Brits don't dope?

[motty89]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/34023348

Excellent analysis by BBC, showing all the European and American dopers.

I thought Mllar was British???

EDIT: oops, see this was already mentioned

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The other thing is, if the red dots indicate "tested positive: career" then surely riders who were suspended for doping even if not at the Tour de France need to be included. The Luxembourg dot is farcical in years other than 2012, as it would seem to suggest there should be all manner of repeated dots for people later shown to be offenders (and therefore would be dotted with Millar all over the place... and also make the 2010 Canadian dot nonsensical too, since neither Hesjedal nor Barry claimed to have been doping in 2010 and neither appear elsewhere at the time they actually confessed to). Contador has also been mentioned for 2009 due to his 2010 positive and removed, which means all Millar's performances pre-positive need to go in there, surely?

Most ridiculously... where are the Italian dots in 2008? No Piepoli? No Riccò?! And 2009, no Pellizotti? I mean, he took a jersey home!

Put quite simply, I don't think this is a piece of sinister jingoistic journalism. I think this is just an abysmally terrible, inaccurate, insultingly poor piece of journalism that doesn't stand up to even the most vague scrutiny. It has a large number of omissions, including some absolutely key positives (the Saunier Duval riders in 2008, among the first CERA positives, Sinkewitz leading to the Freiburg Investigation in 2007, and Pellizotti, a King of the Mountains winner), a shocking inconsistency in the rules it applies to how riders are counted (some riders who've tested positive later in their career are included for several years regardless, e.g. Contador and Fränk Schleck, of whether their bans actually reflected longitudinal positives along the same lines as e.g. Menchov, while some riders who've confessed or tested positive or been otherwise sanctioned are omitted entirely (Millar, Pellizotti, Barredo) or only included for one point in their career (the mystery Canadian). Tom Danielson is a question mark worth considering as well.

Quite frankly, this article is so poor and so riddled with errors that I can't actually believe there is any underlying motive to the selectivity of it. It's just been hastily thrown together with so little rhyme and reason that it's borderline negligent on behalf of the BBC.

 

[motty89]

Re:

Quite frankly, this article is so poor and so riddled with errors that I can't actually believe there is any underlying motive to the selectivity of it. It's just been hastily thrown together with so little rhyme and reason that it's borderline negligent on behalf of the BBC.

Indeed, I imagine it was put together by someone who knows nothing about cycling in 10 minutes. No wonder they didn't want to put their name to it. Although it is convenient that the way they've framed the question(however that is???) UK have ended up with 0 dopers.

 

[the sceptic]

do all british sports journalists get their education in North Korea or what?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

No it is not British (nor true of any country) to be fair play. That may be some jingoistic myth for the sheep to believe just like some Americans believe they are "the greatest country on earth" but its never been anti British to be a cheat or liar or fraud anymore than any other country.

Lol at the "push in front" analogy. As if, if you push in front of someone in another country that will be widely accepted, but do it in Britain and people will be upset, cos Britain is such a fair and honorable country. lol, what BS.

I don't think your second paragraph makes sense. If it was British to be anti cheat then "the brits" whoever they are, wouldn't defend their athletes purely on the basis that they are British.

to be anti cheating is to oppose cheats. to believe because someone is British they must be clean isn't an anti doping stance. At all.

But my main point in all of this hasn't been to say that Brits don't dope

And I don't think anyone has claimed that it is. I don't get why you keep putting that in every post. I didn't say you were claiming brits don't dope. I said that fair play is not tied with being british.

You then say that your mum believes British athletes should reflect British values. Well believing that British athletes should reflect British values is different from believing that because an athlete is British then it is certain that they possess British values and anyone who doubts that is a bitter jealous French person.

Which is what the believers think.

But if fair play is not so vital to an understanding of Britishness, why do people think our athletes are so whiter than white? Where does that come from?

Simple tribalism. Humans are programmed to myopically support their tribe and especially its representatives, no matter what.

Its not just British people but people from every country

That's why historically even people who were cruel mass murderers were often held as saints in their own countries. Always portrayed as super generous and super handsome and super honorable etc.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

didn't Millar admit to being doped for the TdF 2000?

Millar not only omission.
Why only three Dutch guys? I think De Jongh and Knaven weren't counted even though the French police tested them positive in 1998.

There's an even more ridiculous omission I think. Where is the German flag for 2000 and 2001

Its not like Ulle did anything in those Tours amiright?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/34023348

Excellent analysis by BBC, showing all the European and American dopers.

I thought Mllar was British???

EDIT: oops, see this was already mentioned

BBC Sport takes a look at cycling's premier event, the Tour de France, to see how the competition has been affected by drug cheats since 1998, and whether the issues to hit the sport have improved in recent years.

Where on earth do they address the - whether the issues have improved in recent years, bit?

Or are they saying because they have less hits for the last 5 years it means its cleaner? Because anyone with more than 2 braincells (so presumably that excludes bbc journalists) could tell you that there are obviously less hits for the last 5 years because there has been less time to catch them. Im pretty sure 2001 had a lot less flags in 2004 than it does now. 1998 took about 15 years to get a lot of its cheats caught.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

No it is not British (nor true of any country) to be fair play. That may be some jingoistic myth for the sheep to believe just like some Americans believe they are "the greatest country on earth" but its never been anti British to be a cheat or liar or fraud anymore than any other country.

Lol at the "push in front" analogy. As if, if you push in front of someone in another country that will be widely accepted, but do it in Britain and people will be upset, cos Britain is such a fair and honorable country. lol, what BS.

I don't think your second paragraph makes sense. If it was British to be anti cheat then "the brits" whoever they are, wouldn't defend their athletes purely on the basis that they are British.

to be anti cheating is to oppose cheats. to believe because someone is British they must be clean isn't an anti doping stance. At all.

But my main point in all of this hasn't been to say that Brits don't dope

And I don't think anyone has claimed that it is. I don't get why you keep putting that in every post. I didn't say you were claiming brits don't dope. I said that fair play is not tied with being british.

You then say that your mum believes British athletes should reflect British values. Well believing that British athletes should reflect British values is different from believing that because an athlete is British then it is certain that they possess British values and anyone who doubts that is a bitter jealous French person.

Which is what the believers think.

But if fair play is not so vital to an understanding of Britishness, why do people think our athletes are so whiter than white? Where does that come from?

Simple tribalism. Humans are programmed to myopically support their tribe and especially its representatives, no matter what.

Its not just British people but people from every country

That's why historically even people who were cruel mass murderers were often held as saints in their own countries. Always portrayed as super generous and super handsome and super honorable etc.

the Media is the most important factor here. They train people to think their flag is better than other flags even though it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Well, at least David Walsh, I presume he came up with the article, given the fact it is so awfull, got Libertine something to do on this saturday

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Two Australian in 1998, Stephens and O'Grady I guess. Why is there no Australian flag for every year O'Grady raced?

 

[del1962]

Did Riis admit to doping in 98 as there is no Danish flag for 98

 

[del1962]

Re:

Two Australian in 1998, Stephens and O'Grady I guess. Why is there no Australian flag for every year O'Grady raced?

Stuey only doped once, he told us that

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Two Australian in 1998, Stephens and O'Grady I guess. Why is there no Australian flag for every year O'Grady raced?

Stuey only doped once, he told us that

Ok, so you mock o Grady for saying it. I wonder if you think Millar was also lying when he said something similar.

 

[zalacain]

Re: Re:

Two Australian in 1998, Stephens and O'Grady I guess. Why is there no Australian flag for every year O'Grady raced?

Stuey only doped once, he told us that

and Neil Stephens told me face to face at the TT stage in the '98 Tour that the breaking doping news was a total fabrication!

 

[sniper]

swift, cavendish, boom, mollema, dan martin, etc., and now blythe.
another clean rider moving to a dirty team.
what happened to the 'culture'?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/blythe-signs-with-tinkoff-saxo-for-2016/

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

swift, cavendish, boom, mollema, dan martin, etc., and now blythe.
another clean rider moving to a dirty team.
what happened to the 'culture'?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/blythe-signs-with-tinkoff-saxo-for-2016/

Why are you including Boom, Mollema and Dan Martin?


And which are the clean teams again?

 

[wendybnt]

Probably not OGE

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

swift, cavendish, boom, mollema, dan martin, etc., and now blythe.
another clean rider moving to a dirty team.
what happened to the 'culture'?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/blythe-signs-with-tinkoff-saxo-for-2016/

Why are you including Boom, Mollema and Dan Martin?

all exponents of the new clean generation.

