Brits don't dope?

[flying_plum]

If I were an Australian OC member, one of the big dogs in Australian Olympic Committee, I would send in a couple 'spies' to see what the ol' Brits are doing with their lottery funding. Once they get back to Australia, they can 'leak' out the information and give tips for everyone looking to improve their 'programs.'

Agreed. I think there is no doubt that the increased funding (hey, I thought we were in an 'age of austerity'?) has had an impact on British sport. And I'm sure a lot of the factors mentioned in Team GB's defence are true - better equipment, full time training, etc etc.

But, money can also be spent on other things - particularly backroom staff. Doctors, 'nutritionists', etc etc. I don't think the brits are clean, because I essentially watch all sport from the perspective that anyone doing well is probably doping at some level. I suppose there are probably some interesting questions to ask about the ethics of where the line on doping is. There are obvious banned substances - but i'm sure lots of money also buys you new techniques and recovery drugs etc, which WADA haven't had a chance to decide whether or not they should be banned. And i'm not convinced about the effects of 'financial doping' being ok either. I follow motogp, and the dominance of yamaha and honda had become a real problem in recent years - just boring, predictable races. Dorna took steps to try and equalise the playing field - standard electrics, limits to spending etc - which has made the races much closer.

We've succeeded because we've thrown a shitload of money at our sports (which may, or may not, have been spent entirely lawfully). I'm not sure I'm ethically much more comfortable with that, than I am with drugs. Where is the victory in beating smaller, poorer countries (or, countries that choose to spend their money on, oh, I don't know, not cutting vital benefits for disabled people)? Clearly, there's a political point to be made on a world stage - 'look how strong we are, look how much money we have', but frankly it's pretty sick-making. I could just about deal with it in London - it was a home games, the whole country was like a big festival for 6 weeks, it was great. But this time round, in the wake of the Brexit rhetoric, the chest-beating nationalism is almost unbearable.

 

[buckle]

If I were an Australian OC member, one of the big dogs in Australian Olympic Committee, I would send in a couple 'spies' to see what the ol' Brits are doing with their lottery funding. Once they get back to Australia, they can 'leak' out the information and give tips for everyone looking to improve their 'programs.'

Agreed. I think there is no doubt that the increased funding (hey, I thought we were in an 'age of austerity'?) has had an impact on British sport. And I'm sure a lot of the factors mentioned in Team GB's defence are true - better equipment, full time training, etc etc.

But, money can also be spent on other things - particularly backroom staff. Doctors, 'nutritionists', etc etc. I don't think the brits are clean, because I essentially watch all sport from the perspective that anyone doing well is probably doping at some level. I suppose there are probably some interesting questions to ask about the ethics of where the line on doping is. There are obvious banned substances - but i'm sure lots of money also buys you new techniques and recovery drugs etc, which WADA haven't had a chance to decide whether or not they should be banned. And i'm not convinced about the effects of 'financial doping' being ok either. I follow motogp, and the dominance of yamaha and honda had become a real problem in recent years - just boring, predictable races. Dorna took steps to try and equalise the playing field - standard electrics, limits to spending etc - which has made the races much closer.

We've succeeded because we've thrown a shitload of money at our sports (which may, or may not, have been spent entirely lawfully). I'm not sure I'm ethically much more comfortable with that, than I am with drugs. Where is the victory in beating smaller, poorer countries?

Mo's victories can be explained by money? He is winning 'cos he is wealthier?

 

[flying_plum]

Mo's victories can be explained by money? He is winning 'cos he is wealthier?

I doubt Alberto Salazar's services came cheap.

This is the thing with doping conversations though - the offence everyone takes is that somehow, there is the implication that the athletes themselves are not talented. I don't think, in most cases, that this is the truth. Obviously, different biologies respond differently to different drugs, and some people are super-responders. But, for the most part, I would guess that most of the athletes who get into the olympics, or whatever the peak of their sport is, are talented.

But money talks. It happens all over the world. You pay for your kids to go to private school, they will likely get better grades than a kid at a state school. That does not necessarily mean that the kid who went to private school is somehow more intelligent than state school kid. Both, likely, are probably bright. But you spend the money to put a kid in a school with better facilities and smaller classes, and they will do better.

 

[The Hegelian]

If I were an Australian OC member, one of the big dogs in Australian Olympic Committee, I would send in a couple 'spies' to see what the ol' Brits are doing with their lottery funding. Once they get back to Australia, they can 'leak' out the information and give tips for everyone looking to improve their 'programs.'

Agreed. I think there is no doubt that the increased funding (hey, I thought we were in an 'age of austerity'?) has had an impact on British sport. And I'm sure a lot of the factors mentioned in Team GB's defence are true - better equipment, full time training, etc etc.

