A question about doping in the UK

[ultimobici]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Dr Evil here, with some bad diagnostics.

Teenage girls get put on dope programs FACT. Read Nicole Cooke's "cri du cœur" retirement speech on Geneviene Jeanson were it states, "She never tested positive", "she was a National Icon". "and had been put on an extensive doping program since she was 16. "The story only came to out because of quality investigative journalism"

Don't shoot the messenger please, only stating facts.

Does this mean Anna Blyth was doping - no, but your suggestion that doping teenagers is less likely is not factually. Do I think that doping teeagers is wrong? Hell yes.

Back to disproving my hypothesis please!

Did you read the article in its entirety? If so, what do you make of her beating boys, older girls and senior women as a teenager as well as pre-teen? By your general logic she must have been doping!

 

[horsinabout]

Have you heard back from Dr Evil yet horsie ?

If the clinic don't start coming up with the goods, that letters heading for Dave Sir lance-a-lots email inbox.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Does this mean Anna Blyth was doping - no...

Back to disproving my hypothesis please!

OK. Thanks. What about Becky James?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Teenage girls get put on dope programs FACT.

Indeed, but my point was that one might think they are less likely to be doping than other subsets of the cycling population, such as older male trackies who have mortgages to pay.

However, this is actually beside the point. What I want is for you to either i) openly accuse Becky James of doping or ii) to openly accept that she isn't.

Then we can have a specific discussion about your evidence if you go for option i) or the implications for your theory based on your inference from improvements since the mid 90s, given how fast Becky was as a 17 year old.

 

[BroDeal]

Indeed, but my point was that one might think they are less likely to be doping than other subsets of the cycling population, such as older male trackies who have mortgages to pay.

They have coaches with mortgages to pay who are hoping to ride their trainee (often literally as well as figuratively) to a big pay day.

 

[xcleigh]

It is hard to believe that anyone can make an argument this stupid. The pros are paid to use what bike companies want to sell, which is what makes them the most money.

Is that why planes are made out of carbon fibre and titanium, pure marketing. I would love to fly long haul in a wood and cloth 747. Of course there is marketing, but surely you can't be so stupid as not believe there is some progress in the technical aspects of bike design and manufacture that may have a performance effect?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

They have coaches with mortgages to pay who are hoping to ride their trainee (often literally as well as figuratively) to a big pay day.

Well let's hope Becky James's coach isn't riding her literally or figuratively, as her "Significant Other" is an international rugby player of huge dimensions, with some even bigger mates!

Seriously, though, how much money do you think there is in doping someone to world junior track titles?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Yeah. Ok. You know Armstrong and others from the EPO era used this excuse to ridiculous heights, right? Moser's hour record required EPO to accomplish it, like whole end of his career.



............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

Are you serious? You don't think bikes have evolved enough to be faster now than they were 16 years ago? This is moronic, end of

 

[JimmyFingers]

It is hard to believe that anyone can make an argument this stupid. The pros are paid to use what bike companies want to sell, which is what makes them the most money.

Your own words damn you. Stupid. I'd go further but...

Technology advances, training advances, everything marches on. Go watch Keirin if you don't like it.

 

[Hawkwood]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Dr Evil "horsey" here, with some bad diagnostics.

Teenage girls get put on dope programs FACT. Read Nicole Cooke's "cri du cœur" retirement speech on Geneviene Jeanson where it states, "She never tested positive", "she was a National Icon". "and had been put on an extensive doping program since she was 16. "The story only came to out because of quality investigative journalism"

Don't shoot the messenger please, only stating facts.

Does this mean Anna Blyth was doping? No, but your suggestion that doping teenagers is less likely is not factually.

Do I think that doping teeagers is wrong? Hell yes.

Back to disproving my hypothesis please!

You mean the hypothesis in which you cited a British men's national record as an important plank in your argument, but forgot to mention that it was only 0.1 of a second quicker than the women's world record of the time? Clearly Dave Brailsford would have a lot of explaining to do if British male sprinters hadn't improved since then.

 

[Cavendash]

What I hate about posts like this is the general snering sarcasm, that does not make any points for discussion, and leave me thinking the poster is just a tosser.

Not even a funny tosser either, just one full of his own self importance... the worst kind.

 

[bobbins]

Luckily for the cheats, the out and out nut cases that post their mental ramblings on topics like these enable them to get away with their marginal gain cheating.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Because what's posted here reverberates throughout the cycling world

 

[horsinabout]

Luckily for the cheats, the out and out nut cases that post their mental ramblings on topics like these enable them to get away with their marginal gain cheating.

No, this brilliant journalism, is a must read.

http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/team-gb-are-the-new-east-germany/

 

[horsinabout]

This is an interesting piece of journalism and is a valuable read.

http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/team-gb-are-the-new-east-germany/

 

[The Chicken]

You're right, it is brilliant! Thanks for the link.

 

[xcleigh]

This is a brilliant piece of journalism and is a must read.

http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/team-gb-are-the-new-east-germany/

No surprise, but I tend to agree with the comment left below the article:


"It would perhaps be interesting to compare East Germany's Olympic performance with Great Britain's if you had taken the opportunity to actually analyse the different political, social and economic situations at play in the two countries. Instead, you spend most of your time grasping at straws to equate the two or to denigrate the British athletes. GB's cyclists could be dopers because a French newspaper poll conducted amongst random people think they have. That billboards for Jess Ennis must equal some form of pro state propaganda. And that GB's funding strategy goes against the participation for all ethos of East Germany. And by doing that you completely miss the point behind why there is such a huge difference - East Germany was a totalitarian state of unquestionable brutality. The reach of the Stasi was so extensive that, when totting up the total of officers, informers and unofficial informers, historians reckon up to about 1 in 15 people were working with them. Such a reach meant that failing to co-operate with them was a route to imprisonment or, more often, simply an impediment to your life. They could block your route to a better job, follow you at all points and even eject you from the country. When you combine this repression with the economic hardship facing the DDR in the 1980s, it explains why "Sport for All" was such an insidious influence. It was the reason why coaches were forced to co-operate with the Stasi, why there was such widespread doping and why they were able to mobilise their resources - people were forced to break the rules and do all they could i.e. to legitimise and prop up a morally bankrupt regime. Once you take this factually accurate position, then you can explain British funding. Mass participation is a state responsibility; selective funding comes from the organisational body. With targets set and rules in place, it is in their interests to fund the athletes who represent the best and cleanest chance of medals. They also want to invest in sports that have the organisational structure to succeed. So that's why we see successful athletes. It's not hidden doping, just the result of economic calculations from a sporting body on where best to spend their funding. And the narrowness comes from the fact we have a capitalist democracy; that people are allowed to choose which sports they play, with some being more popular, and that funding follows the route to success (i.e. lots of people cycle; hey that's a good place to fund). So to summarise. It was a nice idea to try and compare the two. It's just a shame that you forgot to actually do any comparing or analysis when you wrote this"

 

[horsinabout]

No surprise, but I tend to agree with the comment left below the article:


"It would perhaps be interesting to compare East Germany's Olympic performance with Great Britain's if you had taken the opportunity to actually analyse the different political, social and economic situations at play in the two countries. Instead, you spend most of your time grasping at straws to equate the two or to denigrate the British athletes. GB's cyclists could be dopers because a French newspaper poll conducted amongst random people think they have. That billboards for Jess Ennis must equal some form of pro state propaganda. And that GB's funding strategy goes against the participation for all ethos of East Germany. And by doing that you completely miss the point behind why there is such a huge difference - East Germany was a totalitarian state of unquestionable brutality. The reach of the Stasi was so extensive that, when totting up the total of officers, informers and unofficial informers, historians reckon up to about 1 in 15 people were working with them. Such a reach meant that failing to co-operate with them was a route to imprisonment or, more often, simply an impediment to your life. They could block your route to a better job, follow you at all points and even eject you from the country. When you combine this repression with the economic hardship facing the DDR in the 1980s, it explains why "Sport for All" was such an insidious influence. It was the reason why coaches were forced to co-operate with the Stasi, why there was such widespread doping and why they were able to mobilise their resources - people were forced to break the rules and do all they could i.e. to legitimise and prop up a morally bankrupt regime. Once you take this factually accurate position, then you can explain British funding. Mass participation is a state responsibility; selective funding comes from the organisational body. With targets set and rules in place, it is in their interests to fund the athletes who represent the best and cleanest chance of medals. They also want to invest in sports that have the organisational structure to succeed. So that's why we see successful athletes. It's not hidden doping, just the result of economic calculations from a sporting body on where best to spend their funding. And the narrowness comes from the fact we have a capitalist democracy; that people are allowed to choose which sports they play, with some being more popular, and that funding follows the route to success (i.e. lots of people cycle; hey that's a good place to fund). So to summarise. It was a nice idea to try and compare the two. It's just a shame that you forgot to actually do any comparing or analysis when you wrote this"

I agree....we are not a brutal totalitarian country by any means, neither is our sport. But there are comparisons and government sponsored sport can all be a form of totalitarianism in a way. It's never black and white. And I still believe this article is a valuable, albeit a loose comparison.

 

[ebandit]

brilliant?

I agree....we are not a brutal totalitarian country by any means, neither is our sport. But there are comparisons and government sponsored sport can all be a form of totalitarianism in a way. It's never black and white. And I still believe this article is a valuable, albeit a loose comparison.

it was an interesting article.........it's a sad fact that any olympic gold medal success in any endurance/strength event would be best viewed with a certain scepticism

perhaps i expect more from an article described as 'brilliant' such as comparisons made being absolutely 'spot on'

let's hope that the east german model of training remains a one off never to be repeated

Mark L

 

[horsinabout]

it was an interesting article.........it's a sad fact that any olympic gold medal success in any endurance/strength event would be best viewed with a certain scepticism

perhaps i expect more from an article described as 'brilliant' such as comparisons made being absolutely 'spot on'

let's hope that the east german model of training remains a one off never to be repeated

Mark L

A lot of the article was reflecting on what has been going on with sport and changes for success in the UK and build up to the Olympics. I think a lot of that was spot on.
The comparison of East Germany was specifically more to do with the doping programs and the organised way they are being carried out. And the results that ensue, such as a disproportionate number of medals won by a relatively small country and dominance etc. this regards to GB cycling on the track is also true.
In the article it doesn't try to compare the brutal way that athletes were forced to take drugs in the GDR. More a case of free choice, but the choice for GB program might be take it or go home, comparing it to LA and the tour. And after all that was the choice Hamilton said he had, take the dope or go back to school I think he said. And just because people have free choice doesn't make it right.
I agree the word "brilliant" might be an exaggeration, as really the article is stating the obvious in many ways, its just there is such a lack of this type of writing and debate, which in my view is unfortunate.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

No surprise, but I tend to agree with the comment left below the article:


