French is accusing British cyclist Cheating

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 23, 2009
121
0
0
What you have to remember Jimmy is that the Clinic is like some sort of inverted alternative reality where being accused of being a troll is about as ironic and surreal as it gets.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Anyway we'll agree to disagree. I take on board your point that history teaches us much about sports domination, what worries me is the attitude that that domination can never be achieved clean. I guess at the moment my glass is half-full. That said I have learnt a lot reading here, just dislike some of the baiting and bullying that goes on
I can't recall ANY team domination having been achieved clean across a number of sports though I'm sure there must be some. Cycling's doping history is so great it makes domination even less plausible than many other sports.
I'm 100% with you regards baiting and " bullying" from either side of the debate. Best ignored. And best achieved by not referencing any national team as "our" or " mine" .
There not any such thing. Sky and the BC team are made up of riders and support staff from a number of nations . The " Brit " aspect is largely a meaningless aspect. Especially with the road team.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
poupou said:
It'sn't within rules when it's a faked problem.

There was another similar problem at start in rowing, lightweight double sculls. GB favorite team has a "mechanical" problem after 85m of race, while having a bad start, but just within the limit of a re-start in case of technical problem. Coincidence ?
I was interested by what happened in the double sculls and finally found a thread in a forum where experienced rowers discussed what might have happened. There was some disagreement mainly from one poster, however others wrote that it was possible for there to have been a genuine mechanical. One poster who said he has used the same seat design stated that he'd jammed his seat in a recent race and had been allowed a restart. Another poster observed that all of teams had headed off their lane at the start due to the wind, and had then corrected course later, he noted that doing this could have resulted in a twisting motion of the seat causing the jam. Note that the posters were rowers who might be expected to have a greater knowledge of this than us. I don't know about the `bad start' you mention one account states that the GB team made two good starts.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
poupou said:
Being caught for doping on french soil means that athlete would have to explain how he did it, where he bought his PED, how did he learn to dope, his doping regim ... If he cannot do so or try to hide something, he is suspected as part of a doping ring.

So, yes french athlete can dope without jail offence for themself, but their providers or helpers are under a serious threat. Maybe enough to have less helpers and suppliers than elsewhere.

BTW, some riders and athletes have already be jailed while under investigation like Ricco.
Thank you for this clarification. :)
 
Hawkwood said:
I was interested by what happened in the double sculls and finally found a thread in a forum where experienced rowers discussed what might have happened. There was some disagreement mainly from one poster, however others wrote that it was possible for there to have been a genuine mechanical. One poster who said he has used the same seat design stated that he'd jammed his seat in a recent race and had been allowed a restart. Another poster observed that all of teams had headed off their lane at the start due to the wind, and had then corrected course later, he noted that doing this could have resulted in a twisting motion of the seat causing the jam. Note that the posters were rowers who might be expected to have a greater knowledge of this than us. I don't know about the `bad start' you mention one account states that the GB team made two good starts.
I think the argument is more, that the seat just fell off, and the British then complained that it had broken, when in fact they had just messed up.

It's unlikely, but it's unlikely that the seat broke as well. I would say that at amateur level just falling off is more likely, but at the Olympics, it's probably more likely to have broken. It's pretty impossible to tell from outside the boat though.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
I can't recall ANY team domination having been achieved clean across a number of sports though I'm sure there must be some. Cycling's doping history is so great it makes domination even less plausible than many other sports.
I'm 100% with you regards baiting and " bullying" from either side of the debate. Best ignored. And best achieved by not referencing any national team as "our" or " mine" .
There not any such thing. Sky and the BC team are made up of riders and support staff from a number of nations . The " Brit " aspect is largely a meaningless aspect. Especially with the road team.
Chapeau. While I understand the scepticism, I have to hope that what is being achieved is clean, and circumstantial evidence and hearsay won't convince me otherwise, but then there's a chance nothing definitive will emerge either way. I just go with my gut, and that says characters like Wiggins and Cavendish don't dope, and further if it is going on at Sky it is as individuals rather than a systematic programme, same goes or the track team, Geraint Thomas, Chris Hoy, Victoria Pendleton I just don't see it.