But, money can also be spent on other things - particularly backroom staff. Doctors, 'nutritionists', etc etc. I don't think the brits are clean, because I essentially watch all sport from the perspective that anyone doing well is probably doping at some level. I suppose there are probably some interesting questions to ask about the ethics of where the line on doping is. There are obvious banned substances - but i'm sure lots of money also buys you new techniques and recovery drugs etc, which WADA haven't had a chance to decide whether or not they should be banned. And i'm not convinced about the effects of 'financial doping' being ok either. I follow motogp, and the dominance of yamaha and honda had become a real problem in recent years - just boring, predictable races. Dorna took steps to try and equalise the playing field - standard electrics, limits to spending etc - which has made the races much closer.

We've succeeded because we've thrown a shitload of money at our sports (which may, or may not, have been spent entirely lawfully). I'm not sure I'm ethically much more comfortable with that, than I am with drugs. Where is the victory in beating smaller, poorer countries (or, countries that choose to spend their money on, oh, I don't know, not cutting vital benefits for disabled people)? Clearly, there's a political point to be made on a world stage - 'look how strong we are, look how much money we have', but frankly it's pretty sick-making. I could just about deal with it in London - it was a home games, the whole country was like a big festival for 6 weeks, it was great. But this time round, in the wake of the Brexit rhetoric, the chest-beating nationalism is almost unbearable.

Cool post.

 

[Andy262]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

You have things precisely the wrong way around. The knowledge of doping in cycling is substantial, empirically grounded and unambiguous. One does not have to rely on some loopy tin-foil-hat conspiracy to assert that knowledge - because it all came out in the open with things like the Festina affair, Armstrong confession, confession by other riders such as Riis, Hamilton, etc. What all of those true and adequate knowledge acts showed - absolutely unambiguously - was that there was indeed a conspiracy (of sorts - I would rather use the term 'confluence of vested self-interests') to hide, dilute, repress, silence the fact that doping in cycling was absolutely rife.

Which part of this knowledge do you not have?

And then the bit where there is some room for debate: how much have things changed or not changed?

It is absolutely plausible and rational to argue that things have not changed - and I think, quite a difficult task to argue that they have. You sir, have the epistemic burden not us.

Whilst I (sort of) agree with you, it begs the question that we can never know with confidence when things 'have' changed. So why do we continue to follow our sport at all?

 

[Andy262]

If I were an Australian OC member, one of the big dogs in Australian Olympic Committee, I would send in a couple 'spies' to see what the ol' Brits are doing with their lottery funding. Once they get back to Australia, they can 'leak' out the information and give tips for everyone looking to improve their 'programs.'

Agreed. I think there is no doubt that the increased funding (hey, I thought we were in an 'age of austerity'?) has had an impact on British sport. And I'm sure a lot of the factors mentioned in Team GB's defence are true - better equipment, full time training, etc etc.

But, money can also be spent on other things - particularly backroom staff. Doctors, 'nutritionists', etc etc. I don't think the brits are clean, because I essentially watch all sport from the perspective that anyone doing well is probably doping at some level. I suppose there are probably some interesting questions to ask about the ethics of where the line on doping is. There are obvious banned substances - but i'm sure lots of money also buys you new techniques and recovery drugs etc, which WADA haven't had a chance to decide whether or not they should be banned. And i'm not convinced about the effects of 'financial doping' being ok either. I follow motogp, and the dominance of yamaha and honda had become a real problem in recent years - just boring, predictable races. Dorna took steps to try and equalise the playing field - standard electrics, limits to spending etc - which has made the races much closer.

We've succeeded because we've thrown a shitload of money at our sports (which may, or may not, have been spent entirely lawfully). I'm not sure I'm ethically much more comfortable with that, than I am with drugs. Where is the victory in beating smaller, poorer countries (or, countries that choose to spend their money on, oh, I don't know, not cutting vital benefits for disabled people)? Clearly, there's a political point to be made on a world stage - 'look how strong we are, look how much money we have', but frankly it's pretty sick-making. I could just about deal with it in London - it was a home games, the whole country was like a big festival for 6 weeks, it was great. But this time round, in the wake of the Brexit rhetoric, the chest-beating nationalism is almost unbearable.

Yes, this reflects my view perfectly. Well said.

 

[buckle]

Mo's victories can be explained by money? He is winning 'cos he is wealthier?

I doubt Alberto Salazar's services came cheap.

This is the thing with doping conversations though - the offence everyone takes is that somehow, there is the implication that the athletes themselves are not talented. I don't think, in most cases, that this is the truth. Obviously, different biologies respond differently to different drugs, and some people are super-responders. But, for the most part, I would guess that most of the athletes who get into the olympics, or whatever the peak of their sport is, are talented.

