Brits don't dope?

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

[quote="El Pistolero

You're kidding, right? Track cycling is a huge dopefest. Some of the track cyclists look like this:

[/quote]

Why does everything have to be about drugs? Do you have any idea the kind of funding these animals recieve nowadays? Everything is scientific. Talent is picked up and nurtured from an early age. Food is weighed, no more preserved grass in the winter. They go to altitude camp with the sheep, etc... etc...

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

[quote="El Pistolero

You're kidding, right? Track cycling is a huge dopefest. Some of the track cyclists look like this:

Why does everything have to be about drugs? Do you have any idea the kind of funding these animals recieve nowadays? Everything is scientific. Talent is picked up and nurtured from an early age. Food is weighed, no more preserved grass in the winter. They go to altitude camp with the sheep, etc... etc...

The animals are given feed with steroids in order to increase their size and hence market value. The reality is none of us know the content we are eating.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

Stating that British people are deluded is in my opinion a poor representation of a country you obviously do not know a lot about. Colonial hangover is more in my political circles colonial disquiet with our not so illustrious past. However i will apologise for what we did over the centuries despite me being born well after the end of empire

What nation has a more illustrious past than The British one? On the contrary, be proud of the empire and your colonial past. You ruled the world, such as it was, and in such a way as was natural for the British - for a time. It was certainly more illustrious than the cultural death/suicide going on today. In fact, I have a feeling that it is precicely this (often times forced or at least fake) disdain of the past that is one of the driving forces behind things like the current sporting wonder. That and a certain feeling of exeptionalism.

 

[Andy262]

In addition to the injection of Government funding for athletes I think people underestimate the scale of change of opportunity Kids in the UK now have to engage with sport from an early age.

When I was growing up in the 80s unless you really sought it out, there was next to no organised sport for kids. I went to a grammar school, where you might expect some emphasis on sport but sport was a negligible element of school life. We had tennis courts but nobody was encouraged to use them etc. In our spare time we played outside in an unsupervised and unorganised way. Sport was essentially playing footy.

I contrast this with what I see now of my family and friends kids. They go from one organised after school or weekend activity to another, gymnastics, rowing, football, rugby, gym training - it's a constant cycle. This is a complete sea change in the last 40 years, at least for middle class kids, much of it driven by a sense from the media that the outside world is too dangerous a place to let your kids roam unsupervised. However, I suspect this is laying the foundations of the success we see now.

It's no surprise that middle class sports like rowing and sailing are contributing so highly to the medal haul. Rowing is increasingly the middle class (public school) sport of choice, and the numbers of kids engaging in it will be exponentially higher than 40 years ago. Track cycling, perhaps slightly different, but there has been an explosion of interest in cycling in the UK, you only have to see the crowds at ToB and le Tour in Yorkshire to get that.

You have to factor the peculiar cultural development of Britain into any assessment of performance. And whilst I'm not saying everyone is clean, I find it very hard to take any claim of organised doping seriously. The culture of Britain is that someone would spill the beans. But they haven't have they?

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

[quote="El Pistolero

You're kidding, right? Track cycling is a huge dopefest. Some of the track cyclists look like this:

Why does everything have to be about drugs? Do you have any idea the kind of funding these animals recieve nowadays? Everything is scientific. Talent is picked up and nurtured from an early age. Food is weighed, no more preserved grass in the winter. They go to altitude camp with the sheep, etc... etc...

The animals are given feed with steroids in order to increase their size and hence market value. The reality is none of us know the content we are eating.

I take it you have never spent time with any of the top-caliber cows? I wish more people knew about the hard work and sacrifices these animals make. Often times it is the only way out of powerty and rigid social structures. And then uninformed people like you come along and accuses them of using drugs? It makes me mad.

Sure, there have been some drug use among cows on the continent. Sure, some of those cows are now coaching our British calflings, but rest assured that the British way of doing things have opened their eyes and they now believe in training and even more training. No more lying around popping pills all day.