I know less about Chris Froome and his rise does seem rapid but I'll lean towards clean for now.

Do know that I what this and all sport to be free from drugs, very passionately. I hope that history will show us that this was a a start of better things.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Do know that I what this and all sport to be free from drugs, very passionately. I hope that history will show us that this was a a start of better things.
Do you think other people don't want the same?

The scepcism has nothing to do with England, at least not to me. When I see a 1 2 3 on the 200 by the Jamaicans, explained like they are the best genepool of the first African slaves, hell, even a child doesn't believe that.

[has nothing to do with the GB track team, sorry about that :D]
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Do you think other people don't want the same?

The scepcism has nothing to do with England, at least not to me. When I see a 1 2 3 on the 200 by the Jamaicans, explained like they are the best genepool of the first African slaves, hell, even a child doesn't believe that.

[has nothing to do with the GB track team, sorry about that :D]
I do know other people want the same,otherwise why would anyone post here? As I have said I have learnt a lot, for which I am grateful. Its good to get your eyes opened, as I said I cling to a hope, very firmly for now.
 
Mr Pumpy said:
Can you find any evidence of any British posters claiming the moral superiority that has been alleged? I think you might find the egg came before the chicken in this case.

However you want to spin it, much of the so-called scrutiny of British teams or athletes that has taken place here is bad-faith bullsh1t motivated by petty nationalistic rivalry. Go back and have a read of some of those threads. It is no reason that British readers take issue, much of what was posted wasnt an attack on athletes but an attack on the British.

It's little surprise that you'd find this on an English speaking Forum of Australian origins. When you have the Head of Australian Olympic Committee making snide remarks about the hygiene of British people, I guess that sets the tone for the rest of that nation. The Head of the Australian Olympic Committee for Christs sake!. I can't think of any other nation where somebody in that position making remarks as crass as those could keep his job.

I'm sure that will get a load of Aussies riled, so as a placatory gesture I'll leave you with an image that encapsulates 2012 Olympics....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19165636

I'm not sure if you are tweedeldum or tweedledee. If in fact you aren't the same poster. Your shared disingenous postings are so obvious and pathetic and desperate that I almost feel I should support you in your trolling, being a Brit and all.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
I do know other people want the same,otherwise why would anyone post here? As I have said I have learnt a lot, for which I am grateful. Its good to get your eyes opened, as I said I cling to a hope, very firmly for now.
That's okay, don't become a cynic overnight...
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Hawkwood said:
I was interested by what happened in the double sculls and finally found a thread in a forum where experienced rowers discussed what might have happened. There was some disagreement mainly from one poster, however others wrote that it was possible for there to have been a genuine mechanical. One poster who said he has used the same seat design stated that he'd jammed his seat in a recent race and had been allowed a restart. Another poster observed that all of teams had headed off their lane at the start due to the wind, and had then corrected course later, he noted that doing this could have resulted in a twisting motion of the seat causing the jam. Note that the posters were rowers who might be expected to have a greater knowledge of this than us. I don't know about the `bad start' you mention one account states that the GB team made two good starts.
I think the rowing federations who appealed also know what they're talking about. While it is possible that it happened due to a technical problem, there is also a very big chance that it happened due to a mistake from the rower, a mistake that could easily have been on purpose. I won't mention how quick it was to fix and how it barely looked like the repair guy did anything to it.
Also, it didn't just happen to a team, it happened to the home team who had a bad start AFTER the case of the Team Sprint team falling on purpose.
Those mechanical incidents are so rare ( and lets be fair preventable if it was just about tightening a screw, why cant we blame the team ) that they allow no restart in any other official rowing race anymore.

Add to that Tom Daley getting a redive.

Please tell me that if China had had 3 restarts like this after bad starts/dives in Beijing that you would have said nothing? ( not really speaking to you in particular , just to anyone saying that nothing is suspicious )

Also Darryl, unfortunately the French do not defend their athletes enough if I might say. I havent lived there for over a decade, but all I see on sport websites saddens me, many of the people commenting are way too quick to accuse their own and to criticize their athletes while pretending to themselves and others that they root for other countries ( most often for the glory ).
Europcar gets oh so much more suspicion than wiggins does unfortunately. ( Not that I'm saying Voeckler and co are definitely clean, but at least they dont bore me to death )
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
I think the rowing federations who appealed also know what they're talking about. While it is possible that it happened due to a technical problem, there is also a very big chance that it happened due to a mistake from the rower, a mistake that could easily have been on purpose. I won't mention how quick it was to fix and how it barely looked like the repair guy did anything to it.
Also, it didn't just happen to a team, it happened to the home team who had a bad start AFTER the case of the Team Sprint team falling on purpose.
Those mechanical incidents are so rare ( and lets be fair preventable if it was just about tightening a screw, why cant we blame the team ) that they allow no restart in any other official rowing race anymore.

Add to that Tom Daley getting a redive.

Please tell me that if China had had 3 restarts like this after bad starts/dives in Beijing that you would have said nothing? ( not really speaking to you in particular , just to anyone saying that nothing is suspicious )

Also Darryl, unfortunately the French do not defend their athletes enough if I might say. I havent lived there for over a decade, but all I see on sport websites saddens me, many of the people commenting are way too quick to accuse their own and to criticize their athletes while pretending to themselves and others that they root for other countries ( most often for the glory ).
Europcar gets oh so much more suspicion than wiggins does unfortunately. ( Not that I'm saying Voeckler and co are definitely clean, but at least they dont bore me to death as a sports fan rather than a French fan)
The rowing federations that appealed had a vested interest in doing so. A quick internet trawel found a New Zealand rower who had used the mechanical mishap excuse to get a restart, and Dutch rowing crew who jumped the starting gun knowing they wouldn't get penalised, so other nations aren't adverse to making full use of the rules. As I mentioned in my original post a news site stated that the British team made two good starts, which if true suggests they didn't need to go looking for a restart. And I'm not sure that these mishaps are that uncommon. Finally this is a quote from one of the members of the New Zealand crew `Uru said he and Taylor were unaffected by what happened at the start and they were "100 per cent happy" with the umpire's decision.' Given that they would have got a silver if Britain had been relegated the quote is telling.
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Hawkwood said:
The rowing federations that appealed had a vested interest in doing so. A quick internet trawel found a New Zealand rower who had used the mechanical mishap excuse to get a restart, and Dutch rowing crew who jumped the starting gun knowing they wouldn't get penalised, so other nations aren't adverse to making full use of the rules. As I mentioned in my original post a news site stated that the British team made two good starts, which if true suggests they didn't need to go looking for a restart. And I'm not sure that these mishaps are that uncommon. Finally this is a quote from one of the members of the New Zealand crew `Uru said he and Taylor were unaffected by what happened at the start and they were "100 per cent happy" with the umpire's decision.' Given that they would have got a silver if Britain had been relegated the quote is telling.
Like I said, if it was just this instance on its own, I wouldn't be saying anything. And I'm not saying it was definitely unfair. Thing is it happened to the UK at their home games along with several other restarts etc in their favour which if really hints at the possibility of it being planned in case of a bad start, which in the opinion of many people on this forum is as unsportsmanlike as the badminton players that were expelled.

It was indeed in their interested to appeal, but no one appeals unless it is reasonable, there are fines for useless appeals ( not sure about olympics but in many sports there are ), those federations don't want to sound like sore losers and yet still appealed.
How many federations appealed in boxing? I can name more than 3 and they were right each time, although one single appeal succeeded. My point being simply that federations wouldn't appeal simply to look like idiots.

Also , I did watch the race, the UK did not have a good start in the first go.
 
Oct 30, 2010
177
0
0
lemoogle said:
Like I said, if it was just this instance on its own, I wouldn't be saying anything. And I'm not saying it was definitely unfair. Thing is it happened to the UK at their home games along with several other restarts etc in their favour which if really hints at the possibility of it being planned in case of a bad start, which in the opinion of many people on this forum is as unsportsmanlike as the badminton players that were expelled.

