Brits don't dope?

[simoni]

Big difference from collegiate running and the European championships. Its not even the 1,2 finish that is annoying me. Its the ease in which they did it. their reaction when crossing the line was staggering, Steele jumping up and down cheering, Not once did she bend down or try and catch her breath. WALK IN THE PARK

Actually, if you look at the capabilities (i.e. track/road times) of the fields in the NCAAs there's isn't a lot of difference at all. Many believe the NCAAs to be stronger than the Euros.

As an example, last year, or the year before (sorry, forget which), one of the top young brit seniors, Tom Farrell, went from something like 9th in NCAAs to 4th in the Euros.

 

[wrinklyvet]

If you are so upset with athletes getting called out on their performances maybe you should write to the BBC and complain that they on air, with tens of millions of viewers tuned in accused 2 seperate athletes of.doping during the Olympics based on their performance and nationality, neither one of which had ever been linked to doping before or since.

Or is it only brits you don't like being discussed?

I am aware of the report. It goes against the grain of the Clinic to need any evidence to fill in the rest of the facts, I know.

Generally I dislike the general flailing about, picking out possibly irrelevant factors and tenuous connections to put the finger on individuals.

That goes for individuals of any nationality. I don't do it. Yes, others do. It's that internet anonymity thing. Every now and again it doesn't do any harm for posters to be informed their efforts might hurt real people, some of whom will not deserve it.

 

[The Hitch]

Refer to "the clinic" as one body of people who all act the same -check.
Attack posters for not posting under their own names -check
Claim the clinic hurts innocents-check.

I do however like how those who seek to disrupt this forum fluctuate so tremendously on the point of clinic importance. Half the time it's a nothing place full of losers who live with their moms which no one else reads. But then when it suits, the clinic suddenly becomes this vastly read forum, so important that one can't even discuss doping on here without hurting people who don't post here.

Btw I like how in response to the fairly legitimate observation that a double Olympic champion in middle distance running at an Olympics we know for a fact that doping was rife and we know for a fact dopers beat all the tests that were there (gatlin, Hamilton) is dodgy, you complained that she "probably had nothing To do with this". Your defending her not being on the list (obviously since the list is after her time) rather than her not doping.

But I'll remake the point you ignored earlier. Steve cram and others at the BBC accused makhloufi (champion in Kelly's discipline of the 1500) of doping on air, because he had won and was not a pre race favourite. Did it without anonymity and with an audience in the tens of.millions. You going to complain about that or is it only this subforum you seek to disrupt?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Refer to "the clinic" as one body of people who all act the same -check.
Attack posters for not posting under their own names -check
Claim the clinic hurts innocents-check.

I do however like how those who seek to disrupt this forum fluctuate so tremendously on the point of clinic importance. Half the time it's a nothing place full of losers who live with their moms which no one else reads. But then when it suits, the clinic suddenly becomes this vastly read forum, so important that one can't even discuss doping on here without hurting people who don't post here.

Btw I like how in response to the fairly legitimate observation that a double Olympic champion in middle distance running at an Olympics we know for a fact that doping was rife and we know for a fact dopers beat all the tests that were there (gatlin, Hamilton) is dodgy, you complained that she "probably had nothing To do with this". Your defending her not being on the list (obviously since the list is after her time) rather than her not doping.

But I'll remake the point you ignored earlier. Steve cram and others at the BBC accused makhloufi (champion in Kelly's discipline of the 1500) of doping on air, because he had won and was not a pre race favourite. Did it without anonymity and with an audience in the tens of.millions. You going to complain about that or is it only this subforum you seek to disrupt?

It's fine not to use your own name, of course it is. Does that relieve a poster of all responsibility? if you think so, it's a point of view to which you are entitled. I just don't agree.

I particularly object to being accused of seeking to disrupt this subforum. Just because my view on some matters is different from the mainstream does that mean you don't want to hear?

After all, as you so rightly point out, it's not a body of people who think the same.

You have a very strange idea about openness. I am sure you did not mean to suggest there are rules that prevent me saying what I think.

If somebody like Steve Cram says something like he did, I expect he is prepared to back it up, unless he is extremely rash. That sort of information, from a knowledgeable source is a contribution we should note. It's on a different level from looking at body parts in stock photos and assuming they give a meaningful message.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Refer to "the clinic" as one body of people who all act the same -check.
Attack posters for not posting under their own names -check
Claim the clinic hurts innocents-check.

