Brits don't dope?

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Iceland was not especially good against England. Or rather, everybody would have been good against that England. The fear got to them... again.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Where there money to be made there going to be cheating, I don't think many disagree on that, but so far you've demonstrated nothing - just offered a few examples of "upsets" and said that its because of doping.

I'm all for reasoned debate but this is just unsupported theorizing.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Where there money to be made there going to be cheating, I don't think many disagree on that, but so far you've demonstrated nothing - just offered a few examples of "upsets" and said that its because of doping.

I'm all for reasoned debate but this is just unsupported theorizing.

I am saying the opposite in this instance. The upset was caused by England not doping. As I stated earlier, England doped under Ericsson and lost to Brazil and Portugal quite normal in a doping war.

Iceland was so ridiculous as to be worthy of closer examination which I attempted to provide.

 

[Rob27172]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Where there money to be made there going to be cheating, I don't think many disagree on that, but so far you've demonstrated nothing - just offered a few examples of "upsets" and said that its because of doping.

I'm all for reasoned debate but this is just unsupported theorizing.

I am saying the opposite in this instance. The upset was caused by England not doping. As I stated earlier, England doped under Ericsson and lost to Brazil and Portugal quite normal in a doping war.

Iceland was so ridiculous as to be worthy of closer examination which I attempted to provide.

But you haven't provided anything other than your thoughts which you don't seem to be able to comprehend that no-one else believes.

England are poor footballers - Period
English teams Dope - Yes
Some of the icelandic team play in england - Yes
Some of the icelandic team are very aware of the major threat posed by england through playing on the same team - Yes
England froze as they were down to the last chance saloon due to poor performances in prior games - YES

All of those items are theories that you could put forward

to say a country of 300,000 with very little money and a football association run by volunteers and amateurs outdoped one of the most sophisticated countries in football and sports doping. Not a theory many people will agree with I am afraid.

 

[2008885]

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Where there money to be made there going to be cheating, I don't think many disagree on that, but so far you've demonstrated nothing - just offered a few examples of "upsets" and said that its because of doping.

I'm all for reasoned debate but this is just unsupported theorizing.

I am saying the opposite in this instance. The upset was caused by England not doping. As I stated earlier, England doped under Ericsson and lost to Brazil and Portugal quite normal in a doping war.

Iceland was so ridiculous as to be worthy of closer examination which I attempted to provide.

But you haven't provided anything other than your thoughts which you don't seem to be able to comprehend that no-one else believes.

England are poor footballers - Period
English teams Dope - Yes
Some of the icelandic team play in england - Yes
Some of the icelandic team are very aware of the major threat posed by england through playing on the same team - Yes
England froze as they were down to the last chance saloon due to poor performances in prior games - YES

All of those items are theories that you could put forward

to say a country of 300,000 with very little money and a football association run by volunteers and amateurs outdoped one of the most sophisticated countries in football and sports doping. Not a theory many people will agree with I am afraid.

I didn't say they outdoped England. I said Iceland doped and England did not. I find that a far more plausible explanation than your own. Earlier in this discussion I also posited the idea that the tension in the squad in South Africa 2010 stemmed from this very issue. Culminating in the resignation of Capello who saw the 2012 tournament as pointless as they simply didn't stand a chance. It is my view that Gerrard and later Rooney who drove the doping policy within the team. Hodgson complied with their wishes.

 

[buckle]

Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

 

[DanielSong39]

I have noticed that since at least 2002, footballers have not been in top-notch shape in the World Cup. It seems that Champions League is being given top priority for the top players, leading to underwhelming performances in the international tournaments.

Not sure whether this is due to fatigue or doping cycles. But I think this is a trend worth following.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

An example that is complete and total conjecture. It's your own theory which has no basis in any fact that you have provided or any fact that I am aware of.

<edited by mods>

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

let me get this straight...
your main claim is that they [the recent english euro football team] didn't dope because they lost to a minnow of team you think doped... handily summed up and shot down by 2008885 above.
Problem is, you can't prove a negative, so the game's over. In fact that horse has been on the ground for a while and taking a beating still

Should have stopped at the only thing you've been correct on - Terry being a c**t...

Time to get off this roundabout/carousel and move on to Froome's/Sky's vuelta rides, methinks

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

fair point, so scrap that one, and take any of the other dozens of big cup upsets.
bottomline: big upsets happen in soccer, and whilst we agree that such upsets can point towards the winning team being extremely doped (see e.g. Algeria-West Germany 1982; or now Iceland-England), reversely that doesn't mean the losing team was clean(ish).
but don't let me keep you from sticking your head in the sand.