It was indeed in their interested to appeal, but no one appeals unless it is reasonable, there are fines for useless appeals ( not sure about olympics but in many sports there are ), those federations don't want to sound like sore losers and yet still appealed.
How many federations appealed in boxing? I can name more than 3 and they were right each time, although one single appeal succeeded. My point being simply that federations wouldn't appeal simply to look like idiots.

Also , I did watch the race, the UK did not have a good start in the first go.
When Purchase held the seat up, that was just it, it was the 'seat' part'. Normally on a rowing seat it is fixed onto the runners which have wheels running along the slide.

One can argue about the 100m rule and whether it should be in place (I think it should), but there's no arguing with whether his seat was broken. To have fallen off one's seat and then try to pass it off as a 'mechanical' would be physically impossible as he would have to unscrew the seat from the runners. He came off the seat and immediately held it up.

Obviously, this being The Clinic, what we have here is PROOF OF DOPING!!! etc. etc. ad infinitem.

2000m races like that are not won in the first 100m. There is no way on earth they would have stopped in the 1st 100m unless there was a valid reason for it. To argue otherwise is an admission that one has never stepped into a rowing boat.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
Like I said, if it was just this instance on its own, I wouldn't be saying anything. And I'm not saying it was definitely unfair. Thing is it happened to the UK at their home games along with several other restarts etc in their favour which if really hints at the possibility of it being planned in case of a bad start, which in the opinion of many people on this forum is as unsportsmanlike as the badminton players that were expelled.

It was indeed in their interested to appeal, but no one appeals unless it is reasonable, there are fines for useless appeals ( not sure about olympics but in many sports there are ), those federations don't want to sound like sore losers and yet still appealed.
How many federations appealed in boxing? I can name more than 3 and they were right each time, although one single appeal succeeded. My point being simply that federations wouldn't appeal simply to look like idiots.

Also , I did watch the race, the UK did not have a good start in the first go.
Well the footage I've just watched including the overhead shots shows that they were lying second after 50 metres, that doesn't sound like a bad start to me. The New Zealand crew were happy with the restart as the quote in my earlier post shows. Which were the `several other restarts etc in their favour'? An interview with Zac and his team-mate suggests that they thought having to start again wrecked their chances of a gold (though obviously they salvaged a medal). I don't think the evidence stacks up on this one, yes Britain got lucky twice as far as I can see, however Pendleton got disqualified twice, and I think the relay team stuffed it up with their batton change. So you win some and you lose some.
 
Mr Pumpy said:
If whereabouts violations aren't doping related what are they?
So far then, it is not violations, plural, it's a single violation. You claimed there were violations.

Whereabouts is another thing entirely. Using your criteria for 'proof' (ex. an actual positive) that is not sufficient evidence of a doping violation.

So much for accusing France's cycling program of doping violations then... Maybe the french are just bitter?
 
Jul 30, 2012
14
0
0
Hawkwood said:
The rowing federations that appealed had a vested interest in doing so. A quick internet trawel found a New Zealand rower who had used the mechanical mishap excuse to get a restart, and Dutch rowing crew who jumped the starting gun knowing they wouldn't get penalised, so other nations aren't adverse to making full use of the rules. As I mentioned in my original post a news site stated that the British team made two good starts, which if true suggests they didn't need to go looking for a restart. And I'm not sure that these mishaps are that uncommon. Finally this is a quote from one of the members of the New Zealand crew `Uru said he and Taylor were unaffected by what happened at the start and they were "100 per cent happy" with the umpire's decision.' Given that they would have got a silver if Britain had been relegated the quote is telling.
It's all moot anyway - even if the race umpire had decided that the British double's equipment failure was somehow not within the envelope of that required for a restart the only sanction would have been a yellow card. ie. The race would have been restarted as it was anyway, with all six crews.
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
When Purchase held the seat up, that was just it, it was the 'seat' part'. Normally on a rowing seat it is fixed onto the runners which have wheels running along the slide.

