vis a vis McQuaide and LA, and at this late stage it is
more nefarious than ever. Both would benefit by the "dilution" of the doping blame onto
a vast plethora of other riders (LA) and cycling infrastructure (McQuaide). Surrepticious
and clandestine. Which is not perse to say that this would be inequitable. But I tread
in dangerous territory, particulary on this forum.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> The problem is, to quote Tony Soprano, "With us made guys, the hustle never stops."
> 
> Lance very likely isn't sincere, and is only hoping to rehabilitate his own image.
> 
> ...



Hence the HUGE 'if'. I share your views on his sincerity and have said as much many times on this forum (maybe too often for the few lingering chamois sniffers who can't accept the show's over). Lance is an operator _par excellence_, a master of the soundbite, and to be honest there isn't a cat in hell's chance that he'll do anything about the sport if it will cost him a dime or a minute in court. Oprah was a PR shambles that created more heat than light. 
As Bluenote said he and McPaid are making noises to burnish their image and put the blame elsewhere. I think it will be hard for Lance to square the circle and bring down the UCI without putting his own liberty in jeopardy. He knows it, McQuaid knows it. For that reason I imagine things will remain as they are in the short term. I'm very interested to see what the fallout will be from Bruyneel's arbitration, if it ever happens, something I'm starting to doubt.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Calling on Lance to clean up the sport is like wiping your but with poop.


It's an interesting situation. LA probably knows more than anyone and could potentially provide the largest benefit to a T&R process, but it goes without saying that the man is hardly trustworthy.

I do think some of the vilification of Armstrong is a bit over the top. The man is a snake and a liar, but he's hardly the only doper in cycling. He's a symptom (a very grave symptom), not the disease. His calls for a T&R process do have some validity, regardless of the fact that it's Lance calling for them. I think Lance's motivation in calling for T&R is likely that he knows a lot about other competitors' doping and wants to drag them down with him. This is selfish, but arguably appropriate as a means to an end. There are plenty of skeletons remaining in cycling's closet that need to be dragged into the light. Vilifying Armstrong uniquely isn't going to solve the problem. 

I think a sizable portion of hugely negative reaction that non-cycling fans have to Armstrong is driven by ignorance of cycling's doping history and the context of the contemporaneous doping culture. His story is only part of a much larger history of lies, cheating and officials turning a blind eye. The UCI loves Lance being hung out to dry, but you could argue that he's also being used as a (guilty) scapegoat for the problems of the entire sport. Maybe T&R isn't a bad idea. It's never going to happen, but it might make sense.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Well, not really. Think about it. Who knows more intimately than Lance how the system works (or doesn't)? The guy spent his entire pro career, subverting and later working with the UCI to cheat the sport. He knows the best ways to dope, the best doping products, the dopers timetable, the dopers mentality. He knows how the drugs are concealed and transported. He knows which sponsors are complicit. He probably knows every dirty DS in the game.
> If, and it's a huge 'if', if he is sincere about repentance and his own redemption, he might possibly be able to get rid of an awful lot of poop, or at least do something about the rotten smell. He owes it to us to at least pull the plug on McPaid and his puppet-master Hein.


Lance is a snake. If you leave snakes alone, they leave you alone. 

Other than exposing everyone he raced with/against, I don't think he'd accomplish anything than exposing that 99% of the peloton was doped to the gills, perhaps try to get other riders stripped of their titles since he was. Future of cycling? I don't think he cares any more.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Lance is a snake. If you leave snakes alone, they leave you alone.
> 
> Other than exposing everyone he raced with/against, I don't think he'd accomplish anything than exposing that 99% of the peloton was doped to the gills, perhaps try to get other riders stripped of their titles since he was. Future of cycling? I don't think he cares any more.


I wouldn't say Lance exposed the peloton. 

That'd be like saying Ted Bundy exposed that serial killers were are real scary problem.

The informants who called in tips and the LEOs who caught Bundy exposed the problem. 

If anything, Lance helped conceal the truth for longer. What with his donations, sophisticated program to cheat the tests, army of lawyers, "500 clean tests" and the like.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> I wouldn't say Lance exposed the peloton.