But money talks. It happens all over the world. You pay for your kids to go to private school, they will likely get better grades than a kid at a state school. That does not necessarily mean that the kid who went to private school is somehow more intelligent than state school kid. Both, likely, are probably bright. But you spend the money to put a kid in a school with better facilities and smaller classes, and they will do better.

Because Salazar's doping program costs more than other doping programs this now becomes the measure of performance? The only troubling ethical question is the price differential of doping programs in this Brave New World? Where does that leave an athlete eliminated in the heats who ran clean?

 

[flying_plum]

Mo's victories can be explained by money? He is winning 'cos he is wealthier?

I doubt Alberto Salazar's services came cheap.

This is the thing with doping conversations though - the offence everyone takes is that somehow, there is the implication that the athletes themselves are not talented. I don't think, in most cases, that this is the truth. Obviously, different biologies respond differently to different drugs, and some people are super-responders. But, for the most part, I would guess that most of the athletes who get into the olympics, or whatever the peak of their sport is, are talented.

But money talks. It happens all over the world. You pay for your kids to go to private school, they will likely get better grades than a kid at a state school. That does not necessarily mean that the kid who went to private school is somehow more intelligent than state school kid. Both, likely, are probably bright. But you spend the money to put a kid in a school with better facilities and smaller classes, and they will do better.

Because Salazar's doping program costs more than other doping programs this now becomes the measure of performance? The only troubling ethical question is the price differential of doping programs in this Brave New World? Where does that leave an athlete eliminated in the heats who ran clean?

I'm not really sure I understand what you're objecting to/criticising in my post. Are you under the impression I'm defending the British team?

Clearly, money is not the only ethical problem - and if you read my post again, you'll see that's not what I said. I effectively said the increased money that the british team have had to spend equates to being able to afford 'better' doping, alongside better equipment, better staff, better everything. And i think this, lawful or not, can be just as unfair to the athlete who was eliminated in the heats because they come from a small country somewhere, with no funding, and have got themselves to the olympics on their own steam.

Doping is CLEARLY a problem, in all sport. But, there are huge amounts of 'grey' areas too - things that aren't banned practices but, in my opinion, are ethically just as dubious because they are only possible if you have huge amounts of dosh to throw at them. And money makes it complicated. Money is power - so GB are probably doing lots of other things with that money than just spending it on dope. They are using it, clearly, for influence in sports' governing bodies, for example.

 

[buckle]

Mo's victories can be explained by money? He is winning 'cos he is wealthier?

I doubt Alberto Salazar's services came cheap.

This is the thing with doping conversations though - the offence everyone takes is that somehow, there is the implication that the athletes themselves are not talented. I don't think, in most cases, that this is the truth. Obviously, different biologies respond differently to different drugs, and some people are super-responders. But, for the most part, I would guess that most of the athletes who get into the olympics, or whatever the peak of their sport is, are talented.

But money talks. It happens all over the world. You pay for your kids to go to private school, they will likely get better grades than a kid at a state school. That does not necessarily mean that the kid who went to private school is somehow more intelligent than state school kid. Both, likely, are probably bright. But you spend the money to put a kid in a school with better facilities and smaller classes, and they will do better.

Because Salazar's doping program costs more than other doping programs this now becomes the measure of performance? The only troubling ethical question is the price differential of doping programs in this Brave New World? Where does that leave an athlete eliminated in the heats who ran clean?

I'm not really sure I understand what you're objecting to/criticising in my post. Are you under the impression I'm defending the British team?

Clearly, money is not the only ethical problem - and if you read my post again, you'll see that's not what I said. I effectively said the increased money that the british team have had to spend equates to being able to afford 'better' doping, alongside better equipment, better staff, better everything. And i think this, lawful or not, can be just as unfair to the athlete who was eliminated in the heats because they come from a small country somewhere, with no funding, and have got themselves to the olympics on their own steam.

Doping is CLEARLY a problem, in all sport. But, there are huge amounts of 'grey' areas too - things that aren't banned practices but, in my opinion, are ethically just as dubious because they are only possible if you have huge amounts of dosh to throw at them. And money makes it complicated. Money is power - so GB are probably doing lots of other things with that money than just spending it on dope. They are using it, clearly, for influence in sports' governing bodies, for example.

Yes I did read your post and it is ambiguous on the subject of doping in British sport. Describing it as merely a grey area. There has been no grey areas in Farah's Armstrong like domination of the 5 and 10k for the last 8 years. This is fraud on an industrial scale.

 

[flying_plum]

Yes I did read your post and it is ambiguous on the subject of doping in British sport. Describing it as merely a grey area. There has been no grey areas in Farah's Armstrong like domination of the 5 and 10k for the last 8 years. This is fraud on an industrial scale.