There are very few World Cup upsets. The tournament has been won by very few countries. Only two one time winners:

England 1966 - bought* the tournament plus 1960's doping technology.
France 1998 - bought the tournament plus heavily doped.
*absolutely blatant

But you're now arguing that 50 years later, they decided to play clean against Iceland

Does not compute :lol:

 

[Thighsofsteel]

Re: Re:

buckle, you're now all over the place.
Who said there are many upsets?
If there were many upsets, they wouldn't be upsets, would they.
Fact is they happen, and you cannot build a claim of cleanliness around it.
Next you're gonna claim all big spending PL teams were clean(ish) last year and lost to a '100% doped' Leicester City?

Maybe it was just a hunch you have? Well i guess that's fair enough.

I have one agenda only namely to demonstrate to the clinic the power of drugs in football. Iceland went full genius whilst England (for a series of complex reasons) chose not to dope.

As was commented during James Richardson's brilliant Guardian podcast, at times, Iceland even outplayed England in that game.

Iceland was not especially good against England. Or rather, everybody would have been good against that England. The fear got to them... again.

As a Brit who watched the match. This comment is right on the money. The England team were just pathetic. They choked. They could have taken every PED ever invented and would still have been rubbish.

 

[hfer07]

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

that is a good point.

But, are we allowed then to extend the same logic to other riders you like?

Or are you just hypocritically going to point to youth results for riders you like who were half decent when they were young, then completely dismiss the importance of youth results for other riders who were absolute *** when they were young?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

that is a good point.

But, are we allowed then to extend the same logic to other riders you like?

Or are you just hypocritically going to point to youth results for riders you like who were half decent when they were young, then completely dismiss the importance of youth results for other riders who were absolute **** when they were young?

Forgive me if I simply answer the point that was made. Bang on about Froome if you wish. It's not a novel view.

The point I answered referred to "how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame" and it was S Yates who inspired the question. In general, most of the bikes ridden in this country are not just for shopping trips and I am not at all surprised when young riders come up through the ranks, including those now with jobs riding for teams based abroad.

 

[hfer07]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

that is a good point.

But, are we allowed then to extend the same logic to other riders you like?

Or are you just hypocritically going to point to youth results for riders you like who were half decent when they were young, then completely dismiss the importance of youth results for other riders who were absolute **** when they were young?

Forgive me if I simply answer the point that was made. Bang on about Froome if you wish. It's not a novel view.

The point I answered referred to "how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame" and it was S Yates who inspired the question. In general, most of the bikes ridden in this country are not just for shopping trips and I am not at all surprised when young riders come up through the ranks, including those now with jobs riding for teams based abroad.

The question was plain regarding British riders as THE WHOLE - the Yates brothers happen to be within that sudden 5 year time frame achievement........

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

that is a good point.

But, are we allowed then to extend the same logic to other riders you like?

Or are you just hypocritically going to point to youth results for riders you like who were half decent when they were young, then completely dismiss the importance of youth results for other riders who were absolute **** when they were young?

Forgive me if I simply answer the point that was made. Bang on about Froome if you wish. It's not a novel view.

The point I answered referred to "how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame" and it was S Yates who inspired the question. In general, most of the bikes ridden in this country are not just for shopping trips and I am not at all surprised when young riders come up through the ranks, including those now with jobs riding for teams based abroad.

The question was plain regarding British riders as THE WHOLE - the Yates brothers happen to be within that sudden 5 year time frame achievement........

Yes, but this Yates inspired it and I answered it in that light

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

Now you try another wider question. Who did you have in mind? Now we have ruled out the Yates brothers, or at least one of them so far, you must have many more riders in mind, to whom my direct reply does not relate.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

This forum is 99% supposition and 1% evidence. Not to say that everyone is wrong, but treating their opinions as fact is a major failing of the vast majority of this board, especially around doping.
Doping clearly happens, however literally not a single person on here has a single idea of how widespread it actually is.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

Yates tested positive for a banned substance and was sanctioned. In my book he is a doper. End of. You can point to palmares as a toddler all you want but he was busted for a banned substance. Doper.

