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: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

10 Jan 2018 16:05

One more link about Warburton. This is an interview I did with the American cycling historian Peter Nye https://www.podiumcafe.com/book-corner/2015/5/14/8605439/interview-peter-joffre-nye
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,064
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

11 Jan 2018 10:49

Netserk wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Netserk wrote:So? I guess you'll problematize if anyone links ethnic background and height as well...

How dare anyone suggest that genes explain some of the difference between the heights of Asians and (Northern) Europeans.

What's next?! That intelligence might actually be a selector for what social class you end up in? That different populations have different levels of intelligence. Heresy!


We are drifting off topic but in the UK the social class you are born into is the main selector for the social class you end up in. Intelligence has unfortunately little to do with it

By the age of 7 middle class kids are ahead of working class kids and posh kids are in private schools. It only gets worse after that. Tuition fees stop poor kids from going to higher education. The old school tie approach to recruitment, etc. Social mobility is a dying concept in the UK (maybe it's different in Denmark?)

This just one recent example (and btw Justine Greening was sacked in this week's govt reshuffle for failing to increase inequality by introducing more grammar schools and free schools)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42212270

I'm not suggesting that the correlation is 1:1, just simply that there is a link between the two. Even if your parents are more important than your own level of intelligence, there would still be a correlation as long as intelligent people are more likely to move up in social class and unintelligent people are more likely to move down, since intelligence is a heritable trait.

While Netherlanders in general are taller than Italians, there are still plenty of tall Italians. And obviously, your nationality doesn't change your height, so after you've met someone and they then tell what nationality they are, you'd have no reason to suddenly think they are taller than you had reason to before. It's just a link. Same thing with social class and intelligence (under the presumption that intelligence is a selector for social class). While it can tell a lot about populations, it can only do so to a lesser extent for individuals.

I think free higher education (you even get £630 a month after tax just for being a student, so that you don't have to have any savings or side job) goes some of the way to explain why the social mobility is higher in Denmark, although I think that too has decreased. Some of which can be explained by higher level of meritocracy and (average) intelligence differences between social classes having increased as result, afaik.


Fair enough

I wonder if there's a correlation between people living in Scandinavian countries with progressive social policies having faith in the concept of social mobility and people living in UK with its regressive social policies being more cynical...? ;-)

Trying to bring this sidebar back on topic, I note that Scandinavian countries punch below their weight in the summer Olympics medals tables, unlike the Brits who do the opposite. Is that because Scandinavian government funding for sport is progressives and focuses on participation by all rather than focusing spending on elite athletes? Or do the Scandinavians just focus more on the winter Olympics?

For comparison, in the UK funding for sports participation for all has been slashed under the UK government's ongoing austerity policies, especially once you add in cuts to local government funding which has led to many swimming pools and sports centres closing. Meanwhile, lottery and central government funding for elite Olympic athletes has increased, one of the few funding streams to escape austerity cuts

The irony here is that lottery tickets are disproportionately bought by working class people who are statistically more likely to be sat on a sofa eating crap food rather than exercising. But at least every 4 years they can cheer Team GB's epic gold medal haul!

An even greater irony is that, while 7% of Brits go to private school, 30% of Brit medalists at the Rio Olympics went to private school. So working class people buying lottery tickets are actively participating in the UK's ongoing reduction in social mobility and increase in inequality
Wiggo's Package
Junior Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

11 Jan 2018 13:34

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Netserk wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Netserk wrote:So? I guess you'll problematize if anyone links ethnic background and height as well...

How dare anyone suggest that genes explain some of the difference between the heights of Asians and (Northern) Europeans.

What's next?! That intelligence might actually be a selector for what social class you end up in? That different populations have different levels of intelligence. Heresy!


We are drifting off topic but in the UK the social class you are born into is the main selector for the social class you end up in. Intelligence has unfortunately little to do with it

By the age of 7 middle class kids are ahead of working class kids and posh kids are in private schools. It only gets worse after that. Tuition fees stop poor kids from going to higher education. The old school tie approach to recruitment, etc. Social mobility is a dying concept in the UK (maybe it's different in Denmark?)