For the sake of clarity, as that was not my intention:

My post was responding to the issue of those who have been defending GB's current success as the result of increased lottery funding. My point is that the increased funding is no doubt a reason for that success, but it entirely depends on what they are spending it on.

The argument on this thread either appears to be 'there's state-sponsored doping, can't you see, it's obvious!' or 'no, there's no dope, we just got smart and invested more money!'.

My point is that is a combination of those two things. If it was *just* a case of doping, then why are GB so dominant? It clearly isn't only the dope, because (in my view) everyone dopes. The question is, what quality of dope can you get, how effectively can you use it, what doctors can you get in, to ensure that your doping is not caught? Indeed, can you use your money, to employ physicians and other backroom staff to develop new techniques, that won't get you caught, because they're not even testing for them yet?

Put that, alongside full time training, better equipment in equipment-dependent sports (like, for example, cycling), and you have a recipe for success. It's what the USA has been doing for decades.

My point about the 'grey' areas is not to excuse them. My point about the 'grey areas' is that a WADA list forces the issue of doping to made fairly black and white. But there are many things which enhance performance that are not on that list, and what should, and should not be, considered a banned PED is an ethically difficult framework. My point was that GB are clearly exploiting that grey area to max effect, in addition to any out-and-out banned-list doping they are engaging in. That grey area stuff is, in particular, the new technologies and so forth, which can only be obtained by spending literally millions of pounds, and I personally find that an extremely troubling practice too.

Chemical doping, without a doubt, creates an unfair playing field. But there are other things (in addition) which create unfair playing field. Everyone who is using our increase spending as an rationale for better performance needs to think about this. It's clear to me that it's alongside doping - but even if people want to believe it isn't, I don't think it's a reason to cheer. There is nothing to cheer-lead about a country winning, simply because it has outspent the competition.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Yes I did read your post and it is ambiguous on the subject of doping in British sport. Describing it as merely a grey area. There has been no grey areas in Farah's Armstrong like domination of the 5 and 10k for the last 8 years. This is fraud on an industrial scale.

For the sake of clarity, as that was not my intention:

My post was responding to the issue of those who have been defending GB's current success as the result of increased lottery funding. My point is that the increased funding is no doubt a reason for that success, but it entirely depends on what they are spending it on.

The argument on this thread either appears to be 'there's state-sponsored doping, can't you see, it's obvious!' or 'no, there's no dope, we just got smart and invested more money!'.

My point is that is a combination of those two things. If it was *just* a case of doping, then why are GB so dominant? It clearly isn't only the dope, because (in my view) everyone dopes. The question is, what quality of dope can you get, how effectively can you use it, what doctors can you get in, to ensure that your doping is not caught? Indeed, can you use your money, to employ physicians and other backroom staff to develop new techniques, that won't get you caught, because they're not even testing for them yet?

Put that, alongside full time training, better equipment in equipment-dependent sports (like, for example, cycling), and you have a recipe for success. It's what the USA has been doing for decades.

My point about the 'grey' areas is not to excuse them. My point about the 'grey areas' is that a WADA list forces the issue of doping to made fairly black and white. But there are many things which enhance performance that are not on that list, and what should, and should not be, considered a banned PED is an ethically difficult framework. My point was that GB are clearly exploiting that grey area to max effect, in addition to any out-and-out banned-list doping they are engaging in. That grey area stuff is, in particular, the new technologies and so forth, which can only be obtained by spending literally millions of pounds, and I personally find that an extremely troubling practice too.

Chemical doping, without a doubt, creates an unfair playing field. But there are other things (in addition) which create unfair playing field. Everyone who is using our increase spending as an rationale for better performance needs to think about this. It's clear to me that it's alongside doping - but even if people want to believe it isn't, I don't think it's a reason to cheer. There is nothing to cheer-lead about a country winning, simply because it has outspent the competition.

There's nothing troubling or elitist about having a National Lottery, for which I think we have to thank John Major, and about spending the surplus money not used for prizes or administration on sport and culture as well as other projects. I suppose there has to be a reasonable national standard of living to support an ability for people to be willing to use part of their income to spend on the lottery, but in point of fact many of the tickets are bought by the ordinary man or woman trying for the big win, not the richer ones who generally don't bother. Some tax money gets spent on sport to add to this, but the National Lottery accounts for the biggest part of the spend and this part is not state funding as such. The greater part of the money used comes from those who have voluntarily put a bet on their numbers coming up.

One great benefit is that some athletes can be full time, maintained by their funding and any other earnings they may have. In many cases they could not have afforded to devote their time entirely to the sport if they did not have this backing.

There has been a choice made to spend the surplus like this and any nation could set up a similar scheme. Possibly some do, I don't know. I agree that the infrastructure and the income may not be there in poorer nations but they don't tend to be the ones taking part in technology-dependent sports like track cycling.

