Brits don't dope?

Page 175 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yawn.

They dope as much or as little as everybody else, because they are people...just like everybody else. This has been done to death for what seems like an eternity.

If you want to try your hand at identity baiting at least try and find a novel way of doing it that isnt so boring and predictable.
 
Reactions: pastronef
Yawn.

They dope as much or as little as everybody else, because they are people...just like everybody else. This has been done to death for what seems like an eternity.

If you want to try your hand at identity baiting at least try and find a novel way of doing it that isnt so boring and predictable.
Revisit clinic threads early after Wigans' and Froome's transformations and you'll find plenty of quotes from 2012 bandwagon fans telling us otherwise - that the British are as pure as the driven snow - whence this thread.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Revisit clinic threads early after Wigans' and Froome's transformations and you'll find plenty of quotes from 2012 bandwagon fans telling us otherwise - that the British are as pure as the driven snow - whence this thread.
There is a difference between believing Wiggins or Froome are clean, and believing Wiggins or Froome are clean because they are British.

You will find plenty of the former, which frankly is normal, but I'm very sceptical that you will find many of the latter.

It isnt a sentiment I have heard expressed for decades. British exceptionalism exists, but not so much in the realm of pro cycling, which has a poor reputation in this country.
 
There is a difference between believing Wiggins or Froome are clean, and believing Wiggins or Froome are clean because they are British.

You will find plenty of the former, which frankly is normal, but I'm very sceptical that you will find many of the latter.

It isnt a sentiment I have heard expressed for decades. British exceptionalism exists, but not so much in the realm of pro cycling, which has a poor reputation in this country.
There were a fair few here for a while - eg: Oldcrank, EnacheV, Sam Hocking were a few more prominent ones, but the more rabid ones were booted fairly early. One even started a thread called "This has to stop" in a teary "leave Britney alone" vein in support of Wigans. It got pretty funny while it lasted.
 
It is to be expected that supporters support, especially given the excitement of a British Tour winner in a sport that had been almost completely overlooked in the UK. But are you sure that their certainty of Wiggans's propriety was based on his nationality?

Seriously, I have not heard people express this. *In my club, for example, there were many people who dismissed doping insinuations, but purely on the basis of no evidence which they considered to be concrete (ie. a pozzy test or a police bust) I've never heard people claim that British riders are clean because the British dont or wouldnt cheat.

*...and yes, you and I might think differently to them about the evidence but that isnt the point.
 
Nope, nationalism. The shade they threw at anyone and everyone else at the slightest hint of foul play was laughable.

Having said that, there were also a fair share of Sky fans who understood the history cycling has right from the start as well as fans who have accepted the reality over time.

But long story short, yes, this forum has seen its share of "STFU everyone, they'd never ever dope, they're British".
 
Reactions: veganrob
I think you're confusing defending a rider alleged to be guilty of something when there isn't evidence to charge him with or has been cleared of an offence and blindly defending a rider caught doping simply because they're of the same nationality. Clearly some do blindly defend on nationality, but I would never defend e.g. JTL for EPO based on Nationality when the evidence is clearly illegal doping and cheating the rules.
 
There is a difference between believing Wiggins or Froome are clean, and believing Wiggins or Froome are clean because they are British.

You will find plenty of the former, which frankly is normal, but I'm very sceptical that you will find many of the latter.

It isnt a sentiment I have heard expressed for decades. British exceptionalism exists, but not so much in the realm of pro cycling, which has a poor reputation in this country.

On the other hand this forum has been going after Froome for nearly a decade. And all you have to support you opinion after posting daily about it is an asthma inhaler. Such avenues as faked crashed to hide a silent ban (in which has been allowed to ride) and other crackpot theories have been qiven credence. But according to you anyone who disagrees with this unsubstantiated opinion must be some sort of nationalists.

Maybe the reason for the most defences being of British riders is because 90% of the accusations are about them. And those accusations are a nationalism of it's own kind. Targeting one particular nation.
 
On the other hand this forum has been going after Froome for nearly a decade. And all you have to support you opinion after posting daily about it is an asthma inhaler. Such avenues as faked crashed to hide a silent ban (in which has been allowed to ride) and other crackpot theories have been qiven credence. But according to you anyone who disagrees with this unsubstantiated opinion must be some sort of nationalists.

Maybe the reason for the most defences being of British riders is because 90% of the accusations are about them. And those accusations are a nationalism of it's own kind. Targeting one particular nation.
Readily prepared to admit that the "faked crash" conspiracy was exactly that - a ludicrous conspiracy.

90% of the accusations though? No. Threads were drawn out ad nauseum due to excessive protestations and the need to repeat justification for concern again and again (and again)
 
I take it the accusations were refuted simply on the basis that the riders were British, and therefore doping was impossible?

If there was any other reason given, such as lack of evidence or that the putative infringement did not contravene rules, then the assertion that British people claim a higher moral standing is wrong.

As you say, nationalism may be at play here, but perhaps not in the way you suggest ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY