Brits don't dope?

[Saint Unix]

Yeah, after years and years of pro cycling Bradley Wiggins woke up one morning and thought to himself:

"The only thing between being a former trackie and back-of-the-pack time trial specialist who has never achieved a win outside of time trials in smaller races and being a Tour winner who can crush the mountains and win any time trial in the world with a huge margin is the booze. I'm going to cut it out!"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2188427/Bradley-Wiggins-celebrates-Olympic-gold-medal-wine-cigarettes-holiday-Mallorca.html

 

[Irondan]

But you fail to address all the other important parts of the discussion "Brits dont dope?" and are labouring (some might say trolling) on this one, which conveniently for you is behind a paywall and therefore not linkable.

Having the opposite opinion constitutes 'Trolling'??

 

[blackcat]

I've not made a statement that others need to pick at. I have politely tried to make a brief response to what I regard as a genuine question and that's all I propose to do for now. Over and out Freddy.

belief says more about you.

just like Professor Hoberman's aside about PEDs in professional sport, that the most insightful understanding is not science, but social science and sociology and psychology. Once one can understand, in the inimitable words of D-Q, marginal gains is not a rounding error on a comprehensive doping program. When 5% gains (pessimistic estimate) on the final finishing climb on the HC climb of the Queen Stage, 5% power on on a 50 minute timetrial, when you look at the differential in Olympic podiums... psychology is the tell. These athletes Type A individuals, do not surrender such advantages.

as humans, we need to believe in the things we have been told are worthy, we hold these myths tight to our heart, we do not dispense with them easily

 

[blackcat]

I think he did it clean, by nutrition and training. That's my answer. i am not an expert, even though many think they are. Please note what I said in what you quoted. As Benotti said about his point about the lie he said was made by Brailsford, "End of."

Please don't pursue what I can't add anything to. All the best to you.

one must triangulate the peloton.

he did it in a dirty peloton. there were snakes in the peloton like armstrong. in terms of doping, the peloton was a snakepit. =/= axiomatically poor character tho.

he rides with them everyday.but he rises above them. and he can overcome the peformance deficit of being on bread and water.

sounds legit

 

[blackcat]

I do yes but what you are writing wasn't funny the first time and the level of amusement has decreased significantly over time. You barely get pity each time you post the same old thing.

Maybe try to keep the discussion on topic? if you don't have anything relevant to add maybe don't add anything?

you dont think this is not a comment more appropriate for empire crew. the clinic12 have had to put up with this $hit for years since wigans and froome and sky started winning, and we had the homers who started following the sport on the back of the british track cycling program and hoy and wigans, and the team pursuiters doing a heist at the track, then ruperts money at sky finally paying off, and knighthoods?

and you have a whine when i invoke gordonstoun and muscular christianity?

you jest surely?

the difference between the clinic12 and the empire crew, we know they all dope, and we know that if something is too good to be true in cycling, it will inevitably be

 

[red_flanders]

That's a bit strong. I was asked for a reply to a point I was not discussing and I gave one. One thing leads to another, I know. But I am not going to continue now and if you can't accept that it's too bad. It's not a treadmill and I am not on the witness stand either. In fact I am going to bed now. Goodnight.

I appreciate the answer and the mature response. I don't in any way agree with you, but that's no problem.

I don't think you'll get much traction suggesting he's clean, in the context of this or any other discussion, but you knew that already. Thanks for the response again.

 

[red_flanders]

Having the opposite opinion constitutes 'Trolling'??

Far too often that's the view on this forum. I tend to disagree. Strongly.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Look, I am somewhat beyond middle age and I am not in any way new to cycling. We are different people, different in background and in my case, I expect, professional experience. So please do me a favour and stop telling me what I should think.

As a professional person you certainly get facts and opinions confused easily. And quite keen to inform non-believers like of myself, that we are basing our judgements on what you term - "opinions".

Fact - Long-term dietitian, Nige states Sir Bradley is at his optimum weight
Fact - undetectable weight loss PED rips through peloton.
Fact - Mature cyclist Sir Bradley suddenly loses over 7 kg
Fact - Sky hire one of two doctors banned for life for PED violations by USADA
Fact - Sir Bradley morphs from pack-fill to GT Champ.

Fact - World's largest sporting fraud is effected in Professional Cycling.

Opinion - despite the lack of "positives" , it is highly unlikely the current peloton have developed a sense of moral fibre that enables them to shun the Siren voices of fame & fortune available from an undetectable pill - the peloton is still juiced

Opinion - all these facts and that single opinion make it highly unlikely Sir Bradley thrashed the dopers clean even with those rounder wheels and special pillows.

