Brits don't dope?

[BullsFan22]

Why ban an entire federation? I asked the same thing when the Russian thing came up.

 

[Craigee]

I'm still waiting to hear how Mark Cavendish took 8 seconds off his PB time for the individual pursuit in Rio when he had just ridden the Tour de France.

How is it possible to go from 4.24 to 4.16 in one hit? Is riding the Tour De France the best way to improve 8 seconds for your individual pursuit? Gee if only everyone knew that. But for him to have the cheek to say he was disappointed he didn't break Wiggins' Olympic record is plain mental. His best time was 4.24 and he was EXPECTING to go under 4.15? Get out of here. Wiggins was a pursuiter. Cav never was cut out for it but some how he grew a leg like the rest of the Brits and expected to go faster than Wiggins best time.

Why did Katy Marchant go from average to incredible at Rio and then drop back to average again ever since? Same with Callum Skinner. Laura Kenny took seconds off her individual pursuit PB and that's someone who did omniums for a living. How do you improve so much in an event you do all the time? You should chip away at your time, not take seconds off it when you do it all the time. Doesn't make sense.

Come on someone please come up with a believable explanation.

 

[Parker]

Re:

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).

So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in 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.

How does Viviani fit into this conspiracy? He joined Sky because they gave him all the time he needed to prepare for the Olympics, where he beat British favourite Cavendish into second place. Why didn't they overrace him?

I'm still waiting to hear how Mark Cavendish took 8 seconds off his PB time for the individual pursuit in Rio when he had just ridden the Tour de France.

How is it possible to go from 4.24 to 4.16 in one hit? Is riding the Tour De France the best way to improve 8 seconds for your individual pursuit? Gee if only everyone knew that. But for him to have the cheek to say he was disappointed he didn't break Wiggins' Olympic record is plain mental. His best time was 4.24 and he was EXPECTING to go under 4.15? Get out of here. Wiggins was a pursuiter. Cav never was cut out for it but some how he grew a leg like the rest of the Brits and expected to go faster than Wiggins best time.

Pursuit riders ride to a pre-planned schedule. Cavendish rode his first pursuit one the back of little practice or data, having not done one since his junior days, so they rode a conservative schedule. With more practice and data they realised he was capable of a faster schedule, so rode to that.

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.

How do you know all that?
Curious

 

[Craigee]

Parker. I asked for a believable explanation. You failed.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Yeah, like top riders don't know how to go all-out until somebody is able to analyze their data and convince them of what they're capable of. That, plus the British riders know how to peak every four years = total domination.

How do you know what all out feels like if you haven't done the event for ten years? There's no power meter to look at, no heart rate monitor. He didn't even go all out in road time trials.

You suggesting that within the inner hidden capabilities - should Cavendish had just gone all out in various road time trials - he would've smashed the peloton close to Wiggo level? OK...

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Umm, guess where Dr Richard Freeman ended up after he left Team Sky...?

Yes indeedy, the Team GB track squad!

Just sayin

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

Parker. I asked for a believable explanation. You failed.

I have to agree with this statement. It's actually kind of insane what kind of times he got in Rio.

 

[seldon71]

Re: Re:

3) Foreign riders would be allowed to sign elsewhere with an immediate effect.

So Poels, Moscon et all get a bye? Nice.

It would hardly construst a "bye". I didn't elaborate it, but I surely thought about the fact that there would be no more high-paying jobs open for them elsewhere this season. Rosters are about full so in real life even these foreign riders of Sky would be scraping for crumbs without a salary nor a job. No ban though - legally impossible to ban them without a concrete evidence.

By kicking a Federation out and cancelling all it's licenses you can ban all the Brits though.

 

[seldon71]

Re: Re:

So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.

Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.

 

[macbindle]

Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re: Re:

So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.

Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.

Cortisone, Fluimucil, testosterone patches. Very advanced doping programme indeed :lol:

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

So nothing to do with National Lottery funding then. The same improvement has been seen across many Olympics sports - particularly the ones with small participation levels.

