Brits don't dope?

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Benotti will be along in a minute to tell you this is the Brits don't dope thread, and to start your own thread about Germans

The Germans are probably the only nation to self reflect on their past doping scandals. The Russians never went through that process post 89. Some of the stories are horrifying of what occurred to the athletes, most didn't even know they were doped.

The Dutch have done some exposes, the Spanish next to nothing and Australia just doesn't care with regards to mass doping in their country. Its at epic proportions especially in Swimming and both codes of football.

The Germans only care about football though. And they have never ever, and will never ever self reflect on football. They may occasionally sacrifice some smaller sports, but its all in the interest of the one true religion.

Nah, Germans wouldn't dope. luther goethe muscular calvinism blood and iron königsburg hanseatic league.

(Am I doing this right?)

Pretty damn close #alliterationz :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Benotti will be along in a minute to tell you this is the Brits don't dope thread, and to start your own thread about Germans

The Germans are probably the only nation to self reflect on their past doping scandals. The Russians never went through that process post 89. Some of the stories are horrifying of what occurred to the athletes, most didn't even know they were doped.

The Dutch have done some exposes, the Spanish next to nothing and Australia just doesn't care with regards to mass doping in their country. Its at epic proportions especially in Swimming and both codes of football.

The Germans only care about football though. And they have never ever, and will never ever self reflect on football. They may occasionally sacrifice some smaller sports, but its all in the interest of the one true religion.

More to the point when state money is used for doping then it faces more scrutiny. East Germany and Freiburg University being good examples.

USPS being another, Novinsky never would have begun if public money hadn't been used to part sponsor the team.

Maybe where the Brits will finally come unstuck is the use of British Cycling money (public) to fund doping (through the sales of team kit and otherwise).

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Benotti will be along in a minute to tell you this is the Brits don't dope thread, and to start your own thread about Germans

The Germans are probably the only nation to self reflect on their past doping scandals. The Russians never went through that process post 89. Some of the stories are horrifying of what occurred to the athletes, most didn't even know they were doped.

The Dutch have done some exposes, the Spanish next to nothing and Australia just doesn't care with regards to mass doping in their country. Its at epic proportions especially in Swimming and both codes of football.

The Germans only care about football though. And they have never ever, and will never ever self reflect on football. They may occasionally sacrifice some smaller sports, but its all in the interest of the one true religion.

Nah, Germans wouldn't dope. luther goethe muscular calvinism blood and iron königsburg hanseatic league.

(Am I doing this right?)

No, you are getting it wrong. Calvinism? You need more work on google. Germany is a proposition state and has been occupied since 1945. It remains controlled by the CIA.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Benotti will be along in a minute to tell you this is the Brits don't dope thread, and to start your own thread about Germans

The Germans are probably the only nation to self reflect on their past doping scandals. The Russians never went through that process post 89. Some of the stories are horrifying of what occurred to the athletes, most didn't even know they were doped.

The Dutch have done some exposes, the Spanish next to nothing and Australia just doesn't care with regards to mass doping in their country. Its at epic proportions especially in Swimming and both codes of football.

The Germans only care about football though. And they have never ever, and will never ever self reflect on football. They may occasionally sacrifice some smaller sports, but its all in the interest of the one true religion.

More to the point when state money is used for doping then it faces more scrutiny. East Germany and Freiburg University being good examples.

USPS being another, Novinsky never would have begun if public money hadn't been used to part sponsor the team.

Maybe where the Brits will finally come unstuck is the use of British Cycling money (public) to fund doping (through the sales of team kit and otherwise).

Ahhhhhhh...... You're not taking into account the beauty of using lottery money. Circumvents the whole state funded thing.

Some good posts on these last few pages. I've a few comments. I think the Germans are in a special privileged position because of their proximity to the Soviet era East German antics, with the subsequent absorption into their own state of the people involved. I suppose they have to make a stand because it is part of a wider (non doping) culture that they hoped to stamp out on reunification.

It's true that the Germans have reacted to their own high profile cycling dope scandals by threatening to withdraw TV coverage from the sport.

I'm not sure about the Italians. It's a very different culture, and I won't be offending many Italians if I say that they have a different relationship with corruption than the northern euro countries, and I mean that in the broadest sense. The Italians are masters of double-speak. To Ricco and Pantani, I would add Di Luca.

