[Closed] For the love of cycling, please let Cookson be the winner

I read recently that British Cycling are divided on wanting him to win the vote cant remember where though ,can anyone confirm this ?

Tell me I'm not the only person to think it was a thread on Catherine Cookson?

I actually read it as Clarkson

The lawyers will get involved whichever way it goes tomorrow... sadly

Today's the big day, isn't it? Good luck everybody....

Fat McQuid for the bin. 😆

William Fotheringham ?@willfoth 20m
it was 21 v 21 you couldn't make it up. needed a majority. that's 22, therefore not accepted. article 51 will not be changed.

From my understanding of this, the motion to change article 51 has not achieved a majority vote therefore McQuaid doesn't have a nomination so Cookson is the uncontested winner of the election...I think!

Vote is happening anyway as McQuaid "insitent" that his nomination from Thailand and Morocco are still OK.

The wording on the constitution is a bit wooly.

But it is indicative of the way McQuaid runs things. I.e. he just does what he wants without consulting anyone or seeming using any common sense.

I suspect this will not be resolved today!

Its all a bit of a mess. Doesn't say much for whoever is in charge. Oh... wait!

going to the vote now(ish).

Daniel Benson ?@dnlbenson 27s
18-24 is the vote but no name given yet.

cookson 🙂

😀

TF.

maybe we can see some change. Some real change.

Woot!
Anyone know the 18 countries that voted against?

Anyone know the 18 countries that voted against?

secret ballot i believe

I still don't understand how uncle pat was on the ballot after this mornings vote on A51. But at least he is gone now.

Lets hope that Cookson really is a change.

Good news for cycling - but what of the fate of the Puppet Master (AKA Hein Verbruggen)...?

Think we need to wait for the inevitable legal challenge to be over before really saying Cookson has won...

The vote was held in "Palazzo Vecchio, the former residence of 16th century Italian politician Machiavelli".

If that alone doesn´t tell you whats wrong with cyclings governing body then nothing will.

Whoop !!

Cool. Now lets see if Pat is good to his word and walks away without challenge.

They need to make sure they search him for the cupboard keys before he goes

The vote was held in "Palazzo Vecchio, the former residence of 16th century Italian politician Machiavelli".

If that alone doesn´t tell you whats wrong with cyclings governing body then nothing will.

Well you could say it like that, or you could say:

The vote was held in the town hall of Florence, the capital of Tuscany where the UCI road world championships are being held.

I appreciate that wouldn't fit your point though.

Cool. Now lets see if Pat is good to his word and walks away without challenge

[img] [/img]

I still don't understand how uncle pat was on the ballot after this mornings vote on A51. But at least he is gone now.

because they didn't get a binding vote, 21-21. (who thought 42 was a sensible number!!!!!)

My opinion is this will mean LESS legal ramifications, PMQ lost fair and square. there was no argument about procedure being changed, about amendements to practices to enable him to win. If PMQ had won, the lawyers would have been in this afternoon to argue if he should have been on the ballot, something that would drag on for months if not years and been far worse for cycle sport.

Well you could say it like that, or you could say:

The vote was held in the town hall of Florence, the capital of Tuscany where the UCI road world championships are being held.
I appreciate that wouldn't fit your point though.

Fair enough but the town hall bit was conveniently omitted from the article I read. And tbh, it wouldn´t have seemed out of character for them.

I still don't understand how uncle pat was on the ballot after this mornings vote on A51. But at least he is gone now.

From what I understand, there was a discussion over the interpretation of the specific standing order for the nomination process*, and this never went to a vote on the request of Cookson to go straight to a vote between him and McQuaid.

On the one side - those who didn;t think he was nominated properly, on the basis that his home federation did do it (i.e. neither Ireland nor Switzerland) but on the other side, the opinion was that any federation of which you were a member could do so - and McQuaid is honorary member of a number of different federations - inc Thailand and Morocco.

I'd suggest that the constitution was intended to be taken in the spirit of the first interpretation, and that McQuaid's nomination was not valid, not because of what it says in 51.1, but because of the stipulations around membership of the management committee and the representation of the different continents - there is no point in that including the president (which it does) if they are allowed to flip flop where they represent to where ever will support them - if he was president, would he count towards the European, the Asian or the African quota?

I thought the that the drawn vote was to allow uncle pat to stand under his interpretation of the rules, and as it didn't pass he couldn't.

Although as you say, this way looks cleaner from a legal standpoint.

So what changes can we now expect...?

For the love of cycling, please let Cookson be the winner

Excellent, today I'll be able to go out and enjoy riding my bicycle. Oh hang on, I did that yesterday, when Bad Pat was apparently my boss and before Good Cookson was my new boss. A bit of perspective please.

I wonder if we might get a few more interesting stories from a certain disgraced American cyclist now McQuaid is out.

The vote was held in "Palazzo Vecchio, the former residence of 16th century Italian politician Machiavelli".

If that alone doesn´t tell you whats wrong with cyclings governing body then nothing will.

Machiavelli - the father of modern politics? I think it shows a certain sense of comical irony.

Excellent, today I'll be able to go out and enjoy riding my bicycle. Oh hang on, I did that yesterday, when Bad Pat was apparently my boss and before Good Cookson was my new boss. A bit of perspective please.

So what changes can we now expect...?

hopefully some clarity over the last decade or two, if we can get some truth about the slush funds, the back handers, any skeletons, what was and was not done for Armstrong and others.

But more importantly it states that the past is the past that rather than worrying about hiding the past cycling as a sport wants to change and move forward.

Brian Cookson took a Strava KOM off me just outside Preston... He was doing 60mph uphill... 🙄

Do you think this could derail his bid for the presidency?