Orica really scream clean team with Neil Stephens and Matt White at the helm :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

This forum is 99 supposition and 1% evidence. Not to say that everyone is wrong, but treating their opinions as fact is a major failing of the vast majority of this board, especially around doping.
Doping clearly happens, however literally not a single person on here has a single idea of how widespread it actually is.

Not sure where you are coming from, but the sport is full of former dopers, doping doctors and the culture to dope riders has not changed unless you cans how different. So while the positive test rate is low, that don't mean there is no evidence. Performance has always being indicative of doping and is used as evidence. We also know the history of the sport and there has been no big culture change that we can point to and say ah but this is where it changed. From as far back as Simpson's death on Ventoux to Armstrong's 'reasoned decision' plenty have claimed things have changed, but they never did.

The forum merely is a reflection of people who have had theirs eyes opened too many times to believe those in the sport who have enabled or doped themselves.

 

[The Carrot]

Brits don't dope but they do wrongly classify paralympic track and field athletes (allegedly), to boost medal chances against more impaired athletes.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/04/paralympian-bethany-woodward-withdraws-team-gb-uka-classification

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

I've been watching football for about 40 years, and the reason why Iceland beat England was that Iceland played to their strengths, and England played like a bunch of idiots - no plan, no intelligence, no guile. There's no "program" on the planet that would have altered the outcome.

I totally agree that Iceland played to their strengths! If you don't believe in the significance of doping programs to determine a result then why visit the forum? Most of us here do believe it and provide evidence to support the contention. I have attempted to do so in this discussion the difference being I am citing an example of clean v dirty.

This forum is 99 supposition and 1% evidence. Not to say that everyone is wrong, but treating their opinions as fact is a major failing of the vast majority of this board, especially around doping.
Doping clearly happens, however literally not a single person on here has a single idea of how widespread it actually is.

Not sure where you are coming from, but the sport is full of former dopers, doping doctors and the culture to dope riders has not changed unless you cans how different. So while the positive test rate is low, that don't mean there is no evidence. Performance has always being indicative of doping and is used as evidence. We also know the history of the sport and there has been no big culture change that we can point to and say ah but this is where it changed. From as far back as Simpson's death on Ventoux to Armstrong's 'reasoned decision' plenty have claimed things have changed, but they never did.

The forum merely is a reflection of people who have had theirs eyes opened too many times to believe those in the sport who have enabled or doped themselves.

that is evidence that those people doped, not evidence that those currently riding who haven't tested positive are.
however i may just have a higher threshold for what i consider constitutes 'evidence'.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

that is a good point.

But, are we allowed then to extend the same logic to other riders you like?

Or are you just hypocritically going to point to youth results for riders you like who were half decent when they were young, then completely dismiss the importance of youth results for other riders who were absolute **** when they were young?

Forgive me if I simply answer the point that was made. Bang on about Froome if you wish. It's not a novel view.

The point I answered referred to "how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame" and it was S Yates who inspired the question. In general, most of the bikes ridden in this country are not just for shopping trips and I am not at all surprised when young riders come up through the ranks, including those now with jobs riding for teams based abroad.

DOn't be a hypocrite if you don't want people to bring up your other positions when you do a Walsh and take up 180 degree different ones when it suits you.

You can't claim youth results don't matter an ounce, for Froome, then turn around and say they are super important, when the subject turns to Yates

 

[GreasyChain]

Re: Re:

Another Yate's outstanding performance- Another Brit doing wonders....

we the cycling fans must get some type of Wikileaks disclosure on how the UK riders have transformed in such fantastic riders in a 5 year time frame..............

ridiculous.............

It must be a conundrum.

So far as Simon Yates is concerned, five years ago he was a teenager, but had the following palmares:
1st Stage 6 Tour de l'Avenir
1st Pro-Am Classic
2nd - Silver medal - Omnium, National Track Championships

Is it really surprising that he can ride a bike well? He turned professional in 2014. With his opportunities to develop and mature, is it really a transformation?

Yates tested positive for a banned substance and was sanctioned. In my book he is a doper. End of. You can point to palmares as a toddler all you want but he was busted for a banned substance. Doper.

Orica really scream clean team with Neil Stephens and Matt White at the helm :lol:

He was not busted for a banned substance. Try harder racist pretendy italian hardman.

His doctors failed to get a TUE applied. Which is not the same thing as you well know.

Now please be explaining how everybody who has ever won a race or broken a record was on drugs when G Obree won races and broke records clean. Therefore blowing a hole clean through your tinfoil headgear.