Not yet. :ihih:


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Lance is a snake. If you leave snakes alone, they leave you alone.
> 
> Other than exposing everyone he raced with/against, I don't think he'd accomplish anything than exposing that 99% of the peloton was doped to the gills, perhaps try to get other riders stripped of their titles since he was. Future of cycling? I don't think he cares any more.


Snakes aren't fraudulent liars who 'lawyer up' to protect their fake reputations and income streams. If USADA had left Lance alone, would that have been good for cycling?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.irishpeloton.com/The_Pat_McQuaid_File.pdf

Here is a good review of why Pat sucks


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

What good came from going after Armstrong?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What good came from going after Armstrong?


Ferrari, Marti, Bruyneel, del Moral, and Ceyla are permanently out of the sport. 

It also sends a clear message that no rider is above the rules and that eventually it will all come out. The risk of public exposure is great deterrent.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ferrari, Marti, Bruyneel, del Moral, and Ceyla are permanently out of the sport.
> 
> It also sends a clear message that no rider is above the rules and that eventually it will all come out. The risk of public exposure is great deterrent.


Ymssra


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What good came from going after Armstrong?


The fact that you even have to ask that truly baffles me :eek6: .


Especially after what was uncovered last October, and _since_!

No. I'll chalk your question up as one of asking in a sarcastic manner. For the sake of humor more than anything else.

Because there's no way a person following pro cycle racing could ask that question with a straight face and be serious. Really.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> The fact that you even have to ask that truly baffles me :eek6: .


I might get where he's coming from. 

Has busting Armstrong curbed doping?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

How can one answer "look at all that has come out!" when so many claim to have known all along? I understand that people hate Armstrong and like that he's getting his just deserts. But let's not pretend that going after a retired rider cured cycling's doping problem merely by exposing a few cheats, crooked drs, and directors. Getting Fat Pat is good. 

But the real solution has to be better testing.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> And the Claude Rains act when it started coming to light.



View attachment 281883


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> How can one answer "look at all that has come out!" when so many claim to have known all along? I understand that people hate Armstrong and like that he's getting his just deserts. But let's not pretend that going after a retired rider cured cycling's doping problem merely by exposing a few cheats, crooked drs, and directors. Getting Fat Pat is good.
> 
> But the real solution has to be better testing.


I'm fine with replacing Fat Pat, but I don't hold high hopes that's another good 'ol boy. 

Testing is good. We can bust them about a month later, after they've made major impact on a grand tour.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A month later is better than not at all. On that note, getting Armstrong after retirement is better than not at all. So I partially retract me "What good is it to get Armstrong?" question. I guess any progress is better than none. 

You were right in your interpretation. It wasn't to say that nothing good came from catching Armstrong, it was to say that the problem is far from solved. We hear "he's on some new s***" and talk of gene doping! -- at least that's what I read on here every time I log in.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Has busting Armstrong curbed doping?


After what happened to Bruyneel and lance do you think teams are willing to take the risk of a team run program like USPS had?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> After what happened to Bruyneel and lance do you think teams are willing to take the risk of a team run program like USPS had?


Yes. Next question?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> After what happened in 1998 do you think teams are willing to take the risk of a team run program like Festina had?


Fixed!


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> After what happened to Bruyneel and lance do you think teams are willing to take the risk of a team run program like USPS had?


Possibly.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/santambrogio-positive-epo-306316.html


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Last I checked Bruyneel is not in prison and more money than me. He has come out ahead. Can we assume that his success is due--at least in part--to doping practices? 


So when Dramatic Falsetti says, "After what happened to Bruyneel..." -- What exactly happened to Bruyneel?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> How can one answer "look at all that has come out!" when so many claim to have known all along? I understand that people hate Armstrong and like that he's getting his just deserts. But let's not pretend that going after a retired rider cured cycling's doping problem merely by exposing a few cheats, crooked drs, and directors. Getting Fat Pat is good.
> 
> But the real solution has to be better testing.


You are right. It was (is) a well know fact that doping was the norm in cycling both before & after Lance & Ferrari. I don't feel it's up to a retired cheat to clean up the sport, but up to those who administer it and it starts with catching cheaters quickly and getting rid of them for good, in other words better testing and more severe consequences.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Testing is good. We can bust them about a month later, after they've made major impact on a grand tour.


