• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Brits don't dope?

Page 130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 15, 2016
86
0
0
Visit site
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before
 
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before
Great comment!

Welcome to the CN Forums! :)
 
I think you really have to accept that a British broadcaster would be a major cheerleader for British athletes. For most watchers, all they are interested in is the medals. The general population has no time for a plucky Brit who comes fourth. The BBC is not a sports broadcaster. It's a general broadcaster that does a bit of sport. So it's going to appeal to the man in the street, not the sports aficionado.

Similarly, the general population doesn't care about doping. They have no sense of indignation when someone puts in a ludicrous performance. They swallow the "hard work, dedication, training, early mornings, sacrifices" narrative. You can't expect them to keep abreast of all the various types of doping.

And you're right about the nationalism thing. It's all those nasty Russians, Chinese and especially Eastern Europeans that dope. Not good old Sir Brad and his chums.
 
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before

Brilliant!
 
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before


You're just a self-hater.





Just kidding! Welcome to the forum!
 
Aug 15, 2016
86
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Thanks for the welcomes

doolols said:
I think you really have to accept that a British broadcaster would be a major cheerleader for British athletes. For most watchers, all they are interested in is the medals. The general population has no time for a plucky Brit who comes fourth. The BBC is not a sports broadcaster. It's a general broadcaster that does a bit of sport. So it's going to appeal to the man in the street, not the sports aficionado.

Similarly, the general population doesn't care about doping. They have no sense of indignation when someone puts in a ludicrous performance. They swallow the "hard work, dedication, training, early mornings, sacrifices" narrative. You can't expect them to keep abreast of all the various types of doping.

I get that, but like I said, what came first? I think there's definitely an argument to be made that the reason British people care so much about British sportspeople is because they are essentially given no other option by the coverage. Of course the broadcasters would argue that they have to because that's what the people want, but when did that start? I'd love to go through coverage from the 60s, 70s and 80s to see if it's true. From the coverage I've seen of other sports - football and F1 in particular - it doesn't seem to have been quite as extreme as it has been for the last decade or so (the Mansell/Hill era in F1 aside). I don't think people are intrinsically nationalist in that way. The British people love Bolt and Federer in the same way that they love Ennis and Murray - in fact, I've faced a lot bigger backlash from British people for criticising Federer than I have for criticising Murray

The same goes for doping - the media are the ones responsible for pushing that narrative of British exceptionalism. I don't think it's that people don't understand doping - maybe they don't understand how it works but they know what it is and are suspicious. I spoke to my mother this morning about Van Niekerk and she said without prompting that it seemed "too fast". When I then suggested British cyclists breaking WRs in similar fashion might be equally dodgy, her reaction was "ah well, that's different..."

Cram on Makhloufi 4 years ago was the one that really annoyed me - yes, Makhloufi was/is probably doping (see his rapid rise, missing the Worlds due to "injury" at short notice, his links to Aden etc), but it's clear that he was being targeted because he was African. Surely that's nothing but a deliberate attempt to stoke up xenophobic narratives - and then defend it by saying "it's what people want" when they are the ones provoking it. Ultimately, people in this country have been more than happy on many occasions to go full Tall Poppy Syndrome on British sportspeople, so I don't think there's not the appetite there to discuss potential British dopers. It purely comes down to media presentation (or lack of) of the evidence
 
Oct 25, 2012
485
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
Thanks for the welcomes

doolols said:
I think you really have to accept that a British broadcaster would be a major cheerleader for British athletes. For most watchers, all they are interested in is the medals. The general population has no time for a plucky Brit who comes fourth. The BBC is not a sports broadcaster. It's a general broadcaster that does a bit of sport. So it's going to appeal to the man in the street, not the sports aficionado.

Similarly, the general population doesn't care about doping. They have no sense of indignation when someone puts in a ludicrous performance. They swallow the "hard work, dedication, training, early mornings, sacrifices" narrative. You can't expect them to keep abreast of all the various types of doping.

I get that, but like I said, what came first? I think there's definitely an argument to be made that the reason British people care so much about British sportspeople is because they are essentially given no other option by the coverage. Of course the broadcasters would argue that they have to because that's what the people want, but when did that start? I'd love to go through coverage from the 60s, 70s and 80s to see if it's true. From the coverage I've seen of other sports - football and F1 in particular - it doesn't seem to have been quite as extreme as it has been for the last decade or so (the Mansell/Hill era in F1 aside). I don't think people are intrinsically nationalist in that way. The British people love Bolt and Federer in the same way that they love Ennis and Murray - in fact, I've faced a lot bigger backlash from British people for criticising Federer than I have for criticising Murray

The same goes for doping - the media are the ones responsible for pushing that narrative of British exceptionalism. I don't think it's that people don't understand doping - maybe they don't understand how it works but they know what it is and are suspicious. I spoke to my mother this morning about Van Niekerk and she said without prompting that it seemed "too fast". When I then suggested British cyclists breaking WRs in similar fashion might be equally dodgy, her reaction was "ah well, that's different..."

Cram on Makhloufi 4 years ago was the one that really annoyed me - yes, Makhloufi was/is probably doping (see his rapid rise, missing the Worlds due to "injury" at short notice, his links to Aden etc), but it's clear that he was being targeted because he was African. Surely that's nothing but a deliberate attempt to stoke up xenophobic narratives - and then defend it by saying "it's what people want" when they are the ones provoking it. Ultimately, people in this country have been more than happy on many occasions to go full Tall Poppy Syndrome on British sportspeople, so I don't think there's not the appetite there to discuss potential British dopers. It purely comes down to media presentation (or lack of) of the evidence

You're good!
 
Re: Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I get that, but like I said, what came first? I think there's definitely an argument to be made that the reason British people care so much about British sportspeople is because they are essentially given no other option by the coverage. Of course the broadcasters would argue that they have to because that's what the people want, but when did that start? I'd love to go through coverage from the 60s, 70s and 80s to see if it's true. From the coverage I've seen of other sports - football and F1 in particular - it doesn't seem to have been quite as extreme as it has been for the last decade or so (the Mansell/Hill era in F1 aside). I don't think people are intrinsically nationalist in that way.

But the olympics is a national competition - it's nation against nation, so we're justified in waving flags and cheering on "our boys and girls". The same happens in World Cup / Euros in football. So the national broadcaster is bound to be nationalistic.

Bwlch y Groes said:
The same goes for doping - the media are the ones responsible for pushing that narrative of British exceptionalism. I don't think it's that people don't understand doping - maybe they don't understand how it works but they know what it is and are suspicious. I spoke to my mother this morning about Van Niekerk and she said without prompting that it seemed "too fast". When I then suggested British cyclists breaking WRs in similar fashion might be equally dodgy, her reaction was "ah well, that's different..."
I think you have a point here, although the commentators, who need to ensure that they can get gigs in the future, won't go out on a limb to criticise Brit competitors when there's "no evidence", especially to those who don't understand the doping culture. To the man on the street, evidence needs to be an official doping sanction. Even then, there's a probability they will be considered an outlier, an aberration, and no indication of a nation-wide issue.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before

One of the best first posts here.
Welcome :)
 
Aug 3, 2016
66
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before

An interesting and thoughtful post.

Im a Salfordian who lives in Manchester and we here are not Conservative Nationalists by any means. If you know your history you will be aware of our Cities links to Marx, the Trade Union movement, the Suffragettes, we even have a statue of Abraham Lincoln due to our Cities commitment to end slavery in the USA. Manchester voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK.

We feel the media in the UK is very London centric. The Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 that provided the catalyst for many of our sports improvements gets little recognition.

The football club i support got a new stadium, that helped us get new owners who have invested £200m in sports facilities alone. Plus they are helping regenerate what was once the slums of East Manchester. We have a brand new Institute for sport science developed along with Manchester University which serves the sports around the Etihad Campus. Those sports include Athletics (outdoor and indoor venues), Cycling (British Cycling is based 500 metres away at the velodrome, the national Tae Kwan-do training centre, the national Squash centre, indoor tennis courts,Olympic swimming pool. A new arena for Ice Hockey is rumoured, Rugby League and Rugby Union are both played close by, the new national Speedway stadium is 10 minutes down the road. There is a 7,000 seater stadium for Manchester City Women FC. Manchester United one of the biggest sporting institutions in the world play across the City. Lancashire Cricket Club are one of the oldest sporting institutions in the world and host regular international Cricket. In days of poor attendence for domestic cricket Lancashire V Yorkshire games sell out and have crowds of over 20,000.


My point being, we are not a Conserative, Nationalist City, we are progressive and blatently sport daft. The Manchester Commonwealth games helped transform our City and gave us some World class facilities to help produce great athletes for lots of different sports. The Manchester velodrome being central to our UK cycling success. Im not even sure we had anything like that before. I never watched cycling until it came to my city and i fell in love with it. My mate is Jess Varnish's landlord, Laura Trott and Jason Kenny are often seen riding past my local. I had the joy of being behind Laura in my car the lights one day praying they stayed on red :) :)


The London Olympics to me felt like they were in another country. I didnt get the jingoism, i hated it to be honest. Am i comfortable with all the UK success, probably not as well, but im a pragmatist and i attended the City game on saturday and before the game went for a beer with the lads in the bar at the Indoor athletics arena (its two minutes from my entrance to the Etihad) and the amount of kids doing sport gladdened my heart. That is a legacy and in my opinion why we are doing better at sport than ever. Growing up in Manchester/Salford in the 70s we had nothing, now these kids have real life chances to make something of themselves
 
I will agree that the BBC is jingoistic and repellant. I'll agree that there are some hypocritical commentators (particularly over Christine Ohoragu (sic)). However, you can't expect a commentator to compare speculation around Farah to confirmed positive tests for the likes of Gatlin. The most suitable comparison would be Steve Crams treatment of Dwain Chambers in the past. Cram would not beat around the bush about Chambers having tested positive in the past (although he'd be more restrained with his vitriol, presumably because he'd like to keep his job as a commentator - which I can't blame him for).

I think we also have to acknowledge that Britain is excelling at a range of technical sports at the Olympics that it didn't before. Sports like gymnastics and diving. I would argue that success in these sports increases the chances that British success in sports like cycling is based on the same process of investment and high quality training rather than in doping.

So whilst I too cannot abide watching UK sports coverage, I draw completely different conclusions from it.
 
Re: Re:

doolols said:
Bwlch y Groes said:
I get that, but like I said, what came first? I think there's definitely an argument to be made that the reason British people care so much about British sportspeople is because they are essentially given no other option by the coverage. Of course the broadcasters would argue that they have to because that's what the people want, but when did that start? I'd love to go through coverage from the 60s, 70s and 80s to see if it's true. From the coverage I've seen of other sports - football and F1 in particular - it doesn't seem to have been quite as extreme as it has been for the last decade or so (the Mansell/Hill era in F1 aside). I don't think people are intrinsically nationalist in that way.

But the olympics is a national competition - it's nation against nation, so we're justified in waving flags and cheering on "our boys and girls". The same happens in World Cup / Euros in football. So the national broadcaster is bound to be nationalistic.

Bwlch y Groes said:
The same goes for doping - the media are the ones responsible for pushing that narrative of British exceptionalism. I don't think it's that people don't understand doping - maybe they don't understand how it works but they know what it is and are suspicious. I spoke to my mother this morning about Van Niekerk and she said without prompting that it seemed "too fast". When I then suggested British cyclists breaking WRs in similar fashion might be equally dodgy, her reaction was "ah well, that's different..."
I think you have a point here, although the commentators, who need to ensure that they can get gigs in the future, won't go out on a limb to criticise Brit competitors when there's "no evidence", especially to those who don't understand the doping culture. To the man on the street, evidence needs to be an official doping sanction. Even then, there's a probability they will be considered an outlier, an aberration, and no indication of a nation-wide issue.

It did seem like that last night after Murray won and made his way over to 'the small band of English supporters'. Almost as good as Barker's 'let's get back to England v Serbia' in the Davis cup. We have to accept that crap here in Scotland but it really doesn't help.
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Fergoose said:
I will agree that the BBC is jingoistic and repellant. I'll agree that there are some hypocritical commentators (particularly over Christine Ohoragu (sic)). However, you can't expect a commentator to compare speculation around Farah to confirmed positive tests for the likes of Gatlin. The most suitable comparison would be Steve Crams treatment of Dwain Chambers in the past. Cram would not beat around the bush about Chambers having tested positive in the past (although he'd be more restrained with his vitriol, presumably because he'd like to keep his job as a commentator - which I can't blame him for).

I think we also have to acknowledge that Britain is excelling at a range of technical sports at the Olympics that it didn't before. Sports like gymnastics and diving. I would argue that success in these sports increases the chances that British success in sports like cycling is based on the same process of investment and high quality training rather than in doping.

So whilst I too cannot abide watching UK sports coverage, I draw completely different conclusions from it.

You're a believer.

That's so sweet. :) :) :) :) :)
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
doolols said:
Bwlch y Groes said:
I get that, but like I said, what came first? I think there's definitely an argument to be made that the reason British people care so much about British sportspeople is because they are essentially given no other option by the coverage. Of course the broadcasters would argue that they have to because that's what the people want, but when did that start? I'd love to go through coverage from the 60s, 70s and 80s to see if it's true. From the coverage I've seen of other sports - football and F1 in particular - it doesn't seem to have been quite as extreme as it has been for the last decade or so (the Mansell/Hill era in F1 aside). I don't think people are intrinsically nationalist in that way.

But the olympics is a national competition - it's nation against nation, so we're justified in waving flags and cheering on "our boys and girls". The same happens in World Cup / Euros in football. So the national broadcaster is bound to be nationalistic.

Bwlch y Groes said:
The same goes for doping - the media are the ones responsible for pushing that narrative of British exceptionalism. I don't think it's that people don't understand doping - maybe they don't understand how it works but they know what it is and are suspicious. I spoke to my mother this morning about Van Niekerk and she said without prompting that it seemed "too fast". When I then suggested British cyclists breaking WRs in similar fashion might be equally dodgy, her reaction was "ah well, that's different..."
I think you have a point here, although the commentators, who need to ensure that they can get gigs in the future, won't go out on a limb to criticise Brit competitors when there's "no evidence", especially to those who don't understand the doping culture. To the man on the street, evidence needs to be an official doping sanction. Even then, there's a probability they will be considered an outlier, an aberration, and no indication of a nation-wide issue.

It did seem like that last night after Murray won and made his way over to 'the small band of English supporters'. Almost as good as Barker's 'let's get back to England v Serbia' in the Davis cup. We have to accept that crap here in Scotland but it really doesn't help.

Ouch, didn't realise they said that. Ironic really, considering the GB Davis Cup team is 75% Scottish.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Welcome, Bwlch y Groes, and good post. While this likely isn't the place for my lengthy and incoherent thoughts of Welsh nationalism within the UK, it likely is for another point, which is: the media's relentless focus on medals for GB has done serious and lasting damage to British sport. The lottery programme - putting aside questions of doping and so on - is brutal. Sports which don't hit their medal quota are ruthlessly cut. This has done genuinely terrible things for grassroots involvement in sports the UK will never medal in, like basketball. Participation in sports is down from 2012. Now, is that atmosphere conducive to rigorous fairness, or to a results at all costs mentality? I frankly don't know, but this kind of hyper-capitalistic incentive-based system has tended to lead in other areas not to efficiency, but to corner-cutting, and it has consistently hurt the people at the bottom of the system.

Edited for source: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/15/brutal-but-effective-why-team-gb-is-winning-so-many-olympic-medals
 
Re:

Bwlch y Groes said:
I feel like I need to get some stuff off my chest for a moment. I've been lurking on this forum on and off for a couple of years. It's always interesting reading, mainly because it explores a lot of areas the mainstream media in Britain daren't touch. As such, people don't take it seriously. I've been dismissed by friends and family as a miserable cynic and "sad" for pointing out things that have actually happened and there are good accounts of - I can point to books, articles, academics, and any amount of circumstantial evidence, and none of it will be enough to convince them

Maybe it's because I'm Welsh which gives me that bit of distance from the main English narratives (and that's what it basically is - there's little room allowed for Welsh and Scottish narratives, even with people like Geraint Thomas or Laura Muir, with Murray the only notable exception because it's a running joke), but I've been quite sceptical for a long time over the way the media portrays British success. The Olympics is the one great example of how even during the greatest international festival in the world, the national broadcaster turns inward. And I'm certain that those running the sports in Britain know that and are aware of the power of getting on the media's side, mainly by winning. Most people who watch only really care about Britain's medal count - they're not really bothered what events they come in or who gets them. And it's always that use of "we" to describe it - "we've won another medal" - as if everyone feels part-ownership of that success

Ultimately, it's chicken-or-egg to determine which came first - does the media concentrating on British success create the public's blinkers, or is it the public's blinkers that lead to the media concentrating more on British success? Either way, each feed off each other. The London games was a turbocharger, because it allowed the likes of the BBC to be extra indulgent. As a result, lots of really intelligent and otherwise quite unpatriotic people end up becoming hyper-nationalist - myself included in the past. When you spend a lot of time watching the coverage, it acts like a funnel because of the way they focus on specific events and sportspeople. You get sucked into a vortex very quickly because the BBC will be telling you how great Athlete X is and what a tough road they've had to go on, so even if you don't want to go in wanting Britain to win, you still end up wanting Athlete X to win. Heck, I even started liking Wiggins again until I saw his comments today on the Sutton case, and I only watched the final of the team pursuit. You can't call any of it journalism - it's just cheerleading, and it quickly becomes nauseating when you don't buy it

Either way, Britain is a conservative, nationalist country. I mean we kind of knew this anyway, especially after the EU referendum, but it's been noticeable for a while. And of course the way that reflects on the issues of doping and scepticism means that all reason gets thrown out of the window. I'm sure this happens elsewhere too (especially the US) but I can only speak for Britain. I just imagine this is what it's also like in Russia, or was like in East Germany in the 80s

You can provide decent circumstantial evidence for Farah being dodgy and it'll be dismissed simply on the basis of him never testing positive, and yet it's fine for people like Steve Cram to essentially accuse the likes of Gatlin, Makhloufi and Ayana of doping live on air. Even today, Steve Backley pointed at the Moldovan hammer thrower's positive tests as if to insinuate she's still cheating. God knows what it'll be like when the Russians come back. And yet I totally remember the media's reaction to Linford Christie's positive test being one of total denial and paranoia - proof that what people want isn't a positive test, because even if they had one for someone like Farah, there would be excuses aplenty as to why it's not legitimate. They just want an excuse to believe it's clean

Once you get that moment of doubt, the whole thing collapses and it just becomes unbearable. So I can understand why people on here are going to spend a lot of time "bashing Brits" - I imagine quite a few are actually British and are just sick to death of the constant sycophancy and the expectation of hyper-nationalism. And there are very few places you can go to actually express this, because the vast majority of people will immediately dismiss any degree of scepticism and it's impossible to engage a reasonable, nuanced conversation about it. It's very frustrating and I don't see a way out unless there's a mass unveiling of the whole thing - even if it's just one or two individuals that get caught, they will be written off as bad eggs and the circus will carry on as before
I like you.
 
Aug 15, 2016
86
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Vladivar said:
An interesting and thoughtful post.

Im a Salfordian who lives in Manchester and we here are not Conservative Nationalists by any means. If you know your history you will be aware of our Cities links to Marx, the Trade Union movement, the Suffragettes, we even have a statue of Abraham Lincoln due to our Cities commitment to end slavery in the USA. Manchester voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK.

We feel the media in the UK is very London centric. The Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 that provided the catalyst for many of our sports improvements gets little recognition.

...

The London Olympics to me felt like they were in another country. I didnt get the jingoism, i hated it to be honest. Am i comfortable with all the UK success, probably not as well, but im a pragmatist and i attended the City game on saturday and before the game went for a beer with the lads in the bar at the Indoor athletics arena (its two minutes from my entrance to the Etihad) and the amount of kids doing sport gladdened my heart. That is a legacy and in my opinion why we are doing better at sport than ever. Growing up in Manchester/Salford in the 70s we had nothing, now these kids have real life chances to make something of themselves

Totally with you there. I'd like to think that between us, we've demonstrated to the non-Brits here that there are different attitudes towards this from outside the mainstream narratives. England alone is a divided country - and not just into two parts. Then add in Scotland and Wales and there are loads of competing stories. It's just that only "national" one gets precedence in the media

Fergoose said:
I will agree that the BBC is jingoistic and repellant. I'll agree that there are some hypocritical commentators (particularly over Christine Ohoragu (sic)). However, you can't expect a commentator to compare speculation around Farah to confirmed positive tests for the likes of Gatlin. The most suitable comparison would be Steve Crams treatment of Dwain Chambers in the past. Cram would not beat around the bush about Chambers having tested positive in the past (although he'd be more restrained with his vitriol, presumably because he'd like to keep his job as a commentator - which I can't blame him for).

The point isn't so much that Cram and others at the BBC are disgusted by the positive tests - it's the dog whistle insinuation that he's still doping that's the problem, specifically the constant referencing of those past positive tests. It's obviously meant as a way of implying he's still doing it in such a way that they're not outwardly stating it - they're encouraging the viewer to make the conclusion so that they don't have to state it and get sued. That said, with Makhloufi they went a bit further which is what made it so notable

It's hypocritical considering their defences of athletes with dubious links or actual violations. Farah doesn't even have to be the comparison here. We can look at athletes who were banned for missing multiple tests like Christine Ohuruogu or Rio Ferdinand, or those who tested positive like Linford Christie, Diane Modahl and obviously the prodigal son David Millar. The narrative in the cases of those "good guys" are usually either that they've served their time and have changed as people, or it was an injustice and they're actually innocent because they say they are - neither of these explanations have ever been afforded to Gatlin. Even if you want a foreign example, take Yohan Blake, someone who runs at the same level as Gatlin and has a positive test and ban to his name, and yet they always ignore it
 
The comparison between Blake and Gatlin is fair. But I have no issue whatsoever in instances where a commentator assumes "once a cheat, always a cheat" (and therefore arguably massively more likely to be cheating at the time of the contest). Of course I would like this mentality to be extend to the Dave Millars of this world rather than them being rewarded for their "achievements" while doping by ending up with a plum job in sports broadcasting.
 
Re: Re:

AlbineVespuzzio said:
Fergoose said:
I will agree that the BBC is jingoistic and repellant. I'll agree that there are some hypocritical commentators (particularly over Christine Ohoragu (sic)). However, you can't expect a commentator to compare speculation around Farah to confirmed positive tests for the likes of Gatlin. The most suitable comparison would be Steve Crams treatment of Dwain Chambers in the past. Cram would not beat around the bush about Chambers having tested positive in the past (although he'd be more restrained with his vitriol, presumably because he'd like to keep his job as a commentator - which I can't blame him for).

I think we also have to acknowledge that Britain is excelling at a range of technical sports at the Olympics that it didn't before. Sports like gymnastics and diving. I would argue that success in these sports increases the chances that British success in sports like cycling is based on the same process of investment and high quality training rather than in doping.

So whilst I too cannot abide watching UK sports coverage, I draw completely different conclusions from it.

You're a believer.

That's so sweet. :) :) :) :) :)

Not necessarily a believer. Just willing to consider that if the UK invests more than its rivals in sports like gymnastics and diving, where doping would not aid performance, and wins medals; then perhaps we should be open minded to the same possibility in other sports, like track cycling.

Feel free to find an evidence based counter argument. I'm all ears.
 
You honestly don't think doping would help performance in gymnastics? Have you never seen the Rings?

Sure, technique is the main deciding factor in gymnastics, and doping won't fix shoddy technique, but you don't think improving your power has benefits in the Rings, Pommel Horse etc? You don't think that improved speed would help your vault performances?
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Fergoose said:
AlbineVespuzzio said:
Fergoose said:
I will agree that the BBC is jingoistic and repellant. I'll agree that there are some hypocritical commentators (particularly over Christine Ohoragu (sic)). However, you can't expect a commentator to compare speculation around Farah to confirmed positive tests for the likes of Gatlin. The most suitable comparison would be Steve Crams treatment of Dwain Chambers in the past. Cram would not beat around the bush about Chambers having tested positive in the past (although he'd be more restrained with his vitriol, presumably because he'd like to keep his job as a commentator - which I can't blame him for).

I think we also have to acknowledge that Britain is excelling at a range of technical sports at the Olympics that it didn't before. Sports like gymnastics and diving. I would argue that success in these sports increases the chances that British success in sports like cycling is based on the same process of investment and high quality training rather than in doping.

So whilst I too cannot abide watching UK sports coverage, I draw completely different conclusions from it.

You're a believer.

That's so sweet. :) :) :) :) :)

Not necessarily a believer. Just willing to consider that if the UK invests more than its rivals in sports like gymnastics and diving, where doping would not aid performance, and wins medals; then perhaps we should be open minded to the same possibility in other sports, like track cycling.

Feel free to find an evidence based counter argument. I'm all ears.

Like I said, a believer. Don't feel bad, I'm like you. I put myself to sleep by hearing non-stop the Armstrong 2005 speech. Always sleep like a baby, too.
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Fergoose said:
Just willing to consider that if the UK invests more than its rivals in sports like gymnastics and diving, where doping would not aid performance, and wins medals; then perhaps we should be open minded to the same possibility in other sports, like track cycling.

Feel free to find an evidence based counter argument. I'm all ears.

That's my reasoning too. I also tell my brain that winning a couple of medals is equivalent to utter dominance in a sport.

Like I said, sleeping well at night is my goal.
 
Of course, if you were to consider doping as an analog, Gatlin's 4 year ban (overturned on appeal) and subsequent 8 year ban (reduced to 4 years in exchange for information) is amongst the worst examples.
 

TRENDING THREADS