- Jun 30, 2014
- 248
- 44
- 9,080
Re: Re:
Gonna be loads of tip offs in Britain because English has no word for omerta. :lol:
yaco said:
Gonna be loads of tip offs in Britain because English has no word for omerta. :lol:
- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,952
- 277
- 11,880
Re: Re:
Amateurs get caught because they are using unsophisticated methods, like buying Chinese EPO off the internet and following a regime that they also found on the internet.
Do you think that is what multi-millionaire Chris Froome would do, or do you think he might employ high-level doctors with the knowledge to avoid testing positive or tripping the BP
yaco said:
Amateurs get caught because they are using unsophisticated methods, like buying Chinese EPO off the internet and following a regime that they also found on the internet.
Do you think that is what multi-millionaire Chris Froome would do, or do you think he might employ high-level doctors with the knowledge to avoid testing positive or tripping the BP
My post is referring to whether NADO's and WADA deserve further budget consideration after reviewing there doping convictions. Catching 'weekend warriors' should hardly their domain - The question is whether they give 'value for money'. I doubt this very much.
- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,952
- 277
- 11,880
Understood. The point I am making is that sophisticated doping means by definition that it is hard to detect. Therefore costly to both administer and costly to detect.
If you want a kickass NADO it has to be funded appropriately.
I have a few pro-team contacts, and when I ask them whether they feel NADOs are under-funded their answer is invariably 'yes'.
If you want a kickass NADO it has to be funded appropriately.
I have a few pro-team contacts, and when I ask them whether they feel NADOs are under-funded their answer is invariably 'yes'.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,203
- 49
- 5,530
Re:
Of course the excuse does sound all too familiar and predictable, but i have to say of almost all anabolic steroids Trenbolone is one of the very last i would expect to hear about being used by a weight limited boxer..
King Boonen said:
Of course the excuse does sound all too familiar and predictable, but i have to say of almost all anabolic steroids Trenbolone is one of the very last i would expect to hear about being used by a weight limited boxer..
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
Nigel Levine suspended for clenbuterol positive. Poll on where he went on holiday?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/42972647
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/42972647
The reason for hunting after and catching amateur athletes is because it makes the authorities look like they are doing their job well when we all know they don't like catching the big fish for multiple reasons. Bad publicity for the sport in question for starters. All the legalities, costs that come with a big fish for seconds.
- Feb 16, 2010
- 15,330
- 6,027
- 28,180
- Feb 16, 2010
- 15,330
- 6,027
- 28,180
Re:
Brits do dope
I doubt it's going to allow us to definitively update the title of this thread toDarryl Webster said:
Brits do dope
I think / hope this report might contain some surprises Tour...word on the grapevine is it will recommend the implementation of " sporting fraud " law ...which would be a big step in the right direction ...but we will see.
