A question about doping in the UK

[Briant_Gumble]

Track cyclist is the most important job on the island. Women must participate in Track cycling along with men. All adults must also learn another essential trade, such as bicycle mechanic, soigneur, preparator, derny rider, timekeeper, etc. Chaperones are not required, of course, there being no need for testing.

Agreed in the fifteenth century the great King Henry V decreed that there be a national archery day in Britain where everyone must participate in Archery and that the art must become Britain's favourite past time. This led to a famous victory at the battle of Agincourt.

Where once we had archery we now have track cycling which had led to some famous victories at London 2012.

 

[horsinabout]

Agreed in the fifteenth century the great King Henry V decreed that there be a national archery day in Britain where everyone must participate in Archery and that the art must become Britain's favourite past time. This led to a famous victory at the battle of Agincourt.

Where once we had archery we now have track cycling which had led to some famous victories at London 2012.

And what a Tyrant Henry V was too. Our history with sport is tied in with our instinct for jingoism so it seems.

 

[andy1234]

This thread is ridiculous.

Bobbies don't even carry guns.

There is no doping in the UK, let alone any kind of crime.

Why would there even be a question about it?

They call it the Old Bailey because they don't need a new one.

Thomas More's Utopia.

That large moat they have around the 'Isles keeps out rabies and rabid dopers.

Utopia:

Track cyclist is the most important job on the island. Women must participate in Track cycling along with men. All adults must also learn another essential trade, such as bicycle mechanic, soigneur, preparator, derny rider, timekeeper, etc. Chaperones are not required, of course, there being no need for testing.

There are no locks on the bicycles, and all wheels and tyres are stored in a common warehouse. Bicycle handlebars, seats and helmets are rotated amongst the citizens every ten years.

Slavery is part of Utopian life, and every cyclist is afforded two Domestiques.

Dave.

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.

Come on, that was funny, and clever.
Not only that, (correct me if I'm wrong Dave) from an..... American!
Who'd have thunk?

It's amazing what they can put their minds to, when McDonalds is shut and there isn't a monster truck rally in town.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Less of the 'our' hog, Henry V certainly isn't regarded as a tyrant, unless you're French

 

[horsinabout]

Less of the 'our' hog, Henry V certainly isn't regarded as a tyrant, unless you're French

Are you taking the p*ss....

 

[D-Queued]

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.

My apologies if I have offended. I have no issue with being called a tosser.

How is one to respond to a dialog that appears to have been reduced to the veracity of JB's eyeball doping test (paraphrasing: I looked at Basso and I could tell he wasn't doping)? Or, on a thread that has a 'question' about doping in the UK?

Pro: Physical appearance suggests doping is pervasive
Con: You can't tell by looking

Settled then.

According to Sir Thomas, Utopia could not exist without slavery.

The breadth of current evidence reveals that success in the current cycling environment cannot exist without doping.

This is the current cycling Utopia.

Dave.

 

[horsinabout]

From the increased muscle mass point of view, Pendleton shows less visual evidence of doping than any of her peers.

She's no jockey either..

 

[blackcat]

How is one to respond to a dialog that appears to have been reduced to the veracity of JB's eyeball doping test (paraphrasing: I looked at Basso and I could tell he wasn't doping)? Or, on a thread that has a 'question' about doping in the UK?

Pro: Physical appearance suggests doping is pervasive
Con: You can't tell by looking

JB and Jonny Vee did optometry at Johns Hopkins and Cedars Sinai. respect.

meta optometry. its a little like how those shamans manage to be snake charmers

 

[blackcat]

She's no jockey either..

thats the thing.

folks who dont know doping, think mass and the Clive James quote "Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a condom full of walnuts"

but look at Usain Bolt v Linford Christie. And pre-suit, Eamon Sullivan v Alain Bernard, when Sullivan had him bested until the suits made the heavier muscled guys without the technique stronger relative to the technique guys.

doping aint only mass, and gym weight physiques.

 

[peterst6906]

She's no jockey either..

She' more of a jockey than most women in the UK...

Doesn't the UK outstrip the US for obesity these days? I thought I read that somewhere. If size alone is a basis for concluding drug usage, then the whole country (just about the whole World if jockey size is the standard to go by) is on drugs.

 

[horsinabout]

thats the thing.

folks who dont know doping, think mass and the Clive James quote "Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a condom full of walnuts"

but look at Usain Bolt v Linford Christie. And pre-suit, Eamon Sullivan v Alain Bernard, when Sullivan had him bested until the suits made the heavier muscled guys without the technique stronger relative to the technique guys.

doping aint only mass, and gym weight physiques.

