Immediately after Bettini's victory the Italian, who McQuaid had criticised for his ambivalence, appeared to snub the UCI President. "So many people shot at me this week that I wanted to do the same when I crossed the line, " Bettini said. "So I was shooting at everybody. It was not directed at Pat McQuaid."

Bettini, who had been the subject of doping allegations from German rider Patrik Sinkewitz even as he steadfastly refused to sign McQuaid's anti-doping pledge, was the last rider that the Stuttgart organisers wanted to see celebrating success. So zealous has the anti-doping movement in Germany become that the Stuttgart organisers even went to court, unsuccessfully, in a bid to prevent the Italian from defending his title.

"This is about the implementation of the anti-doping pledge, which we agreed with the UCI, " Susanne Eisenmann, the president of the event's organising committee, said. In the fall-out, Stuttgart is now withholding 600,000 from the UCI as payment for the championships, claiming a loss of sponsorship revenue due to concerns over doping.

"There's no evidence to justify that claim, " McQuaid said.

"The grandstands were full on the final day, the crowds were good. I don't think the UCI did anything wrong. I don't think we could have done anything more. I would be concerned about the state of cycling in Germany but I think the media have gone overboard. I think it's time to lay off and take a look at some other sports. They just seem to pick on cycling and I don't think that's fair. Are they saying the same about other sports?"

Yet the UCI's much-vaunted anti-doping pledge, the signature of which was understood to be a required act for each rider prior to July's Tour de France, now appears to have been little more than a PR gesture.

McQuaid does not deny this.

"Cycling needs to do some PR and the riders need to do some PR. The pledge is just one of a series of measures, some of which are regulatory, which we've introduced to put the sport back in order."

McQuaid inherited the UCI presidency in 2005 from Hein Verbruggen, and the Dutchman still remains a presence, hovering on the Irishman's shoulder in his capacity of UCI vice-president. Yet it is Verbruggen who many, such as World Anti-Doping Agency President Dick Pound, hold responsible for cycling's current ethical malaise. In that sense, McQuaid would feel justified in feeling that he was passed a poisoned chalice. But despite the numerous scandals of recent years, McQuaid sees no need for a doping amnesty. "I don't see that it would achieve anything. I don't see that it would prevent the tricks that certain riders are up to. An amnesty won't stop them."

Yet many believe that the UCI, in its reluctance to impose more draconian penalties for doping, such as lifetime bans, does not have a concrete vision of the future.

"But I cannot put in punishments that are not within the WADA code, " McQuaid said.

"The punishment has to fit the crime and be equitable and proportionate. If we give out punishments that are not proportionate we're going to end up in court. We can only work within the WADA code, in terms of the sanctions."

McQuaid is well-liked, but to date the divisions within cycling have only worsened during his presidency. The UCI have fallen out with WADA, with the Tour de France owners and with other Grand Tour organisers. They have alienated the leading teams and star riders with the uncertainty over the ethical pledge and are now in dispute with the 2007 World Championships hosts in Stuttgart.

A breakaway movement, of races and teams, now appears possible. Already there is talk of the Tour de France itself leading such a move and the unpalatable reality for McQuaid is that, the longer the divisions remain, the more likely this scenario becomes.