 

[The Hitch]

Someone care to explain where the idea that doping wouldn't help in track cycling comes from?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

[quote="El Pistolero

You're kidding, right? Track cycling is a huge dopefest. Some of the track cyclists look like this:

Why does everything have to be about drugs? Do you have any idea the kind of funding these animals recieve nowadays? Everything is scientific. Talent is picked up and nurtured from an early age. Food is weighed, no more preserved grass in the winter. They go to altitude camp with the sheep, etc... etc...

The animals are given feed with steroids in order to increase their size and hence market value. The reality is none of us know the content we are eating.

So you don't recognise a herd sire?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Obvious state sponsored doping

'nuff said

Actually looking at 2012, team GB under performed. 541 athletes compared with 313 in Beijing - basic extrapolation means they should have got 33 Golds. The big increase in 2000 was after lottery money kicked in (1997). The blip is 2004 (although the total number is better) - not sure why, we'd need to look further at what sports the medals were won in.

So, I don't think its state sponsored doping - its state sponsored funding (in this case lottery).

That's incorrect thinking. At home events, nations present athletes/teams for all events (don't need minimums), so there's many there that have absolutely no chance. Basic extrapolation makes no sense in that case.

Ok, that may be the case re: flooding the entrants. But I bet the majority of the £ went to the sports that could win (like cycling, rowing, etc.) thus improving the medal take.

I think people really under estimate the funding area. 20-30 years ago if you were a top athlete (I use the word across all sports here) you were not funded, or if you were it was pennies. You had to rely on sponsorship. Now we have lottery and government funding for top athletes (in certain sports). This allows them to basically be full time athletes - add in sponsorship as well and it adds up as a fairly good earner. For an athlete to be able to be full time is a huge difference - instead of training around and 8 hour job, they can spend that 8 hours training.

[/quote]

Maybe. But you underestimate the doping area to a far far greater extent.

No one here is saying funding has 0 impact on team GB's success. Pretty much everyone has conceded that it can help.

But you guys are very much saying that doping has 0 impact on team GB's success. Even if 90% of Team GB's success is attributable to funding and 0% to doping, then they ARE doping and we are still right and you guys are wrong.

 

[domination]

Re: Re:

Obvious state sponsored doping

'nuff said

Actually looking at 2012, team GB under performed. 541 athletes compared with 313 in Beijing - basic extrapolation means they should have got 33 Golds. The big increase in 2000 was after lottery money kicked in (1997). The blip is 2004 (although the total number is better) - not sure why, we'd need to look further at what sports the medals were won in.

So, I don't think its state sponsored doping - its state sponsored funding (in this case lottery).

That's incorrect thinking. At home events, nations present athletes/teams for all events (don't need minimums), so there's many there that have absolutely no chance. Basic extrapolation makes no sense in that case.

Ok, that may be the case re: flooding the entrants. But I bet the majority of the £ went to the sports that could win (like cycling, rowing, etc.) thus improving the medal take.

I think people really under estimate the funding area. 20-30 years ago if you were a top athlete (I use the word across all sports here) you were not funded, or if you were it was pennies. You had to rely on sponsorship. Now we have lottery and government funding for top athletes (in certain sports). This allows them to basically be full time athletes - add in sponsorship as well and it adds up as a fairly good earner. For an athlete to be able to be full time is a huge difference - instead of training around and 8 hour job, they can spend that 8 hours training.

Maybe. But you underestimate the doping area to a far far greater extent.

No one here is saying funding has 0 impact on team GB's success. Pretty much everyone has conceded that it can help.

But you guys are very much saying that doping has 0 impact on team GB's success. Even if 90% of Team GB's success is attributable to funding and 0% to doping, then they ARE doping and we are still right and you guys are wrong.[/quote]

It's just shouting in a vacuum here. It doesn't matter how much the evidence piles up for GB success being down to non-doping methods, the usual suspects on here will still cry doping because that's how non-British countries had success in the past.

The linear progression in medals won since 1996 is the most clear and obvious indicator that success has been due to progressively higher funding and improved infrastructure across the board.

Doping would give exponential growth and that simply hasn't happened.

But I totally get that British success sticks in the throats of Anglophobes.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

 

[buckle]

Re:

Haha.

Martin?

Taking up Martin Vickers' point. There has been an exponential (not linear) collapse in German sporting performance following the abrupt closure of East German doping centres. Many of whose staff gained employment in the West. Germans turn a blind eye to football where drugs remain a problem but it's interesting that both Klopp and Guardiola are working in England as are Heiko Salzwedel and Groebler.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

In addition to the injection of Government funding for athletes I think people underestimate the scale of change of opportunity Kids in the UK now have to engage with sport from an early age.

When I was growing up in the 80s unless you really sought it out, there was next to no organised sport for kids. I went to a grammar school, where you might expect some emphasis on sport but sport was a negligible element of school life. We had tennis courts but nobody was encouraged to use them etc. In our spare time we played outside in an unsupervised and unorganised way. Sport was essentially playing footy.

I contrast this with what I see now of my family and friends kids. They go from one organised after school or weekend activity to another, gymnastics, rowing, football, rugby, gym training - it's a constant cycle. This is a complete sea change in the last 40 years, at least for middle class kids, much of it driven by a sense from the media that the outside world is too dangerous a place to let your kids roam unsupervised. However, I suspect this is laying the foundations of the success we see now.

It's no surprise that middle class sports like rowing and sailing are contributing so highly to the medal haul. Rowing is increasingly the middle class (public school) sport of choice, and the numbers of kids engaging in it will be exponentially higher than 40 years ago. Track cycling, perhaps slightly different, but there has been an explosion of interest in cycling in the UK, you only have to see the crowds at ToB and le Tour in Yorkshire to get that.

You have to factor the peculiar cultural development of Britain into any assessment of performance. And whilst I'm not saying everyone is clean, I find it very hard to take any claim of organised doping seriously. The culture of Britain is that someone would spill the beans. But they haven't have they?

Have you read about the treatment of whistleblowers? Please do and stop posting this type of British people have more morality! This myth has been debunked a long long time ago.

 

[Benotti69]

[quote="

I shall. And I'm sure you'll stick to posting 2,500 posts a year without ever giving a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Meanwhile Team GB take yet another gold; this time in hockey, clearly PED fuelled once again. Nothing to do with central funding at all, obviously.

If only.

I have posted plenyy of evidence. Those wearing union jacks across their eyes discount it. Just like Muir cries about certain athletes in her race being doped while ignoring team mates using the same doping coaches. Selective criticism.

Jolly hockey sticks what what!! Of course PEDs would hardly help running around chasing a hockey ball. Pleas edont post absurdities.

 

[domination]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

 

[Farcanal]

Reward payments by countries for their athletes winning gold:
Singapore: $745,264 one-off payment
Moldova: $132,000 one-off payment
Romania: $79,000 + monthly income for life
Malaysia: Cash bonus + $1,200 monthly payment for life
France: $55,000 one-off payment
Indonesia: $18,000-a-year "retirement plan"
Nigeria: $2,000 one-off payment
USA $25,000 for gold, $15,000 silver and $10,000 bronze.

No incentives to cheat there then.

UK gives no rewards for winning (unless you count the honours list)

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

+1

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

When I first came across the clinic, I tried to argue against the sceptics, especially as it went against all my beliefs at that point. But slowly, I began to realise that the sceptics' arguments were simply more logical than my own, and started agreeing with them.

Some posters here do go OTT on doping and their scepticism, but you certainly get more logical arguments here than you do in the extremely biased media

 

[PremierAndrew]

Regarding the Olympic medal table, yes GB have done a lot better than expected, but China have seriously underperformed too, and this should be taken into account

 

[Fergoose]

Results from the past 24hrs at the Olympics showing surprising success in women's hockey for the UK (presumably this then must be the new frontier for doping to some in this forum?) and confirmation of a massive decline in athletic sprints for the UK men (therefore the cleanest of all sporting disciplines?). Men's 4x100 relay not making the final due to a lack of speed (rather than dropping the baton) must be unprecedented in the modern athletics era. Possibly unprecedented post-war.

Can anyone who thinks UK medal success is a result of the expansion of doping regimes into dozens of different events and disciplines please offer a hypothetical explanation for the current sorry state of UK sprinting?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I find the implications in your post an issue, as they only serve to perpetuate the us vs. them dynamic. Firstly, the implication that because many believe doping is involved in the British rise to overachieving sports prominence, that they believe it is the only factor and therefore every single British success would be greeted with sneering and cries of doping. And secondly, the implication that because a particular section of British sport has not done that well, that aspect is therefore clean, and this therefore produces a case against other parts of British sport being dirty. Also, I would say that while some of the sneering and snarling done in the Clinic is counterproductive and sometimes, yes, bitter, there have also been a great number of posts that are either gloating or poking the bear, which has only served to perpetuate or catalyze the anti-British sentiment that many defenders of the British team decry. I also remember that you had to back down from your position five years ago where you were apoplectic about Cobo but took a lot of convincing to apply the same cynical eye to Chris Froome.

Doping on its own won't make you a worldbeater, certainly not unless you go full Mühlegg. What's to say the sprinters aren't doing exactly the same as the other athletes, whether clean or dirty, but due to differences in coaching style it's not clicked, or they have the wrong people in the wrong place, or they just don't have the talents to compete against the world's elite in that discipline, or for that reason more funding and attention has been paid to disciplines where they do? The British sprint teams having a down period doesn't necessarily make them any cleaner than the teams that are beating them, nor does it automatically make those who beat them dirty, and the British sprint team having a disappointing Olympics certainly doesn't say anything about the chances of fairness from athletes in completely different sports. It depends on what those various sporting authorities spent the funding money on.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Reward payments by countries for their athletes winning gold:
Singapore: $745,264 one-off payment
Moldova: $132,000 one-off payment
Romania: $79,000 + monthly income for life
Malaysia: Cash bonus + $1,200 monthly payment for life
France: $55,000 one-off payment
Indonesia: $18,000-a-year "retirement plan"
Nigeria: $2,000 one-off payment
USA $25,000 for gold, $15,000 silver and $10,000 bronze.

No incentives to cheat there then.

UK gives no rewards for winning (unless you count the honours list)

Source?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

No.

Have you ever seen (or read) Shutter Island? Its a film about a guy who's so upset with the real world he keeps reinventing new identities for himself and creating an alternative reality that will make him sleep better at night.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

When I first came across the clinic, I tried to argue against the sceptics, especially as it went against all my beliefs at that point. But slowly, I began to realise that the sceptics' arguments were simply more logical than my own, and started agreeing with them.

Some posters here do go OTT on doping and their scepticism, but you certainly get more logical arguments here than you do in the extremely biased media

At the end of the day, the people that actually worked in doping - Ferrari, Conte, Herredia, Lienders, Fuentes, are all on record talking about how easy it is to pass tests.

Occasionally people working in anti doping - Ashenden, say the same thing. They are shut out (or at least no publication gives them the time of day).

People who've studied the subject like Ross, like that professor in Texas and that scandanavian professor who during the winter olympics said 40% of athletes dope, all make similar arguments.

The other side on the other hand, merely talks in vague terms about anti doping getting better (even though someone recently said these games have the worst anti doping games ever) They dismiss skepticism as coming from a few internet non experts (even though all of the above clearly have some expertise). They pimp "hard work" as if dopers were incapable of working hard, and continue to give support and accept people like Indurain, Carl Lewis who clearly have massive questions around them.

One could go on, but its very clear which side is right and which side is wrong.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

Haha.

Martin?

He's right, it's definitely a vacuum. I have never seen anyone's opinion changed by another's posts and I see this continues.

Actually, the a large number of clinic posters including myself came into the clinic thinking doping was just something the occasional Russian did and have little by little come to realize just how fraudulent and corrupt elite sport is

Ever seen Loose Change? It had me believing 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen documentaries on the faking of the moon landings that seem convincing. All baloney of course, but persuasive nonetheless.

It's fairly easy to provide apparent supporting evidence/proof to countenance a claim and have folk believing your theories. Especially when you're on a forum of like minded individuals who don't need to be convinced, but lap up every morsel sent their way that supports their world view.

History repeatedly tells us that many athletes cheat to win and make lots of money. People with a vested financial interest in sport tell us this no longer goes on (because they say so). We disagree. Hardly '9/11', 'area 51' levels of conspiracy theory is it?