I do however like how those who seek to disrupt this forum fluctuate so tremendously on the point of clinic importance. Half the time it's a nothing place full of losers who live with their moms which no one else reads. But then when it suits, the clinic suddenly becomes this vastly read forum, so important that one can't even discuss doping on here without hurting people who don't post here.

Btw I like how in response to the fairly legitimate observation that a double Olympic champion in middle distance running at an Olympics we know for a fact that doping was rife and we know for a fact dopers beat all the tests that were there (gatlin, Hamilton) is dodgy, you complained that she "probably had nothing To do with this". Your defending her not being on the list (obviously since the list is after her time) rather than her not doping.

But I'll remake the point you ignored earlier. Steve cram and others at the BBC accused makhloufi (champion in Kelly's discipline of the 1500) of doping on air, because he had won and was not a pre race favourite. Did it without anonymity and with an audience in the tens of.millions. You going to complain about that or is it only this subforum you seek to disrupt?

So it is not OK when people make broad generalizations about people who post in the clinic?

Then why is it OK when you make broad generalizations about SKY fans?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Big difference from collegiate running and the European championships. Its not even the 1,2 finish that is annoying me. Its the ease in which they did it. their reaction when crossing the line was staggering, Steele jumping up and down cheering, Not once did she bend down or try and catch her breath. WALK IN THE PARK

I can forgive the "not being exhausted" look. Winning feels good. Feeling good, well, feels good.

The race situation also depends. A 6k sprint finish is not a war of attrition.

Yes, NCAA Euros always do well at Euro XC. Its good timing, less than a month after the biggest peak of the year, against Euros that are just beginning their cross seasons. World XC is all the way in the spring, remember.

Avery would have been tested by the NCAA after her qualifying race to the champs, middle of November. Every qualifier is tested, no surprises. Not saying anything about clean/doped, just a trivia for the collegiate scene.

Merry Xmas to the sceptic I guess.

At what point does a skeptic turn into a specialist?

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

It's about time people stood back from this and took stock. How much more ridiculous must the posts get before people realise they are clutching at straws, while naming people who are very likely nothing to do with this? By all means add facts, but the medieval witch-hunt should have no place in modern life.

The clinic exists to discuss doping and given the lengths dopers go to cover their tracks then by its nature its going to contain lots of speculation. Its up to each individual to then filter what they think might have some substance and what is fanciful.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I don't know who we is...

A good point. Sorry. If it's any consolation, as a Wiggins fan, I am often assumed to be pro Sky and pro doping.

The general point remains that facial expression analysis is probably not that reliable as an indicator of doping.

 

[Hawkwood]

I don't know who we is. From.my experience there are usually 59 other reasons why an athlete is accused of doping, but the one poster says something about facial expression and the wolves jump in and pick on that as if that was the actual argument.

That said the first time I ever heard someone being accused of doping for showing roid rage was Menchov at the 2009 giro who up to that time didn't have that much against him so maybe it's not a flawless doping detection method either...

I think I'm the guilty `facial expression' person, it was a completely unscientific observation. Years ago I read Rough Ride and Kimmage said he was told something like `don't look or talk to the public/press when you're doped up to the eyeballs', I watched the two gold medal runs and his comment came flooding back. That plus any UK athlete winning back-to-back golds is so unusual . So just my suspicion and nothing else.

 

[wansteadimp]

I think I'm the guilty `facial expression' person, it was a completely unscientific observation. Years ago I read Rough Ride and Kimmage said he was told something like `don't look or talk to the public/press when you're doped up to the eyeballs', I watched the two gold medal runs and his comment came flooding back. That plus any UK athlete winning back-to-back golds is so unusual . So just my suspicion and nothing else.

Wasn't that because Kimmage took amphetamines, and they didn't want him throwing shapes in front of journos.

 

[sniper]

The general point remains that facial expression analysis is probably not that reliable as an indicator of doping.

But if you have reasonable suspicions that somebody is doping, it becomes interesting and wholly legitimate to look at such indicators as well.
Aare you saying it isn't reasonable to assume Holmes was doping?

 

[the sceptic]

Paula Radcliffe has to be the biggest hypocrite in the known universe.

 

[sniper]

Paula Radcliffe has to be the biggest hypocrite in the known universe.

Agree she's favorite to win this title, but it's a neck to neck race with Lord Coe, Sir Brad, and several others.

