A question about doping in the UK

[JimmyFingers]

Hi Jimmy. Whenever you think that some posters break the rules, either report the post(s), or pm a mod. It's not very nice to accuse others of being a suckpuppet, but if you tell a mod about it, then we will investigate. We have already investigated horsinabout/thehog and concluded that it is two different users. Your welcome.

Duly noted,although I never called him a sock puppet, I said his argument was full of holes, like his sock, which was a direct reference to his avatar. I did suggest he used different names to post, based on the fact he appeared on the forum the same week Hog was banned and he has a similar posting style. I imagine the IPs are different, but there are ways and means right? I have suspicions, they seem to count for a lot here, I will maintain them. The poster in question is very, very familiar with the forum and its memes for someone who's been here 2 months.

I generally don't go to mods unless I feel someone is being abusive btw.

However I maintain beyond an insinuation he used different names, nothing I did constituted 'harassment', just a robust debating style, and I've had far worse said to me.

I also maintain that if it against the rules to be called a sockpuppet, a poster should be persuaded not to adopt one as an avatar. You may call a jest, it could also be called provocative and inviting the accusation, which is why I would suggest he adopted it. If he's not a sockpuppet, get rid of the avatar and we can put this thing to bed.

 

[Netserk]

Duly noted,although I never called him a sock puppet, I said his argument was full of holes, like his sock, which was a direct reference to his avatar. I did suggest he used different names to post, based on the fact he appeared on the forum the same week Hog was banned and he has a similar posting style. I imagine the IPs are different, but there are ways and means right? I have suspicions, they seem to count for a lot here, I will maintain them. The poster in question is very, very familiar with the forum and its memes for someone who's been here 2 months.

I generally don't go to mods unless I feel someone is being abusive btw.

However I maintain beyond an insinuation he used different names, nothing I did constituted 'harassment', just a robust debating style, and I've had far worse said to me.

I also maintain that if it against the rules to be called a sockpuppet, a poster should be persuaded not to adopt one as an avatar. You may call a jest, it could also be called provocative and inviting the accusation, which is why I would suggest he adopted it. If he's not a sockpuppet, get rid of the avatar and we can put this thing to bed.

I didn't say you 'harassed' horsinabout. If you had worse things thrown at you, then report it.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I didn't say you 'harassed' horsinabout. If you had worse things thrown at you, then report it.

You didn't, another mod, Hiero I believe, called it a 'pattern of harassment', which I take exception to. It really wasn't about that, it was about a stupid assertion that was made about Pendleton.

 

[hiero2]

Just a question .. why would a supposedly complete newbie use a sockpuppet avatar - I can see how someone who's been a forum a while might find it funny...but why would a supposedly complete newbie do it?

Because a number of forumites have repeatedly, in the forum, asserted that horsinabout is a sockpuppet. If you recall, the original avatar used was a ballerina in a tutu. It was changed after I responded to the allegations to note that horsinabout is not a sockpuppet, as so many assert, of the hog. I have evidence otherwise, and no evidence in favor. And, has since been changed again. As Netserk said, maybe it was humor.

 

[hiero2]

You didn't, another mod, Hiero I believe, called it a 'pattern of harassment', which I take exception to. It really wasn't about that, it was about a stupid assertion that was made about Pendleton.

You can take exception all you want - but the posts remain to prove that you were engaging in a pattern of harassment.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming that you do not know that it has been specifically pointed out that an allegation, in the forum, of another user being a sockpuppet is a personal attack. If you have evidence of such, report it. Along with your proof. I had also previously stated the above about the evidence, but I will assume that you missed that post. You haven't missed it now.

 

[hiero2]

gentle(wo)men, can we please resist the urge to accuse others of sockpuppetry, especially snide insinuations

cheers
bison

EDIT: haha a good example of our different styles of modding. Cheers Hiero2

Yes - I like that you can manage to say most of the same thing in fewer words. Never been my forte.

 

[hiero2]

. . . I imagine the IPs are different, but there are ways and means right? . . .

Please give us a little credit on knowing something about what goes on. But I know others will have the same question. Yes, there are ways and means - proxy servers - and that possibility is also taken into consideration.

But if you have evidence - please contact us with same.

 

[Parker]

gentle(wo)men, can we please resist the urge to accuse others of sockpuppetry, especially snide insinuations

Let me get this straight.

Accusing public figures of fraudulent and potentially criminal behaviour with absolutely no evidence whatsoever is just fine

But infringing so sort of internet etiquette whereby it is suggested that one anonymous person is another anonymous person is absolutely unacceptable.

Some people on here did a little perspective. If your accusing people, then don't bleat about 'bullying' when someone disagrees with you then your just a spoilt brat.

