Chris Hoy - hard work and dreaming big

[Bernie's eyesore]

If what you mean by evidence is positive tests and bans for doping, then the evidence would also suggest that 99% of the peloton is clean.

If you believe that, then as they say, I have some swampland in Florida for you to buy.

Dave.

Maybe you should actually check your facts before making such an idiotic post. In the years when Hoy was racing at his peak, virtually every rider who had any success on the roads is now known to have doped. Where is the evidence that this was going on on the track?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Maybe you should actually check your facts before making such an idiotic post. In the years when Hoy was racing at his peak, virtually every rider who had any success on the roads is now known to have doped. Where is the evidence that this was going on on the track?

There is nothing specific to road racing that makes the incentive/disincentive to dope any different than track. We see your brand of evidence that MTB was just as doped, clearly painting the picture that doping is a cycling problem (really, a sports problem), not a road cycling problem.

 

[the sceptic]

Maybe you should actually check your facts before making such an idiotic post. In the years when Hoy was racing at his peak, virtually every rider who had any success on the roads is now known to have doped. Where is the evidence that this was going on on the track?

what makes you think track cycling is the only clean sport in the world?

 

[TailWindHome]

what makes you think track cycling is the only clean sport in the world?

Bzzzt!
Strawman

 

[the sceptic]

Bzzzt!
Strawman

If track cycling is cleans then it is special, since virtually every sport on the planet has a doping problem. So what exactly is it that makes it special?

If you believe in "never tested positive" thats fine. But that doesnt explain why there is no doping.

 

[del1962]

what makes you think track cycling is the only clean sport in the world?

Which post made that claim?

 

[D-Queued]

Maybe you should actually check your facts before making such an idiotic post. In the years when Hoy was racing at his peak, virtually every rider who had any success on the roads is now known to have doped. Where is the evidence that this was going on on the track?

Maybe you should tone it down before making such an idiotic post. Some fact checking might help too.

I was merely observing that, while it is common belief that most professional road cyclists dope, there is only anecdotal evidence of this.

For you to ask for proof that all track cyclists dope is as absurd as asking for proof that all road cyclists dope.

Moreover, your assertions on virtually every successful road cyclist are incorrect. There are at least six TdF winners during this period that have absolutely no record of doping - ever!

There are many, many events that have had winners with no doping positives. That falls well short of your "virtually every" assertion on "any success".

Fact: Doping in cycling arguably started on the track and was common practice in six day races.

You may recall that track cycling existed before the Tour. In other words, one discipline taught the other.

Fact: Hoy's career (world level) lasted from 1999 until his retirement in 2013.

Fact: The Tour de France participants for this period have ranged from 200 to 220 each year. The Tour participants are, of course, only a portion of the pro peloton.

Fact: There are less than 22 cyclists that actually tested positive at the Tour over this entire period. Or, less than one percent of a typical year's participants. There are clearly far more than 220 total participants over this period.

Thus, my casual twist of Pat McQuaid's assertion that 99% of cyclists are clean can be supported by the results from actual tests. Tests conducted at the premier event in the sport - i.e. where one would find the most successful participants.

If you believe that doping is more pervasive than 1% of the peloton, then where are your facts? If you have no facts, then how can you argue with the belief that other have that doping exists in track cycling?

Doping does exist in track cycling and it always has.

Dave.

 

[del1962]

Maybe you should tone it down before making such an idiotic post. Some fact checking might help too.

I was merely observing that, while it is common belief that most professional road cyclists dope, there is only anecdotal evidence of this.

For you to ask for proof that all track cyclists dope is as absurd as asking for proof that all road cyclists dope.

Moreover, your assertions on virtually every successful road cyclist are incorrect. There are at least six TdF winners during this period that have absolutely no record of doping - ever!

There are many, many events that have had winners with no doping positives. That falls well short of your "virtually every" assertion on "any success".

Fact: Doping in cycling arguably started on the track and was common practice in six day races.

You may recall that track cycling existed before the Tour. In other words, one discipline taught the other.

Fact: Hoy's career (world level) lasted from 1999 until his retirement in 2013.

Fact: The Tour de France participants for this period have ranged from 200 to 220 each year. The Tour participants are, of course, only a portion of the pro peloton.

Fact: There are less than 22 cyclists that actually tested positive at the Tour over this entire period. Or, less than one percent of a typical year's participants. There are clearly far more than 220 total participants over this period.

Thus, my casual twist of Pat McQuaid's assertion that 99% of cyclists are clean can be supported by the results from actual tests. Tests conducted at the premier event in the sport - i.e. where one would find the most successful participants.

If you believe that doping is more pervasive than 1% of the peloton, then where are your facts? If you have no facts, then how can you argue with the belief that other have that doping exists in track cycling?

Doping does exist in track cycling and it always has.

Dave.

Dear me the argument in this post is full of more holes than me late grandads string vest

 

[pmcg76]

Maybe you should tone it down before making such an idiotic post. Some fact checking might help too.

I was merely observing that, while it is common belief that most professional road cyclists dope, there is only anecdotal evidence of this.

For you to ask for proof that all track cyclists dope is as absurd as asking for proof that all road cyclists dope.

Moreover, your assertions on virtually every successful road cyclist are incorrect. There are at least six TdF winners during this period that have absolutely no record of doping - ever!

There are many, many events that have had winners with no doping positives. That falls well short of your "virtually every" assertion on "any success".

Fact: Doping in cycling arguably started on the track and was common practice in six day races.

You may recall that track cycling existed before the Tour. In other words, one discipline taught the other.

Fact: Hoy's career (world level) lasted from 1999 until his retirement in 2013.

Fact: The Tour de France participants for this period have ranged from 200 to 220 each year. The Tour participants are, of course, only a portion of the pro peloton.

Fact: There are less than 22 cyclists that actually tested positive at the Tour over this entire period. Or, less than one percent of a typical year's participants. There are clearly far more than 220 total participants over this period.

Thus, my casual twist of Pat McQuaid's assertion that 99% of cyclists are clean can be supported by the results from actual tests. Tests conducted at the premier event in the sport - i.e. where one would find the most successful participants.

If you believe that doping is more pervasive than 1% of the peloton, then where are your facts? If you have no facts, then how can you argue with the belief that other have that doping exists in track cycling?

Doping does exist in track cycling and it always has.

Dave.

What % of podium finishers at the World Road/TT Championships are dopers?

Is Svein Tuft a doper? Simple Yes/No will suffice.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Maybe you should tone it down before making such an idiotic post. Some fact checking might help too.

I was merely observing that, while it is common belief that most professional road cyclists dope, there is only anecdotal evidence of this.

For you to ask for proof that all track cyclists dope is as absurd as asking for proof that all road cyclists dope.

Moreover, your assertions on virtually every successful road cyclist are incorrect. There are at least six TdF winners during this period that have absolutely no record of doping - ever!

There are many, many events that have had winners with no doping positives. That falls well short of your "virtually every" assertion on "any success".

Fact: Doping in cycling arguably started on the track and was common practice in six day races.

You may recall that track cycling existed before the Tour. In other words, one discipline taught the other.

Fact: Hoy's career (world level) lasted from 1999 until his retirement in 2013.

Fact: The Tour de France participants for this period have ranged from 200 to 220 each year. The Tour participants are, of course, only a portion of the pro peloton.

Fact: There are less than 22 cyclists that actually tested positive at the Tour over this entire period. Or, less than one percent of a typical year's participants. There are clearly far more than 220 total participants over this period.

Thus, my casual twist of Pat McQuaid's assertion that 99% of cyclists are clean can be supported by the results from actual tests. Tests conducted at the premier event in the sport - i.e. where one would find the most successful participants.

If you believe that doping is more pervasive than 1% of the peloton, then where are your facts? If you have no facts, then how can you argue with the belief that other have that doping exists in track cycling?

Doping does exist in track cycling and it always has.

Dave.

Suyrely the post of the year. If I can name three known dopers from every Tour whilst Hoy was riding do I win a prize?

 

[Benotti69]

Amazing how all the evidence there is that doping is a fundamental fabric of the sport and yet people argue that some someone like Hoy who won so much beat the dopers, or better still there was no doping in track and yet cannot not point to why track is clean(ER) or how Hoy beat the dopers.

 

[Granville57]

Even by Clinic standards, this thread is drilling deep into Stupidville.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Even by Clinic standards, this thread is drilling deep into Stupidville.

Just enjoy the comedy.

 

[the sceptic]

Amazing how all the evidence there is that doping is a fundamental fabric of the sport and yet people argue that some someone like Hoy who won so much beat the dopers, or better still there was no doping in track and yet cannot not point to why track is clean(ER) or how Hoy beat the dopers.

but he is british and has never tested positive. Not sure what more you could possibly ask for.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

but he is british and has never tested positive. Not sure what more you could possibly ask for.

Do you have anything different to say? Accusing people of saying something which none of them have ever said whilst using exactly the same argument to claim that he is doping.

 

[Benotti69]

but he is british and has never tested positive. Not sure what more you could possibly ask for.

Well the fact that he got knighted is what convinced me he is cleans...

 

[TailWindHome]

Amazing how all the evidence there is that doping is a fundamental fabric of the sport.

I think the point was that you can't claim track cycling to be riddled with doping by citing road cyclists who doped.

That's not the same as claiming track cycling is clean or the only clean sport in the world.

Again the discussion has been driven into the 'all pro athletes dope - prove me wrong' cul-de-sac.

---

Must have been great round here in the Lance era when there was real evidence to discuss and argue over. You know, eye witness testimony, sick bed confessions, positive tests - that sort of thing.

 

[Benotti69]

I think the point was that you can't claim track cycling to be riddled with doping by citing road cyclists who doped.

That's not the same as claiming track cycling is clean or the only clean sport in the world.

Again the discussion has been driven into the 'all pro athletes dope - prove me wrong' cul-de-sac.

If the caps fits........

Must have been great round here in the Lance era when there was real evidence to discuss and argue over. You know, eye witness testimony, sick bed confessions, positive tests - that sort of thing.

The types who defend the British athletes because they are British are very similar to those from across the Atlantic who thought a Texan really was the Cancer Jesus and therefore would not have doped,,,,blah blah blah.....

 

[the sceptic]

Well the fact that he got knighted is what convinced me he is cleans...

True, I trust the brits to only promote the purest souls to the higher classes of their society.

anyway, in the words of a famous dope pusher..

SPIEGEL: Are there still any clean disciplines?

Heredia: Track and field, swimming, cross-country skiing and cycling can no longer be saved. Golf? Not clean either. Soccer? Soccer players come to me and say they have to be able to run up and down the touchline without becoming tired, and they have to play every three days. Basketball players take fat burners – amphetamines, ephedrin. Baseball? Haha. Steroids in pre-season, amphetamines during the games. Even archers take downers so that their arm remains steady. Everyone dopes.

SPIEGEL: Can the testers win this race?

Heredia: Theoretically yes. If all federations and sponsors and managers and athletes and trainers were all in agreement, if they were to invest all the money that the sport generates and if every athlete were to be tested twice a week – but only then. What’s happening now is laughable. It’s a token. They should save their money – or give it to me. I’ll give it to the orphans of Mexico! There will be doping for as long as there is commercial sports, performance-related shoe contracts and television

 

[zlev11]

Even by Clinic standards, this thread is drilling deep into Stupidville.

i thought i was reading BikeRadar for a second. holy smoley.

 

[TailWindHome]

The types who defend the British athletes because they are British are very similar to those from across the Atlantic who thought a Texan really was the Cancer Jesus and therefore would not have doped,,,,blah blah blah.....

Possibly.
Though given the obsession of some posters with nationality and the distinct lack of posters actually posting that, it would seem more likely an attempt retro fit this motivation to anyone who isn't on the bandwagon.

 

[Benotti69]

Possibly.
Though given the obsession of some posters with nationality and the distinct lack of posters actually posting that, it would seem more likely an attempt retro fit this motivation to anyone who isn't on the bandwagon.

Check out the relevant 'British' threads and you'll see those who defend the British riders while ignoring the rest of the peloton. #agenda

The idea that track is clean is as laughable as McQuaid's tenure as UCI President.

 

[Granville57]

Must have been great round here in the Lance era when there was real evidence to discuss and argue over. You know, eye witness testimony, sick bed confessions, positive tests - that sort of thing.

Actually no, because some were simply unable to accept eye witness testimony, sick bed confessions or positive tests. Then when all else failed, and even in the wake of the Reasoned Decision, some demanded video evidence.

As it turns out, a "confession" isn't even enough to straighten things out because gullible believers will fully embrace these half-confessions, while others will dismiss 80% of what is said.

So it never really ends.

 

[The Hitch]

I think the point was that you can't claim track cycling to be riddled with doping by citing road cyclists who doped.

That's not the same as claiming track cycling is clean or the only clean sport in the world.

Again the discussion has been driven into the 'all pro athletes dope - prove me wrong' cul-de-sac.

---

Must have been great round here in the Lance era when there was real evidence to discuss and argue over. You know, eye witness testimony, sick bed confessions, positive tests - that sort of thing.

Nope, your type all claimed that none of that counted as evidence. Now that lance fell and the current cyclists adapt and immunize themselves somewhat against the weaknesses lance had, y'all move the goalposts and say - oh those things are evidence, but having doping doctors on the team, riding faster than lance or being caught out totally lying about a riders medical situation and history means nothing. And the fans after you will say things like- I wonder what it was like around here with Evans when y'all had actual evidence he was a Ferrari client, or - I wonder what it was like around here with froome when it was known sky had made up an illness to cover for him. And once the next gen adapts the signs that they are doping will also be dismissed as meaningless while the things now being dismissed will be treated as if they should have been considered important all along.

 

[TailWindHome]

your type

Say what now?