A question about doping in the UK

[peterst6906]

For ground level track in the UK, you are probably right....

For the step up to the elite program - to use your own words you are "naive and totally wrong"

As the saying goes 'put up or shut up'.

So, put up. What is your evidence?

I'm happy to change opinion, but there needs to be a reason to do so. So if I'm wrong and naive, please enlighten me with the proof.

Your certainty goes straight to the question of the OP, so you should be able to add huge value to this thread and at the same time expose a massive fraud within British cycling.

So either this is going to be good, or as I am more likely to believe in the absence of your evidence, you are just another p_issant and liar on the internet who has no value to add to anything.

 

[blackcat]

Word was that some of the top riders in the mid 90s were on EPO, didn't seem to do them much good though.

Rumours of a positive at the nationals in the early 90s

Stories of riders based in france being popped with EPO in the trunk of their car.

Various positives from overseas back then. Ref Jamie Alberts being busted. There were others also involved in this by all accounts.

Missed OOC controls being wiped so thus avoid the 3 strikes penalty is also rumoured

Things are kept quiet over in the UK.

Jamie Burrow is the best climber Sky never had. And still, would be better than Froomie.

holds the Plateau de Beille record still, I believe, that he took from Pantani in the espoirs. In the same race in Rode l'Izard, he beat reigning u23 worlds tt champ thor hushovd, in the chrono too.

 

[horsinabout]

As the saying goes 'put up or shut up'.

So, put up. What is your evidence?

I'm happy to change opinion, but there needs to be a reason to do so. So if I'm wrong and naive, please enlighten me with the proof.

Your certainty goes straight to the question of the OP, so you should be able to add huge value to this thread and at the same time expose a massive fraud within British cycling.

So either this is going to be good, or as I am more likely to believe in the absence of your evidence, you are just another p_issant and liar on the internet who has no value to add to anything.

Calm down and keep your hair on...

There never is any evidence because you need people to admit it or get caught. Both are likely never to happen unless it becomes a disfunctional system as in the case of LA. There are only a few at elite level, so it is statistically possible.

Most evidence that gets presented for doping on this forum is circumstantial, such as speeds, times, standards...body shape changes, big heads and so on. most of these things occur when in hard training any way this is true, it is just the degrees now that makes it unbelieveable.
And despite the denials UK track produce no evidence that they are achieving greatness without PED's. And this, as I view it, leaves an opening for sceptism.

Marginal gains are a joke....keeping your legs warm between sprinting goes back to Reg Harris, none of it is new, they are old ideas with loads of money thrown at it.
In the history of science - big improvements have always come from big break throughs not marginal gains - it's bull.

BC have produced no real scientific evidence as to how such huge gains have been achieved..fact. If you want to believe in it anyway this is your choice.

If I want to be sceptical until real evidence is produced then this is the position I am going to take.

I don't think the onus is on me to "put up or shut up" because in the UK we "just about" still live in a country where free speach and sceptism are viewed as health.

 

[blackcat]

Most evidence that gets presented for doping on this forum is circumstantial, such as speeds, times, standards...body shape changes, big heads and so on. most of these things occur when in hard training any way this is true, it is just the degrees now that makes it unbelieveable.

'cept the big heads, and the movement of teeth.

even jonny vee can admit this

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/vaughters_1999

JV "The users can have their balls shrivel up and their foreheads grow larger and whatever and good luck to them, but it's the oxygen vector drugs that are really powerful."

 

[peterst6906]

There never is any evidence because you need people to admit it or get caught. Both are likely never to happen unless it becomes a disfunctional system as in the case of LA. There are only a few at elite level, so it is statistically possible.

Yep, as I suspected disappointing. You're just another p_issuant and liar on the internet.

Nothing of any substance to back your position that I am naive and totally wrong. Just a bunch of keyboard w*nk.

 

[horsinabout]

Yep, as I suspected disappointing. You're just another p_issuant and liar on the internet.

Nothing of any substance to back your position that I am naive and totally wrong. Just a bunch of keyboard w*nk.

I don't think you have listened to a word I have said have you

You might want to refrain from the insults. I didn't call you naive or totally wrong those are your words. I don't care what you think.

My point which has been lost is that sceptism in cycling is healthy because what is going on in BC is not just sport - it is an elitist system, and thus is political, and thereby effects all of our lives. I don't think this makes me a p*ssant.

 

[peterst6906]

I don't think you have listened to a word I have said have you

You might want to refrain from the insults. I didn't call you naive or totally wrong those are your words. I don't care what you think.

My point which has been lost is that sceptism in cycling is healthy because what is going on in BC is not just sport - it is an elitist system, and thus is political, and thereby effects all of our lives. I don't think this makes me a p*ssant.