In summary - if you can't take it yourself don't dish it out. (There's an entire country that needs to learn that one)

 

[BroDeal]

In summary - if you can't take it yourself don't dish it out. (There's an entire country that needs to learn that one)

I'm sure the Brits will learn it in time.

What is going on here is the Jimmy Fingers/Martinvickers crowd crying about a new poster joining the rational thinkers rather than the flat earthers.

 

[Parker]

I'm sure the Brits will learn it in time.

What is going on here is the Jimmy Fingers/Martinvickers crowd crying about a new poster joining the rational thinkers rather than the flat earthers.

Fortunately it's not Britain. No country does self depreciating humour as well.

And martinvickers is Irish (it's not them either)

PS I heard your 'rational thinkers' described as 'swivel eyed loons' by a respected cycling observer the other day.

 

[blackcat]

well, the self deprecating genes were excised on entry to cycling.

Wiggins and Millar can "play" self deprecating. But play is all it is.

 

[BroDeal]

Fortunately it's not Britain. No country does self depreciating humour as well.

Unfortunately none of those self-deprecating types post here. Instead we get the remnants of a failed empire trying to relive the glory years who view any questioning of the ridiculous performances of Sky as an insult to queen and country.

 

[sittingbison]

...my references to a sock were because his avatar is one....It's like going around with a T-Shirt on saying *** then being offended when someone calls you a ***

When someone's avatar is a freakin sockpuppet, they can have no argument about being called a sockpuppet.

...why would a supposedly complete newbie use a sockpuppet avatar - I can see how someone who's been a forum a while might find it funny...but why would a supposedly complete newbie do it?

Anyone care to remember what ebandits avi was?

 

[horsinabout]

To generate 9.7s for men and 10.7s for women 200m requires a certain amount of power output over the required duration.

BC elite team marginal gains in other areas, such as bike stiffness, aerodynamics, technology, and any other variable, has not been objectively quantified to the general public, that I am aware.

BC have improved training methods and medical back up, that has improved recovery, well being physically and psycologically. BC elite program has not quantified the total amount of improvement this has made.

BC said improvements are down to marginal gains, which may seem reasonable on face value. The marginal gains have not been quantified to the general public objectively, so cannot be certain whether this has totally accounted for (one whole second in the 200m tt from amateur to elite) and whether this explains the extra power that has materialsed.

My point of comparison was that in 1997 the men's National record was a touch under 10.7 sec and we can consider that this was an amateur era in British track cycling. Yes, there may have been drugs in that era, as proven by one sprinter being caught. British track cycling now is an elite system. The men's 200m National record is now 9.7s. So we have a benchmark of one whole second. This benchmark is further objectified as the amateur record in 1997 was done on a new state of the art indoor wooden 250m velodrome, with double discs used.

I hope I make my point here clearly, where I ask for the 'gains' to objectively add up and to totally explain the improvements. If they do not then I remain sceptical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKRLW3TkWHA

Dear Sir Dave Brailsford,

I hope you can take a moment from your busy schedule to read through this public forum thread, where I have expressed concerns regarding the improvements made to the British track team and Sky team performances, given that we are now in an era of elite cycling.

As you state in the above video, we now have tangible measures that doping exists in the production of elite performances in sport.

On the subject of tangible measures, may I raise a question regarding your own marginal gains initiative, that of tangible and measurable evidence from you to explain the improvement in British track sprint cycling in particular.

The objective example I gave on this forum is quoted above, where I compared and contrasted the one second improvement from the 1997 men's British National 200m times 10.7 (now 9.7) and the women's times 11.7 (now 10.7).

The question is how have GB sprint 200m times improved by one whole second from 1997 to the present day?

This is a period of fifteen years, which is how long the GB elite program has now been in existence.

Please take a moment to reference the photo below of the Olympic men's sprint final in Barcelona, with photo finish timings. From this we can clearly see that each of the black lines running vertically represents 1/100th sec and that one whole bike length equates to just under 10 of the black lines, so a bike length of 1/10th sec is a significant advance in distance gain for such a short distanced event.

The improvements you have now made in my comparisons are ten times this distance - to equate to one whole second. So that is approximately ten bike lengths. On a 250m track this means that 1997 record man is ten bike lengths behind 2012 record man, when crossing the finish line.

To put this into layman's terms 1997 record man has had a dicking of a life time. Or to put it more succinctly he has been comprehensively beaten by the present day National record holder.

As I stated above, my comparison (10.7 to 9.7) is objectified further by both men's records having been done on double discs on a new state of the art indoor 250m velodrome.

