Brits don't dope?

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought Carl Lewis came out and admitted his doping and USAC giving him a free pass in 1988 after 3 failed tests!

 

[buckle]

Re:

mi

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?

By this logic only total victory in all races and in all disciplines will convince a believer that something untoward might be taking place. Even the East Germans couldn't manage that so presumably they won all the rest clean?

 

[BullsFan22]

Lewis never, at least publicly, admitted to doping. The closest he ever came was when he said 'so what if doped/used drugs...' That was after the reports came out that the USOC had swept aside hundreds of doping positives, including Lewis.

 

[Benotti69]

For those who keep asking why no one is blowing the whistle on teamGB/Sky

https://ewanmackenna.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/whistle-while-they-work/

a good article from Ewan MacKenna..

 

[Benotti69]

Lewis never, at least publicly, admitted to doping. The closest he ever came was when he said 'so what if doped/used drugs...' That was after the reports came out that the USOC had swept aside hundreds of doping positives, including Lewis.

Ta for the clarification.

It really is long overdue that some USA journalist exposes Lewis.

 

[The Hitch]

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

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.

I thought Carl Lewis came out and admitted his doping and USAC giving him a free pass in 1988 after 3 failed tests!

You wouldn't know it when the BBC introduced him as the greatest olympian ever, and practically bowed down to kiss his hand, a couple of days after crying at the injustice of Justin Gatlin winning a medal

 

[Farcanal]

Re: 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?

Well it's BBC so I've no doubt it's regarded as pure propaganda, but I'm sure a bit more digging would reveal the original source. Don't seem to be able to paste the links here at the moment but I will when next on a desktop.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought Carl Lewis came out and admitted his doping and USAC giving him a free pass in 1988 after 3 failed tests!

You wouldn't know it when the BBC introduced him as the greatest olympian ever, and practically bowed down to kiss his hand, a couple of days after crying at the injustice of Justin Gatlin winning a medal

BBC really has this year shown its true colours of non impartiality.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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?

you guys are so unoriginal. No offense, but I think if we (those of us who say doping might actually exist) had to make up arguments, we would be far more creative about it.


1 month ago- Froome wins 10 seconds on a descent. Troll reaction - OMG these 10 seconds prove Froome and everyone at team Sky is and has always been clean!!!!!

This month, GB finally win a medal in an event where doping might not be that important after destroying several other sports that are all about physiology - OMG this 1 medal proves every medal ever won by Team GB was clean!!!!

 

[JetSet]

Re: k at it,

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?)

Surprising indeed, they were completely outplayed by a far superior team, a bit like the Instanbul miracle.

Pete

 

[Chairman Mao]

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Some or everyone?

We know that Russia had a state run program. Why does British sports not get the nod rom Government backed bodies to do the necessary? Many western countries, never mind the Chinese, Russian, North Korean etc pour money into their sports, what was the difference for he British team.

When it comes down to the difference between 1st and 4th is tiny, it cant be done cleanly.

Plenty of evidence that his Olympics has been a debacle as far as anti doping goes.

 

[BullsFan22]

Lottery, lottery....read all about it...lottery!!


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/olympics-2016/national-lottery-scheme-needed-to-boost-australias-olympic-funding-before-tokyo-2020/news-story/4dd57a5bcac26701103b65b2681f9ee1

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/brutal-reality-lottery-funding-can-11770198

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rio-olympics/rio-olympics-brits-beat-aussies-in-funding-lottery/news-story/95b327db4c5e8e2420ca8ebaef2505dd?nk=68e96825f494c03b6208c7d22375277c-1471721301


If I were an Australian OC member, one of the big dogs in Australian Olympic Committee, I would send in a couple 'spies' to see what the ol' Brits are doing with their lottery funding. Once they get back to Australia, they can 'leak' out the information and give tips for everyone looking to improve their 'programs.'

 

[Lyon]

Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

"Financial doping". Now there's a phrase that can bring an old Norwegian back to his younger days. That was the exact same words being thrown around in the Norwegian press before and after the olympics at Lillehammer - to explain how the clean Norwegians could beat the dirty Italians. Of course, it is still a plausible explanation for improvement, just like marginal gains is, but not for domination.

 

[buckle]

Re:

For those who keep asking why no one is blowing the whistle on teamGB/Sky

https://ewanmackenna.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/whistle-while-they-work/

a good article from Ewan MacKenna..

The frightening part is Tygart landing a big fish just to enhance his career. The anti-doping agencies are now part of the problem. Western Civilization has a major problem, I'm afraid.

 

[gunara]

Re: 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?

For Indonesia, the number is pretty far off. It's a one-off 5 billion Rupiahs or about a USD 384k plus an undisclosed number of monthly lifetime payment. The '5 billion' thing is mentioned everyday in every local media.

 

[domination]

Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Exactly. We've gone from a situation where Olympic participants were amateur, doing a 9 to 5 job with no funding, to one where they get 30 to 40 grand to do their sport exclusively, whilst doing it within a massively enhanced infrastructure.

It's financial doping for sure.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Exactly. We've gone from a situation where Olympic participants were amateur, doing a 9 to 5 job with no funding, to one where they get 30 to 40 grand to do their sport exclusively, whilst doing it within a massively enhanced infrastructure.

It's financial doping for sure.

Yeah so now the Brits are pros and the rest are still 9-5 ers!!!

Of course it is like this.

The track cyclists all have to work overtime to afford to get to Rio while those British athletes can train all day on lottery funding.

Financial doping..hahahahahahahahahahahaha....... :lol:

 

[domination]

Re: Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Exactly. We've gone from a situation where Olympic participants were amateur, doing a 9 to 5 job with no funding, to one where they get 30 to 40 grand to do their sport exclusively, whilst doing it within a massively enhanced infrastructure.

It's financial doping for sure.

Yeah so now the Brits are pros and the rest are still 9-5 ers!!!

Of course it is like this.

The track cyclists all have to work overtime to afford to get to Rio while those British athletes can train all day on lottery funding.

Financial doping..hahahahahahahahahahahaha....... :lol:

Meanwhile the Russian state sponsored actual doping programme has had athletes picked up regularly as positive over the last decade. Whilst the UK has had how many?

Still doesn't fit your narrative does it?

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Exactly. We've gone from a situation where Olympic participants were amateur, doing a 9 to 5 job with no funding, to one where they get 30 to 40 grand to do their sport exclusively, whilst doing it within a massively enhanced infrastructure.

It's financial doping for sure.

Yeah so now the Brits are pros and the rest are still 9-5 ers!!!

Of course it is like this.

The track cyclists all have to work overtime to afford to get to Rio while those British athletes can train all day on lottery funding.

Financial doping..hahahahahahahahahahahaha....... :lol:

Meanwhile the Russian state sponsored actual doping programme has had athletes picked up regularly as positive over the last decade. Whilst the UK has had how many?

Still doesn't fit your narrative does it?

A quick look at the UKAD website shows that in the last 6 years the Brits have had 11 violations in Athletics alone. With "holidays/illnesses" ranging from 4 months to 4 years.

 

[70kmph]

When Brits miss doping controls its a oops pardon me, we'll ignore that
When a Brits crash in the TdF its automatic time bonus, they give you extra time
If a Britain crashes out other riders during a track race, you are a hero

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Sure, some Brits dope, as everyone does but to suggest the British rise is down to a state sponsorship sponsored doping programme is laughable. Financial doping more like.

Exactly. We've gone from a situation where Olympic participants were amateur, doing a 9 to 5 job with no funding, to one where they get 30 to 40 grand to do their sport exclusively, whilst doing it within a massively enhanced infrastructure.

It's financial doping for sure.

Yeah so now the Brits are pros and the rest are still 9-5 ers!!!

Of course it is like this.

The track cyclists all have to work overtime to afford to get to Rio while those British athletes can train all day on lottery funding.

Financial doping..hahahahahahahahahahahaha....... :lol:

Meanwhile the Russian state sponsored actual doping programme has had athletes picked up regularly as positive over the last decade. Whilst the UK has had how many?

Still doesn't fit your narrative does it?

Rugby gets pinged the most in order to keep the stats up. Mainly guys from the little leagues.

 

[The Hegelian]

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.

You have things precisely the wrong way around. The knowledge of doping in cycling is substantial, empirically grounded and unambiguous. One does not have to rely on some loopy tin-foil-hat conspiracy to assert that knowledge - because it all came out in the open with things like the Festina affair, Armstrong confession, confession by other riders such as Riis, Hamilton, etc. What all of those true and adequate knowledge acts showed - absolutely unambiguously - was that there was indeed a conspiracy (of sorts - I would rather use the term 'confluence of vested self-interests') to hide, dilute, repress, silence the fact that doping in cycling was absolutely rife.

Which part of this knowledge do you not have?

And then the bit where there is some room for debate: how much have things changed or not changed?

It is absolutely plausible and rational to argue that things have not changed - and I think, quite a difficult task to argue that they have. You sir, have the epistemic burden not us.

 

[wirral]

Every day I click on the BBC website for the world news headlines. Then I click on 'UK' for the leading British news stories. Yesterday, it was UK wins first ever hockey gold.

How often do the BBC report on hockey outside of the sports news?
How often do the BBC report on hockey in the sports news?

It has just become silly, one-dimensional (medal count, medal count), unthinking and the worst aspect is the taboos it imposes on any other viewpoint.

It reminds me of a conversation I had at work over recruitment.
Some relatively low level jobs stipulated a degree was necessary and applicants without a degree were immediately filtered out whilst those with a degree were forwarded for consideration for interview. I pointed out that many degrees in the country I live in are very low standard indeed (lower than you could imagine) and that relevant experience and specific skills should be considered. In addition, short skills tests could be used at interview to filter out "clueless degree-holders" and assist in judging which candidates were suitable. However the HR Manager was stuck in a simplistic mindset that a degree was required and all degrees were equal. Rather like gold medal = good, no gold medal = fail.

 

[buckle]

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.

It's a bit strange how the "let's throw a huge amount of money at it solution" seems to have had the opposite effect in football. I wonder why it doesn't work there. England have the most expensive manager and support staff, Wembley, St Georges Park, basically the best of everything. Result: embarrassed by Iceland

I suspect that Roy Hodgson did not dope the players for this tournament whilst the Icelanders were juiced. I make this point from a practical point of view in this heavily politicized discussion. That game demonstrated the practical effect drugs can have on sporting performance. If I am right then this is frightening because, at times, Iceland outplayed England. Something that I regard as close to an impossibility.

There are all sorts of complex answers as to the whys and wherefores of England's policy under Roy (there might even have been a moral dimension to this on his part). What we do know (getting all political again) is that he will not be receiving a knighthood later this year at Buckingham palace.

Conclusion: there are times when the Brits don't dope. Iceland 2 England 1 may well be an example.