I think Di Luca's history is instructive of the Italian attitude to doping. Remember won the 2007 Giro, but was banned shortly after for consulting a known doping doctor.

Yet, this Giro winner was allowed to return to the Giro and two years later tested positive twice in the the Giro for Cera, for which he received what would eventually be a 9 month ban. Again, this former Giro winner reappeared at the Giro before testing positive again in 2013 for which he would receive a lifetime ban. So that is two bans, post Puerto, post Festina, post Landis but this Giro winner could still return to race he'd disgraced.

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

I think the French are in an interesting position, and one that must be very frustrating for French road cyclists. Anti-doping culture has to account for French success in their own sport and race falling off a cliff...and yet the organisers of the race have a far more nuanced view. It must be sh*t being a French rider.

The Spanish? They had their chance with Puerto, but the reaction to Clentador at the highest level is pretty indicative that there is no willingness to change.

And I suppose that is where the British are at. No major scandal blowing it's cover as yet. I don't doubt for a second that the ingredients are there and I think the moment will come.

Where I differ from some posters here is that I think the general reaction in the UK will be to crucify everyone successfully exposed. Of course there will be interested parties who will try to avoid that happening, but the reaction of the public will definitely not be just a shrug of the shoulders.

 

[Nellyspania]

Re: Re:

Benotti will be along in a minute to tell you this is the Brits don't dope thread, and to start your own thread about Germans

The Germans are probably the only nation to self reflect on their past doping scandals. The Russians never went through that process post 89. Some of the stories are horrifying of what occurred to the athletes, most didn't even know they were doped.

The Dutch have done some exposes, the Spanish next to nothing and Australia just doesn't care with regards to mass doping in their country. Its at epic proportions especially in Swimming and both codes of football.

The Germans only care about football though. And they have never ever, and will never ever self reflect on football. They may occasionally sacrifice some smaller sports, but its all in the interest of the one true religion.

More to the point when state money is used for doping then it faces more scrutiny. East Germany and Freiburg University being good examples.

USPS being another, Novinsky never would have begun if public money hadn't been used to part sponsor the team.

Maybe where the Brits will finally come unstuck is the use of British Cycling money (public) to fund doping (through the sales of team kit and otherwise).

Ahhhhhhh...... You're not taking into account the beauty of using lottery money. Circumvents the whole state funded thing.

Some good posts on these last few pages. I've a few comments. I think the Germans are in a special privileged position because of their proximity to the Soviet era East German antics, with the subsequent absorption into their own state of the people involved. I suppose they have to make a stand because it is part of a wider (non doping) culture that they hoped to stamp out on reunification.

It's true that the Germans have reacted to their own high profile cycling dope scandals by threatening to withdraw TV coverage from the sport.

I'm not sure about the Italians. It's a very different culture, and I won't be offending many Italians if I say that they have a different relationship with corruption than the northern euro countries, and I mean that in the broadest sense. The Italians are masters of double-speak. To Ricco and Pantani, I would add Di Luca.

I think Di Luca's history is instructive of the Italian attitude to doping. Remember won the 2007 Giro, but was banned shortly after for consulting a known doping doctor.

Yet, this Giro winner was allowed to return to the Giro and two years later tested positive twice in the the Giro for Cera, for which he received what would eventually be a 9 month ban. Again, this former Giro winner reappeared at the Giro before testing positive again in 2013 for which he would receive a lifetime ban. So that is two bans, post Puerto, post Festina, post Landis but this Giro winner could still return to race he'd disgraced.

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

I think the French are in an interesting position, and one that must be very frustrating for French road cyclists. Anti-doping culture has to account for French success in their own sport and race falling off a cliff...and yet the organisers of the race have a far more nuanced view. It must be sh*t being a French rider.

The Spanish? They had their chance with Puerto, but the reaction to Clentador at the highest level is pretty indicative that there is no willingness to change.

And I suppose that is where the British are at. No major scandal blowing it's cover as yet. I don't doubt for a second that the ingredients are there and I think the moment will come.

Where I differ from some posters here is that I think the general reaction in the UK will be to crucify everyone successfully exposed. Of course there will be interested parties who will try to avoid that happening, but the reaction of the public will definitely not be just a shrug of the shoulders.