Awww, now there's a plan. Don't publicize who has doped until after the race is over so you can still have an "exciting" race to reel the fans into watching and still look as if you are trying to keep the sport clean.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I honestly believe they should collect more urine samples. Just as labs look for changes in hemolytic values in the (blood) biological passport, labs can look for certain metabolites in urine. Weekly collection of urine from all riders will act as a huge deterrent, especially if some samples are frozen for possible future testing, as the precision and accuracy of tests invariably improves with time. 

Labs can keep a large bank of tests and randomly test samples and test the samples from suspect riders. At the end of the season, save money and throw away most of the samples from domestiques and middling riders. Samples from the winners can be stored for years. 

In my opinion, fear of getting caught will be the greatest deterrent. Having to pee in a cup every week without knowing how or when the urine will be test is going to scare the bejesus out of dopers.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

T


Local Hero said:


> I honestly believe they should collect more urine samples. Just as labs look for changes in hemolytic values in the (blood) biological passport, labs can look for certain metabolites in urine. Weekly collection of urine from all riders will act as a huge deterrent, especially if some samples are frozen for possible future testing, as the precision and accuracy of tests invariably improves with time.
> 
> Labs can keep a large bank of tests and randomly test samples and test the samples from suspect riders. At the end of the season, save money and throw away most of the samples from domestiques and middling riders. Samples from the winners can be stored for years.
> 
> In my opinion, fear of getting caught will be the greatest deterrent. Having to pee in a cup every week without knowing how or when the urine will be test is going to scare the bejesus out of dopers.


Governing bodies who accept "donations" from riders with "suspicious test results" , Governing bodies that cancel Independent Commisions into how they could fail to catch rampant doping for a decade and Governing bodies that repeatedly say 'there is nothing to see here' - _aren't interested in catching or detecting dopers._

Tests are useless if enforcement is incompetent or corrupt.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Tests are useless if enforcement is incompetent or corrupt.


Right, my post was written under the assumption that evidence would be properly handled by independent labs. I also assume there will be no backroom deals, no wizzinators and no chaperons willing to pee in the cup for riders. 

That's two things: 1) Good tests 2) No corruption


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Possibly.
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/santambrogio-positive-epo-306316.html



I just read this:



> According to _La Gazzetta dello Sport,_ the UCI is about to announce a Russian cyclist tested positive for doping at the Giro.



Bad times: Italy reeling from Santambrogio, Di Luca doping cases


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Last I checked Bruyneel is not in prison and more money than me. He has come out ahead. Can we assume that his success is due--at least in part--to doping practices?
> 
> 
> So when Dramatic Falsetti says, "After what happened to Bruyneel..." -- What exactly happened to Bruyneel?


He was fired and is owned a ton of money by Becca. He will never work in the sport again. He is seen by his peers as a rambling crazy man. 

You may think that living the rest of your life as a joke is OK. Most would not agree


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Fat Pat is just that....fat. He does not represent the ideal body type for a governing position. 2lbs per inch tall. None of this would have happened had he been 2lbs per inch tall.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Isn't Bruyneel a multimillionaire?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> Isn't Bruyneel a multimillionaire?


do you have some numbers?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't know for sure. I assumed that he was making close to a million a year. But according to the following court documents it may have been closer to $500,000/year between 2000 and 2004 
http://media.outsideonline.com/documents/Complaint+-+Intervention+-+Final.pdf

_Tailwind paid Bruyneel at least $1,700,000 in salary and bonuses between 2000 and 2004, and also paid at least $1,000,000 to Cycling Services Corporation, a company owned and controlled by Bruyneel._

How much did he make with Astana and Radioshack/Nissan/Trek? I don't know for certain but we can assume that it was close to what he made from 2000-2004. Bruyneel also wrote a book and served as a director on multiple boards. I have no idea if he invested wisely and owns property but I would not be surprised. 

