Should BC object to the latest legacy plans?

[Mr Switcher]

[JohnC]

[KJ]

Where did Cycling Weekly get is information from?

Who are you to ask for Brians resignation?

[hunterbark]

Utter madness now, under no circumstance should you ask for him to resign over this.
Why don't you guys get yourselves elected as BC representatives, then we'll really see your true value, that would be interesting.

[JohnC]

[Hans Datdodishes]

[Plurien]

I would like Brian to give one thing that BC has done since 2003 which is positive for the users of Eastway.

Never mind the personal remarks - They are only a sign of a weak case which is falling apart. You only go for the man when you can't deal with the argument, information, ciriticism or whatever else is your due.

So Brian, from all the last three and a half years, give riders from Eastway one thing which BC has done of its own which has been good news for the riders.

You can use this as a platform to call for unity - just like riders from Eastway asked for from you and your organisation since 2003.

I'm not taunting - I genuinely want BC to take control and for it to be worth giving because BC has lost enormously by this. It's not good and it's not clever. But it's not good to keep on with a strategy which can't be reasoned or defended and which you appear so far to be signally unwilling to consult or debate.

Here's an example of how you could capitalise on the opporunity (so please respond with more than ad hominem)
You will know that I spent quite a bit of time last year, some expense and some considerable effort so we could 'plan for the peace' between EUG and BC. Not everything I do works out, but in this case I thought we were getting on well right up to the 15th Jan when some of us went along to the ODA offices to be shown their awful plan. This was the meeting which Peter King had to insist on getting in, not having been invited and from which it was attempted to exclude him. He then proceeded to :evil: up the debate by saying that maybe the road circuit would be better if it could be routed further around the tennis. This is a bit like the condemned man asking for a blue blindfold instead of the black. He didn't join in when things became a bit more controversial - such as the total loss of all mountainbike competition and no other provision in London - and in fact I would comment that he seemed to be completely parti-pris. Now obviously this is only my impression, but it could be proposed that Peter was not to be in the meeting because this was the opportunity for the ODA to sideline the user group and put its own person in as the one to 'front-up' its 'consultation' safe in the knowledge that Peter and the London Alliance could be portrayed as a feisty advocate for cycle sport.
- Now that contention - and it's only a working hypothesis which is open to interpretation and more facts to adjust it - cannot possibly be denied by BC because it has NOT consulted and it has NOT held any meetings with membership or organisers or riders to resolve its policy and be guided by the needs of users. This is the reason for these mechanisms to be in place and to be seen to be in place. They aren't.
The two recent meetings at which members of the London Alliance have been known to be present were convened by EUG and by one of the country's largest and most progressive clubs, the Glendene CC. In each case the LA members present went directly against the very explicit and completely unanimous motions of the meeting to oppose the application.
- How can you make claim to be representing the needs of membership on this one issue of Eastway's loss? What possible justification is there for it?

So you see, there is an opportunity for BC to inform the debate, to be guided by it and to be accountable to the people it may intend to represent.

It's extremely regrettable that the issue of Eastway has gone on so long. Users were never opposed to Eastway's loss per se - as long as the closure came with the relocation and legacy strategy intact. There was a willingness to move because it would have been done with consultation and consent. How this descended into recrimination and division is a major part of what BC is now being criticised for - it hasn't consulted, it hasn't helped the users and it has positively appeared to be acting in the interests of the developer which knows exactly what BC wants the most. Every time it's looked like BC would be backing the interests of its members the chain has been tightened. Riders, being Eastway users obviously want to see a velodrome and BMX added to the Olympic disciplines that were already on offer.

This is why I ask for one thing BC has done from the end of 2003 which has been positive.

What's it to be? - You can decide. One thing to start us back on the path of cooperation, or just more verbal?

[Brian Cookson]

[Brian Cookson]

[Ingatestonian]

[Plurien]

Sorry Brian, didn't make clear - it was ODA, specifically Richard Arnold who wanted not to have Peter in on his meeting. We waited in reception and then in the meeting room till Peter eventually got in. I'd had quite a civil chat in the lobby with him prior to that.
EUG would have no reason to want Peter excluded from any meeting.

So: What's your one thing?

[Ingatestonian]

[Plurien]

A large part of our civil chat in the lobby concerned the fact of Peter's exclusion. Since I didn't know who else was/wasn't invited my view was neutral, but Peter's certainly wasn't. He knew the meeting was on and he wanted in, but he also seemed to know that he wasn't invited.
I can only think that he'd learned of it from another person in the meeting who could have come from Sport England, LVRPA, LOCOG, ODA, BC regions, IMBA

You're gathering by now that this was a pretty important meeting.

It was left in no doubt by those invited that the plans were totally unacceptable, not consulted and to be opposed.

The convenor of the meeting subsequently denied that it was any part of the consultation. Most odd, for all those people to be there - directors all - and for this meeting to suddenly have no formal status and strangely, no minutes either.

Something fishy, perhaps?

So Brian: What's your one thing that BC has done for Eastway riders since 2003?

[Brian Cookson]

[Plurien]

What is your one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003?


(Saying something is fishy could just mean that it's unexplained, or it could be a conspiracy or something inbetween. It's an unspecific way of passing comment on a process which plainly isn't transparent or open and one in which people may have something they don't want to be discussed openly - Of course if you know otherwise the rebuttal will be a good reassurance, but it does seem funny to have meetings for which no minutes are published and which are later denied to be elements of the consultation process.
- So, no I didn't make an accusation. You took it that way)

[Brian Cookson]

You could teach Alastair Campbell a thing or two Michael!

[Plurien]

actually I'd prefer to be Jeremy Paxton

What's your one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003

- Answer the question. It's a lovely open one, not a 'yes/no' get-you-in-a-corner nasty. This is wide open plains off you go, over to you stuff. Just one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003....

Come on, there must be something.

[Brian Cookson]

Ah, I see, I'm supposed to be Michael Howard to your Jeremy Paxman. I really can't be bothered with your silly games Michael. If it makes you feel good, just carry on and insert whatever replies you want from me. It's more or less what you do anyway.

Sorry I'm as bored with this now as most of the rest of veloriders......

[JohnC]

[Plurien]

Still not able to find an answer to the question then Brian?
Pouring a bit more sauce doesn't make the dish any tastier does it?

Through over three years of threatened closure, regeneration plans, landowner manouevring, Compulsory Purchase Orders, Public Planning Inquiry, messy consultations and repeats, politicians stepping in, Olympic bid & win, closure, relocation and legacy there is not one thing you can think of which shows how effective BC is at representing the needs of the people who did Olympic sports in E London?

This is no silly game Brian. It's really really serious. You have been asked a serious question in public forum and you can't make an answer. Speaks volumes by its eloquence, your silence.

Do you want some time to go away and come back when you're feeling less on the back foot and more postive about the role BC has played throughout?

Really, if you can't engage in debate, if you can't answer the most obvious questions and deal with the odd curve-ball what exactly is the reason you and your board claim for the ascendancy of your 'strategy'?

Is there one shred of evidence that you are not being worked over by the ODA to its ends? They've got the land, they have the planning application to take cycle sport's interests on the site down to less than sustainable for anything other than the velodrome and you're doing what exactly?
- Giving them time beyond their planning deadline to consolidate and even to award the contract to build this pocky little urban box of a miserable road circuit, with only that 'indeterminate' BMX and a velodrome which are no replacement, no legacy for the Olympic sports facilities that have been lost - now and in the future.


How accessible is the current plan compared to a new Eastway with road and off-road as prime legacy replacements due in all plans up to now?
What is the legacy part of the relocation and legacy strategy?
What and where it the relocation part of the relocation and legacy strategy?
When will any replacement at all be open for riders?
How will it be possible for the present users to get there if they don't have cars/can't drive?
What will club sessions do for competition training and tasters?
How is any of the present disruption good for the sport and for the pathway of the top athletes who rode at Eastway?
Where are mountainbikers to ride?

- There are many more questions which you can't answer and which you have done nothing to resolve, it would seem. There were many questions in the past which had to be answered by users because you gave none. What will the future bring?
- Is it one in which british cycling represents the needs of its members who do the sport?

So - one question at a time

What's your one thing that British Cycling has done for Eastway's riders since 2003? (in bold so you can't miss it this time)