I'm inclined to agree on that; especially as the British press is well shackled by our libel laws and as soon as there is something concrete to go for they are like rabid dogs.
Look at what happened to Paul Gascoigne, national hero, booze and personal problems problem got the better of him and he was publicly crucified.
The Brits love a fallen hero and the media knows that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

You also have to remember that, in 1967, anti-doping was in its infancy. The French and Belgians had only just introduced their national laws banning doping. Alec Taylor, manager of the GB squad in the 1967 Tour, complained about the way controls at that time were implemented:

"Race officials, federations, even the law on the Continent have been lax. Before Tom's death I saw on the Continent the overcautious way riders were tested for dope, as if the authorities feared to lift the veil, scared of how to handle the results; knowing all the while what they would be. They called on the law to act, enabling them to shelter under its wing and feel secure from interminable court actions and claims. They let the show carry on while the law acted light-heartedly, without vigour and purpose - and its deterrent had no effect.

Immediately after Simpson's death the bigger fight was to stop national governments interfering in sport while at the same time finding a way for the sport authorities to make anti-doping work without causing uproar among the athletes. As you say, different times, different perspective.

 

[thehog]

I should add that the French introduce the first bio passport named 'longitude testing', which was way before the passport. In 2000 from memory. This was used to detect EPO and transfusions and cyclists were rested if values appeared out of baseline.

With regards to British Cycling, they are also funded by UK Sport which is public money and thus accountable to the tax payer via the Exchequer (along with lottery money via Exchequer).

UK Sport is the nation's high-performance sports agency, responsible for investing National Lottery and government funds in and providing support to our top medal hopes in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/fundingpartners#vfe5tLf8jqV1srfJ.99

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Where I differ from some posters here is that I think the general reaction in the UK will be to crucify everyone successfully exposed. Of course there will be interested parties who will try to avoid that happening, but the reaction of the public will definitely not be just a shrug of the shoulders.

Looking at it from outside in, I dunno. You have David Millar on one side and Dwain Chambers on the other and I think issues such as class matter more in the end when it comes to deciding how to treat cheats there.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The Brits love a fallen hero and the media knows that.

And the reality of that is that within days of the fall they're singing redemption songs already. The fall and rise. That's the cycle we all love.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

Where I differ from some posters here is that I think the general reaction in the UK will be to crucify everyone successfully exposed. Of course there will be interested parties who will try to avoid that happening, but the reaction of the public will definitely not be just a shrug of the shoulders.

Looking at it from outside in, I dunno. You have David Millar on one side and Dwain Chambers on the other and I think issues such as class matter more in the end when it comes to deciding how to treat cheats there.

I don't get the fixation on the barely existent British class system, but anyway, an alternative hypothesis: Millar was a low-profile athlete. If Wiggins had been caught doping, the punishment exacted would have been greater.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

Certainly the role of British broadcasting as a whole and its involvement in sport. For example, Phil and Paul and their relationship with Armstrong remains unexamined for the most part.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Back in 1965, before the UK began its own state sponsored program, and in a quiet year for sport, Tom Simpson won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. There has been no real attempt to address one of the greatest scandals in sporting history which lead to an appalling tragedy.

What are you looking for, a Saville Report?

Certainly the role of British broadcasting as a whole and its involvement in sport. For example, Phil and Paul and their relationship with Armstrong remains unexamined for the most part.

Broadcasting? You're surely not going where I think you're going?

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

You also have to remember that, in 1967, anti-doping was in its infancy. The French and Belgians had only just introduced their national laws banning doping. Alec Taylor, manager of the GB squad in the 1967 Tour, complained about the way controls at that time were implemented:

"Race officials, federations, even the law on the Continent have been lax. Before Tom's death I saw on the Continent the overcautious way riders were tested for dope, as if the authorities feared to lift the veil, scared of how to handle the results; knowing all the while what they would be. They called on the law to act, enabling them to shelter under its wing and feel secure from interminable court actions and claims. They let the show carry on while the law acted light-heartedly, without vigour and purpose - and its deterrent had no effect.

Immediately after Simpson's death the bigger fight was to stop national governments interfering in sport while at the same time finding a way for the sport authorities to make anti-doping work without causing uproar among the athletes. As you say, different times, different perspective.

