Phat at Bay

The email below arrived on monday To:  ! skippi@ausi.com Subject: Update about "World Cycling Organization UCI: For president PatMcQuaid to resign and cycling to be cleaned up" Date: Mon 09/24/12 03:59 AM

Hello fellow cycling fan, Thank you for telling Pat McQuaid it’s time for change! More than 400 people supported this petition in only three days. Your reasons for signing make it clear that McQuaids departure is only the first step towards fixing cycling. It doesn’t end there. Support and comments from you have given us added inspiration to keep going. We’re planning our next moves. Something a bit different... The rest of the email disappeared , excuses , i had planned to recopy but lost the item . Since then , Monday , the numbers must have grown considerably , as has the " Paul Kimmage Defence Fund ", even by Thursday evening there were 1200 contributors paying in over $40k ! I know that Paul has released a statement thanking people and advising that he is getting on with choosing a legal team to assist him on the 12th December in Aigle . This story has lost it's urgency , now that people have been responding to the news of the " Chip In " site . No doubt the " Fund " will continue to swell as people read up on the back story and realise that hey are able to give UCI a little of their own medicine . Would hope that " UCI " will disown the action causing phat & hein to dip into their resources to carry on what is a classic case of Bullying an individual who appeared to be without the resources to fight back ! Phat trying to divert attention from his poor judgement regarding Paul Kimmage tried to belittle USADA during the week and the resulting reply by Cyclismas is below : USADA response to UCI press release by sarcastitom on Thursday, September 27th, 2012 USADA Response to UCI Press Release September 27, 2012 Earlier today, UCI president Pat McQuaid expressed concerns over our delays in issuing our case file on Lance Armstrong. There was an implication that we sanctioned Mr. Armstrong without sufficient preparation. Rest assured, we had assembled a more than complete case, which we were fully prepared to turn over to the UCI faster than a doper can climb Mt. Ventoux. Unfortunately, we had not expected the flood of additional evidence that would come forth as a result of this case. First of all, Mr. Armstrong apparently has a singular talent not just for bike racing and doping, but also for taking perfectly loyal and trustworthy friends and converting them (in vast numbers) into angry, backstabbing new sources of highly-detailed information. And second, the UCI’s response to the situation has been such a spectacular slow-motion implosion that even a blind gopher could see the impending shitstorm bearing down on the UCI like a soon-to-be-extinct herd of pissed-off rhinoceri. In the ensuing panic among the rank-and-file UCI minions, the outflow of photocopied documents and illicitly-recorded audio tapes has rivaled WikiLeaks. “Rats from a sinking ship” could not be more apropos. So you see our problem. We’re drowning in new witnesses and evidence that we did not expect. We’ve actually reached the point where we are going to have to ask all those with new evidence to make sure to have it to us by Monday, October 1st, or it can not be considered, no matter how many bribes, prostitutes, or death threats might be revealed. It saddens us to have to refuse so much quality evidence, but expediency requires no less than these drastic measures. Once this evidence is in hand we should be able to get the completed case file out within two weeks, which is hopefully soon enough that we won’t have to wade through too many more of these whiny letters and conversational press releases from Pat. USADA thanks you for your patience in this matter. – # – CONTACT: USADA Media Relations Phone (888) 867-5309 E-mail: patsucks@usada.org No doubt the " True Usada " response would be less entertaining . Of course those dwelling in the Cyclingnews Forum have been busily exercising themselves and their imagination these past few days . The photo of phat is from that source and one wonders whether " Felt or Giant " would be happy to see themselves advertised by him ?

Phat at Bay

RENDERED SPEECHLESS

Today the " UCI Management meeting " is taking place in Holland ! It appears that an " Amnesty for Dopers " is to be considered ! One of the places i have been trying to get some action going in respect of making an " Amnesty " effective is on the Cyclingnews forum . Today i find that i cannot get into my CNF account . Have i been blocked ? The past week my computer seems unable to access the Cyclingnews.com website .

My last comment was to the thread :

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18458&page=15

  "  Just wasted some time looking at @raceradio onTwitter ! It made no sense to me since it was a bunch of disconnectd tweets !

With Comments by Raceradio in the Clinic i was able to move around to find the basis of the replies a understand the bulk of the discussion . Do not know if " The Hog " is going to twitter also but there also enjoyed the depth of insight displayed .

Losing people of this calibre makes the clinic a poorer place to visit for info which commenters like these provide from their network of resources .

Perhaps CNF knows the identities of these and other long term posters so can use a " Verified " symbol against their chosen avatur so that readers will know the quality of the info supplied ! Ialso think that " Senior Member " should only to those with at least ONE year or/and 500 posts in the forum .

Having read the 140+ posts in this thread today , i can see how difficult it is to control content and keep THreads on track .

We , the readers , are the losers when the likes of Radiorace & The hog , fail to offer the value that they rendered in the past ! "

Quite enjoy reading comments that contain pertinent links , to articles , that keep me current with Cycling news , of course , there is a lot of pack fill , little people ( read childish remarks ) , trying to backbite and making efforts to appear to know more than is in the common domain .

Hopefully UCI will decide that they should ask the WADA / IOC combined , to call an " AMNESTY for ALL SPORT " . For an " Amnesty " to work , it will be necessary for ALL Governments to suspend their " Anti Doping Laws " for the " Amnesty Period . Without this Governmental Action , so many that are involved in wrongdoings , past and present , will decide action NOW is detrimental to their personal welfare ! They have already shown they care little for others by circumventing existing WADA regulations .

Lets all hope that " UCI Management " realise they are NOT the people CAPABLE or Trustworthy enough to organise what is required to eradicate the scourge of DOPING !

THOSE OF YOU THAT THINK AN " AMNESTY " IS UNNECESSARY CAN READ THIS :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-michael-ashenden-on-omerta-101

RENDERED SPEECHLESS

WADA double standards ?

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WAD...ive-Committee/

Cyclingnews forum commenters occasionally come up with some interesting info that deserves close scrutiny:


Below extracts are from the WADA Director General’s report (Mr David Howman) at 2 specific meetings

from 19 Nov 2011 meeting:

“ WADA had had informal discussions with them (ANADO) along the lines that WADA might be prepared to consider funding in the same way as it had funded SportAccord (it provided 160,000 Swiss francs annually to SportAccord under certain conditions that had been followed very properly by SportAccord, to the benefit of all concerned).” …“WADA provided the money to SportAccord on the basis that it was not to be spent for doping tests (it was to be spent only on overheads in relation to the operation of the unit, which included the salaries of those employed by SportAccord) and that WADA had a position as an advisory member of its committee and received audited reports from the body in relation to its activities.”

...

Discussion of the outcomes of the WADA research programme on pg 46 of the meeting minutes Pat McQuaid asked
“Dr Rabin had mentioned autologous blood transfusion, and he saw that it had been number one on the list of priorities for 2011, and WADA was now heading into 2012. Where was WADA with that and how did Dr Rabin see it in the short term in terms of WADA having an actual validated test for it? The second question, which was somewhat related to that, was about plasticizers: where was WADA with a test for plasticizers?”

from 1 Dec 2009:

Another issue that WADA faced in terms of the laboratories was that there were antidoping organisations sending samples to the laboratories with the request to have them analysed under a selective, and quite a reduced, menu. WADA did not have access to these contracts, but it should have, and again he asked the Executive Committee to consider a direction to the Laboratory Committee to examine the issue to see whether there were ways and means of WADA having access to the contracts that the laboratories had as part of the accreditation or reaccreditation process.

Another area on the subject of doping control and collection of samples was that it had been brought to his attention that some samples collected in competition were designated on the doping control forms as out-of-competition tests, which obviously led to the samples being collected for the out-of-competition testing menu, perhaps avoiding substances. That would be a breach of the standard and could lead to the board considering this a matter of non-compliance. There were no details as yet, and the only way in which it would be possible to get details was through access to more information from the laboratories.

He had included bribery and corruption again in his report just for this meeting, but he would not repeat it the following day at the Foundation Board meeting. WADA had been working with the Austrian authorities about the allegations raised about individuals at that laboratory being open to bribes and helping athletes’ agents. The inquiry had not finished, but WADA had been told that there was nobody directly engaged in the laboratory activities who might be involved. The bigger question was whether there was somebody on the periphery, and that inquiry was still ongoing and he could not provide any update until it was completed, but it showed that the very core of what was being done in the fight against doping in sport could be undone in a fashion that bordered on bribery and corruption.

What strikes me as odd , is that there are a range of tests that can be applied to " Athletes " , in a variety of scenarios ! WHO makes the decision to subject Athlete X to Test A , B , C or D ? Who makes the decision to use a variety of " printed forms " to attach to these " Test Results "? Does not mixing the " Tests " and " paperwork " not cause some " tests " to become " Invalid " when challenged ? Surely in these days when " Lawyers " are butting in at ALL levels of Sport , there needs to be a " Uniform Test " for ALL Sports with a " Standard Form " , correctly filled to avoid a test result being rendered " Invalid "? These Tests now cost considerable sums of money whether taken at Competition Venues or as OoC and thus greater care needs to be exercised !

Whilst Fat Pat sits on the Foundation Board of WADA , should WADA not be more careful about their funding of " SportAccord "? Here , i am sure , are grounds for some to think that there is a conflict of interests . Yes there are 38 or so members making input to any decision but some speak with more weight than others ? With Jacques Rogge being viewed world wide sitting with Fat Pat at an Olympic Track Cycling Event and the IOC decision to give Fat Pat another IOC role in connection with the 2020 Olympic Games , he is now a much sought centre of influence by those with an agenda !

John Fahey  , an Australian Politician , who rose to be Premier of New South Wales , The most Populous state in Oz , must be aware that WADA is in a place where EVERYTHING has to be done correctly so that   ALL of it's decisions are final and binding ! When i look at the extracts above , i see too many loopholes and i am not a " Lawyer " seeking to overturn a " Doping Conviction " for a paying client .

WADA double standards ?