This just one recent example (and btw Justine Greening was sacked in this week's govt reshuffle for failing to increase inequality by introducing more grammar schools and free schools)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42212270

I'm not suggesting that the correlation is 1:1, just simply that there is a link between the two. Even if your parents are more important than your own level of intelligence, there would still be a correlation as long as intelligent people are more likely to move up in social class and unintelligent people are more likely to move down, since intelligence is a heritable trait.

While Netherlanders in general are taller than Italians, there are still plenty of tall Italians. And obviously, your nationality doesn't change your height, so after you've met someone and they then tell what nationality they are, you'd have no reason to suddenly think they are taller than you had reason to before. It's just a link. Same thing with social class and intelligence (under the presumption that intelligence is a selector for social class). While it can tell a lot about populations, it can only do so to a lesser extent for individuals.

I think free higher education (you even get £630 a month after tax just for being a student, so that you don't have to have any savings or side job) goes some of the way to explain why the social mobility is higher in Denmark, although I think that too has decreased. Some of which can be explained by higher level of meritocracy and (average) intelligence differences between social classes having increased as result, afaik.


Fair enough

I wonder if there's a correlation between people living in Scandinavian countries with progressive social policies having faith in the concept of social mobility and people living in UK with its regressive social policies being more cynical...? ;-)

Trying to bring this sidebar back on topic, I note that Scandinavian countries punch below their weight in the summer Olympics medals tables, unlike the Brits who do the opposite. Is that because Scandinavian government funding for sport is progressives and focuses on participation by all rather than focusing spending on elite athletes? Or do the Scandinavians just focus more on the winter Olympics?

For comparison, in the UK funding for sports participation for all has been slashed under the UK government's ongoing austerity policies, especially once you add in cuts to local government funding which has led to many swimming pools and sports centres closing. Meanwhile, lottery and central government funding for elite Olympic athletes has increased, one of the few funding streams to escape austerity cuts

The irony here is that lottery tickets are disproportionately bought by working class people who are statistically more likely to be sat on a sofa eating crap food rather than exercising. But at least every 4 years they can cheer Team GB's epic gold medal haul!

An even greater irony is that, while 7% of Brits go to private school, 30% of Brit medalists at the Rio Olympics went to private school. So working class people buying lottery tickets are actively participating in the UK's ongoing reduction in social mobility and increase in inequality


Dunno about Scandinavia - there's about 21million people there in total (about 1/3 of the UK for example) spread across multiple countries so they don't even have the benefit of a centralised system for sports development/coaching/excellence etc. I'm not sure that your suggestion that they punch below their weight in summer olympics stacks up. It should be obivous why they do so well in winter though and perhaps that colours our judgement on how strong they really are.
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

13 Jan 2018 18:54

UKAD not giving information freely to journalists as requested, but when leaked, then after having their hands forced releasing it.

This is not the work of an ADA that fans can trust and believe.

Well done Dan Roan.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,164
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

13 Jan 2018 19:19

Benotti69 wrote:UKAD not giving information freely to journalists as requested, but when leaked, then after having their hands forced releasing it.

This is not the work of an ADA that fans can trust and believe.

Well done Dan Roan.
Could someone who's been paying attention explain something to me? I thought UKAD declined an FOI request for the letter claiming no public interest but then British Cycling (in the same week they condemned making Froome's AAF public) ignored them and released the UKAD letter anyway along with their response via their website (so chapeau Julie Harrington - our kind of hypocrite). What then have UKAD released?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,064
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

13 Jan 2018 19:30

fmk_RoI wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:UKAD not giving information freely to journalists as requested, but when leaked, then after having their hands forced releasing it.

This is not the work of an ADA that fans can trust and believe.

Well done Dan Roan.
Could someone who's been paying attention explain something to me? I thought UKAD declined an FOI request for the letter claiming no public interest but then British Cycling (in the same week they condemned making Froome's AAF public) ignored them and released the UKAD letter anyway along with their response via their website (so chapeau Julie Harrington - our kind of hypocrite). What then have UKAD released?


I believe the timeline is someone leaked it to Dan Roan and only when he contacted BC for a quote did BC decide to release it

EDIT: UKAD didn't want the letter released. That "thanks for your co-operation" line :lol:
Wiggo's Package
Junior Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rsergio007 and 34 guests

Back to top