Fact - the very best and most expensive Legal PROFESSIONALS the Sunday Times could muster in the High Court, could not make a PROFESSIONAL judge see what was stark staring obvious to loads of us - Lance was as doped as St David, Pantani, Sean Yates, Malcolm Elliott, Eddy Merckx and the rest and Gentleman Tom.

Fact - Lance quoted in his legal defence that only fools would enter a sponsorship with his team believing it was clean in 2002. [I heartily concur with that sentiment, but the long-term aggression shown by Lance's legal team towards anyone who indicated such a common sense view-point neutralises the vendor's otherwise quite justifiable stance of caveat emptor.[ Strange that, a certain P Radcliffe has a legal team with similar disposition ?]]

Opinion - only a fool and perhaps a PROFESSIONAL FOOL would think that Sir Bradley and Froome were clean winners given the above facts.

 

[del1962]

Have a look at this - Nov 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/15922346
A few months later he was in a GB jersey trying to make Cav, the first Brit to win the World Road title since 1965 the first Brit to win the Olympic Road Champion as well. It is like an Orwell novel brought to life, all paid for by the lottery public.

Not really following you here, the article was after he had helped Cav not the other way round, and it was Chambers not Millar that overturned the Olympic ban

 

[blackcat]

sure that helps. But didn't the french have properly funded pro teams over the past two decades or so?

and even with proper funding, how do you close the gap between being a nobody in a sport, and dominating that sport.
imagine the Netherlands suddenly receiving huge funding for ice hockey. How long would it take for the m to close the gap to the top? Me thinks much more than a decade.

they cant, without a solid ice hockey culture. the brits did have some cycling culture to build on. And the resources which leveraged the track athletes.

but throwing resources will not make China world beaters in the more culture based sports.

sure, they can throw money at ballet, and opera, and classical music, and the track and field athletics, and swimming.

But they miss out in cycling, atleast where there are large swathes, massive pools of competitors. They can win gold for women track cycling sprinters, because there respective amount of women doing track sprinting is less than those who do synchronized swimming. so it is a numbers game. Just because Netherlands had field hockey tradition, I think the only professional field hockey league isin Holland, and they have decent ice skating sprinter skaters, does not mean they can compete with the USSRsoviet states and Sweden and other states outside NAmerica that produce athletes for the NHL

 

[The Hitch]

As a professional person you certainly get facts and opinions confused easily. And quite keen to inform non-believers like of myself, that we are basing our judgements on what you term - "opinions".

Fact - Long-term dietitian, Nige states Sir Bradley is at his optimum weight
Fact - undetectable weight loss PED rips through peloton.
Fact - Mature cyclist Sir Bradley suddenly loses over 7 kg
Fact - Sky hire one of two doctors banned for life for PED violations by USADA
Fact - Sir Bradley morphs from pack-fill to GT Champ.

Fact - World's largest sporting fraud is effected in Professional Cycling.

Opinion - despite the lack of "positives" , it is highly unlikely the current peloton have developed a sense of moral fibre that enables them to shun the Siren voices of fame & fortune available from an undetectable pill - the peloton is still juiced

Opinion - all these facts and that single opinion make it highly unlikely Sir Bradley thrashed the dopers clean even with those rounder wheels and special pillows.

Fact - the very best and most expensive Legal PROFESSIONALS the Sunday Times could muster in the High Court, could not make a PROFESSIONAL judge see what was stark staring obvious to loads of us - Lance was as doped as St David, Pantani, Sean Yates, Malcolm Elliott, Eddy Merckx and the rest and Gentleman Tom.

Fact - Lance quoted in his legal defence that only fools would enter a sponsorship with his team believing it was clean in 2002. [I heartily concur with that sentiment, but the long-term aggression shown by Lance's legal team towards anyone who indicated such a common sense view-point neutralises the vendor's otherwise quite justifiable stance of caveat emptor.[ Strange that, a certain P Radcliffe has a legal team with similar disposition ?]]

Opinion - only a fool and perhaps a PROFESSIONAL FOOL would think that Sir Bradley and Froome were clean winners given the above facts.

Freddy doing the Lord's Work in this thread.

 

[del1962]

My mistake on the timing re the Worlds, but the point is sound. To believe that Millar was just a bystander thanking his lucky stars that the goodness fairy just happened to get eveil boy Dwain to take the BOA ban to CAS, is naive.

Well it would help your argument if you didnt make basic factual errors, but that is no big deal.

Anyway the eveil boy Chambers and the goodness fairy Millar is a complete mischaracterisation of my postion and Millar benefitted, but do you really believe that Millar would have challanged the decision of his own back? So he did benefit

Millar has the distinction of loving his fellow team-mates so much and wanting to do all to help them that he was thrown out of the Brit quarters in the Olympic village at Sydney after his event because his partying antics were disturbing his fellow team-mates who still had to compete.

Even after "lady luck" had the ban overturned, BC didn't need to pick him other riders were in the frame who could have taken his place. A certain John TL was apparently totally clean at this stage and well known to Sky BC and kicking backsides all season.

No, this was more Omerta pay-back from Sir David. And what a story, St David's "I am clean now" image would only burnish Cav's gold in London.

I am not sure what your point here is other than Millar is full of himself, Millar was probably the best choice for the task at the time, JTL had been injured for the mid season and won a 2.2 race as opposed to someone who had won a TDF stage, and Brailsford knew what he would get out of Millar.

Sorry you make some good points but it is spoiled by making unsupported assumptions

 

[sniper]

I appreciate the answer and the mature response.

gimme strength, Red.
in case you weren't following, he was trolling the thread yesterday, e.g. here

...nitpicking...

he then insisted benotti apologises for saying something everybody with half a brain knows benotti wasn't making up.

that's all nitpicking/arguing semantics instead of productively joining in the debate. And tbh that's what ca. 90% of wrinklyvet's contributions come down to. (anybody correct me if i'm wrong)

having a different opinion is perfectly fine, but when does wrinklyvet really ever posit his opinion? (it took you how long to get an answer to your question regarding wiggins weight loss?).
let's call a spade a spade, shall we? this guy is trolling most of the time, though admittedly not in an offensive way which probably makes it more acceptable.

ok, back to business.

 

[Hawkwood]

In the article Kimmage pushes and pushes Brailsford about the exact details of the arrest and Brailsford admits to lying. Brailsford says int eh article (iirc) he regrets it.

I have read that some believe Brailsford was Millars got to person for PEDs.

Fran Millar admits to knowing her brother was doping but turning a blind eye.

But I was responding to your text `It is common knowledge (apparently except to Sky fans) that Brailsford did a runner soon as the French cops let him go after he was arrested with Millar and Millars sister (IIRC).', but your response is about something completely different???

 

[Franklin]

Opinion - despite the lack of "positives" , it is highly unlikely the current peloton have developed a sense of moral fibre that enables them to shun the Siren voices of fame & fortune available from an undetectable pill - the peloton is still juiced

Opinion - all these facts and that single opinion make it highly unlikely Sir Bradley thrashed the dopers clean even with those rounder wheels and special pillows.

Those two are not exactly opinion, but actually the most plausible hypothesis. You are selling yourself short here.

And yeah, there are quite a few more reasons which makes the odds of Wiggins being clean a remote possibility.

Opinion - only a fool and perhaps a PROFESSIONAL FOOL would think that Sir Bradley and Froome were clean winners given the above facts.

See above

 

[Benotti69]

I don't have motives. I have taken note of Wiggins for years and against the weight of opinion in the Clinic I believe in him. These things may not stand analysis by others of a different view. I see opinions. You see "evidence." End of, like I said.

The clinic is not a single entity. Stop trying to portray it as one.

Blind fanboyism is not a problem. Enjoy it.

 

[Benotti69]

But I was responding to your text `It is common knowledge (apparently except to Sky fans) that Brailsford did a runner soon as the French cops let him go after he was arrested with Millar and Millars sister (IIRC).', but your response is about something completely different???

Nope. Wrong. You jumped into a discussion relating to Brailsford trying to put a huge distance between himself and Millar.

Want to address what Brailsford was doing getting a known doper to ride for TeamGB at Greek Olympics?

 

[Benotti69]

As a professional person you certainly get facts and opinions confused easily. And quite keen to inform non-believers like of myself, that we are basing our judgements on what you term - "opinions".

Fact - Long-term dietitian, Nige states Sir Bradley is at his optimum weight
Fact - undetectable weight loss PED rips through peloton.
Fact - Mature cyclist Sir Bradley suddenly loses over 7 kg
Fact - Sky hire one of two doctors banned for life for PED violations by USADA
Fact - Sir Bradley morphs from pack-fill to GT Champ.

Fact - World's largest sporting fraud is effected in Professional Cycling.

Opinion - despite the lack of "positives" , it is highly unlikely the current peloton have developed a sense of moral fibre that enables them to shun the Siren voices of fame & fortune available from an undetectable pill - the peloton is still juiced

Opinion - all these facts and that single opinion make it highly unlikely Sir Bradley thrashed the dopers clean even with those rounder wheels and special pillows.

Fact - the very best and most expensive Legal PROFESSIONALS the Sunday Times could muster in the High Court, could not make a PROFESSIONAL judge see what was stark staring obvious to loads of us - Lance was as doped as St David, Pantani, Sean Yates, Malcolm Elliott, Eddy Merckx and the rest and Gentleman Tom.