 

[flying_plum]

There's nothing troubling or elitist about having a National Lottery, for which I think we have to thank John Major, and about spending the surplus money not used for prizes or administration on sport and culture as well as other projects. I suppose there has to be a reasonable national standard of living to support an ability for people to be willing to use part of their income to spend on the lottery, but in point of fact many of the tickets are bought by the ordinary man or woman trying for the big win, not the richer ones who generally don't bother. Some tax money gets spent on sport to add to this, but the National Lottery accounts for the biggest part of the spend and this part is not state funding as such. The greater part of the money used comes from those who have voluntarily put a bet on their numbers coming up.

One great benefit is that some athletes can be full time, maintained by their funding and any other earnings they may have. In many cases they could not have afforded to devote their time entirely to the sport if they did not have this backing.

There has been a choice made to spend the surplus like this and any nation could set up a similar scheme. Possibly some do, I don't know. I agree that the infrastructure and the income may not be there in poorer nations but they don't tend to be the ones taking part in technology-dependent sports like track cycling.

I think there are two points of response to this. First, I do have a problem with the way national lottery funding is spent, and that is purely a reflection of my political views. I have a problem with £5.5m avg spent on each gold medal (that may have changed now, given the rising gold medal ratio), when we apparently don't have any money to spend on, for example, disability work benefits. Not to mention the huge cuts in funding to other cultural things, such as art, theatre, dance. I guess those things don't bring us international glory and allow a massive union flag love in on the front of the Daily Mail though.

Second, I love watching sport, particularly athletics. I long ago made my peace to watch in a strange state of cognitive dissonance, because I knew there was doping going on. But i'm finding the coverage of this olympics games particularly hard to stomach, because of all the commentary on how 'hard working and focused' our athletes are. I don't doubt they work hard, I don't doubt they are focused. But let's be honest, they are also miles better funded, looked after and 'looked after', than athletes from many other countries. So let's not pretend that they are winning purely because they work so much harder, and are so much more focused.

The Olympics is just as much about international politics and showing you are 'strong' on a world stage, as it is about sport. It's always been that way, and it's unlikely to change, but I'd rather the BBC didn't get quite so sucked in. I preferred it when we were crap, and they actually talked about the other athletes...

 

[Benotti69]

There's nothing troubling or elitist about having a National Lottery, for which I think we have to thank John Major, and about spending the surplus money not used for prizes or administration on sport and culture as well as other projects. I suppose there has to be a reasonable national standard of living to support an ability for people to be willing to use part of their income to spend on the lottery, but in point of fact many of the tickets are bought by the ordinary man or woman trying for the big win, not the richer ones who generally don't bother. Some tax money gets spent on sport to add to this, but the National Lottery accounts for the biggest part of the spend and this part is not state funding as such. The greater part of the money used comes from those who have voluntarily put a bet on their numbers coming up.

One great benefit is that some athletes can be full time, maintained by their funding and any other earnings they may have. In many cases they could not have afforded to devote their time entirely to the sport if they did not have this backing.

There has been a choice made to spend the surplus like this and any nation could set up a similar scheme. Possibly some do, I don't know. I agree that the infrastructure and the income may not be there in poorer nations but they don't tend to be the ones taking part in technology-dependent sports like track cycling.

I think there are two points of response to this. First, I do have a problem with the way national lottery funding is spent, and that is purely a reflection of my political views. I have a problem with £5.5m avg spent on each gold medal (that may have changed now, given the rising gold medal ratio), when we apparently don't have any money to spend on, for example, disability work benefits. Not to mention the huge cuts in funding to other cultural things, such as art, theatre, dance. I guess those things don't bring us international glory and allow a massive union flag love in on the front of the Daily Mail though.

Second, I love watching sport, particularly athletics. I long ago made my peace to watch in a strange state of cognitive dissonance, because I knew there was doping going on. But i'm finding the coverage of this olympics games particularly hard to stomach, because of all the commentary on how 'hard working and focused' our athletes are. I don't doubt they work hard, I don't doubt they are focused. But let's be honest, they are also miles better funded, looked after and 'looked after', than athletes from many other countries. So let's not pretend that they are winning purely because they work so much harder, and are so much more focused.

The Olympics is just as much about international politics and showing you are 'strong' on a world stage, as it is about sport. It's always been that way, and it's unlikely to change, but I'd rather the BBC didn't get quite so sucked in. I preferred it when we were crap, and they actually talked about the other athletes...

if the Olympics 'is just as much about international politics', then you better believe countries are trying to do everything to give their athletes an advantage including doping.

 

[flying_plum]

if the Olympics 'is just as much about international politics', then you better believe countries are trying to do everything to give their athletes an advantage including doping.