The narrative established by Simpson's death was of the plucky Brit "put me back on my bike" variety.

The 1972 communist doping programs were admired at Munich because it blocked American success. Back in 1972 the UK had a prime minister Heath who reflected a deep dissatisfaction with the United States within the establishment.

The UK was very pro Europe in the late '60s and early '70s.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

You also have to remember that, in 1967, anti-doping was in its infancy. The French and Belgians had only just introduced their national laws banning doping. Alec Taylor, manager of the GB squad in the 1967 Tour, complained about the way controls at that time were implemented:

"Race officials, federations, even the law on the Continent have been lax. Before Tom's death I saw on the Continent the overcautious way riders were tested for dope, as if the authorities feared to lift the veil, scared of how to handle the results; knowing all the while what they would be. They called on the law to act, enabling them to shelter under its wing and feel secure from interminable court actions and claims. They let the show carry on while the law acted light-heartedly, without vigour and purpose - and its deterrent had no effect.

Immediately after Simpson's death the bigger fight was to stop national governments interfering in sport while at the same time finding a way for the sport authorities to make anti-doping work without causing uproar among the athletes. As you say, different times, different perspective.

The narrative established by Simpson's death was of the plucky Brit "put me back on my bike" variety.

What other narrative would you have expected? Doping was normal in cycling at that point, and by normal I mean accepted.

The 1972 communist doping programs were admired at Munich because it blocked American success. Back in 1972 the UK had a prime minister Heath who reflected a deep dissatisfaction with the United States within the establishment.

The UK was very pro Europe in the late '60s and early '70s.

Whilst the second and third sentences are certainly true, I'm not so sure of the first.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

You also have to remember that, in 1967, anti-doping was in its infancy. The French and Belgians had only just introduced their national laws banning doping. Alec Taylor, manager of the GB squad in the 1967 Tour, complained about the way controls at that time were implemented:

"Race officials, federations, even the law on the Continent have been lax. Before Tom's death I saw on the Continent the overcautious way riders were tested for dope, as if the authorities feared to lift the veil, scared of how to handle the results; knowing all the while what they would be. They called on the law to act, enabling them to shelter under its wing and feel secure from interminable court actions and claims. They let the show carry on while the law acted light-heartedly, without vigour and purpose - and its deterrent had no effect.

Immediately after Simpson's death the bigger fight was to stop national governments interfering in sport while at the same time finding a way for the sport authorities to make anti-doping work without causing uproar among the athletes. As you say, different times, different perspective.

The narrative established by Simpson's death was of the plucky Brit "put me back on my bike" variety.

The 1972 communist doping programs were admired at Munich because it blocked American success. Back in 1972 the UK had a prime minister Heath who reflected a deep dissatisfaction with the United States within the establishment.

The UK was very pro Europe in the late '60s and early '70s.

That weren't know as doping programs back in the 70s. It was purely sports science which only the Eastern Bloc was very good at. Finland was already using blood doping in the 70s and the US came a little late to the party but engineered their programs well.

Australia based their AIS programs on the East German model after Montreal. England followed in the late 90s, prior was athlete by athlete doping.

 

[TheSpud]

I should add that the French introduce the first bio passport named 'longitude testing', which was way before the passport. In 2000 from memory. This was used to detect EPO and transfusions and cyclists were rested if values appeared out of baseline.

With regards to British Cycling, they are also funded by UK Sport which is public money and thus accountable to the tax payer via the Exchequer (along with lottery money via Exchequer).

UK Sport is the nation's high-performance sports agency, responsible for investing National Lottery and government funds in and providing support to our top medal hopes in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/fundingpartners#vfe5tLf8jqV1srfJ.99

Correct on the 'longitudinal' testing - in response to the Tour of Shame wasn't it? How does that compare to the current Bio Passport?

Also you are right that BC receive direct funding from the government as well as lottery funding. That's not an issue for me, but where there is conflict is that UKAD is government funded. However I don't know how this compares with other countries and / or sports. How do they structure things?

 

[thehog]

I should add that the French introduce the first bio passport named 'longitude testing', which was way before the passport. In 2000 from memory. This was used to detect EPO and transfusions and cyclists were rested if values appeared out of baseline.