Re:
For sure Damian Collins has seen through the BS of the Brits Don't Dope establishment
Even so I'm not sure how robust the report is going to be. The DCMS committee grilled a lot of unconvincing witnesses but little if any hard evidence of actual doping presented to them (Dave Bedford and Dan Stevens the exceptions?). AFAIK they can only report and draw conclusions from evidence presented to them
But intriguing to note that parliamentary privilege applies to select committee reports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege#Select_committees). So the report doesn't need to pull punches for fear of libel actions from said Brits Don't Dope establishment
IIRC the committee started by investigating the Sunday Times' scoop about Paula's dodgy blood values, Seb Coe was dragged in and embarrassed himself. Should Paula and Seb be nervous? Possibly
Then they moved on to the Team Sky/BC medical room debacle and in particular Wiggo's jiffybag. Sould Braislfraud and Sutton be nervous? Hopefully someone other than Freeman will be thrown under the DCMS bus. For sure Brailsfraud must hate that he can't get his lawyers to Maxwellise his name from the report like he did with the BC culture of fear report last year
Darryl Webster said:
For sure Damian Collins has seen through the BS of the Brits Don't Dope establishment
Even so I'm not sure how robust the report is going to be. The DCMS committee grilled a lot of unconvincing witnesses but little if any hard evidence of actual doping presented to them (Dave Bedford and Dan Stevens the exceptions?). AFAIK they can only report and draw conclusions from evidence presented to them
But intriguing to note that parliamentary privilege applies to select committee reports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege#Select_committees). So the report doesn't need to pull punches for fear of libel actions from said Brits Don't Dope establishment
IIRC the committee started by investigating the Sunday Times' scoop about Paula's dodgy blood values, Seb Coe was dragged in and embarrassed himself. Should Paula and Seb be nervous? Possibly
Then they moved on to the Team Sky/BC medical room debacle and in particular Wiggo's jiffybag. Sould Braislfraud and Sutton be nervous? Hopefully someone other than Freeman will be thrown under the DCMS bus. For sure Brailsfraud must hate that he can't get his lawyers to Maxwellise his name from the report like he did with the BC culture of fear report last year
- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,952
- 277
- 11,880
Not sure about the Brit Dope 'establishment'. So much of it looked like a mixture of incompetence and lack of resources rather than overt collusion with dopers. For sure, it looks like elements of sporting bodies don't want to catch dopers or perhaps can't, and so prefer it all to be quietly swept under the carpet.
Collins has done a decent job, not least for both giving Brailsford an uncomfortable time and secondly for giving Shane Sutton enough rope to hang himself (didn't need much, did he? The thick c**t)
Collins has done a decent job, not least for both giving Brailsford an uncomfortable time and secondly for giving Shane Sutton enough rope to hang himself (didn't need much, did he? The thick c**t)
Re:
Have you forgotten already about UKAD CEO Sapstead's leaked "No bad news before Rio" email...?
macbindle said:
Have you forgotten already about UKAD CEO Sapstead's leaked "No bad news before Rio" email...?
- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,952
- 277
- 11,880
Haven't forgotten about it, but remember that members of the very same organisation were taking Sapstead to task over her email before the story broke. Remember also that that Lord Moynihan, ex-pres of BOA immediately called for her resignation. Therefore, it can hardly be labelled a 'doping establishment' if there was a large negative reaction from within the sporting admin world to Sapsteads attempt to bury bad news.
Certainly Reedie was right there doing nothing as usual, I grant you, and I can't remember what Coe had to say but he probably slid into a radio station somewhere to defend her then slid out leaving a trail of slime.
Certainly Reedie was right there doing nothing as usual, I grant you, and I can't remember what Coe had to say but he probably slid into a radio station somewhere to defend her then slid out leaving a trail of slime.
Re:
A decent effort at naming the BDD establishment
Reedie at WADA, tick. Coe at the IAAF, tick. Don't forget Cookson at the UCI (RIP). Sapstead at UKAD, tick. Plus Grainger new at UK Sport, deflecting heat onto the Russians.
GB medals are all that matter to these people. No interest in the how. Move along now nothing to see here. Rinse and repeat
macbindle said:
A decent effort at naming the BDD establishment
Reedie at WADA, tick. Coe at the IAAF, tick. Don't forget Cookson at the UCI (RIP). Sapstead at UKAD, tick. Plus Grainger new at UK Sport, deflecting heat onto the Russians.
GB medals are all that matter to these people. No interest in the how. Move along now nothing to see here. Rinse and repeat
- Jul 6, 2014
- 1,645
- 318
- 11,180
Last time I was on this thread was Rio 2016 ~ and there was the usual 'my god this looks so dodgy' vs 'team GB has better funding, science etc.'
I certainly remember which side of the fence I was on in that debate.
But can someone quickly fill me in: is there now some pretty solid empirical evidence that team GB have been doped to the gills?
I certainly remember which side of the fence I was on in that debate.
But can someone quickly fill me in: is there now some pretty solid empirical evidence that team GB have been doped to the gills?
What I said in the autumn 2015 still does not need to be edited at all :
"This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...