"It would perhaps be interesting to compare East Germany's Olympic performance with Great Britain's if you had taken the opportunity to actually analyse the different political, social and economic situations at play in the two countries. Instead, you spend most of your time grasping at straws to equate the two or to denigrate the British athletes. GB's cyclists could be dopers because a French newspaper poll conducted amongst random people think they have. That billboards for Jess Ennis must equal some form of pro state propaganda. And that GB's funding strategy goes against the participation for all ethos of East Germany. And by doing that you completely miss the point behind why there is such a huge difference - East Germany was a totalitarian state of unquestionable brutality. The reach of the Stasi was so extensive that, when totting up the total of officers, informers and unofficial informers, historians reckon up to about 1 in 15 people were working with them. Such a reach meant that failing to co-operate with them was a route to imprisonment or, more often, simply an impediment to your life. They could block your route to a better job, follow you at all points and even eject you from the country. When you combine this repression with the economic hardship facing the DDR in the 1980s, it explains why "Sport for All" was such an insidious influence. It was the reason why coaches were forced to co-operate with the Stasi, why there was such widespread doping and why they were able to mobilise their resources - people were forced to break the rules and do all they could i.e. to legitimise and prop up a morally bankrupt regime. Once you take this factually accurate position, then you can explain British funding. Mass participation is a state responsibility; selective funding comes from the organisational body. With targets set and rules in place, it is in their interests to fund the athletes who represent the best and cleanest chance of medals. They also want to invest in sports that have the organisational structure to succeed. So that's why we see successful athletes. It's not hidden doping, just the result of economic calculations from a sporting body on where best to spend their funding. And the narrowness comes from the fact we have a capitalist democracy; that people are allowed to choose which sports they play, with some being more popular, and that funding follows the route to success (i.e. lots of people cycle; hey that's a good place to fund). So to summarise. It was a nice idea to try and compare the two. It's just a shame that you forgot to actually do any comparing or analysis when you wrote this"

That commentor could read up a little bit on the state of the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-brother-state-ndash-by-stealth-1050576.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...state-warns-Director-Public-Prosecutions.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wers-demand-ID-street--pain-sending-jail.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-pupils-aged--complete-CPS-evidence-kit.html

But hey, that was only in the DDR

 

[del1962]

A lot of the article was reflecting on what has been going on with sport and changes for success in the UK and build up to the Olympics. I think a lot of that was spot on.
The comparison of East Germany was specifically more to do with the doping programs and the organised way they are being carried out. And the results that ensue, such as a disproportionate number of medals won by a relatively small country and dominance etc. this regards to GB cycling on the track is also true.
In the article it doesn't try to compare the brutal way that athletes were forced to take drugs in the GDR. More a case of free choice, but the choice for GB program might be take it or go home, comparing it to LA and the tour. And after all that was the choice Hamilton said he had, take the dope or go back to school I think he said. And just because people have free choice doesn't make it right.
I agree the word "brilliant" might be an exaggeration, as really the article is stating the obvious in many ways, its just there is such a lack of this type of writing and debate, which in my view is unfortunate.

Personally I think the article was very poor, there was not context on the fact the Vinoukarov is an unrepentant doper, the comparisons with East Germany were poor, and the guys main gripe was the money spent on helping sports stars and talent identification. The comment that Cloxii highlighted showed that the article was not very well researched.

 

[del1962]

That commentor could read up a little bit on the state of the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-brother-state-ndash-by-stealth-1050576.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...state-warns-Director-Public-Prosecutions.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wers-demand-ID-street--pain-sending-jail.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-pupils-aged--complete-CPS-evidence-kit.html

But hey, that was only in the DDR

Funny, because I am at liberty to go anywhere in the UK without ID (unlike much of continental europe), typical scarmongering journalis you have quoted.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Funny, because I am at liberty to go anywhere in the UK without ID (unlike much of continental europe), typical scarmongering journalis you have quoted.

Thats where CCTV comes in del, face recognition does the trick

 

[JimmyFingers]

That commentor could read up a little bit on the state of the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-brother-state-ndash-by-stealth-1050576.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...state-warns-Director-Public-Prosecutions.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wers-demand-ID-street--pain-sending-jail.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-pupils-aged--complete-CPS-evidence-kit.html

But hey, that was only in the DDR

Ironic given how much stick the British media gets in this place, yet it's suddenly used to prove that the UK is like East Germany.

I've never been asked for for ID. Maybe it's a different story in the main cities but out here in the West Country you can sleep fairly easy that you won't be carted off by a secret police in the dead of night.