You're right, I haven't listened, because we aren't actually talking. But I have read what you wrote.

In the absence of any personal experience to use as a basis for judgement, you choose to be sceptical about elite level track cycling in the UK.

There is nothing wrong with scepticism, but that alone doesn't form a solid basis for your opening post in this thread.

You jumped from my own statement that 'I could be naive and totally wrong, to I am naive and totally wrong, without anything more than your own scepticism to make that judgement. The whole, 'I only used your words' response is only partially true as you framed those words in a larger statement that has zero factual basis.

The implication of your opening post was not just that there may be widespread doping going on at elite level, but that there is widespread doping going on at the elite track level in the UK.

But after implying so much, you have delivered so little.

So in my opinion, a p_issant is exactly what you've demonstrated yourself to be; and in this I'm fairly certain that I'm neither naive nor wrong.

 

[blackcat]

Are you sure that is what it is called?

yeah, thats what he means.

its a portmanteau of democracy+hypocrisy

 

[horsinabout]

You're right, I haven't listened, because we aren't actually talking. But I have read what you wrote.

In the absence of any personal experience to use as a basis for judgement, you choose to be sceptical about elite level track cycling in the UK.

There is nothing wrong with scepticism, but that alone doesn't form a solid basis for your opening post in this thread.

You jumped from my own statement that 'I could be naive and totally wrong, to I am naive and totally wrong, without anything more than your own scepticism to make that judgement. The whole, 'I only used your words' response is only partially true as you framed those words in a larger statement that has zero factual basis.

The implication of your opening post was not just that there may be widespread doping going on at elite level, but that there is widespread doping going on at the elite track level in the UK.

But after implying so much, you have delivered so little.

So in my opinion, a p_issant is exactly what you've demonstrated yourself to be; and in this I'm fairly certain that I'm neither naive nor wrong.

You have a real chip about the naive thing don't you.

I did not say that I have had no involvement with the sport either, that is your assumption.

Ok reply....in science, not the BC sudo science..but real science of a peer reviewed nature, you start with a theory. When you have a theory, you then go all out to find evidence to prove the theory...following this so far?

For example, people used to think that the earth was flat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei, until they figured out that the earth was not at the center of everything in the universe.

Lets suppose that my theory is in this case my sceptism, that the elitist program the BC are running is not achieved from green tea, good coaching, the building of velodromes and marginal gains on iis own.
But that some of the lotto funding to enhance the standards, the standards that are now so high that this requires more evidence to prove it was achieved without the use of PED's. So I call for evidence.

My original post about Pendelton and her facial changes are an observation of fact. The evidence is there she has changed in her bone structure from her early years at the start of her career. I also know as a scientific fact that
largening of the facual bones is a side effect of HGH. I believe the medical term is Acromegaly. Urticaria is an allergy rash that can be a side effect of corticosteriods.

We also know PEDs have side effects from those who have admitted to doping.

This is all evidence that can put the onus on any elite program to come up with true evidence, and should get people asking more questions and demanding more evidence. i can speculate why this is not happening. Because people don't want the evidence, just like the flat earthers. Even at the mere suggession that the earth was round cause no end of problems for Galileo.

Evidence of a more substantial nature will require some proper peer reviewed science from BC or a brave soul to do a Watergate on Manchester Velodrome, for now this is my contribution.

http://70sbig.com/blog/2012/09/peds-and-naivety/

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/MACAU_Effects_of_Doping.pdf

 

[peterst6906]

Ok reply....in science, not the BC sudo science..but real science of a peer reviewed nature, you start with a theory. When you have a theory, you then go all out to find evidence to prove the theory...following this so far?

No, no huge issue with the naive thing at all. It was what you implied in your post and the way you did it and then backed it up with nothing.

But as to your bit above, your lack of understanding of the scientific method in practice is just as complete as your lack of evidence to support your claim of widespread doping.

In science you don't begin with a theory at all, you begin with a hypothesis. When you have a hypothesis, experiment and observations try to prove assumptions wrong, not to prove them right. If it can't be proven wrong, or is refined in the process of testing, then it may be become a theory and if really lucky be considered as a law (a theory so well accepted that it won't be challenged).

So in your case, you have a hypothesis that doping is widespread in the elite UK track program.

So if you were to try to apply science to that thought, the thing to do would be to start from the basis that doping is not widespread and prove that statement wrong.

But you can't do that and neither do you have sufficient evidence from external sources to prove it wrong. But you jumped straight to that anyway, which is illogical.

You have asked for proof of non-doping which is an impossible thing to prove. Taking your scientific approach you should still be working with the assumption (null hypothesis) that elite track cycling is clean.

In the absence of evidence to prove that assumption wrong, it's the logical position to take.

 

[peterst6906]

I did not say that I have had no involvement with the sport either, that is your assumption.
...
...
...
My original post about Pendelton and her facial changes are an observation of fact. The evidence is there she has changed in her bone structure from her early years at the start of her career.

So you have personal involvement with the current elite track program in the UK, but the basis of you scepticism is perceived changes in VPs face (not actual measurements I'm guessing, just observation from photographs - but that is an assumption about how you have come to your conclusion of facial distortion caused by drugs).

Sorry, but anyone with any current personal experience and observations wouldn't be using perceived facial changes as the basis of judgement.

The story doesn't add up.

Cycling in general has created its own problems and deserves everyones scepticism. At this time though, based on my personal experience and observations, I am happy to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of track cycling and accept that widespread doping is not currently a problem in that discipline of the sport. If real evidence surfaces to make me change my position, I'll be the first to admit it.

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

Just seen " Angus Porter of thr Prof.Cricket assoc."on Sky TV , banging on about taking Hair Samples for Drug testing purposes .

Does Cricket use the Bio Passport currently ? Do other Sports take , or propose to take Hair Samples for testing ?

That was in relation to recreational drug use following the death of a young player linked to cocaine use.

Cricketers have certainly beefed up in the last 10 years, and with a six figure salary in your early 20s, quite an incentive to load up on roids to get into the pro game, and once there the finance to keep doing so.

 

[horsinabout]

No, no huge issue with the naive thing at all. It was what you implied in your post and the way you did it and then backed it up with nothing.

But as to your bit above, your lack of understanding of the scientific method in practice is just as complete as your lack of evidence to support your claim of widespread doping.

In science you don't begin with a theory at all, you begin with a hypothesis. When you have a hypothesis, experiment and observations try to prove assumptions wrong, not to prove them right. If it can't be proven wrong, or is refined in the process of testing, then it may be become a theory and if really lucky be considered as a law (a theory so well accepted that it won't be challenged).

So in your case, you have a hypothesis that doping is widespread in the elite UK track program.

So if you were to try to apply science to that thought, the thing to do would be to start from the basis that doping is not widespread and prove that statement wrong.

But you can't do that and neither do you have sufficient evidence from external sources to prove it wrong. But you jumped straight to that anyway, which is illogical.

You have asked for proof of non-doping which is an impossible thing to prove. Taking your scientific approach you should still be working with the assumption (null hypothesis) that elite track cycling is clean.

In the absence of evidence to prove that assumption wrong, it's the logical position to take.

Well thank you for the forensics, I see your point, perhaps we are singing from the same hymn sheet in reality.

I didn't say I had current involvement in cycling, another assumption on your part...

but I disagree that there is no evidence. As there is evidence of doping in elite sport. Therefore it is not a null hypothesis. Doping in elite sport is a matter of fact. And enough evidence to make it more than a hypothesis or theory, it is a reallity.

I also read that it can be known if athletes have used drugs from taking muscle biopsy, I am not sure if this is not an offical testing method. So there are more than likely methods to prove long term doping.

As you claim my sceptism is an hypothesis and you are pressing little old me to give you the proof you require for GB elite cycling, which is as you know, not possible. So the onus is for you to dsiprove my sceptism, which you have not even come close to doing. If you claim it is an hypothesis.

As for the term "clean" I think this is a euphemism. So proves absolutely nothing. It only proves that an athlete is drug free at a given moment in time. It also requires a reliable testing system. Following corruption allegations in cycling UCI this is not reliable.

The theory of evalution is fact, due to what we know about genetics. But people still want proof.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No, no huge issue with the naive thing at all. It was what you implied in your post and the way you did it and then backed it up with nothing.

Get used to that

 

[peterst6906]

Well thank you for the forensics, I see your point, perhaps we are singing from the same hymn sheet in reality.

Possible, though the conclusions are polar opposites at the moment.

I have plenty of interest in identifying the presence of doping at the elite level. In addition to my involvement, I have 2 sons on the path to the elite level, the eldest of those for track.

There is no way I want him exposed to a culture of doping in order to succeed, so I am always observing to identify things that look funny. Amongst the current elite and development programs I have observed, I am comfortable that my son will be able to ride clean if he does make the step to elite track level.

I didn't say I had current involvement in cycling, another assumption on your part...

but I disagree that there is no evidence. As there is evidence of doping in elite sport.

Well you said it was a wrong assumption that you don't have involvement in the sport. So which is it as both can't be true? You either have experience with the current elite track program, or you don't.

However that distraction aside, of course there is evidence of doping in elite sport. Not only that, but there is clear evidence of widespread doping in elite sport. Just look at pro road cycling for that. Puerto, Padua, Australian Government review, current ASADA investigation and on and on and on.

But in none of that has there been a strong link to any track cyclists. If you want to take the discussion to all elite sport, then there's no argument.

Although the original question in this thread related to doping in UK cycling, which still is open to a lot of different interpretations.

As you claim my sceptism is an hypothesis and you are pressing little old me to give you the proof you require for GB elite cycling,

No, not correct. My discussion has been only in relation to track cycling, not all disciplines.

I know very little about CX, downhill or bmx and my suspicions in relation to road cycling are different to track.

So the onus is for you to dsiprove my sceptism,

BS. I have no interest whatsoever in disproving your scepticism. You are as entitled to your view as anyone else.

But you came out in your first post and said it was true that my view is totally wrong.

Asked for proof, you couldn't provide any. Plain and simple.

So either provide evidence of your claim that I am totally wrong about elite track cycling, or don't. It is clear so far that you can't and your original claim has no factual basis to conclude it is correct.

 

[blackcat]

So you have personal involvement with the current elite track program in the UK, but the basis of you scepticism is perceived changes in VPs face (not actual measurements I'm guessing, just observation from photographs - but that is an assumption about how you have come to your conclusion of facial distortion caused by drugs).

Sorry, but anyone with any current personal experience and observations wouldn't be using perceived facial changes as the basis of judgement.

The story doesn't add up.

Cycling in general has created its own problems and deserves everyones scepticism. At this time though, based on my personal experience and observations, I am happy to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of track cycling and accept that widespread doping is not currently a problem in that discipline of the sport. If real evidence surfaces to make me change my position, I'll be the first to admit it.

not normal

The Clinic 12 has spoken.

 

[D-Queued]

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.

 

[Bobito_B]

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.

Only Spaniards and Italians and some miscreant Americans and Northern Europeans dope.

 

[del1962]

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.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I read that less as sarcasm, more as satire. It fits in well with some of the ridiculous elements of this thread.

The laughable description of Pendleton's body/face change being the real stand out for me

 

[simo1733]

I read that less as sarcasm, more as satire. It fits in well with some of the ridiculous elements of this thread.

The laughable description of Pendleton's body/face change being the real stand out for me

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

 

[JimmyFingers]

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

Compared to Vogel or Meares she is the proverbial lanky streak of pish

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

Compared to Vogel or Meares she is the proverbial lanky streak of pish

Which proverb is that?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Which proverb is that?

Sure there was mention it in that one about the frog and the scorpion. I could be wrong

 

[horsinabout]

Possible, though the conclusions are polar opposites at the moment.

You are not sceptical ...I am, and I think it is healthy to be sceptical.

I have plenty of interest in identifying the presence of doping at the elite level. In addition to my involvement, I have 2 sons on the path to the elite level, the eldest of those for track.

I wish you all the best here. Me pointing out the observation I made about VP's change in body shape, isn't a personal attack on her, it is because I have very genuine and real concerns about what I have observed, and what athletes are having to do to perform at an elite level.

of course there is evidence of doping in elite sport. Not only that, but there is clear evidence of widespread doping in elite sport. Just look at pro road cycling for that. Puerto, Padua, Australian Government review, current ASADA investigation and on and on and on.

But in none of that has there been a strong link to any track cyclists. If you want to take the discussion to all elite sport, then there's no argument.

No, not correct. My discussion has been only in relation to track cycling, not all disciplines.

All the sport comes under the same banner the UCI. You can not seperate parts of the sport. Elite sport is elite sport, whether on the road or track. Professional v amature is no longer applicable today, It is a red herring. Sport is either elite or not, this is the way it is now...fact.

BS. I have no interest whatsoever in disproving your scepticism. You are as entitled to your view as anyone else.

You have accused me of being a p*ssant, a liar and and a keyboard wa*ker. And you are saying I need to find proof or I am not permitted to be sceptical. The burden of proof is not mine, because there is enough evidence that doping exists at elite level. I am sceptical because there is proof of doping in elite sport.
You say there is no proof because you are seperating one section of elite sport from another, which I am not doing.

But you came out in your first post and said it was true that my view is totally wrong.

It was a bit of a joke, because you were saying you would be happy to be proved wrong....it's called a reversal in comedy.

Asked for proof, you couldn't provide any. Plain and simple.

My sceptism does have proof, due to what we know is done to achieve elite levels in sport. The onus is on BC to prove their track elite performances are done without PED's, simply because we can define them as elite.
Clean is a euphamism, not proof, is it is unreliable. Denials are not proof, human beings lie, as has been proved with LA. Marginal gains are not proof on their own, as it does not explain the science behind the performances. You have a personal vested interest in the sport, so your lack of sceptism is emotional and is not proof. Therefore my sceptism is not a null and void hypothesis.