1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.
2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) access to co-operation with universities, medical schools etc. in a way which (maybe except Astana) no road cycling trade team can even dream about...
3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :
1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...
4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...
I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).
This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".
And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.
And this leads to...
5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using any available PEDs/methods as long as they avoid being caught. However, the rest of the teams are restricted to "known methods" of blood transfusion / micro-dosing etc. while I'm pretty convinced Team Sky has some completely unknown, off-the-market, unpublicised stuff which they can utilise freely without ANY danger of detection (at this moment). Quite BALCOish, but likely with public sources / funding instead of private lab.
6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...
7) But at the same time - this is
- killing the suspense
- making the world of cycling even MORE unfair for riders. If the best stuff is (at least for a moment) available only for riders of certain nationality, why should others bother?
8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...
9) But in a world where one group of riders (apparently not even close to a full team) have stuff which no one else knows about... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo)."
And when you consider the similarities with Spanish endurance sports success story of 1990's (state-sponsored doping programmes to achieve success in Barca Olympics 1992), I actually go straight-on to accuse UK being at the top of the world right now in governmental doping. More cutting-edge and further developed in methods than Russia, China etc.
But staying in cycling - the minimum acts to ckean the mess should be :
1) Kicking UK Cycling out of sport for 5 years?
2) Full 4-year doping ban to every British male cyclist involved in UK Track squad or in Sky-organization since 2011.
3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.
4) The selected UK riders clearly not part of set-up (f ex Yates-brothers) would be let to continue their cycling careers under the pseudonym CAB (cycling athlete from Britain).
P.S. Slightly humorously speaking - Personally I would be happy to see cycling rules re-written so that no athlete from an English-speaking country would be allowed to participate ever again. Cycling was at its best when it was purely Central European/Colombian thing and the other countries should not be welcome to a family, IMO. :lol:
"This will be slightly long-winded post, but here is my opinion/feeling about the Team Sky...
1) Team Sky is only a tip of the iceberg, but the roots are in British Cycling & National Cycling Centre/Manchester Velodrome.
2) National Cycling Centre (from here on NCC) was opened in 1994 to promote & develop British Track Cycling. It is state-funded, institutionalised centre with open (and likely hidden) access to co-operation with universities, medical schools etc. in a way which (maybe except Astana) no road cycling trade team can even dream about...
3) NCC understandably started with an emphasis on track cycling as many track events are PURE performance sports with no tactics adaptation to daily conditions (elements of nature) etc. included. The results started to pile up :
1996 Olympics : no medals on track (Boardman & Sciandri took medals on road, but they had nothing to do with NCC, really)
2000 Olympics : Gold for Jason Queally in 1000 m TT, 3 other medals. No yet success in more tactical events like individual sprint, madison, keirin etc.
2004 Olympics : 2 Golds thru' Sir Brad & Chris Hoy
2008 Olympics : Total domination! 7 golds out of total of 10 available on track. Every "performance event" gold to UK! Only points races and men's madison slipped away...
4) 2009 : The birth of Team Sky in a very close co-operation of British Cycling...
I am bluntly accusing that NCC is a hotbed of very advanced doping research and the natural progression has been to start with the "easiest" pure performance sports and move towards most tactical, most pricey sport (= professional road cycling).
This would also explain why it is mostly British riders who do advance to "alien"-level in Team Sky. As it is national institution, the best of "knowledge" is not to be given for your competitors. While they are teammates in Sky, they are "enemies" of British Cycling in WCs/Olympics etc. Sky has employed a lot of talented foreigners, but the only one who appears to have been given "full 5-course meal" is Richie Porte. Otoh, numerous foreign riders (EBH, Löfkvist, Gerrans, Uran, Henao, Deignan, Roche, König etc) have remained very mortal, stagnated or even plummeted off the cliff while in Sky. So it is not only a "peloton a deux vitesses", but also "team a deux vitesses".