 

[neineinei]

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2014-12-15/williams-and-warburton-begin-doping-hearing/

Welsh runner and former European 400m hurdles champion Rhys Williams has begun his doping hearing at a secret location in London after testing positive for a banned substance in the lead up to the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

800 metre runner Gareth Warburton is also set for his hearing for a similar violation and is expected to begin his tomorrow.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Happy 5th anniversary to UKAD.


It feels like it has been around much longer.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I particularly object to being accused of seeking to disrupt this subforum.

Hmm, so when you launch multiple baseless, sweeping, false claims here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1616087&postcount=887
you aren't disrupting a subforum?

Really?

Have an opinion. Disagree. Plenty of the participants here disagree on topics and sometimes use facts to make their point. Please do the same. Please stop posting nonsense.

 

[neineinei]

Happy 5th anniversary to UKAD.


It feels like it has been around much longer.

Almost two years younger than RUSADA, and ten years younger than USADA.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Hmm, so when you launch multiple baseless, sweeping, false claims here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1616087&postcount=887
you aren't disrupting a subforum?

Really?

Have an opinion. Disagree. Plenty of the participants here disagree on topics and sometimes use facts to make their point. Please do the same. Please stop posting nonsense.

What I have posted is not contrary to any rules of which I am aware. I am expressing an opinion that apparently differs from yours. That's all.

It's not about me. I referred to matters generally so it would not be personal. All in vain, of course.

 

[Hawkwood]

Wasn't that because Kimmage took amphetamines, and they didn't want him throwing shapes in front of journos.

That's right, but sometimes something sticks in your mind, in this case pulling faces. So no great scientific insight from me, just a vague suspicion.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Hmm, so when you launch multiple baseless, sweeping, false claims here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1616087&postcount=887
you aren't disrupting a subforum?

Really?

Have an opinion. Disagree. Plenty of the participants here disagree on topics and sometimes use facts to make their point. Please do the same. Please stop posting nonsense.

IMO, the part of that post that was most disruptive was The Hitch's "Or is it only brits you don't like being discussed?" which I thought was a nasty dig that was written mostly to antagonize.

 

[the sceptic]

I am really shocked that a bunch of british posters have showed up to post about everything except the topic of the thread

 

[wrinklyvet]

I am really shocked that a bunch of british posters have showed up to post about everything except the topic of the thread

I am really shocked that anyone's nationality is important to you (unless you are having an innocent laugh!

I was also wondering what part of this is unacceptable to others:-

"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic."

Crossing the line before other competitors or making it all look easy (or hard) are not authentic ways to identify dopers. The same goes for other methodology applied in some previous posts.

That being so, I am entitled to point out the pointlessness of it, quite apart from the fact that it (the alleged identification) may contravene forum rules, even in the Clinic.

 

[the sceptic]

What will the implications be if it is indeed Radcliffe?

I assume she will come up with some silly excuse, the pregnancy most likely.

I also assume most people will believe it and it will only be jealous clinic haters that don't understand blood values that think she is doping.

Hope I'm wrong, but as long as there is no positive test or sanction, people will dream big.

 

[Jspear]

I am really shocked that anyone's nationality is important to you (unless you are having an innocent laugh!

I was also wondering what part of this is unacceptable to others:-

"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic."

Crossing the line before other competitors or making it all look easy (or hard) are not authentic ways to identify dopers. The same goes for other methodology applied in some previous posts.

That being so, I am entitled to point out the pointlessness of it, quite apart from the fact that it (the alleged identification) may contravene forum rules, even in the Clinic.

In a certain sense it is common knowledge that the top cyclists are still doping...True, here in the clinic I haven't seen any photo's of Wiggo actually doping, but there is plenty of discussion-links ect in the clinic subforms that can be used to determine with 99.999% certainty that riders, who haven't been "busted" yet, are doping. I'd recommend you go way back through these different threads and read up...you should see what I'm talking about.

 

[The Hitch]

What will the implications be if it is indeed Radcliffe?

I assume she will come up with some silly excuse, the pregnancy most likely.

I also assume most people will believe it and it will only be jealous clinic haters that don't understand blood values that think she is doping.

Hope I'm wrong, but as long as there is no positive test or sanction, people will dream big.

The irony is, there's probably more evidence against radcliffe (if it is her, and it does seem to be) and whoever else is on the list, than there was against say Tyson gay who's positive test was for some chicken **** drug. But the way it works, if you are a non cyclist you get a pass on red level blood values because people are more at ease with a simple + or - resolution than this probability stuff.