For over ten consecutive years Bruyneel earned more than 99% of people in the USA. He has done quite well financially for a retired cyclist. In other words, Dramatic Falsetti is being...dramatic.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I don't know for sure. I assumed that he was making close to a million a year. But according to the following court documents it may have been closer to $500,000/year between 2000 and 2004
> http://media.outsideonline.com/documents/Complaint+-+Intervention+-+Final.pdf
> 
> _Tailwind paid Bruyneel at least $1,700,000 in salary and bonuses between 2000 and 2004, and also paid at least $1,000,000 to Cycling Services Corporation, a company owned and controlled by Bruyneel._
> ...


Dramatic? 

You are assuming that money is the only measure of a person and that you know his burn rate. The Hog lived big. Eva is high maintenance. 

Again, you are assuming having a few dollars left makes up for the fact the guy is a joke in his chosen profession


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

You assume that there is nothing more to life than cycling. 

Look at it this way, Bruyneel probably took drugs when he was a cyclist. And if the guy didn't dope he probably would have never been a pro cyclist. After his transition to director his teams may not have won without dope. The man would have been nothing in life without doping -- like many in cycling, he owes it all to doping. 

Now doping took it all away. Or did it? Now that his reputation is ruined in the cycling bubble, he is left with nothing...NOTHING except that he made $500,000+/year for more than a decade, he has a trophy wife, healthy children, a place to live with luxury vehicles in the garage....the man's life is in shambles!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> I don't know for sure. I assumed that he was making close to a million a year. But according to the following court documents it may have been closer to $500,000/year between 2000 and 2004
> http://media.outsideonline.com/documents/Complaint+-+Intervention+-+Final.pdf
> 
> _Tailwind paid Bruyneel at least $1,700,000 in salary and bonuses between 2000 and 2004, and also paid at least $1,000,000 to Cycling Services Corporation, a company owned and controlled by Bruyneel._
> ...


I fail to see what any of this has to do with what he has now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> the man's life is in shambles!



I am glad we agree, his life is in shambles. 

Trophy Wife.....:yikes:


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> I might get where he's coming from.
> 
> Has busting Armstrong curbed doping?



Does busting criminals stop crime? It's not as simple as that is it? USADA didn't just go after Lance because it was the right thing to do (though it was), it was their duty. Plenty of people moaned that it was wasting taxpayer money. I suppose they would be happier if Tygart sat on his arse and did nothing. Your premise chimes well with the attitudes of the UCI: 'why bother go after Lance, it won't change anything so we might as well all just get rich'. That's the kind of defeatism that prolongs the status quo.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Your premise chimes well with the attitudes of the UCI: 'why bother go after Lance, it won't change anything so we might as well all just get rich'. That's the kind of defeatism that prolongues the status quo.


That's not my attitude at all. The lesson of the Lance saga is that it's ok to dope, as long as you're not mean. 

I've been around the block once or twice. While we rake Lance over the coals (and a few MAMILs take extreme pleasure), we're not going after Big Mig, nor will we. So, people will continue to dope, but they'll be _nice_ about it.

This is usually the part where you bring up Bassons as the hero of the era, no?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> That's not my attitude at all. The lesson of the Lance saga is that it's ok to dope, as long as you're not mean.
> 
> I've been around the block once or twice. While we rake Lance over the coals (and a few MAMILs take extreme pleasure), we're not going after Big Mig, nor will we. So, people will continue to dope, but they'll be _nice_ about it.
> 
> This is usually the part where you bring up Bassons as the hero of the era, no?


So I am to infer your 'everybody dopes, catching dopers won't change that' to mean only bad guys? Neat sidestep.
If you recall YOU brought up Bassons, and incorrectly inferred he doped for Festina. Check your facts.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> So I am to infer your 'everybody dopes, catching dopers won't change that' to mean only bad guys? Neat sidestep.
> If you recall YOU brought up Bassons, and incorrectly inferred he doped for Festina. Check your facts.


.and you keep insisting he was clean and the patriarch of antidoping during that era. Perhaps we should nominate him for sainthood? After all, Sir Wiggo hath been knighted. 

Are you Bassons or something? I don't think I'd stake my reputation or pay check on any riders of that era being clean. After all, how many riders have even written books that the were clean, only to fess up to HYDROCORTISONE. (lame)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

George3cha said:


> I'm sure this will turn into one huge rant, but try to stay civil - if this is too controversial/inflammatory, close it, please.