Fact - Lance quoted in his legal defence that only fools would enter a sponsorship with his team believing it was clean in 2002. [I heartily concur with that sentiment, but the long-term aggression shown by Lance's legal team towards anyone who indicated such a common sense view-point neutralises the vendor's otherwise quite justifiable stance of caveat emptor.[ Strange that, a certain P Radcliffe has a legal team with similar disposition ?]]

Opinion - only a fool and perhaps a PROFESSIONAL FOOL would think that Sir Bradley and Froome were clean winners given the above facts.

Fantastic post.

 

[del1962]

The clinic is not a single entity. Stop trying to portray it as one.

Blind fanboyism is not a problem. Enjoy it.

I dont know how saying the weight of opinion us portraying it as one, another of your logical fallacies Benotti

 

[Benotti69]

I dont know how saying the weight of opinion us portraying it as one, another of your logical fallacies Benotti

The only logical fallacy is thinking Sky are not like the rest of the peloton, doping.

 

[sniper]

...
Want to address what Brailsford was doing getting a known doper to ride for TeamGB at Greek Olympics?

that's an interesting issue.

Bobbins unfortunately disappeared after I questioned his source stating the GB track team was and/or is 100% clean.

Hayles 50+ hematocrit, Brailsford, Brailsford recruiting Millar, total domination men+women, laughable testing, attractive risk-reward ratio, etc...

I see nothing there that would suggest a clean track team.

 

[del1962]

The only logical fallacy is thinking Sky are not like the rest of the peloton, doping.

Again an utter irrelevence to the fact I pointed out your logical errors

 

[TheSpud]

I repeat, the articles do not mention Brailsford was arrested along with Millar.

Kimmage asked Brailsford about Biarritz and the 'truth'. Brailsford regretted not being 'truthful'. For those who doubt, go find the Sunday Times article by Kimmage. It is behind a paywall and i will not give Murdoch a cent.

If you are referring to the article of 22 Nov 2009 then Brailsford does not admit lying and it doesn't mention any regret about being untruthful. He does admit that at the time he gave a statement to The Guardian that Millar had confessed to him, and that the statement was a holding statement due to legal process (although I don't believe Millar had been charged at that stage).

Also there is nothing in the article that says he did a runner to get out of there as soon as possible - in fact he stayed there until Millar was released (some 48 hours later) and then booked him into his hotel so they could talk, against the wishes of his then pregnant girlfriend.

I paid my ?1 for my 30 day trial subscription.

 

[wrinklyvet]

gimme strength, Red.
in case you weren't following, he was trolling the thread yesterday, e.g. here

he then insisted benotti apologises for saying something everybody with half a brain knows benotti wasn't making up.

that's all nitpicking/arguing semantics instead of productively joining in the debate. And tbh that's what ca. 90% of wrinklyvet's contributions come down to. (anybody correct me if i'm wrong)

having a different opinion is perfectly fine, but when does wrinklyvet really ever posit his opinion? (it took you how long to get an answer to your question regarding wiggins weight loss?).
let's call a spade a spade, shall we? this guy is trolling most of the time, though admittedly not in an offensive way which probably makes it more acceptable.

ok, back to business.

Thank you for the "not in an offensive way" concession, but I was not trolling in any way at all. Nor did I use yesterday the word "nitpicking" that you mention. I have no idea what inspired you to suggest so.

However, those who decided to have a go afterwards and in a calculated manner insult me have made it clear that there are a few people who are unable to tolerate a contrary view to their own.

Benotti was wrong about Brailsford in his specific accusation of a particular lie, which The Spud has clearly established, and I don't really see a reason to accuse anyone of lying if you can't support it. Benotti was not man enough to admit it either.

Now a number of other people jump on the bandwagon to share the joy at the posts that refer to a PROFESSIONAL FOOL, intending to refer to me.

Well I am not so foolish as to imagine that this will improve and that certain people will be prepared to live and let live and show even the slightest human respect and kindness.

That being so, I have decided not to waste any more time posting in the Clinic, not because our respective opinions may be different but because of the almost complete intolerance shown to me.

Cheerio to you all. I hope you all enjoy the 2015 season as I will, as well as such cycle sport and competition as you may indulge in yourselves.

 

[Benotti69]

..............

Benotti was wrong about Brailsford in his specific accusation of a particular lie, which The Spud has clearly established, and I don't really see a reason to accuse anyone of lying if you can't support it. Benotti was not man enough to admit it either.

............

You choose to believe SpudVickers who has not linked said article and yet not me.

Tells us a lot really.