I really don't understand what it is I've said thus far that gives anyone reason to believe that isn't what I think.

 

[veganrob]

There's nothing troubling or elitist about having a National Lottery, for which I think we have to thank John Major, and about spending the surplus money not used for prizes or administration on sport and culture as well as other projects. I suppose there has to be a reasonable national standard of living to support an ability for people to be willing to use part of their income to spend on the lottery, but in point of fact many of the tickets are bought by the ordinary man or woman trying for the big win, not the richer ones who generally don't bother. Some tax money gets spent on sport to add to this, but the National Lottery accounts for the biggest part of the spend and this part is not state funding as such. The greater part of the money used comes from those who have voluntarily put a bet on their numbers coming up.

One great benefit is that some athletes can be full time, maintained by their funding and any other earnings they may have. In many cases they could not have afforded to devote their time entirely to the sport if they did not have this backing.

There has been a choice made to spend the surplus like this and any nation could set up a similar scheme. Possibly some do, I don't know. I agree that the infrastructure and the income may not be there in poorer nations but they don't tend to be the ones taking part in technology-dependent sports like track cycling.

I think there are two points of response to this. First, I do have a problem with the way national lottery funding is spent, and that is purely a reflection of my political views. I have a problem with £5.5m avg spent on each gold medal (that may have changed now, given the rising gold medal ratio), when we apparently don't have any money to spend on, for example, disability work benefits. Not to mention the huge cuts in funding to other cultural things, such as art, theatre, dance. I guess those things don't bring us international glory and allow a massive union flag love in on the front of the Daily Mail though.

Second, I love watching sport, particularly athletics. I long ago made my peace to watch in a strange state of cognitive dissonance, because I knew there was doping going on. But i'm finding the coverage of this olympics games particularly hard to stomach, because of all the commentary on how 'hard working and focused' our athletes are. I don't doubt they work hard, I don't doubt they are focused. But let's be honest, they are also miles better funded, looked after and 'looked after', than athletes from many other countries. So let's not pretend that they are winning purely because they work so much harder, and are so much more focused.

The Olympics is just as much about international politics and showing you are 'strong' on a world stage, as it is about sport. It's always been that way, and it's unlikely to change, but I'd rather the BBC didn't get quite so sucked in. I preferred it when we were crap, and they actually talked about the other athletes...

I think this a a great post. I live in the USA and stopped caring about the Olympics 30 years ago.

 

[buckle]

There's nothing troubling or elitist about having a National Lottery, for which I think we have to thank John Major, and about spending the surplus money not used for prizes or administration on sport and culture as well as other projects. I suppose there has to be a reasonable national standard of living to support an ability for people to be willing to use part of their income to spend on the lottery, but in point of fact many of the tickets are bought by the ordinary man or woman trying for the big win, not the richer ones who generally don't bother. Some tax money gets spent on sport to add to this, but the National Lottery accounts for the biggest part of the spend and this part is not state funding as such. The greater part of the money used comes from those who have voluntarily put a bet on their numbers coming up.

One great benefit is that some athletes can be full time, maintained by their funding and any other earnings they may have. In many cases they could not have afforded to devote their time entirely to the sport if they did not have this backing.

There has been a choice made to spend the surplus like this and any nation could set up a similar scheme. Possibly some do, I don't know. I agree that the infrastructure and the income may not be there in poorer nations but they don't tend to be the ones taking part in technology-dependent sports like track cycling.

I think there are two points of response to this. First, I do have a problem with the way national lottery funding is spent, and that is purely a reflection of my political views. I have a problem with £5.5m avg spent on each gold medal (that may have changed now, given the rising gold medal ratio), when we apparently don't have any money to spend on, for example, disability work benefits. Not to mention the huge cuts in funding to other cultural things, such as art, theatre, dance. I guess those things don't bring us international glory and allow a massive union flag love in on the front of the Daily Mail though.

Second, I love watching sport, particularly athletics. I long ago made my peace to watch in a strange state of cognitive dissonance, because I knew there was doping going on. But i'm finding the coverage of this olympics games particularly hard to stomach, because of all the commentary on how 'hard working and focused' our athletes are. I don't doubt they work hard, I don't doubt they are focused. But let's be honest, they are also miles better funded, looked after and 'looked after', than athletes from many other countries. So let's not pretend that they are winning purely because they work so much harder, and are so much more focused.

The Olympics is just as much about international politics and showing you are 'strong' on a world stage, as it is about sport. It's always been that way, and it's unlikely to change, but I'd rather the BBC didn't get quite so sucked in. I preferred it when we were crap, and they actually talked about the other athletes...

I think this a a great post. I live in the USA and stopped caring about the Olympics 30 years ago.

