Brits don't dope?

[stutue]

"We" have learned no such thing. That is just you being...

imaginative.

 

[sniper]

"We" have learned no such thing. That is just you being...

Forgot about the TUE? Forgot about Henao?
Forgot about Kreuziger?

Meanwhile, British athletics is breaking records.
I'm sure Creedie is on the phone right now demanding the IAAF to upgrade its deplorable testing regime

 

[stutue]

I haven't forgotten anything. Least of all Sky going into total freefall since Cookson was elected. The sharpest and most sudden decline in the history of cycling.

Join those dots

 

[thrawn]

I haven't forgotten anything. Least of all Sky going into total freefall since Cookson was elected. The sharpest and most sudden decline in the history of cycling.

Join those dots

Not sure what Cookson has to do with Froome's inability to stay upright on a bike.

 

[stutue]

If Froome (and Contador for that matter) had stayed in how would the rest of team Sky looked compared to Tinkov and Astana?

Besides. It isn't all about Froome at the Tour. You'd have to be a particular type of idiot to deny that since Cooksons election Sky have fallen apart.

Is there a connection?

And yet after Cooksons election these pages were full of predictions about how Sky would run rampant (with the Cookson free pass).

The very opposite has happened.

If you want to make spurious connections between Cookson and riders/teams you would be in a better position to suggest that Astana had paid off Cookson. Of course that won't be said because it doesn't fit with the nationalist sentiments that generated this very thread and its content.

 

[thrawn]

If Froome (and Contador for that matter) had stayed in how would the rest of team Sky looked compared to Tinkov and Astana?

Besides. It isn't all about Froome at the Tour. You'd have to be a particular type of idiot to deny that since Cooksons election Sky have fallen apart.

Is there a connection?

And yet after Cooksons election these pages were full of predictions about how Sky would run rampant (with the Cookson free pass).

The very opposite has happened.

If you want to make spurious connections between Cookson and riders/teams you would be in a better position to suggest that Astana had paid off Cookson. Of course that won't be said because it doesn't fit with the nationalist sentiments that generated this very thread and its content.

Have they? Sky were pretty **** in last year's tour too excluding Froome (and Porte on a couple of stages).

Sky were better in the classics this year, Thomas & Wiggo doing really well in Roubaix. Froome still won stage races this year, only to fall off in his most recent 2. Henao was sent for 'testing' and then got injured so he hasn't even had the opportunity to perform. The only real rider I can say has fallen off for sky is Porte.

 

[King Boonen]

be more imaginative.
how did verbruggen/mcuaid benefit usps/lance? they only set the policies.

No, I've asked for something specific, not imaginative. Throwing around accusations is fine until you have to back it up it seems.

As has been pointed out, Verbruggen and McQuaid are not American. It is also worth while pointing out that the UCI was very much involved in anti-doping, past the point of just policy making, although I'm sure you are aware of that.

Forgot about the TUE? Forgot about Henao?
Forgot about Kreuziger?

Meanwhile, British athletics is breaking records.
I'm sure Creedie is on the phone right now demanding the IAAF to upgrade its deplorable testing regime

The UCI had no problem with Henao, there could be riders on every team who have similar values, Sky may have just decided to see if they could find out what was going on (or dropped him so he didn't trigger a suspension, we don't know).

Do we know that no other TUEs have been issued in a similar fashion? This point seems fair if that is the case.

The case against Kreuziger was started by McQuaid, so again this is rubbish.

IAAF and it's rubbish testing regime benefits every athlete, not just British athletes. More testing is done in the UK than many other countries. The UKADA has even banned some of it's top athletes over the years, where other countries fight to get their bans reduced.

This is reaching at it's very worse and just makes you look anti-British.

 

[sniper]

Not sure what Cookson has to do with Froome's inability to stay upright on a bike.

...As has been pointed out, Verbruggen and McQuaid are not American.

all i used verbruggen/uci for is to show that your previous counterargument ("wada only set the policies, so can't be beneficial to britain") is sloppy. it's the same argument verbruggen/mcquaid have used for years to counter accusations of lance-favoritism.

It is also worth while pointing out that the UCI was very much involved in anti-doping, past the point of just policy making, although I'm sure you are aware of that.

fair, but doesn't WADA's involvement also go well beyond the point of policy making? of course it does.
and so there are plenty of points in the testing process where WADA could potentially step in and influence said process.
The issuing of TUES is just one example.
More generally, two major WADA tasks are "code compliance monitoring"
and "anti-doping coordination". Both are areas where conflicts of interest could occur and influence the process.

I'm not saying it is happening, but it could be happening.
In light of the British performances at the moment, Creedie's WADA presidency doesn't make me feel comfortable. That's all.
No evidence one way or the other.

The case against Kreuziger was started by McQuaid, so again this is rubbish.

i like the contrast.
the way henao and froome were treated ("nothing to see here") is in complete contrast to the way kreuziger has been dealt with ("very serious anomalies").

IAAF and it's rubbish testing regime benefits every athlete, not just British athletes.

disagree. i think the benefit is proportional to the amount of money a country/athlete can spend on programs.
I mean, do you really see the recent stream of eastern european and jamaican positives as evidence that they dope more in those countries than in western european countries? of course not. it's all down to money and the quality of your program. If you doubt that, do read up on one or the other Victor Conte interview.
Britain as you know is currently investing massively in sport. They are and will continue to be ahead in the arms race.

This is reaching at it's very worse and just makes you look anti-British.

Come on. Britains current dominance in cycling and track and field is unprecedented.
Unlike you(?), I think plausible answers can be found in the area of illegal performance enhancement and, possibly, institutional support of said enhancement.

 

[stutue]

Yeah, quite a few Australians are p155ed off about that British dominance.

 

[42x16ss]

Yeah, quite a few Australians are p155ed off about that British dominance.

And most of us are, because we are fully aware of the shenanigans that are carried out at the AIS, yet our athletes still get beaten...

 

[Benotti69]

No, I've asked for something specific, not imaginative. Throwing around accusations is fine until you have to back it up it seems.

As has been pointed out, Verbruggen and McQuaid are not American.

Bob Stapleton managed an investment made at Wiesel's bank on behalf of Hein.

That specific enough for ya?

 

[stutue]

And most of us are, because we are fully aware of the shenanigans that are carried out at the AIS, yet our athletes still get beaten...

So why complain when your athletes are just as dirty?

You and I both know it runs deeper than that. The Australians can't stand being beaten by the British/English,regardless of doping. I'll never forget the public statement from the Australian rugby coach when England beat them in the world cup 2003. "The English are pr1cks to lose to".

Say what you want about the British, but the one thing you can never accuse them of is being bad losers.

 

[Benotti69]

So why complain when your athletes are just as dirty?

You and I both know it runs deeper than that. The Australians can't stand being beaten by the British/English,regardless of doping. I'll never forget the public statement from the Australian rugby coach when England beat them in the world cup 2003. "The English are pr1cks to lose to".

Say what you want about the British, but the one thing you can never accuse them of is being bad losers.

This thread is about Brits doping, not being bad losers.

 

[thrawn]

Say what you want about the British, but the one thing you can never accuse them of is being bad losers.

You obviously don't follow football or cricket then.

 

[King Boonen]

all i used verbruggen/uci for is to show that your previous counterargument ("wada only set the policies, so can't be beneficial to britain") is sloppy. it's the same argument verbruggen/mcquaid have used for years to counter accusations of lance-favoritism.

No, it is not the same argument. WADA set overall policies are are involved when things come to a head with CAS. I don't know if I've ever heard of WADA being directly involved in a case that did not go to CAS, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Whereas the UCI were directly involved in deciding who was and wasn't charged with a doping offence (maybe still are?). It is completely different, the only one being sloppy here is you as far as I can see.

fair, but doesn't WADA's involvement also go well beyond the point of policy making? of course it does.

