Brits don't dope?

[Chaddy]

Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

 

[Fergoose]

Re:

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?

Not enough to risk doing it. No. Perhaps you can point me to any major historic doping positives in gymnastics and diving to validate your post? Is your position that improvements in UK performance in those disciplines is a result of doping rather than throwing money at improved facilities and training?

 

[sniper]

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

 

[Fergoose]

Re: Re:

And, don't forget, we've invested something like £350m in this Olympics alone, funding full-time training for many of our athletes. So far, each medal at Rio has cost us £5.5m. You'd expect some return for that investment.

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

In a time when public debt is considered the problem, and austerity has been enacted as the solution. People should really be angry. GB has traded its education system for fools gold. You can't get more foolish.

I agree with that up to a point. If the UK are beating a nationalistic dictatorship like China that measures its international prestige based on its Olympic performance in the medal table then I think that's a sign the UK is spending too much in this area. £5.5 million per medal is revolting. However a 16% rise in funding since Beijing 2008 is not excessive. It's just a shame that a lot of the funding goes to arguably elitist sports that make minimal social or public health contribution, like equestrian, rowing and sailing.

 

[Fergoose]

Re:

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

I didn't mention rowing for that reason. It is an endurance sport and the UK has been good at it for decades (unlike gymnastics and diving). To suggest that the reason people haven't been caught doping doing gymnastics, diving or tiddleywinks can only be evidence of a poor anti doping regime in those areas is not a rational argument.

It is entirely possible instead that the reason that people haven't been caught doping in those disciplines is because the advantage of doping in those areas is negligible when compared to the advantage of having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports. To me it's fairly obvious which of those is the more credible argument.

 

[The Carrot]

1. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports

vs

2. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports PLUS DOPING.


We have a winner

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Interesting to note however how Froome had his time corrected due to a crash (beyond his control), I wonder after the Columbian protest today if Cav will have his result altered?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

I didn't mention rowing for that reason. It is an endurance sport and the UK has been good at it for decades (unlike gymnastics and diving). To suggest that the reason people haven't been caught doping doing gymnastics, diving or tiddleywinks can only be evidence of a poor anti doping regime in those areas is not a rational argument.

It is entirely possible instead that the reason that people haven't been caught doping in those disciplines is because the advantage of doping in those areas is negligible when compared to the advantage of having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports. To me it's fairly obvious which of those is the more credible argument.

Look at the BBC gold medal count of all time

(snapped this morning so will likely be out of date by later today ...)

Zero rowing GOLD medals from 1952 to 1984, then there is a clear acceleration in recent years
Cycling had a much longer drought 1920 to 1992, then the explosion in gold from 2008 onwards.

Athletics looks much more "normal" a pretty consistent climb through the years, some good years some bad but overall fairly consistent.

I am interested in the total medal counts for these sports in the same manner, I'll have to create those graphs myself though.

 

[sniper]

1. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports

vs

2. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports PLUS DOPING.


We have a winner

It's a 1+1 really.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Look at the BBC gold medal count of all time

(snapped this morning so will likely be out of date by later today ...)

Zero rowing GOLD medals from 1952 to 1984, then there is a clear acceleration in recent years
Cycling had a much longer drought 1920 to 1992, then the explosion in gold from 2008 onwards.

Athletics looks much more "normal" a pretty consistent climb through the years, some good years some bad but overall fairly consistent.

I am interested in the total medal counts for these sports in the same manner, I'll have to create those graphs myself though.

nice graph.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

I didn't mention rowing for that reason. It is an endurance sport and the UK has been good at it for decades (unlike gymnastics and diving). To suggest that the reason people haven't been caught doping doing gymnastics, diving or tiddleywinks can only be evidence of a poor anti doping regime in those areas is not a rational argument.

It is entirely possible instead that the reason that people haven't been caught doping in those disciplines is because the advantage of doping in those areas is negligible when compared to the advantage of having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports. To me it's fairly obvious which of those is the more credible argument.

Look at the BBC gold medal count of all time

(snapped this morning so will likely be out of date by later today ...)

Zero rowing GOLD medals from 1952 to 1984, then there is a clear acceleration in recent years
Cycling had a much longer drought 1920 to 1992, then the explosion in gold from 2008 onwards.

Athletics looks much more "normal" a pretty consistent climb through the years, some good years some bad but overall fairly consistent.

I am interested in the total medal counts for these sports in the same manner, I'll have to create those graphs myself though.

Lottery funding began in 1997, Brailsford took over in 2003

Clearly they added one more factor with the funding.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Interesting to note however how Froome had his time corrected due to a crash (beyond his control), I wonder after the Columbian protest today if Cav will have his result altered?

I think it's no longer tenable to speak of 'coincidences'.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Doping is a form of cheating. So is taking competitors out purposefully.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Lottery funding began in 1997, Brailsford took over in 2003

Clearly they added one more factor with the funding.

Didn't Millar get popped in 2004 with Brailsford sitting across him in a French bar in Biarritz, the two of them talking about anything except doping...
They must have realized then and there that doping doesn't pay and makes you go backwards.

 

[Fergoose]

Re: Re:

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

I didn't mention rowing for that reason. It is an endurance sport and the UK has been good at it for decades (unlike gymnastics and diving). To suggest that the reason people haven't been caught doping doing gymnastics, diving or tiddleywinks can only be evidence of a poor anti doping regime in those areas is not a rational argument.

It is entirely possible instead that the reason that people haven't been caught doping in those disciplines is because the advantage of doping in those areas is negligible when compared to the advantage of having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports. To me it's fairly obvious which of those is the more credible argument.

Look at the BBC gold medal count of all time

(snapped this morning so will likely be out of date by later today ...)

Zero rowing GOLD medals from 1952 to 1984, then there is a clear acceleration in recent years
Cycling had a much longer drought 1920 to 1992, then the explosion in gold from 2008 onwards.

Athletics looks much more "normal" a pretty consistent climb through the years, some good years some bad but overall fairly consistent.

I am interested in the total medal counts for these sports in the same manner, I'll have to create those graphs myself though.

The increase for technical sports such as gymnastics and diving would be far sharper as they come from a lower base. I'm not sure such graphs tell us much about the potential for doping. For example, we could argue that the British rise follows the big road race scandals of 2007 (e.g. Petacchi, Rasmussen, Vino) when it became clear that antidoping had made a breakthrough.

 

[Fergoose]

1. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports

vs

2. Individual having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports PLUS DOPING.


We have a winner

Realistically, the impact of doping on a gymnast or divers score is going to be an infintesible factor compared to be factors I list due to the technical nature of the discipline. Plus there has never been identification of doping in those sports despite major scandals embroiling athletics / cycling etc over the same period.

Doping is always risk vs reward and I cannot see why anyone in those disciplines would ever seek the minimal benefit of doping, and the associated risk, other than perhaps to aid recovery from an injury (which again isn't a major factor in those sports).

I think you are in a tiny minority and bereft of any semblance of evidence if you think that doping in top level gymnastics and diving is an issue and that it in any way contributed to the success of GB, Russian, Chinese and US athletes in these disciplines over the years. I find it hard to even take such a position seriously.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

There are none. And that only shows the antidoping efforts in gymnastics are anywhere between negligible and non-existent.

Take a sport like rowing and show me the major historical doping cases. None. But you dont go from there to arguing that prorowers aren't doped to the gills. Rowers were among the first to adopt blooddoping wheb it was stil legal. You gonna tell me they stopped doing it when it became illegal?

I didn't mention rowing for that reason. It is an endurance sport and the UK has been good at it for decades (unlike gymnastics and diving). To suggest that the reason people haven't been caught doping doing gymnastics, diving or tiddleywinks can only be evidence of a poor anti doping regime in those areas is not a rational argument.

It is entirely possible instead that the reason that people haven't been caught doping in those disciplines is because the advantage of doping in those areas is negligible when compared to the advantage of having intrinsic natural ability and top drawer training and facilities to master the fundamental technical aspects of those sports. To me it's fairly obvious which of those is the more credible argument.

Look at the BBC gold medal count of all time

(snapped this morning so will likely be out of date by later today ...)

Zero rowing GOLD medals from 1952 to 1984, then there is a clear acceleration in recent years
Cycling had a much longer drought 1920 to 1992, then the explosion in gold from 2008 onwards.

Athletics looks much more "normal" a pretty consistent climb through the years, some good years some bad but overall fairly consistent.

I am interested in the total medal counts for these sports in the same manner, I'll have to create those graphs myself though.

The increase for technical sports such as gymnastics and diving would be far sharper as they come from a lower base. I'm not sure such graphs tell us much about the potential for doping. For example, we could argue that the British rise follows the big road race scandals of 2007 (e.g. Petacchi, Rasmussen, Vino) when it became clear that antidoping had made a breakthrough.

What anti-doping break through? Rasmussen was caught by a journalist. Petacchi for asthmatic drugs, that most athletes now have TUEs for. Vino came back to win gold in London. What anti-doping break through?

 

[John Deathly]

Re: Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Doping is a form of cheating. So is taking competitors out purposefully.

Don't believe he took him out on purpose. In a collision like that it's highly probable that both riders would go down.

 

[Fergoose]

The one that lasted all too briefly after 2007 and saw major TdF contendors caught out in a way they hadn't done previously and hadn't done since. Would you deny that antidoping had a more effective period in 2007/08 (if we include Kohl and his Geralsteiner teammate whose name escapes me) perhaps due to a temporary breakthrough in their investigative options that has since been countered by the likes of Vino (2012) and Horner?

Personally I can't think of another period of 12-24 months when antidoping in cycling had such successes against riders so high in their classifications. No other time when, if I was a rider, I'd have been so nervous about doping. This coincided with the rise of UK cycling. Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think it is as valid an interpretation of that graph as saying that it indicates UK cyclists started doping post 2004 but that their rowers have always doped (or never doped).

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

The one that lasted all too briefly after 2007 and saw major TdF contendors caught out in a way they hadn't done previously and hadn't done since. Would you deny that antidoping had a more effective period in 2007/08 (if we include Kohl and his Geralsteiner teammate whose name escapes me) perhaps due to a temporary breakthrough in their investigative options that has since been countered by the likes of Vino (2012) and Horner?

Personally I can't think of another period of 12-24 months when antidoping in cycling had such successes against riders so high in their classifications. No other time when, if I was a rider, I'd have been so nervous about doping. This coincided with the rise of UK cycling. Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think it is as valid an interpretation of that graph as saying that it indicates UK cyclists started doping post 2004 but that their rowers have always doped (or never doped).

I wouldn't argue against 07/08 being one of antidoping's stronger periods
But I'm pretty sure all the results from 2009 argue against riders being scared
Top three from the Giro got caught
Top two from the Tour were probably at their best level ever in 2009
Rebellin won Fleche only one second slower than the record at the time
Top two from San Sebastian are biopassport cases
...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Doping is a form of cheating. So is taking competitors out purposefully.

Don't believe he took him out on purpose. In a collision like that it's highly probable that both riders would go down.

Read his comments to Dutch journalist Thijs Zonneveld and imo it leaves no doubt Cav took him out!

 

[John Deathly]

Re: Re:

Cav bodychecks his competitor into the hospital. Asked about that move by thijszonneveld Cav response is that he could sue thijs for that question.

But doping? Nah he would never.

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Doping is a form of cheating. So is taking competitors out purposefully.

Don't believe he took him out on purpose. In a collision like that it's highly probable that both riders would go down.

Read his comments to Dutch journalist Thijs Zonneveld and imo it leaves no doubt Cav took him out!

He says it was his fault. He doesn't say he did it deliberately. I get it, you want to make a point, support your prejudice, so you insert your own view as a fact and twist the actual words used to support your fact.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The one that lasted all too briefly after 2007 and saw major TdF contendors caught out in a way they hadn't done previously and hadn't done since. Would you deny that antidoping had a more effective period in 2007/08 (if we include Kohl and his Geralsteiner teammate whose name escapes me) perhaps due to a temporary breakthrough in their investigative options that has since been countered by the likes of Vino (2012) and Horner?

Personally I can't think of another period of 12-24 months when antidoping in cycling had such successes against riders so high in their classifications. No other time when, if I was a rider, I'd have been so nervous about doping. This coincided with the rise of UK cycling. Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think it is as valid an interpretation of that graph as saying that it indicates UK cyclists started doping post 2004 but that their rowers have always doped (or never doped).

If you look at the wiki list of doping cases in cycling it seems pretty much par to other years. The 2000s were catching a lot of riders. Early 90s not so many. Wonder did the 2000s positives have something to with collecting 'donations'?

i think their rowers have always doped since they got the East German coaches from 1989 on....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

His move last night has nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be mentioned in this forum.

Doping is a form of cheating. So is taking competitors out purposefully.

Don't believe he took him out on purpose. In a collision like that it's highly probable that both riders would go down.

Read his comments to Dutch journalist Thijs Zonneveld and imo it leaves no doubt Cav took him out!

He says it was his fault. He doesn't say he did it deliberately. I get it, <snipped personal insults>.

Why threaten a journalist?

I have watched the video, he looks at the Korean twice and even if he was looking past the Korean to see where Viviani was he saw the Korean in his line of vision, twice.

I don't take Cavendish at his word.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I wouldn't argue against 07/08 being one of antidoping's stronger periods
But I'm pretty sure all the results from 2009 argue against riders being scared
Top three from the Giro got caught
Top two from the Tour were probably at their best level ever in 2009
Rebellin won Fleche only one second slower than the record at the time
Top two from San Sebastian are biopassport cases
...

this.

If 'being scared' is at all a relevant criterion in procycling, then procyclists w/should have stopped doping after the Festina affair. Then again after Puerto. And again after the USADA file on Lance. But the opposite is true.

Look Fergoose, there are plenty of people who are indeed scared of doping. I'm talking millions of people.
It's just that those aren't the ones who 'make the grade' (to use Wiggins vocabulary) into procycling.