With regards to British Cycling, they are also funded by UK Sport which is public money and thus accountable to the tax payer via the Exchequer (along with lottery money via Exchequer).

UK Sport is the nation's high-performance sports agency, responsible for investing National Lottery and government funds in and providing support to our top medal hopes in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/fundingpartners#vfe5tLf8jqV1srfJ.99

Correct on the 'longitudinal' testing - in response to the Tour of Shame wasn't it? How does that compare to the current Bio Passport?

Also you are right that BC receive direct funding from the government as well as lottery funding. That's not an issue for me, but where there is conflict is that UKAD is government funded. However I don't know how this compares with other countries and / or sports. How do they structure things?

Correct, 'longitudinal' testing. 4 times a year in a lab, so clearly open for manipulation and not surprise OOC testing but it was a good start.

I quote David Walsh below from his book (Lance to Landis) who explains all. I also highlighted the portion on the Rabo riders, no irony lost that Sky hired their doctor some years later

 

[TheSpud]

I should add that the French introduce the first bio passport named 'longitude testing', which was way before the passport. In 2000 from memory. This was used to detect EPO and transfusions and cyclists were rested if values appeared out of baseline.

With regards to British Cycling, they are also funded by UK Sport which is public money and thus accountable to the tax payer via the Exchequer (along with lottery money via Exchequer).

UK Sport is the nation's high-performance sports agency, responsible for investing National Lottery and government funds in and providing support to our top medal hopes in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/fundingpartners#vfe5tLf8jqV1srfJ.99

Correct on the 'longitudinal' testing - in response to the Tour of Shame wasn't it? How does that compare to the current Bio Passport?

Also you are right that BC receive direct funding from the government as well as lottery funding. That's not an issue for me, but where there is conflict is that UKAD is government funded. However I don't know how this compares with other countries and / or sports. How do they structure things?

Correct, 'longitudinal' testing. 4 times a year in a lab, so clearly open for manipulation and not surprise OOC testing but it was a good start.

I quote David Walsh below from his book (Lance to Landis) who explains all. I also highlighted the portion on the Rabo riders, no irony lost that Sky hired their doctor some years later

Ah, I have that book (of course) but a while since I have read it. Will follow that up - thanks.

 

[TheSpud]

I should add that the French introduce the first bio passport named 'longitude testing', which was way before the passport. In 2000 from memory. This was used to detect EPO and transfusions and cyclists were rested if values appeared out of baseline.

With regards to British Cycling, they are also funded by UK Sport which is public money and thus accountable to the tax payer via the Exchequer (along with lottery money via Exchequer).

UK Sport is the nation's high-performance sports agency, responsible for investing National Lottery and government funds in and providing support to our top medal hopes in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/fundingpartners#vfe5tLf8jqV1srfJ.99

Correct on the 'longitudinal' testing - in response to the Tour of Shame wasn't it? How does that compare to the current Bio Passport?

Also you are right that BC receive direct funding from the government as well as lottery funding. That's not an issue for me, but where there is conflict is that UKAD is government funded. However I don't know how this compares with other countries and / or sports. How do they structure things?

Correct, 'longitudinal' testing. 4 times a year in a lab, so clearly open for manipulation and not surprise OOC testing but it was a good start.

I quote David Walsh below from his book (Lance to Landis) who explains all. I also highlighted the portion on the Rabo riders, no irony lost that Sky hired their doctor some years later

Open for manipulation because it was too regular - ie does 4 times a year mean every 13 weeks? I'd agree - the in between periods would be free for all. Bio passport should be mandatory monthly + randoms (and not equally spread)

 

[thehog]

More to the point if you know the test is coming up then you return your base values back to "normal".

But a good start none the less.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Somebody commented on Tom Simpson, saying that there had been no investigation or examination. I think this is untrue. The man took amphetamines and died. There is not that much more to say. It was also the incident that led two generations of British people to associate bike racing with drugs. I think it is also important not to view an event in the mid 1960s through the moral perspective of 2016. (If you are a youngster give it 30 years and you'll see what I mean). Different era, different attitude towards doping in cycling that meant an in depth investigation would not have been at all essential in the way that it would be now.

You also have to remember that, in 1967, anti-doping was in its infancy. The French and Belgians had only just introduced their national laws banning doping. Alec Taylor, manager of the GB squad in the 1967 Tour, complained about the way controls at that time were implemented:

"Race officials, federations, even the law on the Continent have been lax. Before Tom's death I saw on the Continent the overcautious way riders were tested for dope, as if the authorities feared to lift the veil, scared of how to handle the results; knowing all the while what they would be. They called on the law to act, enabling them to shelter under its wing and feel secure from interminable court actions and claims. They let the show carry on while the law acted light-heartedly, without vigour and purpose - and its deterrent had no effect.

Immediately after Simpson's death the bigger fight was to stop national governments interfering in sport while at the same time finding a way for the sport authorities to make anti-doping work without causing uproar among the athletes. As you say, different times, different perspective.

The narrative established by Simpson's death was of the plucky Brit "put me back on my bike" variety.

The 1972 communist doping programs were admired at Munich because it blocked American success. Back in 1972 the UK had a prime minister Heath who reflected a deep dissatisfaction with the United States within the establishment.

The UK was very pro Europe in the late '60s and early '70s.

That weren't know as doping programs back in the 70s. It was purely sports science which only the Eastern Bloc was very good at. Finland was already using blood doping in the 70s and the US came a little late to the party but engineered their programs well.

Australia based their AIS programs on the East German model after Montreal. England followed in the late 90s, prior was athlete by athlete doping.

Yes that is correct. In fact there was more resentment towards Finland's alleged doping programs than towards East European swimmers or athletes as a whole. The Americans were also resented for many complex reasons. Their failure to win gold at basketball in '72 was greatly celebrated.

 

[kwikki]

By whom?

 

[buckle]

Re:

By whom?

The British media.

It was a case of plucky Russians beating the arrogant Americans at their own game. It was an absurd narrative as the Americans possessed a hundred basketball teams who could have slaughtered the best in the Soviet Union at the time but many people bought into it.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

By whom?

The British media.

It was a case of plucky Russians beating the arrogant Americans at their own game. It was an absurd narrative as the Americans possessed a hundred basketball teams who could have slaughtered the best in the Soviet Union at the time but many people bought into it.

Did you watch the match?

The Russians won. The win was contentious because of the extra 3 seconds allowed at the end of the match, and because the match jury consisted of 3/5 judges from communist countries. If the 3 seconds hadn't been allowed it would have been a really narrow victory for the US, so your comment that '100 US teams could have beaten the USSR' is just untrue. The Russians were well ahead until 6 minutes left to play.

As for British media, again I disagree. Here is the actual report from The Guardian, which as you know was the most left wing of the broadsheets:

What the Guardian said: 11 September 1972

Reactions were heated after an appeal jury of the International Basketball Federation awarded the Russians the gold medal after their disputed victory over the United States in the basketball final. The American team spokesman Kenny Davis called it a “stunning blow” and said players had voted not to accept the silver medal.

“We do not feel like accepting the silver medal because we feel we are worth the gold,” said Bill Summers, chairman of the US Olympic Basketball Committee and manager of the team.

The appeals jury studied television film of the end of the game when the Americans thought they had just snatched victory only to find that officials had added an extra three seconds to the game, which allowed the Russians to rally and win 51-50.

It was the first time the Americans had ever lost an Olympic Games basketball match. There was a heated argument between Herbert Mols, assistant manager of the United States squad, and Ferenc Hepp, the Hungarian president of the appeals committee, at a press conference afterwards.

Why US women are likely to outperform the men again at the Olympics
Mols said the match had been dominated for 39 minutes and 57 seconds by the Soviet Union. “But we have not heard of any game played for 40 minutes and three seconds,” he said. He asked under what rule the three seconds had been added.

Hepp explained that the time needed to react to the time left to play when the clock stopped was one second. Hans Tenschert, the scorer of the match and one of the three men at the judge’s table, said that when the referee stopped the match there was one second to play. The referee had consulted the judges’ table and no one had said three seconds had to be played: there was only a signal.

“Only a technical delegate at the table could cancel out this signal of three seconds which came from Dr William Jones, the secretary-general of the International Basketball Federation. But the delegate kept silent and the referee had, therefore, no choice but to play three seconds,” Tenschert said.

That, to me, reads like a very neutral report.