Log in:  

Register

Brits don't dope?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

02 Mar 2018 22:28

Last time I was on this thread was Rio 2016 ~ and there was the usual 'my god this looks so dodgy' vs 'team GB has better funding, science etc.'

I certainly remember which side of the fence I was on in that debate.

But can someone quickly fill me in: is there now some pretty solid empirical evidence that team GB have been doped to the gills?
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re:

02 Mar 2018 23:56

The Hegelian wrote:Last time I was on this thread was Rio 2016 ~ and there was the usual 'my god this looks so dodgy' vs 'team GB has better funding, science etc.'

I certainly remember which side of the fence I was on in that debate.

But can someone quickly fill me in: is there now some pretty solid empirical evidence that team GB have been doped to the gills?


Hey .... pssst ...hey you ....psst ... over here.

You lookin for some PSEE, man? Got some good stuff here ... straightoutaShenzhen.

For you ... best price. ;)
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 697
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

06 Mar 2018 09:04

What I said in the autumn 2015 still does not need to be edited at all :

"This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...

1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.

2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) access to co-operation with universities, medical schools etc. in a way which (maybe except Astana) no road cycling trade team can even dream about...

3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :

1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...

4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...

I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).

This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".

And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.

And this leads to...

5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using any available PEDs/methods as long as they avoid being caught. However, the rest of the teams are restricted to "known methods" of blood transfusion / micro-dosing etc. while I'm pretty convinced Team Sky has some completely unknown, off-the-market, unpublicised stuff which they can utilise freely without ANY danger of detection (at this moment). Quite BALCOish, but likely with public sources / funding instead of private lab.

6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...

7) But at the same time - this is

- killing the suspense
- making the world of cycling even MORE unfair for riders. If the best stuff is (at least for a moment) available only for riders of certain nationality, why should others bother?

8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...

9) But in a world where one group of riders (apparently not even close to a full team) have stuff which no one else knows about... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo)."



And when you consider the similarities with Spanish endurance sports success story of 1990's (state-sponsored doping programmes to achieve success in Barca Olympics 1992), I actually go straight-on to accuse UK being at the top of the world right now in governmental doping. More cutting-edge and further developed in methods than Russia, China etc.

But staying in cycling - the minimum acts to ckean the mess should be :

1) Kicking UK Cycling out of sport for 5 years?

2) Full 4-year doping ban to every British male cyclist involved in UK Track squad or in Sky-organization since 2011.

3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.

4) The selected UK riders clearly not part of set-up (f ex Yates-brothers) would be let to continue their cycling careers under the pseudonym CAB (cycling athlete from Britain).


P.S. Slightly humorously speaking - Personally I would be happy to see cycling rules re-written so that no athlete from an English-speaking country would be allowed to participate ever again. Cycling was at its best when it was purely Central European/Colombian thing and the other countries should not be welcome to a family, IMO. :lol:
seldon71
Junior Member
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 10:37

06 Mar 2018 09:29

very well constructed post..................however banning brits will hardly revert cycling to a fair sport

the answer is rather more elusive..................until PEDS may be detected 100% we have to accept that

the teams with greatest investment of finance and 'science' are likely to be the most successful

it has been said here often enough....what needs to be done is to remove conflict of interest

in administration......and make testing 100% independent and actually rewarded for catching dopers

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,121
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

Re:

06 Mar 2018 13:31

seldon71 wrote:3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.


So Poels, Moscon et all get a bye? Nice.

I think you are overplaying the limiting of the good stuff to Brits. The two above and Landa last year were off the clock too.

Froome's development has little to do with BC and more to do with docs in Monaco, he is a Brit as a flag of convenience, whose personal doping results at the Vuelta forced Sky to accept him (and then dope him). He wasn't due to race that Vuelta and was gone from Sky without its results.
wansteadimp
Junior Member
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: Brits don't dope?

06 Mar 2018 14:17

Why ban an entire federation? I asked the same thing when the Russian thing came up.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,067
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

06 Mar 2018 21:43

I'm still waiting to hear how Mark Cavendish took 8 seconds off his PB time for the individual pursuit in Rio when he had just ridden the Tour de France.

How is it possible to go from 4.24 to 4.16 in one hit? Is riding the Tour De France the best way to improve 8 seconds for your individual pursuit? Gee if only everyone knew that. But for him to have the cheek to say he was disappointed he didn't break Wiggins' Olympic record is plain mental. His best time was 4.24 and he was EXPECTING to go under 4.15? Get out of here. Wiggins was a pursuiter. Cav never was cut out for it but some how he grew a leg like the rest of the Brits and expected to go faster than Wiggins best time.

Why did Katy Marchant go from average to incredible at Rio and then drop back to average again ever since? Same with Callum Skinner. Laura Kenny took seconds off her individual pursuit PB and that's someone who did omniums for a living. How do you improve so much in an event you do all the time? You should chip away at your time, not take seconds off it when you do it all the time. Doesn't make sense.

Come on someone please come up with a believable explanation.
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re:

06 Mar 2018 21:55

seldon71 wrote:
3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :

1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...

4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...

I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).

So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.

seldon71 wrote:
This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc.

How does Viviani fit into this conspiracy? He joined Sky because they gave him all the time he needed to prepare for the Olympics, where he beat British favourite Cavendish into second place. Why didn't they overrace him?

Craigee wrote:I'm still waiting to hear how Mark Cavendish took 8 seconds off his PB time for the individual pursuit in Rio when he had just ridden the Tour de France.

How is it possible to go from 4.24 to 4.16 in one hit? Is riding the Tour De France the best way to improve 8 seconds for your individual pursuit? Gee if only everyone knew that. But for him to have the cheek to say he was disappointed he didn't break Wiggins' Olympic record is plain mental. His best time was 4.24 and he was EXPECTING to go under 4.15? Get out of here. Wiggins was a pursuiter. Cav never was cut out for it but some how he grew a leg like the rest of the Brits and expected to go faster than Wiggins best time.

Pursuit riders ride to a pre-planned schedule. Cavendish rode his first pursuit one the back of little practice or data, having not done one since his junior days, so they rode a conservative schedule. With more practice and data they realised he was capable of a faster schedule, so rode to that.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

06 Mar 2018 22:27

Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.
Huapango
Junior Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Apr 2016 01:19

Re: Re:

06 Mar 2018 22:35

Huapango wrote:Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

07 Mar 2018 02:39

Parker wrote:
Huapango wrote:Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.

How do you know all that?
Curious
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,482
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

07 Mar 2018 09:09

Parker. I asked for a believable explanation. You failed.
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: Re:

07 Mar 2018 09:35

Parker wrote:
Huapango wrote:Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.


You suggesting that within the inner hidden capabilities - should Cavendish had just gone all out in various road time trials - he would've smashed the peloton close to Wiggo level? OK...
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 835
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

07 Mar 2018 10:01

Umm, guess where Dr Richard Freeman ended up after he left Team Sky...?

Yes indeedy, the Team GB track squad!

Just sayin ;)
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

08 Mar 2018 06:18

Craigee wrote:Parker. I asked for a believable explanation. You failed.


I have to agree with this statement. It's actually kind of insane what kind of times he got in Rio.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2018 06:28

wansteadimp wrote:
seldon71 wrote:3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.


So Poels, Moscon et all get a bye? Nice.


It would hardly construst a "bye". I didn't elaborate it, but I surely thought about the fact that there would be no more high-paying jobs open for them elsewhere this season. Rosters are about full so in real life even these foreign riders of Sky would be scraping for crumbs without a salary nor a job. No ban though - legally impossible to ban them without a concrete evidence.

By kicking a Federation out and cancelling all it's licenses you can ban all the Brits though.
seldon71
Junior Member
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 10:37

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2018 06:30

Parker wrote:
seldon71 wrote:
So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.


Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.
seldon71
Junior Member
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 10:37

08 Mar 2018 07:48

Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2018 08:59

seldon71 wrote:
Parker wrote:
seldon71 wrote:
So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.


Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.


Cortisone, Fluimucil, testosterone patches. Very advanced doping programme indeed :lol:
User avatar miguelindurain111
Junior Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 26 Jun 2017 13:03

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2018 09:03

miguelindurain111 wrote:
seldon71 wrote:
Parker wrote:
seldon71 wrote:
So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.


Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.


Cortisone, Fluimucil, testosterone patches. Very advanced doping programme indeed :lol:

The real Marginal Gains
User avatar Eyeballs Out
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,521
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:17
Location: Thames Valley

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 70kmph and 31 guests

Back to top