Comments for Michael Hutchinson

Comment on Chapeaus by Stephen Nightingale

Stephen Nightingale — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:19:03 +0000

I can honestly say that I never saw McQuaid doping. I can also say confidently that he never failed a drug test.

Comment on Chapeaus by Twirlip

Twirlip — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:19:13 +0000

Was McQuaid just hoping for a soft landing? Stop current doping without touching the old dopers and not spoil cycling’s image with scandals of this type?

Comment on Chapeaus by admin

admin — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:58:07 +0000

Kenny - agree that Hamilton is not much of a hero. But it’s also important to have a governing body that wants to clean things up, even if that involves some unpalatable things. If UCI wants whistleblowers to speak up before the gunpoint moment, it need to at least not abuse the ones that have come forward now.

Honestly, if I’d wanted EPO in 2000 I would have had no idea where to start!

Comment on Chapeaus by KennyP

KennyP — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:51:45 +0000

I was there when McQuaid made his angry ’scumbags’ comment at an inpromtu Anglo press round table talk and he immediately tried to retract it (”..excuse…don’t write or use..”), a case, I’d say, of said in hasty anger.
He was particularly pissed off that Hamilton was being painted as a hero and touting his book around talk shows. His point was that Hamilton in particular had lied and cheated for years, confessed only at metaphorical gun point and was now, in some eyes, a hero, intent on selling his book and making money. McQuaid said that only rider who had actually offered to do something for the sport, was George Hincapie.
I’m no apologist for President McQuaid or the UCI and feel certain that mistakes were made, though I really don’t ‘get’ the attempt to scapegoat bureaucrats for riders’ behaviour. And, by the way, you can buy EPO on the internet (you knew that, right?)

Comment on Chapeaus by Andrew Green

Andrew Green — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:45:19 +0000

I enjoyed the UCI press conference yesterday. I only wish that I had the balls to sit there and explain Lance all away. Everybody suspected him, just like Jimmy Savile (I met him once - I remember the stains on his shell suit trousers). It’s hard to believe that the UCI aren’t in some way complicit with LA.

I think it’s fair to say that if you’d blood doped or done EPO, cortisone, whatever, you would be a considerably wealthier ex cyclist. My sport was marathon running and competed internationally and in big city marathons. I am a considerably poorer person due to drug cheats. However like Lance & Sir Jimmy, everybody knows who they were.

I met Ma’s army in San Sebastián in the early 90’s. I tried to talk to one but got moved on.

Oh yes, like SCA I want my £9.99 back I spent on the first LA biography. It’s a long queue.

Comment on The IOC, the BOA and the CAS by martin

martin — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 00:32:14 +0000

What is a lot more worrying at the moment is the UCI are centralising testing away from national federations and NOT running testing! Tour of California had NO bloodtests this year. If we are going to have consistent rules around tue world, I would prefer them to be at a worthwhile standard and not the joke that the UCI puts forward.

Comment on The IOC, the BOA and the CAS by admin

admin — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:22:02 +0000

Dan, as far as treating an unrepentant doper differently from a repentant one after they’ve served their ban (which from the example you use is what I assume you mean) is concerned, you immediately run into the CAS judgement, which was pretty clear that the ban has to be the end of the sanctions.

I’d like to see bans that are more closely tailored to the offence, but in practice this presents a whole pile of fresh problems, litigation through the courts being prime among them.

Comment on The IOC, the BOA and the CAS by DanC

DanC — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:53:24 +0000

I wish more journalists would admit that their opinions were based on their emotional responses rather than present them as the logical outcome of the available facts.

The BOA/IOC/CAS situation appears factually fairly clear cut - the bylaw wouldn’t stand up to an appeal because it’s effectively an additional sanction which goes against the WADA code. It’s interesting that the BOA are using the argument that they have written approval from WADA of their rules. From what I’ve read WADA’s interpretation is that they signed off the anti-doping rules as conforming to their code of conduct, not the selection policy.

Whether anyone will actually challenge the BOA is going to be a fascinating waiting game. Dwain Chambers might as he’s got very little left to lose, but I doubt David Millar will - much as I’m sure he’d love to compete, he’s not selfish enough to do so whilst incurring the wrath of other team members and the public.

I think what this situation as well as the Contador case and various other illustrate is that WADA still has a long way to go in the way it deals with doping cases. It’s impossible to deal with all doping cases in black and white - should a remorseless Ben Johnson be treated the same as a reformed campaigner like Millar? Perhaps the biggest issue that needs addressing at the moment is both the speed and impartiality of the sanctioning process, before we even consider the sanctions. The Contador case should be a complete embarassment to WADA - it’s shown that national bodies cannot act impartially and the process condemns the athlete to a long, drawn-out trial by media no matter what the scientific evidence. This does neither the athlete nor the sport any good.

When talking about this issue, Dave Brailsford made the very valid point that we need consistency globally on the rules and that makes the BOA bylaw awkward. However, I think we also need consistency and more effective implementation of those rules because at the moment they appear to be as much of a problem to sport as doping itself.

Comment on The IOC, the BOA and the CAS by Dan

Dan — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:37:45 +0000

Using David Millar as an example I’d personally be happy for him to compete in 2012. It’s tricky. How you can assess the level of cheating and apply a 2 year ban for some and something greater on others is a huge piece of case by case legislation to add to the already complicated battle between world and national sporting bodies.

On a more personal note I do despair of those that keep dropping in hypothetical arguments concerning past decades as if a past tradition of systematic doping is reason alone to continue to ignore it. Time we presented dog fighting to the IOC as a potential Olympic sport then! We should always strive to be clean in sport and the monthly rolling drug scandals (especially within cycling) are for me necessary and for ever ongoing.

Comment on Blenheim and Mildenhall by Shane Miller

Shane Miller — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 09:25:14 +0000

They ran a short clip of the ‘folding bike world champs’ on the news here in Australia. Your name popped up in the report. Nice work on the result!