As far as I'm aware WADA will only get involved in challenging decisions it sees as going against it's code. For this to happen a positive must have occurred and then the national/federation anti-doping body must accept the extenuating circumstances and decide to let the athlete off. WADA has no part in this initial decision and seems to challenge pretty much everything.

and so there are plenty of points in the testing process where WADA could potentially step in and influence said process.
The issuing of TUES is just one example.

Again, as far as I'm aware TUEs are issued by the federations and WADA has nothing, directly, to do with this.

More generally, two major WADA tasks are "code compliance monitoring"
and "anti-doping coordination". Both are areas where conflicts of interest could occur and influence the process.

Who else should be doing this? You can find conflict of interests everywhere but at some point you have to accept that somebody is best for the job. I'd argue the World Anti-Doping Agency is best positioned to both co-ordinate and monitor code compliance. In fact, I'd argue that, along with establishing the cade, that's pretty much their only job (along with education).

I'm not saying it is happening, i'm just saying i don't feel comfortable with British performances at the moment and Creedie in charge of WADA doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.

Based on what I've read, I, no doubt, don't like Reedie anymore than you do. But to suggest he has a hand in ensuring British success is, frankly, crazy. He would have to oversee every test on every British athlete, remove positives, stop people talking etc. All the while continuing to head WADA successfully enough to not draw the attention of the outside would. Anything Reedie does to weaken anti-doping will benefit everyone.

British performances have been building steadily long before Reedie got in.

i like the contrast.
the way henao and froome were treated ("nothing to see here") is in complete contrast to the way kreuziger has been dealt with ("very serious anomalies").

You can drop Henao and Kruziger or there is no point in discussing it with you. The UCI had NO PROBLEMS with Henao's data, Sky pulled him voluntarily. For what reasons they did is up to Sky, not the UCI, and we can speculate over that but it's not the UCI who did this. The action against Kruziger was initiated BEFORE Cookson became president. Constantly trying to shoe-horn this point in there just weakens your position.

disagree. i think the benefit is proportional to the amount of money a country/athlete can spend on programs.
I mean, do you really see the recent stream of eastern european and Jamaican positives as evidence that they dope more in those countries than in western european countries? of course not. it's all down to money and the quality of your program. If you doubt that, do read up on one or the other Victor Conte interview.
Britain as you know is currently investing massively in sport. They are and will continue to be ahead in the arms race.

This doesn't fit at all with previous arguments in the clinic that doping is not expensive. Pretty much every other athlete can afford the dope just as easily as British athletes can. People are doping in amateur sports. Despite the talk about huge investment these athletes are not receiving millions of pounds a year, some of them struggle by on very little funding.

A case in point: Britain has historically invested huge amounts of money into swimming, more than any other sport I believe. This is also where the fable Tim Kerrison cut his teeth. Britain are crap at swimming, despite this huge investment. It is not all about the money. It also begs the question of why do many people seem to think Kerrison is some doping mastermind?

I personally think that programmes are likely to be more refined in the UK or US etc. because of better testing and the need to work around it more. That's probably why we are seeing an increase in positives from athletes where they are not used to testing. So yes, programme development, not actually getting hold of the drugs is the point here.

Come on. Britains current dominance in cycling and track and field is unprecedented.
Unlike you(?), I think plausible answers can be found in the area of illegal performance enhancement.

Dominance is a massively overused phrase in this forum. Is Britain dominating cycling this year? No. No classics, not GT's, the best British sprinter getting beaten time and time again this year and last. Two Tour wins, one doped, one you can argue the toss over but there can be no denying that the parcours massively favoured Wiggins. This is no where near domination.

Are they dominating track and field? No. They have done very well but it's hardly dominance until they start constantly topping the worlds tables.


Also, don't move the goalposts. I've said nothing about whether I think Britons are doping. For the record I think they are just as likely to dope as everyone else. What I have a problem with is the, frankly, ridiculous notion that having Reedie at the head of WADA will be of greater benefit to British athletes than anyone else. Same with Cookson at the UCI (but to a lesser extent).