In 1996 GB Olympics sports got public funding of £5m. Most athletes were part time. GB won one gold medal. Then John Major diverted Lottery money towards Olympic sports, athletes went full time and facilities improved. For 2016 £274, was spent - and another £73m on the Paralympics.

But no, it's just doping. Because no-one else had ever thought of doping in cycling.

Not just doping - of course not. But also doping. National lottery-funded, very modern, very advanced doping programmes supported and covered up all the way from governmental level. UK sports are dirty to the core.

Cortisone, Fluimucil, testosterone patches. Very advanced doping programme indeed :lol:

The real Marginal Gains

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re:

Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.

And that's how every nation should treat their heroes. Can't understand you brits, born to be jealous and/or learn to love scandals?

 

[macbindle]

That puts you at odds with most of the posters in this thread, including me.

The Spanish reaction to Contador's positive was a joke. Compare it to the British reaction to Wiggins and Froome.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.

And that's how every nation should treat their heroes. Can't understand you brits, born to be jealous and/or learn to love scandals?

Very politically incorrect, I must say, Big Mig. And ... maybe not the place for it here ... let the Mods decide ... But ... this very thing (in the context of the Froome scandal) was pointed out to me by my closest friend, where I now live ... a British University prof ... a guy for whom I have the utmost respect ... that this is known, in the UK, as the "Politics of Envy." Now ... it could be bullocks ... but it gives rise to a the question of fact or fancy, nao eh?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Remember Mark Bonar, the dodgy Harley St doctor UKAD couldn't be arsed investigating? He's trying to avoid a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service inquiry by claiming to have retired and emigrated. The inquiry seems to be going ahead without it...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Also in the news and buried by the Sky brouhaha - West Ham get three strikes for Whereabouts failures ... and a £30,000 fine

The 'tricks' they used involved sending DCOs to the wrong house number...

The club promises to "endeavour to tighten our procedures to avoid this happening again."

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Remember Mark Bonar, the dodgy Harley St doctor UKAD couldn't be arsed investigating? He's trying to avoid a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service inquiry by claiming to have retired and emigrated. The inquiry seems to be going ahead without it...

And they struck him off.

A tribunal found Dr Mark Bonar, 40, guilty of misconduct yesterday, saying that he had shown “a reckless disregard for patient safety” and had “yet to show any recognition of, or insight into, the seriousness of his actions”.

If I was a British sports doctor currently in the news for possibly miss-prescribing some seriously heavy duty drugs to an athlete, I'd probably be thinking of changing career round about now...or following Bonar abroad...

Edit: the MPTS decision should appear here in a few days and could be worth reading if some of the quotes in reports are correct:

‘The tribunal determined that, both individually and cumulatively, Dr Bonar’s conduct (which includes dishonesty during the course of a consultation, non-clinically indicated prescribing, contraindicated prescribing, prescribing with the aim of improving a patient’s athletic performance, and advising an athlete on how to actively avoid detection) amount to misconduct that is serious.’

 

[No_Balls]

Re:

That puts you at odds with most of the posters in this thread, including me.

The Spanish reaction to Contador's positive was a joke. Compare it to the British reaction to Wiggins and Froome.

Yes, you are sucking their dicks in this forum and in the comments to random british newspaper. Not speaking about some well known journos who could’ve done a serious career as escape artists.

How did we even end up talking about Spain when it turned out Great Britain was as filthy cheaters as the rest of them?

Ahh yes, of course, the ”ok we cheated like the rest of them despite telling the world only wogs did that but they are still more evil because look how outraged we pretend we are”-routine.

 

[fmk_RoI]

So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:

c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.

Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’

71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:

‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’

72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.

Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:

26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’

Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:

‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’

If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.

It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:

c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.

Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’

71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:

‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’

72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.

Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:

26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’

Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:

‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’

If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.

It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?

Cost-Benefit analysis ... one of the best tests on the market. Everyone should get the App. :geek:

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:

c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.

Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’

71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:

‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’

72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.

Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:

26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:

‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’

Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:

‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’

If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.

It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?

Cost-Benefit analysis ... one of the best tests on the market. Everyone should get the App. :geek:

Your continued posting of nonsense, which you may find humorous, adds nothing.