And this separates Team Sky from almost ALL of its competition... Even the richest competitors are still private teams - only Astana has similar governmental backing. However, I also think that cutting-edge sports medicinal research is more likely to happen in UK, than in Kazakhstan.
And this leads to...
5) I don't think Team Sky are BIGGER cheats than most of their competition (although they are the most double-faced in their insistence of innocence). Frankly, yesterday Froome put a whipping for plenty of riders/teams, which have no moral qualms in using any available PEDs/methods as long as they avoid being caught. However, the rest of the teams are restricted to "known methods" of blood transfusion / micro-dosing etc. while I'm pretty convinced Team Sky has some completely unknown, off-the-market, unpublicised stuff which they can utilise freely without ANY danger of detection (at this moment). Quite BALCOish, but likely with public sources / funding instead of private lab.
6) So, do I feel sorry for beaten "cheats" like Contador, Nibali, Piti etc. for them being caught way behind in "arms race". Not really. They would do the same without any remorse given a half-chance...
7) But at the same time - this is
- killing the suspense
- making the world of cycling even MORE unfair for riders. If the best stuff is (at least for a moment) available only for riders of certain nationality, why should others bother?
8) I am strong supporter of CLEAN sport. I also believe that to be unrealistic ideal. However, a world where the doping is limited to certain known methods/PEDs and doping controls can even hinder and put limitations to a use of those known "evils", the field is rather fair and even. The guys who want to ride clean will likely not win too often, but they are not in unconquerable disadvantage AND they pretty much know how much of headstart the dopers have...
9) But in a world where one group of riders (apparently not even close to a full team) have stuff which no one else knows about... That is no longer a sport. It is WORSE that Lance-years. At least Lance used same stuff as everybody else. He only could use it more efficiently as he had the "immunity" from getting caught and a "private line" to whistle-blow whomever had the audacity to raise their bar to match him (Hamilton, Mayo)."
And when you consider the similarities with Spanish endurance sports success story of 1990's (state-sponsored doping programmes to achieve success in Barca Olympics 1992), I actually go straight-on to accuse UK being at the top of the world right now in governmental doping. More cutting-edge and further developed in methods than Russia, China etc.
But staying in cycling - the minimum acts to ckean the mess should be :
1) Kicking UK Cycling out of sport for 5 years?
2) Full 4-year doping ban to every British male cyclist involved in UK Track squad or in Sky-organization since 2011.
3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.
4) The selected UK riders clearly not part of set-up (f ex Yates-brothers) would be let to continue their cycling careers under the pseudonym CAB (cycling athlete from Britain).
P.S. Slightly humorously speaking - Personally I would be happy to see cycling rules re-written so that no athlete from an English-speaking country would be allowed to participate ever again. Cycling was at its best when it was purely Central European/Colombian thing and the other countries should not be welcome to a family, IMO. :lol:
- Mar 20, 2013
- 801
- 262
- 10,380
Re:
So Poels, Moscon et all get a bye? Nice.
I think you are overplaying the limiting of the good stuff to Brits. The two above and Landa last year were off the clock too.
Froome's development has little to do with BC and more to do with docs in Monaco, he is a Brit as a flag of convenience, whose personal doping results at the Vuelta forced Sky to accept him (and then dope him). He wasn't due to race that Vuelta and was gone from Sky without its results.
seldon71 said:
So Poels, Moscon et all get a bye? Nice.
I think you are overplaying the limiting of the good stuff to Brits. The two above and Landa last year were off the clock too.
Froome's development has little to do with BC and more to do with docs in Monaco, he is a Brit as a flag of convenience, whose personal doping results at the Vuelta forced Sky to accept him (and then dope him). He wasn't due to race that Vuelta and was gone from Sky without its results.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 777
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
119th Paris - Tours Elite (12-10-2025)
- Started by Dazed and Confused
- Replies: 155
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Latest posts
-
-
World Championship 2025: Mens U23 and Junior ITTs and RRs
- Latest: TastyGroceries
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram