Brits don't dope?

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

There's loads more going on in domestic cycling in the UK than 1 positive target test indicates. UKAD have been tipped off about a few but have taken no action. The odd positive it seems is all they want to make it look like they are doing their job. A large number would be very embarrassing to BC and also to UKAD who are banging on about athlete education more than they seem to be testing.

Just as a matter of interest, as you bring British Cycling into this, I would mention that for historical reasons that I won't go into the national governing body for time trials in the UK is Cycling Time Trials, not BC. The exception would be in road races with time trial stages and a few other events, but the vast number of British time trial amateurs tend to have no connection with BC. It's different if you want to road race instead or as well - there will be riders who belong to both or whose clubs are affiliated to both. Our very many time trials (a feature of our cycling scene that I am told is not replicated elsewhere) are under the rules of Cycling Time Trials, so called.

So, briefly, these apparent positives have no direct connection with British Cycling, which is not to say they are not of serious concern. I don't see the embarrassment for British cycling arising from them. It rests elsewhere.

That's a good piece of info, but the boldface is a bit rich.
Maybe BC should consider putting out a presser distancing themselves from CTT, because every other mortal will just take what it says on the internet at face value:

BC: The internationally recognised governing body of cycle sport in the UK

On a side, a bit like with Astana, don't you think such a clustering of positives in one place is suggestive of some sort of score being settled on a higher political level? Iow, is UKAD deliberately targeting CTT and if so why?

Nothing would surprise me but one of these was a parent reporting the Junior, who then confessed I think.

My point was that if 3 can get caught, there must be more, especially as it would be bloody difficult to actually get caught in the first place. I used to participate in this and testing is virtually non existent. Cycling Time Trials is a breeding ground for 'Bots', no sooner had you got your turbo out of the boot of your car for your warm up, someone would come up to you waxing lyrical about team Sky etc. Of course I would point out to them the issues of miraculous transformations post Leinders which didn't go down well. Looks like they need to keep a more open mind to things eh?

 

[King Boonen]

Warm up?!?!? You're much to professional for me

 

[sniper]

kingboonen, fair points. but why in your opinion is one "much more likely to get caught at a TT"?

Carrot: "My point was that if 3 can get caught, there must be more, especially as it would be bloody difficult to actually get caught in the first place." Agreed.

Wrt the kid who got denounced, I assume there are (much) more denunciations which however UKAD don't act upon, as bobbins also suggested.

And as you say there's hardly any testing there, so even if we discard the denounced junior, two positives in such short space of time is still suspicious i guess

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

On a side, a bit like with Astana, don't you think such a clustering of positives in one place is suggestive of some sort of score being settled on a higher political level? Iow, is UKAD deliberately targeting CTT and if so why?

I don't think so. A lot of people who race under the CTT will also race BC organised races. I think I'm right in saying that there are a lot more TTs run in the UK than road races and the majority of them are run under the CTT (I think, there's also the VTTA (veterans time trial association and their Scottish counterparts SVTTA who might be separate). I think there might even be a new Scottish one but I'd have to check my club page.

Basically, I think it's law of averages. You're much more likely to get caught at a TT and there are more TTs run by CTT than anyone else.

Someone who's more into racing will correct me if I'm wrong.

I have connections with both branches of the sport here. Your comment "a lot more" is not incorrect, but amateur time trial riders span the whole set of ages from juniors up to fairly ancient "veterans" some of whom are not just in their sixties and seventies but even in their eighties or, exceptionally their nineties. The majority of them do not also road race. I would say a minority do, but it's still a lot.

The apparent conflict between what BC say about themselves and the other information on the CTT website goes back a long time. If you are interested you need to see the history (Wiki will do) concerning the British League of Racing Cyclists, the National Cycling Union, the British Cycling Federation (now BC) and the RTTC, which became CTT. Time trial riders have always held themselves separate from whichever body was concerned with road race promotion at the time. BC continues that tradition by conveniently ignoring CTT rather than promote it.

The VTTA (Veteran Time Time Trials Association) is an association that riders of 40 or over can join and it stages its own events and competions within time trialling, with "age standards" to enable riders of different ages to compete against each other. Its events are, however, under CTT rules.

There are at least 500 clubs and teams affiliated to CTT, most of whom run their own events, some of which are club events and others open ones. I would say that there are far fewer road races, because to organise one under BC rules is a much bigger deal, to comply with road safety etc. and regulate the riders. In addition you can get up to 120 riders (sometimes more) in a time trial but this is an unusual size of field for a road race, usually limited to far fewer.

Our tradition of time trials that you may read about in the Wikipedia pages remains as strong as ever and they are 99% CTT-regulated events.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

kingboonen, fair points. but why in your opinion is one "much more likely to get caught at a TT"?

Sorry, I didn't make that very clear did I? There are, to my knowledge, many, many more TTs organised in the UK than road races, so even if testing hardly ever happens, it's going to happen more in TTs.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

On a side, a bit like with Astana, don't you think such a clustering of positives in one place is suggestive of some sort of score being settled on a higher political level? Iow, is UKAD deliberately targeting CTT and if so why?

I don't think so. A lot of people who race under the CTT will also race BC organised races. I think I'm right in saying that there are a lot more TTs run in the UK than road races and the majority of them are run under the CTT (I think, there's also the VTTA (veterans time trial association and their Scottish counterparts SVTTA who might be separate). I think there might even be a new Scottish one but I'd have to check my club page.

Basically, I think it's law of averages. You're much more likely to get caught at a TT and there are more TTs run by CTT than anyone else.

Someone who's more into racing will correct me if I'm wrong.

I have connections with both branches of the sport here. Your comment "a lot more" is not incorrect, but amateur time trial riders span the whole set of ages from juniors up to fairly ancient "veterans" some of whom are not just in their sixties and seventies but even in their eighties or, exceptionally their nineties. The majority of them do not also road race. I would say a minority do, but it's still a lot.

The apparent conflict between what BC say about themselves and the other information on the CTT website goes back a long time. If you are interested you need to see the history (Wiki will do) concerning the British League of Racing Cyclists, the National Cycling Union, the British Cycling Federation (now BC) and the RTTC, which became CTT. Time trial riders have always held themselves separate from whichever body was concerned with road race promotion at the time. BC continues that tradition by conveniently ignoring CTT rather than promote it.

The VTTA (Veteran Time Time Trials Association) is an association that riders of 40 or over can join and it stages its own events and competions within time trialling, with "age standards" to enable riders of different ages to compete against each other. Its events are, however, under CTT rules.

There are at least 500 clubs and teams affiliated to CTT, most of whom run their own events, some of which are club events and others open ones. I would say that there are far fewer road races, because to organise one under BC rules is a much bigger deal, to comply with road safety etc. and regulate the riders. In addition you can get up to 120 riders (sometimes more) in a time trial but this is an unusual size of field for a road race, usually limited to far fewer.

Our tradition of time trials that you may read about in the Wikipedia pages remains as strong as ever and they are 99% CTT-regulated events.

Thanks very much for the info, I do keep meaning to read up on it so will check out the wiki. I was aware of the issues but only very generally.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Hastings was target tested and Evans hasn't gone positive.

Your point being? Target testing doesn't count? Non-analytic evidence doesn't count?

The original quote was "So that's the 3rd TT champ who's been nobbled recently." Townsend, added to Hastings and Evans, makes three. Explain to me why you think he doesn't please.

* * * * *

Cuddles? surely not. cleans I tell you. unless you step on his dog, and and he channels a roid rage

Laugh? I nearly slapped my thigh.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So, briefly, these apparent positives have no direct connection with British Cycling, which is not to say they are not of serious concern. I don't see the embarrassment for British cycling arising from them. It rests elsewhere.

Gabriel Evans

Andrew Hastings

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

So, briefly, these apparent positives have no direct connection with British Cycling, which is not to say they are not of serious concern. I don't see the embarrassment for British cycling arising from them. It rests elsewhere.

Gabriel Evans

Andrew Hastings

Fair enough. They also competed in BC-regulated events. Thank you.

 

[sniper]

So sad to see Evans get popped, when his role model Wiggins has been doing it clean.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/other-sport/good-evans-betters-wiggins-claiming-5965613

I'm really glad, btw, that he only doped this one time in 2015, and wasn't doping already there in 2013 as a 16 year old up and coming. That would've been unsettling.

 

[blackcat]

wut? not cuddles?

his Cadel Evans classic is this weekend. dirty tricks methinks

 

[bobbins]

Re: Re:

Hastings was target tested and Evans hasn't gone positive.

Your point being? Target testing doesn't count? Non-analytic evidence doesn't count?

The original quote was "So that's the 3rd TT champ who's been nobbled recently." Townsend, added to Hastings and Evans, makes three. Explain to me why you think he doesn't please.

* * * * *

Cuddles? surely not. cleans I tell you. unless you step on his dog, and and he channels a roid rage

Laugh? I nearly slapped my thigh.

Hastings just happened to be riding a time trial when he was tested, he was being tested at other times too. He was the target, information supplied by some other chipper who got busted previously apparently. Evans wasn't tested or caught by the authorities. He was caught be a parent who supplied the info to UKADA, he then admitted it.

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

 

[sniper]

good comments from Lee Rodgers on Evans.
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/features/lees-lowdown-working-class-hero/#.VqjrrllJeM8

“With me I brought one vial of EPO. This was found by the teammate’s father who presented evidence to UK Anti-Doping. UKAD contacted me shortly after to arrange a deposition, in which I promptly admitted to all wrongdoing. I withdrew from the upcoming Junior Tour of Wales, the premier event on the junior calendar.”

Why bother saying that that was the ‘premier’ event of the calendar? To suggest how honest he was for missing their biggest race of the year? Maybe better to have said that without juicing he would not have been good enough to even get in.

Doping, getting caught, admitting it, wanting it all to go away… seems they really are starting young in their emulation of the pros these days. What will Evans salvage from all this? He could do worse than look to the career of David Millar, another rider who got caught then ‘came clean’, reinvented himself as an anti-doper, signed for a top tier team, made oodles of cash, rode the Olympics, brought out a book, and now has a clothing line and a stake in the re-invented Factor bike brand.

Don’t worry Gabe, it’ll all come good in the end mate.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

Since the original quote did not refer to testing positive I am at a loss for what the hell you're banging on about by saying only one of them is "genuinely" positive. Clarify for me: do non-analytic positives not count in your book? (Are you really Phil Liggett in disguise?)

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

Normal random testing? Surely that depends on your definition of "normal"? Much testing is not random, it's rule-based: you win, you're tested. That's not random. And for anti-doping to really be effective it should be targeted (using performance indicators and also third-party information), it shouldn't be just random, just dropping a hook in Loch Ness and hoping to catch Nessie.

 

[bobbins]

Re: Re:

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

Since the original quote did not refer to testing positive I am at a loss for what the hell you're banging on about by saying only one of them is "genuinely" positive. Clarify for me: do non-analytic positives not count in your book? (Are you really Phil Liggett in disguise?)

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

Normal random testing? Surely that depends on your definition of "normal"? Much testing is not random, it's rule-based: you win, you're tested. That's not random. And for anti-doping to really be effective it should be targeted (using performance indicators and also third-party information), it shouldn't be just random, just dropping a hook in Loch Ness and hoping to catch Nessie.

You're losing it pal.

Time Trialling in the UK didn't have 3 positives. There was one. For the reasons stated above.

Random means just that. Look it up. The top 3 aren't always tested, nor is the winner. It used to be top 3 and 2 randoms, I think now it is just up to the testers who they target.

I'll repeat. The point here is that there is only one genuine catch in UK time trialling. UKADA knew Hastings was dirty and targeted him. They would have got him at another event if not the team time trial that he rode. Evans wasn't caught, hasn't tested positive and hasn't been banned.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

Since the original quote did not refer to testing positive I am at a loss for what the hell you're banging on about by saying only one of them is "genuinely" positive. Clarify for me: do non-analytic positives not count in your book? (Are you really Phil Liggett in disguise?)

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

Normal random testing? Surely that depends on your definition of "normal"? Much testing is not random, it's rule-based: you win, you're tested. That's not random. And for anti-doping to really be effective it should be targeted (using performance indicators and also third-party information), it shouldn't be just random, just dropping a hook in Loch Ness and hoping to catch Nessie.

Exactly this. It's why I used the word 'nobbled' to cover the nuances of the 3 cases. All the same, they are all 'as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo' and that's what matters.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

Since the original quote did not refer to testing positive I am at a loss for what the hell you're banging on about by saying only one of them is "genuinely" positive. Clarify for me: do non-analytic positives not count in your book? (Are you really Phil Liggett in disguise?)

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

Normal random testing? Surely that depends on your definition of "normal"? Much testing is not random, it's rule-based: you win, you're tested. That's not random. And for anti-doping to really be effective it should be targeted (using performance indicators and also third-party information), it shouldn't be just random, just dropping a hook in Loch Ness and hoping to catch Nessie.

You're losing it pal.

Time Trialling in the UK didn't have 3 positives. There was one. For the reasons stated above.

Random means just that. Look it up. The top 3 aren't always tested, nor is the winner. It used to be top 3 and 2 randoms, I think now it is just up to the testers who they target.

I'll repeat. The point here is that there is only one genuine catch in UK time trialling. UKADA knew Hastings was dirty and targeted him. They would have got him at another event if not the team time trial that he rode. Evans wasn't caught, hasn't tested positive and hasn't been banned.

I agree wrt Evans, less so wrt Hastings, since getting people to talk and (subsequent) effective target testing is all part of the system.

As for Evans, you think he'll get off? reduced sentence?

 

[sniper]

Re:

So sad to see Evans get popped, when his role model Wiggins has been doing it clean.
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/other-sport/good-evans-betters-wiggins-claiming-5965613

British junior blood doper inspired by Bradley Wiggins and Chris Hoy.
Shocker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YMcG86pnFg

 

[bobbins]

Re: Re:

The only genuine positive was the old fella at the 12 hour time trial.

Since the original quote did not refer to testing positive I am at a loss for what the hell you're banging on about by saying only one of them is "genuinely" positive. Clarify for me: do non-analytic positives not count in your book? (Are you really Phil Liggett in disguise?)

My point is that these positives didn't occur as a result of normal random testing apart from the old fella.

Normal random testing? Surely that depends on your definition of "normal"? Much testing is not random, it's rule-based: you win, you're tested. That's not random. And for anti-doping to really be effective it should be targeted (using performance indicators and also third-party information), it shouldn't be just random, just dropping a hook in Loch Ness and hoping to catch Nessie.

You're losing it pal.

Time Trialling in the UK didn't have 3 positives. There was one. For the reasons stated above.

Random means just that. Look it up. The top 3 aren't always tested, nor is the winner. It used to be top 3 and 2 randoms, I think now it is just up to the testers who they target.

I'll repeat. The point here is that there is only one genuine catch in UK time trialling. UKADA knew Hastings was dirty and targeted him. They would have got him at another event if not the team time trial that he rode. Evans wasn't caught, hasn't tested positive and hasn't been banned.

I agree wrt Evans, less so wrt Hastings, since getting people to talk and (subsequent) effective target testing is all part of the system.

As for Evans, you think he'll get off? reduced sentence?

Time Trialling as a sport hasn't itself been instrumental in delivering 3 positive tests. There is much more going on in time trialling and it is pretty much undetected. One positive test out of the 3 we are speaking about can be attributed to random testing at a time trial event. I have heard nothing to suggest that Rob Townsend was targeted.

UKADA isn't in the business of busting as many dirty athletes as is possible, that would show that they are failing in their education remit.

Evans will get 4 years. There's no reason to think he won't. Providing the admission he made publicly is made to the UKADA hearing. I'd put another 4 years on for him wanting to be like Dave Millar though.

 

[sniper]

bobbins: UKADA isn't in the business of busting as many dirty athletes as is possible, that would show that they are failing in their education remit.

good point.
the other point is that UKAD are at least in part funded from the same money as BC so there seems to be a conflict there, right?

Evans will get 4 years. There's no reason to think he won't. Providing the admission he made publicly is made to the UKADA hearing. I'd put another 4 years on for him wanting to be like Dave Millar though.

lol, agreed.
4 years, that'd pretty much be the end of him i guess.
I wouldnt be surprised if they give him some reduction.

 

[The Carrot]

Re:

Warm up?!?!? You're much to professional for me

Nah, but had I ever done a warm down however, that would have put me in the same professional bracket as a team that's popular on here. Who knows what I could have achieved?

 

[bobbins]

Strictly speaking there shouldn't be a conflict but I know that whereabouts violations have been erased due to admin errors so there is a dialogue between the 2 parties that exists and could possibly be abused.

I can't see there being grounds for a reduction in Evans case. He's young. So what?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Warm up?!?!? You're much to professional for me

Nah, but had I ever done a warm down however, that would have put me in the same professional bracket as a team that's popular on here. Who knows what I could have achieved?

9 time TDF champ... Only yourself to blame

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

I know that whereabouts violations have been erased due to admin errors so there is a dialogue between the 2 parties that exists and could possibly be abused.

1) By admin error what do you mean?

2) Isn't it true that between a written warning ("A DCO called but you were out.") and a recorded warning ("You have a wherabouts violation.") the rules require a dialogue in order to see who *** up, the athlete or the testers?

 

[bobbins]

Re: Re:

I know that whereabouts violations have been erased due to admin errors so there is a dialogue between the 2 parties that exists and could possibly be abused.

1) By admin error what do you mean?

2) Isn't it true that between a written warning ("A DCO called but you were out.") and a recorded warning ("You have a wherabouts violation.") the rules require a dialogue in order to see who **** up, the athlete or the testers?

1) could be something as simple as entering the wrong weeks location into the whereabouts system and then getting a third strike.

2) As far as I am aware, a random test can call at anytime, if you are out then that's fine. An OOC test calling at your specified place and finding you are not there / don't answer the door / locked in a panic room will be one of your 3 strikes.