Chris Hoy - hard work and dreaming big

[The Hitch]

The charge sheet so far against Hoy reads,

1. He works hard
2. He has never failed a test.
3. He has a coach

Surely someone can come up with more than this to pin down this evil fiend.

Which funnily enough is more than most of the cyclists who in the last 2 or 3 years were outed as having doped in the 2000's.


Anyway you seem to me to be new to this doping thing.

I think reading and watching a little bit on the history of doping and how it works could help you in future discussions in the clinic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WF2T6i2E1U

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Which funnily enough is more than most of the cyclists who in the last 2 or 3 years were outed as having doped in the 2000's.


Anyway you seem to me to be new to this doping thing.

I think reading and watching a little bit on the history of doping and how it works could help you in future discussions in the clinic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WF2T6i2E1U

So why is there a thread about Chris Hoy when the charges against him could be applied to any successful athlete in the entire history of sport? There isn't one thing on this thread which relates specifically to Hoy, not a single point which couldn't be applied to anyone whether they were clean or otherwise. It's just a general discussion of doping which has been had on here hundreds of times before. None of us know whether Hoy doped or not, I have never claimed he competed clean. The only conclusion anyone can make from it is that the thread is personal.

 

[The Hitch]

Got it. What we're doing here is listing sportspeople from another era, even another sport, where testing was poorer than it is today, and use it as evidence that a cyclist who's never tested positive under much striker doping controls must have been on the juice.
That's a very Clinic way of thinking.

Testing was more beatable in the 80's than 2000's?

Umm how comes then in 1988 the doper who won the olympic gold actually got caught? In 2004 a doper also won the 100m, only the super advanced super testing of the 2000's was so good, he didn't even get caught by it

That was also the year Chris Hoy won his first olympic gold medal, so we know that at least one of his gold medal wins, on the contrary to what you say, came at a point when testing was a joke, especially at the olympics. That was also the year Hamilton EKi And Jullich rounded out the podium in the cycling time trial, and guess what, all beat the test. Armstrong won his 6th Tour, Cunego won the Giro and basically admitted he was doping, Heras won the Vuelta. None of those guys got caught, yet all later it turned out had doped to win those things so I think the - testing was better for Hoy argument goes straight out of the window.

Hoy's first olympic medal was in 2000. That year Armstrong won his 2nd Tour and got in on the olympic medals too. I'm not even going to go into the cycling champions that year because we all know they were all tainted, but as far as the olympics go, Marian Jones made a mockery of athletics and the men's edition was won by Maurice Greene was also implicated in Balco. Later investigations into doping at the Sydney games suggested a very significant % of athletes were doping, enough that had it been revealed during the games they might have had to be abandoned.


I'm really not feeling the more efficient testing from 1988 to Hoy's career.

 

[The Hitch]

So why is there a thread about Chris Hoy when the charges against him could be applied to any successful athlete in the entire history of sport? There isn't one thing on this thread which relates specifically to Hoy, not a single point which couldn't be applied to anyone whether they were clean or otherwise. It's just a general discussion of doping which has been had on here hundreds of times before. None of us know whether Hoy doped or not, I have never claimed he competed clean. The only conclusion anyone can make from it is that the thread is personal.

He's a 6 time olympic gold medalist in a sport an era which people with significant experience and knowledge of doping suggest in the strongest possible terms it was impossible to even win 1 olympic gold without heavy doping.

I think that makes him quite unique or at least on a very special list. The things that are applied to him cannot simply be applied to loads of athletes like you suggest because there are very few multi olympic champions and even fewer 6 time olympic champions from the doping era.

You are welcome to start a thread on Usain Bolt or Alisson Felix or Michael Phelps, though, if you want. I certainly wont stand in your way.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

He's a 6 time olympic gold medalist in a sport an era which people with significant experience and knowledge of doping suggest in the strongest possible terms it was impossible to even win 1 olympic gold without heavy doping.

I think that makes him quite unique or at least on a very special list. The things that are applied to him cannot simply be applied to loads of athletes like you suggest because there are very few multi olympic champions and even fewer 6 time olympic champions from the doping era.

You are welcome to start a thread on Usain Bolt or Alisson Felix or Michael Phelps, though, if you want. I certainly wont stand in your way.

I'm not sure if you are being serious or not when you put Hoy on a pedestal alongside Bolt and Phelps. Made me laugh anyway.

 

[Benotti69]

Hoy, in a speech to school children, told them of the value of hard work. What more proof do you need that he was a doper?

you have convinced me as that other bastion of clean cycling Danilo Di Luca told school children, accompanied by a priest, that he would not dope ever again! So halleluyah, Hoy told children about hard work so he is CLEANS I TELL YA, CLEANS!!!!

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

you have convinced me as that other bastion of clean cycling Danilo Di Luca told school children, accompanied by a priest, that he would not dope ever again! So halleluyah, Hoy told children about hard work so he is CLEANS I TELL YA, CLEANS!!!!

I never said it was proof of him being clean. I was disagreeing with the assertion that it is proof of him being dirty. Clearly given your posting history though I have to excuse you on the basis that you struggle to understand even the simplest things.

 

[Benotti69]

I never said it was proof of him being clean. I was disagreeing with the assertion that it is proof of him being dirty. Clearly given your posting history though I have to excuse you on the basis that you struggle to understand even the simplest things.

Of course it was not proof, but then why post it. Sports stars constanly do things to sell their image, myth and brand. That you posted Hoy talked to children as evidence of Hoy being a 'good' person and therefore less likely to dope. Well i put your little attempt to bed. Sorry but getting personal is another straw that breaks the man. FAIL.

By the way do you paint the kerb stones outside your abode, red, white and blue

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Of course it was not proof, but then why post it. Sports stars constanly do things to sell their image, myth and brand. That you posted Hoy talked to children as evidence of Hoy being a 'good' person and therefore less likely to dope. Well i put your little attempt to bed. Sorry but getting personal is another straw that breaks the man. FAIL.

By the way do you paint the kerb stones outside your abode, red, white and blue

I never actually said any of that about Hoy, all of it is stuff you made up to make yourself feel better. Anyway, on to the ignore list you go.

 

[oldcrank]

I would like to join the rest of the world's
cycling community in congratulating Sarra
and Chris on the birth of wee Callum David
Robert Hoy and praying for good health for
the tiny lad and his Mother.

 

[ebandit]

6 time olympic champion during the 2000's should on its own be enough for most people with any braincells whatsoever to have serious doubts. That's before considering that the sport is cycling, that he kept winning olympic golds into his late 30's and that his trainers were the current Sky lot.

Bradley Wiggins was three time Olympic champion in the 2000s........funny that........must have been doping because he was a multi-Gold Olympic champion in the 2000s..........but the doping mysteriously stopped working when he got on a road bike in the 2000s

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Bradley Wiggins was three time Olympic champion in the 2000s........funny that........must have been doping because he was a multi-Gold Olympic champion in the 2000s..........but the doping mysteriously stopped working when he got on a road bike in the 2000s

Mark L

Sir Chris Hoy should have converted to the road and won the tour the france to make his career seem more credible.

 

[ebandit]

Pointless sarcastic false-hypothetical comment aimed at deflection.............you don't tend to think things through so no surprise


Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Pointless sarcastic false-hypothetical comment aimed at deflection.............you don't tend to think things through so no surprise


Mark L

Deflecting from what? You have no argument as usual.

Wiggins and Hoy, both dopers in my book. Wiggins is a bit more obvious but anyone who dominates a sport is almost certainly a doper in my book.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Bradley Wiggins was three time Olympic champion in the 2000s........funny that........must have been doping because he was a multi-Gold Olympic champion in the 2000s..........but the doping mysteriously stopped working when he got on a road bike in the 2000s

Mark L

Yes, TT'er to Grand Tour climber transformations occur all the time too. In fact, why isn't Tony Martin top-5 in a grand tour? He must not work hard and make sacrifices.

 

[ebandit]

Deflecting from what? You have no argument as usual.

Wiggins and Hoy, both dopers in my book. Wiggins is a bit more obvious but anyone who dominates a sport is almost certainly a doper in my book.

There is an argument but you aren't clever enough to see it.......let me spell it out for you as simply as I can.......multi Olympic golds in the 2000s are being cited (sorry for the difficult word) as evidence of doping......therefore by that logic Wiggins was doping to win his 3 Olympic golds in 2004-08........still with me?.....and yet......during those very same years he was having NO success on the roads.........certainly in comparison to 2009-12........so either the doping only worked when riding on wooden boards....or........shock horror......he wasn't doping.........if he was doping for those 2004-08 golds then what accounts for the sudden leap in performance in 2009???......... Can't be dope because he was already doping following Hitch logic......there........that is probably about three or four logical steps too many for you to manage so doubtless you'll come back with something typically fatuous

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

There is an argument but you aren't clever enough to see it.......let me spell it out for you as simply as I can.......multi Olympic golds in the 2000s are being cited (sorry for the difficult word) as evidence of doping......therefore by that logic Wiggins was doping to win his 3 Olympic golds in 2004-08........still with me?.....and yet......during those very same years he was having NO success on the roads.........certainly in comparison to 2009-12........so either the doping only worked when riding on wooden boards....or........shock horror......he wasn't doping.........if he was doping for those 2004-08 golds then what accounts for the sudden leap in performance in 2009???......... Can't be dope because he was already doping following Hitch logic......there........that is probably about three or four logical steps too many for you to manage so doubtless you'll come back with something typically fatuous

Mark L

So in your opinion Armstrong's leap in performance after his cancer wasn't because of doping since he already doped before that?

Or do you think it's possible to do better by doping better?

 

[the sceptic]

There is an argument but you aren't clever enough to see it.......let me spell it out for you as simply as I can.......multi Olympic golds in the 2000s are being cited (sorry for the difficult word) as evidence of doping......therefore by that logic Wiggins was doping to win his 3 Olympic golds in 2004-08........still with me?.....and yet......during those very same years he was having NO success on the roads.........certainly in comparison to 2009-12........so either the doping only worked when riding on wooden boards....or........shock horror......he wasn't doping.........if he was doping for those 2004-08 golds then what accounts for the sudden leap in performance in 2009???......... Can't be dope because he was already doping following Hitch logic......there........that is probably about three or four logical steps too many for you to manage so doubtless you'll come back with something typically fatuous

Mark L

Thanks for spelling it out for me Mark.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that riding around in circles for a couple of minutes is vastly different to climbing mountains in the tour.

Thus, different discipline, different doping program. Just because someone sucks at getting over mountains doesnt mean they are cleans. There are many sprinters/lead out men that are doping too.

Sorry to break it to you, but brits dope too. No matter how badly you want them to be clean.

 

[ebandit]

So in your opinion Armstrong's leap in performance after his cancer wasn't because of doping since he already doped before that?

Or do you think it's possible to do better by doping better?

Why do you assume there a significant leap in performance that is not attributable to other factors?............he won the WC aged 22 in 93............he was too young for GT success at that age........but he was on the curve.........part of GT success is age-related...........the best endurance riders are not in their early twenties.......

Mark L

 

[oldcrank]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ish-sense-of-fair-play-proven-by-science.html

 

[ebandit]

Thanks for spelling it out for me Mark.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that riding around in circles for a couple of minutes is vastly different to climbing mountains in the tour.

Thus, different discipline, different doping program. Just because someone sucks at getting over mountains doesnt mean they are cleans. There are many sprinters/lead out men that are doping too.

Sorry to break it to you, but brits dope too. No matter how badly you want them to be clean.

So.....Wiggins doped for the track (which carries very little financial reward)..........but steadfastly refused to dope on the road (which could have made him a multimillionaire much earlier) until 2009....yeah....like I said you don't think things through......you are a kind of two step maximum sort of guy............nice try with the final straw man

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

So.....Wiggins doped for the track (which carries very little financial reward)..........but steadfastly refused to dope on the road (which could have made him a multimillionaire much earlier....yeah....like I said you don't think things through......you are a kind of two step maximum sort of guy............nice try with the final straw man

Mark L

Where did I say he refused to dope on the road? And it is well known that people dope in all kinds of sports that have absolutely no money or fame.

All we know is that he had a gigantic leap in performance in 2009. Obviously something changed. Either he went from clean to mega doper, or he went from small time doper to mega doper.

Kind of like the Dawg. We dont know if he was clean at Barloworld either.

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ish-sense-of-fair-play-proven-by-science.html

now there is an unbiased publication, The Telegraph!!!

 

[Peter70]

Just another sad racist with some sort of drugs fetish.

Some people seem to be forgetting the much smaller talent pool in track cycling and the greater return of medals compared to investment compared to real Worldwide sports.

Same goes for rowing, sailing and horse-boarding.

Not everybody who has ever won a medal was on drugs. Would some people just like to admit that before they make themselves look even more pathetic than normal?

 

[the sceptic]

now there is an unbiased publication, The Telegraph!!!

british sense of fair play

typical patriotic nonsense. The article should ask itself why some countries made "progress" while others were left in ruins and were never able to recover.