And which are the clean teams again?

Ask JV. He was there when the no-doping truce was signed. He saw the culture change from the inside.

Anyway, leaving those non-Brits out of the equation, I guess my point is: you got Sky and the British press celebrating ZTP as if it demonstrates British dedication to clean cycling. Yet plenty of Brits seem happy to sign big fat contracts for teams that literally *** on ZTP.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

swift, cavendish, boom, mollema, dan martin, etc., and now blythe.
another clean rider moving to a dirty team.
what happened to the 'culture'?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/blythe-signs-with-tinkoff-saxo-for-2016/

Why are you including Boom, Mollema and Dan Martin?

all exponents of the new clean generation.

And which are the clean teams again?

Ask JV. He was there when the no-doping truce was signed. He saw the culture change from the inside.

Anyway, leaving those non-Brits out of the equation, I guess my point is: you got Sky and the British press celebrating ZTP as if it demonstrates British dedication to clean cycling. Yet plenty of Brits seem happy to sign big fat contracts for teams that literally **** on ZTP.

Fair enough, but isn't Martin still at Garmin? Did I miss something? And are Trek really that dirty? They're pretty terrible at doping if they are.


As for Cav, Swift and Blythe you have HTC/Telekom, Katusha, Sky, QS, OGE, BMC... Not really a list of teams we'd consider even remotely clean...

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

So Sniper thinks that BMC and OGE are clean teams? Interesting development.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

swift, cavendish, boom, mollema, dan martin, etc., and now blythe.
another clean rider moving to a dirty team.
what happened to the 'culture'?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/blythe-signs-with-tinkoff-saxo-for-2016/

Why are you including Boom, Mollema and Dan Martin?

all exponents of the new clean generation.

And which are the clean teams again?

Ask JV. He was there when the no-doping truce was signed. He saw the culture change from the inside.

Anyway, leaving those non-Brits out of the equation, I guess my point is: you got Sky and the British press celebrating ZTP as if it demonstrates British dedication to clean cycling. Yet plenty of Brits seem happy to sign big fat contracts for teams that literally **** on ZTP.

Fair enough, but isn't Martin still at Garmin? Did I miss something? And are Trek really that dirty? They're pretty terrible at doping if they are.


As for Cav, Swift and Blythe you have HTC/Telekom, Katusha, Sky, QS, OGE, BMC... Not really a list of teams we'd consider even remotely clean...

Lefevere close to signing Dan Martin to Etixx-Quickstep
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-close-to-signing-dan-martin-to-etixx-quickstep/

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Lefevere close to signing Dan Martin to Etixx-Quickstep
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-close-to-signing-dan-martin-to-etixx-quickstep/

Thanks, missed that one. Etiix want all the Monuments then...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

As for Cav, Swift and Blythe you have HTC/Telekom, Katusha, Sky, QS, OGE, BMC... Not really a list of teams we'd consider even remotely clean...

I guess that was sort of my point. If Brits are clean, how does the press (Walsh et al) reconcile that with them riding for teams with known doping culture. It was a lazy point, and i'm not the first one to make it. But still, the gullibility and lack of skepticism in the british press continues to amaze.

It's also a dig at Vaughters' unreal claim that "dopers quickly get ostracized" by the 'new clean generation'. The reality is that all those alleged exponents of clean cycling (including Martin and those dutchies) are happy to sign fat contracts for teams that have exposed dopers and doping doctors on the payroll.

For the record (also @bernie's eyesore), and sort of needless to say, I don't think any of those teams are clean. (Think you misunderstood my initial post, as it was slightly ambiguous)

 

[King Boonen]

Fair enough, I think I did miss it, although I don't see any team they could sign for that didn't have one of those problems so it seems like a stick you could beat anyone with.

Adam Blythe was selling off his OGE kit on a Facebook group I'm a member of a couple of days ago, should have put a bet on him leaving if it's only just been announced...

 

[sniper]

Re:

Fair enough, I think I did miss it, although I don't see any team they could sign for that didn't have one of those problems so it seems like a stick you could beat anyone with.

Well yes indeed. So maybe time for the british press to pick up said stick.

It just goes to show how ridiculously insulting the whole notions of a 'new clean generation' and 'culture change' are, and how deliberately gullible and misleading the press is.

 

[King Boonen]

Yes, The Who said it best...