 

[King Boonen]

Bob Stapleton managed an investment made at Wiesel's bank on behalf of Hein.

That specific enough for ya?

When we are talking about Brits doping? No.

 

[Benotti69]

When we are talking about Brits doping? No.

You know full well why i posted this specific example.

Good to see you have no answer to it.

 

[King Boonen]

You know full well why i posted this specific example.

Good to see you have no answer to it.

No, I don't. We are talking about Brits influencing doping for reasons of national pride. Your example shows that people will exert influence for financial gain. These are two very separate things.

 

[stutue]

Maybe Cookson is actually of Italian, Spanish and Russian descent

 

[sniper]

No, I don't. We are talking about Brits influencing doping for reasons of national pride. Your example shows that people will exert influence for financial gain. These are two very separate things.

nah. just plain old conflicts of interest.

 

[King Boonen]

nah. just plain old conflicts of interest.

The only thing you have come up with for conflict of interest is this:

More generally, two major WADA tasks are "code compliance monitoring"
and "anti-doping coordination". Both are areas where conflicts of interest could occur and influence the process.

And that is rubbish. It's WADAs job to do that, they release statistics on who runs what tests and when to make it very easy for people to see if someone isn't testing and I cannot see how anti-doping coordination, which in terms of WADA is basically trying to get everyone to adhere to the code, could be used for any influence based on the fact they release testing numbers.

The idea that British success has anything to do with Reedie being in charge at WADA is utterly ridiculous. There is nothing he could do that would only benefit British athletes unless you believe he monitors everything going on in British anti-doping and some how sticks his hand into the process, even when test aren't carried out by British authorities. It's laughable.

Cookson is a much more likely candidate yet two of the examples you have given were nothing to do with him and the other, if it is an example of him meddling, just goes to show the guy couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery when it comes to gaming the system. But there is still no evidence that this has only ever happened for Sky.


Brits dope, we all know that. They're just as likely to dope as everybody else is. But these accusations just don't stand up to scrutiny and only serve to reveal your own biases, just as Benotti did with that silly example.

 

[Peter70]

This is possibly the biggest load of bilge ever posted on the internet. And that takes some doing.

There was a centre for organised doping in Edinburgh. Run by UK athletics and covered up by everybody apart from our heroic frog. Absolute total and utter guff! Dave Jenkins was on drugs well done. Amazingly enough A Wells probably was too. Even if his times are nothing special compared to every other doper on the planet.
Where is everybody else? Where are all the World Champion athletes coming from Scotland? Doping allowed CCCP and GDR to dominate women's events. Why were these thousands of steroid primed Scotswomen not winning, or even existing?

You need more tinfoil for your hat. The number of serious athletes in Scotland could be counted in the dozens. Everybody knows everybody else, what they are doing, how they train and if they are up to anything.

You know nothing.You have no story and really need to seek help.

 

[Benotti69]

This is possibly the biggest load of bilge ever posted on the internet. And that takes some doing.

There was a centre for organised doping in Edinburgh. Run by UK athletics and covered up by everybody apart from our heroic frog. Absolute total and utter guff! Dave Jenkins was on drugs well done. Amazingly enough A Wells probably was too. Even if his times are nothing special compared to every other doper on the planet.
Where is everybody else? Where are all the World Champion athletes coming from Scotland? Doping allowed CCCP and GDR to dominate women's events. Why were these thousands of steroid primed Scotswomen not winning, or even existing?

You need more tinfoil for your hat. The number of serious athletes in Scotland could be counted in the dozens. Everybody knows everybody else, what they are doing, how they train and if they are up to anything.

You know nothing.You have no story and really need to seek help.

Start a 'Scots don't dope' thread after they gain independence.... I am sure Wee Rab Millar will contribute

 

[stutue]

They will still be British, Benny.

Its the British Isles, remember.

 

[mikehammer67]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxd...eature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_2046832545

mo's a real nice guy!