I don't think size is a necessary predictor of doping, just responding to some of the posts on here who keep on about what a skinny wink VP is.

As I have said before on this forum, the speeds the women are now doing in the 200m TT are a much greater prediction of doping. They are basically now surpassing the times that in the mid 90's were thought to be the threshold for men's times performed "naturally". And GB women are leading the way on these times. VP did a 10.7sec 200mTT in London, most male trained sprinters would struggle to accomplish those times "naturally". It is beyond belief.

 

[Elagabalus]

Does anyone on here have knowledge of doping in the UK racing scene through the last decade ? It seems to have avoided any real doping issues.

Did Kirsteen ask you to do some more heavy lifting?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1067878#post1067878

I see you were active in that thread as well.

 

[peterst6906]

VP did a 10.7sec 200mTT in London, most male trained sprinters would struggle to accomplish those times "naturally". It is beyond belief.

These are the type of falsehoods that can be taken as truth.

From 17 years of age male sprinters will be posting times better than 10.7 and almost getting there at 16 years of age. Even top ranked 14 year old males are less than 1/2 second outside that time.

10.7 is not fast at all for an elite male.

 

[blackcat]

I don't think size is a necessary predictor of doping, just responding to some of the posts on here who keep on about what a skinny wink VP is.

As I have said before on this forum, the speeds the women are now doing in the 200m TT are a much greater prediction of doping. They are basically now surpassing the times that in the mid 90's were thought to be the threshold for men's times performed "naturally". And GB women are leading the way on these times. VP did a 10.7sec 200mTT in London, most male trained sprinters would struggle to accomplish those times "naturally". It is beyond belief.

yeah, I know what you meant.

my point was, if I tell me brother Lionel Mess, he wants to see Linford Christie size before he will believe. but this is not baselining genetics, ceteris paribus

 

[horsinabout]

These are the type of falsehoods that can be taken as truth.

From 17 years of age male sprinters will be posting times better than 10.7 and almost getting there at 16 years of age. Even top ranked 14 year old males are less than 1/2 second outside that time.

10.7 is not fast at all for an elite male.

Are key word elite males, the ones who have access to all the facilities, financing etc.. women have always done "like for like" what 17/18 year olds males do time wise, that's quite understandable, I was referring to the times of the mid nineties and men at national level doing sprinting "naturally" not what is going on now twenty years on..

I don't expect anything I say to be taken as "truth", I think I have quite clearly explained my position to you, I come from a position of sceptic. If you have proof it is done using absolutely no PED's what so ever then give me the proof. Then I will no longer be a sceptic.

 

[peterst6906]

Are key word elite males. I was referring to the mid nineties and men at national level doing sprinting "naturally" not what is going on now twenty years on..

Top 14 y/o + 15 and 16 y/o boys come within 1/2 sec of 10.7 and 17 y/o boys and beyond go faster.

You said, 10.7 isn't possible naturally for most males. That is a complete falsehood. Many, many club track sprinters who train well can better that time naturally.

You are just again showing your complete lack of knowledge and posting BS as though it is true.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Whatever name he wears, a fool is still a fool.

And patently wrong, as per usual

 

[horsinabout]

Top 14 y/o + 15 and 16 y/o boys come within 1/2 sec of 10.7 and 17 y/o boys and beyond go faster.

You said, 10.7 isn't possible naturally for most males. That is a complete falsehood. Many, many club track sprinters who train well can better that time naturally.

You are just again showing your complete lack of knowledge and posting BS as though it is true.

In July 1997 the UK National 200m record was 10.637 done by Craig Maclean. This was a true amature men's time, pre or at the start of the elite program that has now developed.

VP's current National Record is 10.724 less than 1/10 sec behind an amature male in 1997 pre elite system days, following me so far?

This was the point being made in my post, and the comparison I was making.

Personally, I think this is a good comparison, precisely because 10.7 are times done by men "naturally"

I am sure men are going inside 10.7 naturally, and this was my point, yet again completely twisted round by you...

The base line marginal difference between men and women's 200m times is approx
a second.

The current men's National record is a 9.713 done in London by Jason Kenny. This is now a whole second faster than in 1997. A Marginal gain?

 

[JimmyFingers]

So you're using 16 year old data to prove your theory? Laughable really, so much have changed, most significantly the velodromes themselves and the equipment used.

Full of holes, like your sock

 

[SundayRider]

Google Dan Staite - EPO started to win races he had no right to win. I have also suspected certain high end amateur triathletes.

 

[peterst6906]

IThis is now a whole second faster than in 1997. A Marginal gain?

Nothing to do with marginal gains (whatever Team Sky try to make us all believe that means).

You believe it is beyond belief for VP to do 10.7 as that is faster than you assert most men, well trained at national level can do naturally. Your exact quote was:

VP did a 10.7sec 200mTT in London, most male trained sprinters would struggle to accomplish those times "naturally". It is beyond belief.

But then you accept that it is ok for 17-18 y/o males to be posting similar times to elite female sprinters, without assistance (which they do). Your exact quote was:

women have always done "like for like" what 17/18 year olds males do time wise

So on the one hand, VP should be posting times similar to 17-18 y/o males because that's what's always been done, but although her flying 200 m time is slower than what 17-18 y/o males are now doing, her time is still too fast because that's faster than amateur men were doing almost 20 years ago.

And to tack on top of that, somehow juniors can do times of 10.7 and better over a flying 200m with no issue, but once they move to the senior ranks, it's not natural for them to continue to go faster.

Your logic is ...[EDIT: actually there is no logic].

You just make absolutely no sense and your arguments continue to show that you know nothing about track cycling or the times that are being posted from junior through to senior levels.

There are a whole host of reasons why times have improved over the last 20 years.

Lastly, if you are using 1997 as your bastion of a clean cycling era, then you need to reconsider that.

 

[horsinabout]

So you're using 16 year old data to prove your theory? Laughable really, so much have changed, most significantly the velodromes themselves and the equipment used.

Full of holes, like your sock

These times are factual and historical, so they do mean something in context.

They were true amature times, they were done with little or no funding.

Of course you can make a comparison between then and now from an historical perspective. If only to fully explain how those improvements have been made.

All I am getting is personal insults, insiuations that I know nothing about the track, that I am a liar of faulsehoods and that my comparisons are laughable (even though in reality they are objective).

I am still waiting for absolute objective proof as to how these improvements have been made, which have not yet been contrbute to this debate.

Without objective evidence you have no case.

 

[peterst6906]

These times are factual and historical, so they do mean something in context.

They were true amature times, they were done with little or no funding.

Of course you can make a comparison between then and now from an historical perspective. If only to fully explain how those improvements have been made.

All I am getting is personal insults, insiuations that I know nothing about the track, that I am a liar of faulsehoods and that my comparisons are laughable (even though in reality they are objective).

I am still waiting for absolute objective proof as to how these improvements have been made, which have not yet been contrbute to this debate.

Without objective evidence you have no case.

So your sum total proof of doping is:

1. VP's head has changed (not based on objective evidence, just something you've seen in photographs); and

2. VP is posting times similar to 17-18 y/o males in line with historical times for elite women to junior males, but those times are faster than 20 years ago for amateur men (well trained).

And then you wonder why we find it difficult to take you seriously.

On the issue of objective proof how these improvements have been made, step away from the computer, go down to a good nearby track and observe the development programs. You'll see it all for yourself.

That's the only way you'll know. Go and find out. There have been a multitude of initiatives resulting from better funding, but even to list them won't provide you with the proof you seek, because you won't accept it anyway. So go and watch and follow some junior riders through the ranks and you'll see it is all possible to do naturally.

 

[horsinabout]

So your sum total proof of doping is:

1. VP's head has changed (not based on objective evidence, just something you've seen in photographs); and

2. VP is posting times similar to 17-18 y/o males in line with historical times for elite women to junior males, but those times are faster than 20 years ago for amateur men (well trained).

And then you wonder why we find it difficult to take you seriously.

On the issue of objective proof how these improvements have been made, step away from the computer, go down to a good nearby track and observe the development programs. You'll see it all for yourself.

That's the only way you'll know. Go and find out. There have been a multitude of initiatives resulting from better funding, but even to list them won't provide you with the proof you seek, because you won't accept it anyway. So go and watch and follow some junior riders through the ranks and you'll see it is all possible to do naturally.

I am aware of all the iniative and structured training, improvements. Obviously this will improve top end performances.

This is not enough to explain the outstanding performance to the extent we are now witnessing.

I actually believe that what you are now doing is a form of bullying.

 

[peterst6906]

I actually believe that what you are now doing is a form of bulling.

Then report it to the mods.

Or grow a thicker skin. This is the clinic, not the daycare.

If you want to jump in with an opening post that I am totally wrong to have my opinion, then you should expect some push back on that, especially when you then follow with factually incorrect statements to back yourself up.