My hypothesis, is that generously, marginal gains may have amounted to a half of a second. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis and leaves you to give tangible and objective measures of how the other half second has been attained.

Yours sincerely

horsinabout

 

[bobbins]

Don't forget to ask about UKSI wheels

 

[blackcat]

no. As D-Queued put so appositely, marginal gains wont mount to a damn rounding error on a comprehensive doping program.

and what is Pendletons pb? just google. 10.95 is slower than the pb.

so the pb is damn close to the GB record a decade ago. NOT NORMAL.

from a bloody rower.

heads = NOT NORMAL

 

[horsinabout]

no. As D-Queued put so appositely, marginal gains wont mount to a damn rounding error on a comprehensive doping program.

and what is Pendletons pb? just google. 10.95 is slower than the pb.

so the pb is damn close to the GB record a decade ago. NOT NORMAL.

from a bloody rower.

heads = NOT NORMAL

I see your point my friend....check the link, for correct current times.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/track/article/trast-National-Track-Records

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I see your point my friend....check the link, for correct current times.

The history of how each British Record has developed over time is the best. If you want your eyebrows raised, check out the British TP record when Boardman set the IP record at 4:11.

You could also check out this, though: http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/11/14/eddie-alexander-interview/

It's no chuffing wonder that folk have got faster since the late 80s/90s, given the way the elite folk had to tackle their task back then.

 

[horsinabout]

The history of how each British Record has developed over time is the best. If you want your eyebrows raised, check out the British TP record when Boardman set the IP record at 4:11.

You could also check out this, though: http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/11/14/eddie-alexander-interview/

It's no chuffing wonder that folk have got faster since the late 80s/90s, given the way the elite folk had to tackle their task back then.

If the forum wants to get this thread back on topic, then a good place to start is with CB, as he retired because he had a bone condition that one medical reason for getting is the taking of large amounts of corticosteriods over an extended period. Not the only reason, but you could draw strong inferences.

Secondly, where track sprinting is concerned, The City of Edinburgh would be another place to start.

 

[ultimobici]

If the forum wants to get this thread back on topic, then a good place to start is with CB, as he retired because he had a bone condition that one medical reason for getting is the taking of large amounts of corticosteriods over an extended period. Not the only reason, but you could draw strong inferences.

Secondly, where track sprinting is concerned, The City of Edinburgh would be another place to start.

Clutching at straws a little aren't we? You conveniently ignore that he has a family history of osteoporosis and was diagnosed with low testosterone levels to boot. Add in that he rode his entire career for a team noted for its lack of doping and it's an even bigger stretch.

Do tell about Meadowbank too?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

If the forum wants to get this thread back on topic, then a good place to start is with CB, as he retired because he had a bone condition that one medical reason for getting is the taking of large amounts of corticosteriods over an extended period. Not the only reason, but you could draw strong inferences.

Why bother with wild speculation when you could discuss Boardman's IP record being faster than the TP record at the same time?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Clutching at straws a little aren't we? You conveniently ignore that he has a family history of osteoporosis and was diagnosed with low testosterone levels to boot. Add in that he rode his entire career for a team noted for its lack of doping and it's an even bigger stretch.

Do tell about Meadowbank too?

Add the fact that he tried to get a TUE for things to address it, was denied and rode anyway until such point he had to stop to get the treatements.

I have little doubt that CB was truly clean by any sensible definition of the term.

 

[ultimobici]

Why bother with wild speculation when you could discuss Boardman's IP record being faster than the TP record at the same time?

When was that?

 

[ultimobici]

Add the fact that he tried to get a TUE for things to address it, was denied and rode anyway until such point he had to stop to get the treatements.

I have little doubt that CB was truly clean by any sensible definition of the term.

IIRC when he was told what the treatment and that a TUE would be required, he declined despite being told it was a virtual certainty he'd get it.

 

[peterst6906]

If the forum wants to get this thread back on topic, then a good place to start is with CB, as he retired because he had a bone condition that one medical reason for getting is the taking of large amounts of corticosteriods over an extended period. Not the only reason, but you could draw strong inferences.

Secondly, where track sprinting is concerned, The City of Edinburgh would be another place to start.

<sigh>

Continuing with wild accusations is not the way to get the thread back on track.

The way to get the thread back on track is to go to the original question, which was 'does anyone have knowledge of doping in the UK racing scene in the last decade'.

CB retired in 2000 and talking about the state of cycling back then and older is pointless and off topic.

Aside from sending requests to Brailsford that are impossible for him to comply with, even if he wanted to, why don't you just gracefully stay quiet on the issue as its clear you have nothing relevant to contribute that is on topic.