Dont think HGH with Chris, no real signs but FFS look at some of the pics of the legs in the GB outfit....power lifters couldn't get the definition with steroids so how did he get that definition and what aids were used would be my first question ? Not a hope that muscle was built without some serious help.
You can believe one of two things
Either everyone is clean
Or everyone dopes
Not, clean Brits beat doped Germans, no that doesn't work
Either everyone is clean
Or everyone dopes
Not, clean Brits beat doped Germans, no that doesn't work
- Jul 24, 2009
- 2,579
- 58
- 11,580
I don't think he did, but he reminds of the tagline, 'made in Scotland from girders', or steroids, who knows.
I have to say, I really would like to believe that Hoy is clean. He comes over as a thoroughly nice guy and I'd like to believe he's no cheat. But...I have accepted the fact that it isn't credible that the BC management / coaches etc. only started the 'marginal gains juice' when they began at Sky and my disbelief in Sky over-rides all else. Also, all that pressure to perform when money started to pour into sport in the lead up to 2012…a lot of blind eyes were taken, I'm sure, because of the need for success.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Re:
Particularly if they were a consistent success. I still think luck can play a part, but if you can consistently ride people off your wheel or hold them off, then that's not luck, that's something something.
IndianCyclist said:
Particularly if they were a consistent success. I still think luck can play a part, but if you can consistently ride people off your wheel or hold them off, then that's not luck, that's something something.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
- May 13, 2015
- 601
- 0
- 0
I would assume Chris Hoy used drugs to win all those medals just like I assume that any professional athlete winning anything at that level is using but the size of his thighs in itself proves nothing.
As for GH, for best effect it would be used together with AAS. A real athlete would not use anything close to the gh dosages that some pro bodybuilders use, it would be a waste of money and most likely have a negative impact on performance. But a low dose of gh would be useful so I find it highly unlikely that it wasn't part of the drug protocol.
As for GH, for best effect it would be used together with AAS. A real athlete would not use anything close to the gh dosages that some pro bodybuilders use, it would be a waste of money and most likely have a negative impact on performance. But a low dose of gh would be useful so I find it highly unlikely that it wasn't part of the drug protocol.
Re:
Correct in itself proves nothing: but in fairness without a positive test somewhere to surface there is no proof as such. Its like visually watching Armstrong/Froome/Nibali Pantani et al bank on uphill switchbacks of 10% and calling cheat....its no proof in itself but still fairly obvious. We take the easy answer which is drug use in sport and twist it to marginal gains- genes(which is absolute rubbish)-better training-natural talent ,anything to believe.
So while the size of his thighs proving nothing, I'm still going for the easy answer-and that's not his genes and training plan make his thighs look like a steroid users but its all clean hard work !
Metabolol said:
Correct in itself proves nothing: but in fairness without a positive test somewhere to surface there is no proof as such. Its like visually watching Armstrong/Froome/Nibali Pantani et al bank on uphill switchbacks of 10% and calling cheat....its no proof in itself but still fairly obvious. We take the easy answer which is drug use in sport and twist it to marginal gains- genes(which is absolute rubbish)-better training-natural talent ,anything to believe.
So while the size of his thighs proving nothing, I'm still going for the easy answer-and that's not his genes and training plan make his thighs look like a steroid users but its all clean hard work !
If, as an athlete you are better than your competitors, you normally beat them. If they take drugs to improve their performance, but are still not as good as you, then you still beat them. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. See G Obree for an obvious example. Kicked out of his pro team for refusing to dope. Still beat the curs on the track mind.
Andy Murray can still beat the doped Djoker, just not as often as he could when they were both clean youngsters before the serbian drug regime took hold.
Has freddy (got fingered) the frog ever apologised for their lies about a massive drugs ring run by british athletics in the early 1980's in Edinburgh yet? Anybody who knows anything about the way Scottish Athletics was run and the attitude towards Scottish sport by the english administrators wouldn't have given their insane rant more than a second's consideration before laughing themselves sick. It is a theorem worthy of David Ike on LSD. But on the clinic the usual suspects believe every word.
Andy Murray can still beat the doped Djoker, just not as often as he could when they were both clean youngsters before the serbian drug regime took hold.
Has freddy (got fingered) the frog ever apologised for their lies about a massive drugs ring run by british athletics in the early 1980's in Edinburgh yet? Anybody who knows anything about the way Scottish Athletics was run and the attitude towards Scottish sport by the english administrators wouldn't have given their insane rant more than a second's consideration before laughing themselves sick. It is a theorem worthy of David Ike on LSD. But on the clinic the usual suspects believe every word.
Peter, you cant go around shouting that all these allegations are false and then say Djoker is doping without giving some evidence as to his doping.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Re:
but in the words of Martin Vinnicombe, "if you are in the kitchen, you gotta get cookin' "
ask the American domestic pro here, 131313, ask him, if doping or not doping makes one iota of difference if you are a good guy or a bad guy.
it does not.
it is value neutral. These are not axiomatically people/individuals of poor character. And THIS, and only THIS, is the logical fallacy. Individuals are not inherently bad because they use drugs in sport.
And re: Hoy coming across as a good person, a genuine person, a good guy, we cannot know, either way. It may be merely a skilled perception management. Not everyone is Armstrong and clumsy putting their foot in their personal dealings every step along the way.
Electress said:
but in the words of Martin Vinnicombe, "if you are in the kitchen, you gotta get cookin' "
ask the American domestic pro here, 131313, ask him, if doping or not doping makes one iota of difference if you are a good guy or a bad guy.
it does not.
it is value neutral. These are not axiomatically people/individuals of poor character. And THIS, and only THIS, is the logical fallacy. Individuals are not inherently bad because they use drugs in sport.
And re: Hoy coming across as a good person, a genuine person, a good guy, we cannot know, either way. It may be merely a skilled perception management. Not everyone is Armstrong and clumsy putting their foot in their personal dealings every step along the way.
- May 13, 2015
- 601
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
I'm not saying they were achieved naturally, what I'm saying is that the size of his legs is achievable without drugs.
In other words I'm not questioning if he was drugged or not what I'm questioning is that you could tell if he is or not just from looking at his legs. There are certainly cases where there are clear physical signs that a person is using drugs but the size or look of his thighs doesn't say so in itself.
Benotti69 said:
I'm not saying they were achieved naturally, what I'm saying is that the size of his legs is achievable without drugs.
In other words I'm not questioning if he was drugged or not what I'm questioning is that you could tell if he is or not just from looking at his legs. There are certainly cases where there are clear physical signs that a person is using drugs but the size or look of his thighs doesn't say so in itself.
So I'll just summarise the entire thread:
Big thighs. Won races. Head may have got bigger.
Not even a sniff of anything throughout his career.
Doper obvious is doper.
Big thighs. Won races. Head may have got bigger.
Not even a sniff of anything throughout his career.
Doper obvious is doper.
I think we're in very dangerous territory if big muscles is immediately taken as proof of doping. Muscle mass can be built without recourse to drugs. That isn't to say he was clean, but at the same time there's no smoking gun either.
Not that many here need to smoking gun to assume guilt. Just with Hoy it is mere speculation, where as with Radcliffe for example there's a lot more circumstantial evidence.
Just saying.
Not that many here need to smoking gun to assume guilt. Just with Hoy it is mere speculation, where as with Radcliffe for example there's a lot more circumstantial evidence.
Just saying.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram