Chris Hoy - hard work and dreaming big

[The Hitch]

Like I already said, that reasoning can apply to any athlete in the history of any sport. I could just as easily accuse you of being a murderer on the grounds that some people are murderers and that most of them claimed not to be murderers. That's the extent of your argument.

That is a ridiculous comparison. The odds of a random person being a murderer are about 1 million times as high as those of a multi time olympic champion being a doper.

Some people are clearly just trying to troll in this thread. 0 attempt at any logical discussion, just truimphant repetitions of the Armstrong argument. - Oh he hasn't tested positive.

 

[The Hitch]

..........besides it isn't about Wiggins..... It is about using track golds as evidence of doping.....

Mark L

Right. and why would domination of track cycling in the mid 2000's not be suggestive of doping?

Is it a sport where use of Performance Enhancing Drugs would have no impact or something?

 

[ebandit]

Right. and why would domination of track cycling in the mid 2000's not be suggestive of doping?

Is it a sport where use of Performance Enhancing Drugs would have no impact or something?

Don't try and take it out of context......the context is track wins contiguous with road failure......... How is road failure suggestive of doping when compared with a few years later it became super success on the road? ..........Did the alleged doping in 04-08 miraculously only work on a fixed gear track bike?

You can't have it both ways, Hitch.

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Don't try and take it out of context......the context is track wins contiguous with road failure......... How is road failure suggestive of doping when compared with a few years later it became super success on the road? ..........Did the alleged doping in 04-08 miraculously only work on a fixed gear track bike?

You can't have it both ways, Hitch.

Mark L

So you aknowledge wiggins must have started doping in 09 to turn overnight from the failure you describe above into someone climbing with Contador and Armstrong?

 

[ebandit]

Highly likely....yes. ........But what I think is irrelevant. Its a central premise to your position on Wiggins

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Well Hesjedal we know was doping in MTB in 2003. Yet the in the road carrer he had around that time and for many years after he did absolutely nothhing.

Which shows that it is very possible for someone to be doping with success in 1 cycling discipline (though RH wasn't even that succesful in mtb) and be appaling in another cycling discipline. Then turn it around years later

So to your question of - "Did the alleged doping in 04-08 miraculously only work on a fixed gear track bike". Well it did for Hesjedal. So why is it such a ludicrous position to suggest it for wiggins (not that I did suggest it for Wiggins, but since you put those words in my mouth ill play along for the sake of argument, since thanks to Hesjedal, you lose the argument anyway).

 

[ebandit]

Hesjedal won two relay World championships and took a silver in the 2003 WC....... so hardly unsuccessful....?........ His admission of doping was that the doping took place in 2003.............. His road career came after this......unlike Wiggins whose track success took place at the same time as a road career.................... By the time he took his third Olympic gold he had been on the road for 7 years with very little success. So, no, I don't lose. You do. Trying to use Hesjedal as a comparison doesn't stand up to scrutiny........nice try......,but no cigar for you

Mark L

 

[Avoriaz]

Some people are clearly just trying to troll in this thread. 0 attempt at any logical discussion, just truimphant repetitions of the Armstrong argument. - Oh he hasn't tested positive.

Kind of works both ways though doesn't it, Hitch. It wasn't smoke that started off the thread but some community visit by Hoy. Ooh, something Armstrong might have done so Hoy must have been a dirty doper.

The whole thread is one trolls cave.

Btw, I thought the British won gold on the track because of the pitifully poor pool of track athletes

 

[The Hitch]

Hesjedal won two relay World championships and took a silver in the 2003 WC....... so hardly unsuccessful....?........ His admission of doping was that the doping took place in 2003.............. His road career came after this......unlike Wiggins whose track success took place at the same time as a road career.................... By the time he took his third Olympic gold he had been on the road for 7 years with very little success. So, no, I don't lose. You do. Trying to use Hesjedal as a comparison doesn't stand up to scrutiny........nice try......,but no cigar for you

Mark L

According to cq rankings Hesjedal rode in both 2002 and 2003 on the road. for weaker teams and therefore weaker races, but even at that level he had no success. He was doping at the time. But he couldn't do anything on the road.

And all that is based on the assumption that he stopped doping in 2003 and refused to dope at US Postal

 

[The Hitch]

Kind of works both ways though doesn't it, Hitch. It wasn't smoke that started off the thread but some community visit by Hoy. Ooh, something Armstrong might have done so Hoy must have been a dirty doper.

The whole thread is one trolls cave.

Btw, I thought the British won gold on the track because of the pitifully poor pool of track athletes

It's trolling to start threads on athletes now?

And the article that the OP linked talks about the truimph of hard work over doping. It is in some ways the debate that has been at the centre of all clinic discussion for the last 5 years.

I don't understand how you can see an athlete making those claims as being irrelevant to clinic discussion.

 

[the sceptic]

Highly likely....yes. ........But what I think is irrelevant. Its a central premise to your position on Wiggins

Mark L

I am impressed that you managed to connect....the.....dots on Wiggins.

Maybe you can apply this newfound gift of logic and common sense on other british atheltes too.

 

[blackcat]

Don't try and take it out of context......the context is track wins contiguous with road failure......... How is road failure suggestive of doping when compared with a few years later it became super success on the road? ..........Did the alleged doping in 04-08 miraculously only work on a fixed gear track bike?

You can't have it both ways, Hitch.

Mark L

the doping on the track was to capitalise on competition in a very small pond. A very small pond.

The dovetail of Gorby's glasnost and perestroika, and the decline in emphasis on the USSR and former satellite national teams of the fragmented states... with the professional peloton opening up to the East, starting with Ullrich and Zabel and Eki and those roadies who would have kicked @rse on national track teams of the former east; USSR/GDR. See how Ete Zabel dominated 6-days in the off-season.

Wiggins was earning better "coin" (more $$$), as a trackie under the national lottery endowment, than doing ordinary chronos, see his palmares from his first decade as a pro from the Linda Mac inception.

He was doping still. On both the road, and the track. You dont wake up one0day and flick the switch.

Could Wiggins really compete with Beloki, Rumsas, Landis, Jan, and Basso if they all come to the race at 100%. Wiggins would be competing for a top 10 place. And there was not Sky to put the resources behing him.

See what his salary would have been at Cofidis and TMobileHighRoad and CreditAgricole and FDJ? real dollars (euros), about 100k euros? Race Radio could throw him into a ball-park.

His income from the track and British Cycling and criteriums in UK, and sponsors at home, would have been about the same. 50k gbp.

Then Wigans hit the GC route at a very soft spot on the GC calender. The riders who would have come thru were popped, or done in Puerto. Kreuziger and Andy Schleck fell foul to doping woes, if not from themselves, or their kin.

Wigans got lucky. but he always doped. to be sure to be sure.

 

[D-Queued]

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.

About Hoy? Who knows? Great career results for sure, but any scrap of evidence from the doubters would be nice.

Looks like I am a little late to today's active discussion.

Nonetheless:

Marion was tested many more times than Lance and never tested positive. She, and not Lance of course, could actually be the most tested athlete ever. And, she never tested positive.

Marion Jones and Gatlin were being tested with at least the same rigor and with at least the same standards, and at the same time as Hoy.

The point of my post, however, wasn't about evading doping positives. Yet, it is irrefutable that plenty of dopers in multiple sports never test positive.

The point was that sprinters ABSOLUTELY benefit from doping as you had proposed the complete opposite.

Thus, the example of Seoul is a completely relevant response to your assertion.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

I reckon Ete Zabel might be the most tested ever. And Cavendish fast becoming the most tested athlete ever. More than Marion.

 

[del1962]

I reckon Ete Zabel might be the most tested ever. And Cavendish fast becoming the most tested athlete ever. More than Marion.

Occupational hazard of winning races


Back to the op, of course in the opinion of the op Hoy is guilty as charged, he meets the ops fundamental requirements, he is successful and British, throw in the knighthood an it is pretty much case closed.

 

[ebandit]

It is, of course, also a thread specifically designed for attention-seeking purposes............ for the usual protagonists to throw stones from what they view as their inalienable moral high ground.................. They can never be proved wrong and therefore anybody who disagrees with them is stupid or naive.......... even though they themselves don't actually know anything.........what they forget is that just because they cannot be proved wrong, does not mean they are right

Mark L

 

[blackcat]

Occupational hazard of winning races


Back to the op, of course in the opinion of the op Hoy is guilty as charged, he meets the ops fundamental requirements, he is successful and British, throw in the knighthood an it is pretty much case closed.

ahh, but we forget, the royal we, you forget

gordonstoun, chariots of fire, muscular christianity

 

[ebandit]

Another chip-on-the-shoulder Aussie sourpuss? ........Hoy didn't go to Gordonstoun.

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Occupational hazard of winning races


Back to the op, of course in the opinion of the op Hoy is guilty as charged, he meets the ops fundamental requirements, he is successful and British, throw in the knighthood an it is pretty much case closed.

How can you say being British is a requirement for sceptic to consider someone as a doper when sceptic has accused pretty much every active rider in the peloton of doping

This is a troll race baiting post and doesn't even have any foundation in reality.

 

[blackcat]

Another chip-on-the-shoulder Aussie sourpuss? ........Hoy didn't go to Gordonstoun.

Mark L

it is not about G-town, or gee-Toun, its being used as metaphor and I have invoked this particular inimitable meme on multiple occasion, going back to the dimspace fanboi dayz

 

[Hawkwood]

Btw, I thought the British won gold on the track because of the pitifully poor pool of track athletes

Yes I thought this was the accepted wisdom here. Wiggins winning loads of track medals was no indication of road success, as any decent cyclist could jump on a bike and, with two weeks' training, win on the track. Now the logic appears to be that track cycling is so competitive you have to dope.

 

[blackcat]

How can you say being British is a requirement for sceptic to consider someone as a doper when sceptic has accused pretty much every active rider in the peloton of doping

This is a troll race baiting post and doesn't even have any foundation in reality.

pointy end of peloton and podium at Oly level = doping.

no value judgements.

doping =/= poor character and bad people. like 131313 asserted.

 

[blackcat]

Yes I thought this was the accepted wisdom here. Wiggins winning loads of track medals was no indication of road success, as any decent cyclist could jump on a bike and, with two weeks' training, win on the track. Now the logic appears to be that track cycling is so competitive you have to dope.

the track sprint discipline v track endurance.

mid-late 90s that all the traditional track endurance crossed to the road for coin ($$$)

think about Robert Bartko winner of the Sydney pursuit in about 4'18" or 4'19". Rule of thumb would say with tech improvement he could have got another second lower by 2012. Bartko struggled to match the 6 day pair marvulli and risi

There are many inputs of performance, but one cannot be overlooked but is, is the team leadership and an entire team of resources behind you.

See about 2003 and Raimondas Rumsas 3rd in the TdF which when you take out the TTT he beats Beloki. Think about the resources put behind Raimondas Rumsas v Armstrong. On Lampre or Fassa he would have been given very minimal help. He needed Edita being his motoman strikethru motowoman.

If you swap out the resources and team support and Ferrari from Armstrong to Rumsas and give Armstrong Lampre and Edita, then the results are reversed. This is the cypher for Wiggins.

 

[blackcat]

Kind of works both ways though doesn't it, Hitch. It wasn't smoke that started off the thread but some community visit by Hoy. Ooh, something Armstrong might have done so Hoy must have been a dirty doper.

The whole thread is one trolls cave.

Btw, I thought the British won gold on the track because of the pitifully poor pool of track athletes

if Ullrich, Cancellara, Greipel, Ciolek, Mcgee, Boonen, Goss, Steegmans, Clancy, Hincapie, Thomas, Martin, were given the equivalent track prep, they beat Wiggins hand down. nb, Mchee had full time responsibilites with FDJ remember

 

[ebandit]

it is not about G-town, or gee-Toun, its being used as metaphor and I have invoked this particular inimitable meme on multiple occasion, going back to the dimspace fanboi dayz

Its about as valid a metaphor as suggesting that Cadel Evans shares his cultural make up with this.......

.........

(I was going to put Robbie McEwan, instead of Cadel but realised it would be true)

Mark L