That's fine but what he us arguing in his tortuously, long-winded way is that doping in sports indicates a serious problem within a nation's deep state. If the majority can be fooled by this farce, in what other ways can the deep state manipulate us? How about permanent war for example?

 

[flying_plum]

That's fine but what he us arguing in his tortuously, long-winded way is that doping in sports indicates a serious problem within a nation's deep state. If the majority can be fooled by this farce, in what other ways can the deep state manipulate us? How about permanent war for example?

"she", thankyouverymuch. And I really don't get why you appear to have such a problem with anything I've said...I don't think we're disagreeing. *shrug*

 

[blackcat]

That's fine but what he us arguing in his tortuously, long-winded way is that doping in sports indicates a serious problem within a nation's deep state. If the majority can be fooled by this farce, in what other ways can the deep state manipulate us? How about permanent war for example?

well, whoever's thinking(thought/noun) produced that analysis is fundamentally flawed imo. The brits did not make the rules. They just joined the game. I dont think anyone who makes the starting line at the IOC olympiad pleonasm has not joined the party. Doping is part of the game. The people engage and enable their champions. They wanted Paula. They got Paula, and Mo to boot.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

[/quote]

Whilst I (sort of) agree with you, it begs the question that we can never know with confidence when things 'have' changed. So why do we continue to follow our sport at all?[/quote]

I think it is less a question of why and more a question of how (to follow cycling....or any sport really).

Option A: it is pure fantasy and escapism - and that includes all the symbolisms of nationalism, hero worship, moral virtue (hard work, just deserts etc). Most people really want that; that's what's bought and sold, packaged, commodified. It has nothing to do with reality - it is divorced from reality. So institutional context, political context etc - they are messy, annoying complications which destroy the illusion. So one pretends they don't exist. Arguing against doping in cycling is generally about this: preserving the fantasy so that one can keep indulging in it.

Option B: you follow it as it is, in reality; you strip the fantasy and let the full context emerge. And there it is, probably far more interesting than the simple minded desire to have champions and patriots. In so many ways the Armstrong saga has been utterly fascinating - the cover ups, the denials, the outrageous hypocrisy, the meeting presidents, the massive global economic power.....that's modern sport.

In short, you give up barracking for someone and become more of a sociologist political philosopher.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Re: Re:

Some good posts here. Would have to agree with flying_plum

I'd also add, though, that the 2010s was always projected to be a great era for British sport. The British government went bidding for every major sporting event possible, and got most of them - the 2012 Olympics, 2013 Rugby League World Cup, 2014 Commonwealth Games, 2015 Rugby Union World Cup, 2017 World Athletics Championships, and the 2019 Cricket World Cup, as well as numerous finals and the TdF Grand Depart in 2014. This explains the great hissy fit when they didn't get the other main one the wanted - the 2018 FIFA World Cup would have completed the set

Obviously, alongside this, it was important to chuck loads of money to have teams that were going to be competitive at these events and have a significant legacy after. "Team GB" was just one part of that, and has been the most successful. Compare that to the massive investment in and hype around the England rugby union team last year, which ended up falling on its backside when the team bombed and went out in the groups (lol)

Ultimately, at the end of it all, Britain's probably the 2nd most powerful sporting nation in the world behind the US at the moment. We're succeeding in virtually every sport we take seriously - 2nd in the Olympics medal table, the #2 male tennis player, several leading golfers, one of the best cricket teams, the world's best road and track cycling teams and numerous top riders, the best driver in Formula One, 2 world heavyweight boxing champions, and the world's most valuable football league (even if the England team is currently a bit rubbish). Today Cal Crutchlow became the first British rider to win in MotoGP since 1981 and it's minor news. The only one where England has failed in its aims is rugby union, and even then they won the Grand Slam after changing the coach and will probably go into the 2019 World Cup as one of the favourites

So it's not just about the Olympics. This is a much wider shift. It's very different from when I was first learning about sport 20 years ago when British teams were a bit rubbish at just about everything. Back then it was a by-word for coming up short, be it Tim Henman going out in the semis at Wimbledon every year, the England football team going out on penalties of every tournament, David Coulthard getting beaten by Schumacher and Hakkinen in every race, the England rugby team getting knocked out of the World Cup by Jannie de Beer's drop goals, or the England cricket team getting smashed by the Aussies in the Ashes time and again

Speaking of which, I think the Australian dominance of world sport in the first couple of years of the 2000s was what we based this on. We saw Australia win the Rugby and Cricket World Cups in 1999, Lleyton Hewitt win Wimbledon, and of course host the "best Olympics ever" in Sydney. There was huge envy towards that here. I definitely think that drove people at the top on to some of these changes - to not be humiliated by the colony again. It's not the only reason, but I think it's much bigger than you'll find people admit. The same thing will push the FA on to more changes to avoid the England team getting embarrassed after finishing behind Wales and losing to Iceland in the Euros

 

[Fergoose]

Re:

I find the implications in your post an issue, as they only serve to perpetuate the us vs. them dynamic. Firstly, the implication that because many believe doping is involved in the British rise to overachieving sports prominence, that they believe it is the only factor and therefore every single British success would be greeted with sneering and cries of doping. And secondly, the implication that because a particular section of British sport has not done that well, that aspect is therefore clean, and this therefore produces a case against other parts of British sport being dirty. Also, I would say that while some of the sneering and snarling done in the Clinic is counterproductive and sometimes, yes, bitter, there have also been a great number of posts that are either gloating or poking the bear, which has only served to perpetuate or catalyze the anti-British sentiment that many defenders of the British team decry. I also remember that you had to back down from your position five years ago where you were apoplectic about Cobo but took a lot of convincing to apply the same cynical eye to Chris Froome.

You might be reading a bit too much into my posts. It might reinforce "them vs us" for some, but if you read some of my posts you might see that in matters of UK sport I'm not so much one of "them". I tend to switch off when the UK are on the verge of a medal as the coverage makes me puke. I'll far more enjoy celebrating genuine sporting underdogs, like Serbian women's volleyball success, or Indian female badminton success than watch sport with nationalistic goggles on and cheer what was once an intentionally amateur international sporting event has been polluted by UK money.

The fact I think many posts in here against UK olympic performance are sensationally speculative (e.g. that doping could have made a significant impact in the rise of the performance of UK gymnasts) does not come from my geographic position in the world. As for Froome, the mere fact I was able to go from being apoplectic about Cobo, to being apoplectic about Froome was based on accumulating evidence. As soon as Froome stopped shepherding Wiggins (who I still maintain could easily not have been doped) up the mountain and was given free reign to go uphill at the same speed as a confirmed doper like Cobo (despite having used a lot more energy than Cobo through the preceding three weeks) I had seen enough. My willingness to examine and evaluate evidence in relation to Froome surely underlines I'm not a "them vs us" merchant?

Doping on its own won't make you a worldbeater, certainly not unless you go full Mühlegg. What's to say the sprinters aren't doing exactly the same as the other athletes, whether clean or dirty, but due to differences in coaching style it's not clicked, or they have the wrong people in the wrong place, or they just don't have the talents to compete against the world's elite in that discipline, or for that reason more funding and attention has been paid to disciplines where they do? The British sprint teams having a down period doesn't necessarily make them any cleaner than the teams that are beating them, nor does it automatically make those who beat them dirty, and the British sprint team having a disappointing Olympics certainly doesn't say anything about the chances of fairness from athletes in completely different sports. It depends on what those various sporting authorities spent the funding money on.

There are valid points in there (thank you), but sprinters were very slow this year (excluding Bolt & Gatlin who were also slow by their standards, possibly due to age and assuming we don't count 400m as a sprint). 20.12secs got a bronze in the mens 200m, for Lemetre who was self confessed out of form (he can usually go under 20 seconds), whereas 10 years ago that time would struggle to get you to the final (and there was no major headwind or anything like that). In such a situation, any of the main established sprint nation (US, Jamaica or GB) should have been able to get their runners into contention with doping. A 100m sprint isn't exactly the most technical of disciplines that hinges on expert coaching - a physical specimen like Bolt would make the final regardless of whether he was coached by Mr Magoo. GB lost badly to the likes of Japan & China in the relay (neither of whom particularly ran fast). It is almost impossible for me to entertain any notion that UK male sprinters were doped at this Olympics based on the evidence of the past fortnight. If the UK, which is known to have repeatedly doped with male sprinters in the past, wasn't doing it at Rio, then this to me completely undermines any suggestion of organised doping by UK Olympic coaching teams across disciplines (many of which there is no evidence of historic doping by the UK (or any other country)).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Cobo isn't a confirmed doper. That was the problem with calling out Juanjo and not Froome. Very little difference between them.

 

[DanielSong39]

Granted, all countries dope but what Great Britain accomplished this Olympics is far beyond what the East German women swimmers or the Chinese women swimmers did back in their heyday.

Even by doping standards their rise in the last 20 years has been other-worldly.

Feel free to draw your conclusions from here.

 

[buckle]

Re:

Granted, all countries dope but what Great Britain accomplished this Olympics is far beyond what the East German women swimmers or the Chinese women swimmers did back in their heyday.

Even by doping standards their rise in the last 20 years has been other-worldly.

Feel free to draw your conclusions from here.

It represents a concerted effort to defraud on an hitherto unprecedented scale. This is Armstrong on, ahem, steroids.

 

[BullsFan22]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/21/great-britain-sporting-superpower-rio-olympic-medal-haul