You must be new here.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> That's not my attitude at all. The lesson of the Lance saga is that it's ok to dope, as long as you're not mean.
> 
> I've been around the block once or twice. While we rake Lance over the coals (and a few MAMILs take extreme pleasure), we're not going after Big Mig, nor will we. So, people will continue to dope, but they'll be _nice_ about it.
> 
> This is usually the part where you bring up Bassons as the hero of the era, no?


That may be the lesson you derived from it but don't expect others to share this view. 

There are many lessons to be learned. One of the key elements is the case proved the importance of WADA. While is it nice to deflect and point at Indurain we all know he never signed the WADA code. There is no path to pursue a sanction on Mig, none. 

Lance was sanctioned fairly as there is finally in place a system that addresses the issue of doping in the sport instead of trying to pretend it does not exist.....like the UCI did for decades. Most can see the significant change that the WADA code has brought to the sport in the last 7 years.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> .and you keep insisting he was clean and the patriarch of antidoping during that era. Perhaps we should nominate him for sainthood? After all, Sir Wiggo hath been knighted.
> 
> Are you Bassons or something? I don't think I'd stake my reputation or pay check on any riders of that era being clean. After all, how many riders have even written books that the were clean, only to fess up to HYDROCORTISONE. (lame)


Au contraire (pardon my being 'Continental' and all that), but YOU were the one who insinuated that Bassons, because he was riding for Festina, was also dirty. If you want to throw your weight around on a doping forum at least avail yourself of some of it's (proven) history. Walsh is on record describing his meetings with Bassons and the events surrounding his ostracization from the peloton because of his anti-doping stance. He'd hardly risk his reputation as a journalist and drag his paper into litigation with Armstrong if he had suspicions that Bassons was bullsh!tting him. Who told who to f*ck off and leave the peloton, Armstrong or Bassons? 
How many times do I have to say it? I'm not here to defend Wiggo. I thought we'd cleared that up. Try to remember what you say in your previous posts, it would help your consistency and also your credibility.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about playing "gotcha" with other posters than it is about discussing doping


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

Maybe, just maybe, the McQuaid era is about to end. Cycling Ireland voted against nominating him for UCI President. Now the court case in Switzerland may be the final nail.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about writing nonsense to bait other posters than it is about discussing doping


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about writing nonsense to bait other posters than it is about discussing doping


Agree.


That and butthurt sarcasm.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

doctor falsetti said:


> sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about writing nonsense to bait other posters than it is about discussing doping


somewhere a snake is eating its tail


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> .and you keep insisting he was clean and the patriarch of antidoping during that era. Perhaps we should nominate him for sainthood? After all, Sir Wiggo hath been knighted.
> 
> Are you Bassons or something? I don't think I'd stake my reputation or pay check on any riders of that era being clean. After all, how many riders have even written books that the were clean, only to fess up to HYDROCORTISONE. (lame)


I'll try again with a response (since my last reply 'mysteriously' disappeared.)

Spade, do a little reading, do a little thinking. I don't have to stake my reputation on Bassons being clean. There is documentary evidence. Half the freaking Festina team are on record attesting to the fact that he was clean. Walsh interviewed him at length he did his homewwork on the guy. Lance told him to f*ck off out of the peloton because of his comments in the French press during the 1999 Tour. That's hardly something that would happen if he was playing along with the dopers and the omerta. Live in blissful ignorance if you want mate, but when you insist on doubting someone like Bassons despite what is on record, then it really is purchasing a season ticket to Stoopidsville. It's getting tiresome trying to educate you on things you really should already know. I'll put you on ignore until you come to your senses.


Edit: Apologies to moderator, it seems my earlier post did not 'disappear', it just wasn't readable from my iPad.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about playing "gotcha" with other posters than it is about discussing doping


New news, just like every other forum on the interwebs, oh and ..gotcha! Seriously though, things have been quite gentlemanly round here of late, and that's a good thing.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> But the real solution has to be better testing.


Better testing is useless/pointless if the process is controlled and administered by the UCI. Kind of the reason why this thread exists, because McPaid still calls the shots in this respect.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> sometimes it seems like this subforum is more about playing "gotcha" with other posters than it is about discussing doping


There is nobody in this forum or PO who can deny doing this most of the time.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> I'll try again with a response (since my last reply 'mysteriously' disappeared.)
> 
> Spade, do a little reading, do a little thinking. I don't have to stake my reputation on Bassons being clean. There is documentary evidence. Half the freaking Festina team are on record attesting to the fact that he was clean. Walsh interviewed him at length he did his homewwork on the guy. Lance told him to f*ck off out of the peloton because of his comments in the French press during the 1999 Tour. That's hardly something that would happen if he was playing along with the dopers and the omerta. Live in blissful ignorance if you want mate, but when you insist on doubting someone like Bassons despite what is on record, then it really is purchasing a season ticket to Stoopidsville. It's getting tiresome trying to educate you on things you really should already know. I'll put you on ignore until you come to your senses.
> 
> ...


I don't care if other Festina riders said he was the only clean one. Many of them had previously lied that they hadn't doped. With 95% of the peloton likely doping, yes, I lump him into that.

Also, if he and Simeoni and Bassons didn't have words with Armstrong, would they even be footnotes on wikipedia? It seems that their careers were built on their feuds with 'ol Lance.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I don't care if other Festina riders said he was the only clean one. Many of them had previously lied that they hadn't doped. With 95% of the peloton likely doping, yes, I lump him into that.
> 
> Also, if he and Simeoni and Bassons didn't have words with Armstrong, would they even be footnotes on wikipedia? It seems that their careers were built on their feuds with 'ol Lance.


You can't eat being a Wikipedia item. 

Back before 'clean teams' became vogue, breaking omertà seemed to make riders nuclear. Tell the truth and struggle to find a contract. 

It's easy to pick on Bassons, etc... But, honestly? I don't think I could ever finish the TDF, even without time cuts and all. Maybe those guys weren't stars, but they still were pretty amazing athletes. 

I don't know for sure who was clean and who was dirty, but I do know it took guts to talk about what was really going on.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> You can't eat being a Wikipedia item.
> 
> Back before 'clean teams' became vogue, breaking omertà seemed to make riders nuclear. Tell the truth and struggle to find a contract.
> 
> ...


I doubt many of us could make the time cuts after more than a stage or two. Still, even the Lanterne Rouge has been accused of doping from time to time. 

Bassons may have been part of the 5% that were clean, but he had surely seen some rampant doping while he was still racing. No indication he was able to stop his team mates from doping or that he was reporting it prior to the incident.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> No indication he was able to stop his team mates from doping or that he was reporting it prior to the incident.


Look, we understand. You are new the sport. How are you supposed to know that the reason Bassons was attacked, smeared, and harassed was because he wrote a daily column in Le Parisien where he talked about how doping was a huge problem in the sport.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Look, we understand. You are new the sport. How are you supposed to know that the reason Bassons was attacked, smeared, and harassed was because he wrote a daily column in Le Parisien where he talked about how doping was a huge problem in the sport.


Feel free to show us pre-Festina Affair articles of Bassons discussing the rampant doping that was going on with *his* team. LOL, actually I'd be open to seeing articles of riders talking about doping that was currently going on with their team.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Feel free to show us pre-Festina Affair articles of Bassons discussing the rampant doping that was going on with *his* team. LOL, actually I'd be open to seeing articles of riders talking about doping that was currently going on with their team.


It is funny how fast you change the definition of "The Incident". What happened to this?



spade2you said:


> if he and Simeoni and Bassons didn't have words with Armstrong, would they even be footnotes on wikipedia? It seems that their careers were built on their feuds with 'ol Lance.


Given your limited understanding of the sport it is understandable that you would think that a Neo-Pro, even one as prodigiously talented as Bassons, could speak up about the inside workings of his team. Most people know that Bassons spoke up loudly after many spewed the nonsense of the "Tour of Renewal" He knew the truth and he told it. What happened? Armstrong and his buddies harassed and smeared him and his teammates refused to pay him his share of the winnings that year.....it all sounds so easy from a desk


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is funny how fast you change the definition of "The Incident". What happened to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Given your limited understanding of the sport it is understandable that you would think that a Neo-Pro, even one as prodigiously talented as Bassons, could speak up about the inside workings of his team. Most people know that Bassons spoke up loudly after many spewed the nonsense of the "Tour of Renewal" He knew the truth and he told it. What happened? Armstrong and his buddies harassed and smeared him and his teammates refused to pay him his share of the winnings that year.....it all sounds so easy from a desk


Really, it's not that funny. Riders not reporting doping, including the doping on their own team are condoning the problem. I honestly wouldn't think you'd be defending him had he not clashed with Armstrong. Really there's little reason to defend riders of that era. 

So where are the articles showing that he came clean about his team prior to the Festina Affiar?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

K


spade2you said:


> I doubt many of us could make the time cuts after more than a stage or two. Still, even the Lanterne Rouge has been accused of doping from time to time.
> 
> Bassons may have been part of the 5% that were clean, but he had surely seen some rampant doping while he was still racing. No indication he was able to stop his team mates from doping or that he was reporting it prior to the incident.


It's an interesting take on things and very "Lance-narcissistic". Lance was the center of the universe and people who were talking about it were just doing it in some big, bad plot to bring Lance down. 

My personal opinion is that cycling was (and probably still is) like the rest of humanity. There were probably a few very principled and idealistic sorts. There were likely a lot of practical types, who saw doping as a necessary evil and had no desire to rock the boat. And there were some horrible types who knew how bad doping could be for you, but pushed others to dope (I'm mostly thinking Doctors and manager types here). 

I guess what I'm saying is I think most people were (and are) fueled by their own inherent nature, not just by some vendetta against Lance. 

I think some spoke up because they held principles about doping. I think many staid silent while it was practical and spoke up when it became vogue (or they were forced to) and I think a few don't care and never will care who gets hurt racing. 

You and I agree to disagree on how we see human nature and I doubt either will change our views.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Really, it's not that funny. Riders not reporting doping, including the doping on their own team are condoning the problem. I honestly wouldn't think you'd be defending him had he not clashed with Armstrong. Really there's little reason to defend riders of that era.
> 
> So where are the articles showing that he came clean about his team prior to the Festina Affiar?


Ahhh yes, It is not lance's fault, or Pat, Hein, Johan.....Nope, It is all Bassons fault. 

:idea:

You are welcome to pretend that Basson's coming out a year earlier would have changed things, but we all know it would not. 

It did not change when Gilles Delion talked about watching riders take injections of EPO and that "you couldn't be among the world's best 50 riders if you didn't take EPO" A guy who won Lombardy was pushed out of the sport

It did not change when Nicolas Aubier told l'Equipe


> ``Frankly, I can't imagine a rider belonging to the top 100 and not taking EPO, growth hormones or another product,''


It did not change when Van Hooydonk, a guy who won Flanders twice before he was 25, retired because he would not use EPO

It did not change when Thomas Davy talked about organized doping at Banesto

It did not change when Simeoni told the truth about Ferrari, he was harassed, spit on, 

You are welcome to pretend it is Bassons fault, but we both know it is not


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm not saying that it was all Bassons' fault, but he didn't make himself part of the solution until later. The fact that his team mates said he was clean didn't do much for me considering that some of them initially denied doping. Hell, most of us would have trouble turning in our friends and team mates.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> K
> 
> It's an interesting take on things and very "Lance-narcissistic". Lance was the center of the universe and people who were talking about it were just doing it in some big, bad plot to bring Lance down.
> 
> ...


College and a few old bosses taught me a thing or two about integrity, mostly about a lack thereof.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> College and a few old bosses taught me a thing or two about integrity, mostly about a lack thereof.


And in spite of my horribly abusive parents, I've still seen a lot of good in the world. 

Sometimes we just see what we want to see. Or what we can bear to see.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> And in spite of my horribly abusive parents, I've still seen a lot of good in the world.
> 
> Sometimes we just see what we want to see. Or what we can bear to see.


Most people are basically good. Temptation and the ability to get away with cheating are powerful things. 

Temptation has crossed my mind once or twice. Murphy's Law would probably dictate that I'd be caught. 

I once saw a coworker pad their hours for years. The powers that be were aware and did nothing. 

If ya wanna see a master at lying and manipulating, addicts are a trip.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Most people are basically good. Temptation and the ability to get away with cheating are powerful things.
> 
> Temptation has crossed my mind once or twice. Murphy's Law would probably dictate that I'd be caught.
> 
> ...


Oh. Addicts like... The one who raised me? 

Please, oh wise and worldly Spade2you, tell me what it's like to go hungry because your addict parent can't keep a job? Blew their cash while high? Or all the best places to sleep for a few days while they are on yet another bender? 

I don't think any good will come out of you and I going further down this road of 'when I was growing up I walked 3 miles uphill, barefoot in the snow' stories. 

You and I agree to disagree on human nature and on how much Lance is the center of people's motivations.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Addicts love me.......if they're getting what they want and/or think I'm falling for it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm not saying that it was all Bassons' fault, but he didn't make himself part of the solution until later. The fact that his team mates said he was clean didn't do much for me considering that some of them initially denied doping. Hell, most of us would have trouble turning in our friends and team mates.


How much sooner? He rode for Festina for one year before it hit the fan. He was left out of the doping, not included in the program. 

it was not just riders who said Bassons was clean but also the staff. Voet, Roussel, Rijckert, all said Bassons rode clean


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How much sooner? He rode for Festina for one year before it hit the fan. He was left out of the doping, not included in the program.
> 
> it was not just riders who said Bassons was clean but also the staff. Voet, Roussel, Rijckert, all said Bassons rode clean


Quite rude of his team to not offer him a level playing field.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Quite rude of his team to not offer him a level playing field.


Weaksauce.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Weaksauce.


I forgot that he is French and therefore never doped.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Addicts love me.......if they're getting what they want and/or think I'm falling for it.


From the time of conception until today, have you ever told a lie? 


Any kind of lie; white, want to get laid lie, I took out the trash lie, I didn't forget our anniversary, honey lie, etc.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> From the time of conception until today, have you ever told a lie?
> 
> 
> Any kind of lie; white, want to get laid lie, I took out the trash lie, I didn't forget our anniversary, honey lie, etc.


Unlike the regulars here, I have told a lie or two in the past. I doth confess this. 

I also took hydrocortisone two years ago.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Unlike the regulars here, I have told a lie or two in the past. I doth confess this.
> 
> I also took hydrocortisone two years ago.


A metaphor:

Using what I believe is your mindset: Why should we believe you since you have lied in the past? Like you have said of doping riders who have lied. They've lied before in interviews and questioning(s). 

Although it is quite reasonable to question known liars; It appears you are 'all-or-nothing' when it comes to lying.

*Isn't it possible they could tell the truth at times?* Like when former teammates stated that Bassons rode clean. What would they gain if that was a lie? When it comes to statements like that, where said liars probably won't benefit, I tend to believe them. 


The biggest cycling liar of them all; Even experts have shown Pharmstrong has told the truth on several occasions during depositions and interviews. If there is _anyone_ in cycling that should be questioned on every word they've ever spoken, it's Pharmstrong. Yet he can tell the true too.

*My point:* Liars, even Pharmstrong, are capable of telling the truth when questioned about relevant topics. Just because someone has lied before doesn't automatically mean every word onward is a lie.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Unlike the regulars here, I have told a lie or two in the past. I doth confess this.
> 
> I also took hydrocortisone two years ago.


So you're a doper and a liar. By your own standards, why should anyone give a rat's patoot what you say?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> So you're a doper and a liar. By your own standards, why should anyone give a rat's patoot what you say?


Hey, I've been reported for much less. Why so angry?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> A metaphor:
> 
> Using what I believe is your mindset: Why should we believe you since you have lied in the past? Like you have said of doping riders who have lied. They've lied before in interviews and questioning(s).
> 
> ...


To me, the truth is more about accuracy than a moral compass. Hell, I've even declared that a lot of my stance in life is that I'm fairly certain I'd be caught. I was also a bit of a square growing up. These days I've developed a bit of a darker side after seeing folks lie and cheat, especially after a few people lied and about got me fired. 

Surely I can't be the only one who has known the occasional patholigical liar and/or someone who has told a lie so long that it has become their truth.


----------