One can argue about the 100m rule and whether it should be in place (I think it should), but there's no arguing with whether his seat was broken. To have fallen off one's seat and then try to pass it off as a 'mechanical' would be physically impossible as he would have to unscrew the seat from the runners. He came off the seat and immediately held it up.

Obviously, this being The Clinic, what we have here is PROOF OF DOPING!!! etc. etc. ad infinitem.

2000m races like that are not won in the first 100m. There is no way on earth they would have stopped in the 1st 100m unless there was a valid reason for it. To argue otherwise is an admission that one has never stepped into a rowing boat.
What I was saying is that it is possible that the seat breaking was due to a human mistake rather than a mechanical error. If I paddled completely wrong I could even theoretically break a paddle would that mean I get to restart the race? anyway, that's what the other teams filed a complaint about, saying there s a big chance that this was due to a human mistake ( whether it was intentional I won't begin to accuse ) .
Let's be fair, we shouldnt allow restarts for human mistakes, what is the point of disqualifying for a false start then?
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Hawkwood said:
Well the footage I've just watched including the overhead shots shows that they were lying second after 50 metres, that doesn't sound like a bad start to me. The New Zealand crew were happy with the restart as the quote in my earlier post shows. Which were the `several other restarts etc in their favour'? An interview with Zac and his team-mate suggests that they thought having to start again wrecked their chances of a gold (though obviously they salvaged a medal). I don't think the evidence stacks up on this one, yes Britain got lucky twice as far as I can see, however Pendleton got disqualified twice, and I think the relay team stuffed it up with their batton change. So you win some and you lose some.
NZ got about the same start. What about a team that started much better the first go than the second one? Would they be happy? It's much easier to mess up once you know you were doing really well before the restart.

By other restarts I meant in the UK's favour, not the men's double sculls in particular, sorry for the imprecision.

Also,
It took 30 minutes to disqualify Pendleton each time, for the team sprint, they even let the men go first before making a decision.
it took them however one minute to disqualify the chinese team for an infraction that was a million times less obvious and much more debatable.

Also stuffing a batton change is not really luck. It happens to loads of other teams and it's due to them messing up, not luck. Pendleton's first disqualification was also by quite some margin ( compared to the chinese at least ) and I wouldn't call it luck. The second one was similar, although we can debate wether mears was at the origin of pendleton's mistake.
 
Markyboyzx6r said:
When Purchase held the seat up, that was just it, it was the 'seat' part'. Normally on a rowing seat it is fixed onto the runners which have wheels running along the slide.

One can argue about the 100m rule and whether it should be in place (I think it should), but there's no arguing with whether his seat was broken. To have fallen off one's seat and then try to pass it off as a 'mechanical' would be physically impossible as he would have to unscrew the seat from the runners. He came off the seat and immediately held it up.

Obviously, this being The Clinic, what we have here is PROOF OF DOPING!!! etc. etc. ad infinitem.

2000m races like that are not won in the first 100m. There is no way on earth they would have stopped in the 1st 100m unless there was a valid reason for it. To argue otherwise is an admission that one has never stepped into a rowing boat.
Yeah, you haven't been in a rowing boat have you?

The seats come off by you just pushing them off the end of the slide, as you can see him do just before he holds it up. What looks like it happened, from what the British coach was doing, is that the hook, which runs underneath the slide and is there to stop the seat falling off, got slightly bent, causing slightly more resistance.

The most likely cause of this, is the seat coming off of the back of the rails.

In novice, rowing, which I am fairly familiar with, this is common, and boats coming to a grinding stop within 100m is not an unexpected result, however in general one would expect this to be caused by the boat not being set up correctly, something I don't believe British Rowing would do.

In conclusion, I think he just lent back too quickly, tilting the seat, which caused him to fall off somewhat. Then given it was in the first 100m he stopped and got a restart. In any of my rowing no one would restart and you would just accept the couple of metres lost ground and try to make it up, but there was an opportunity to get a restart and he used it. Britain yet again are better at the rules than anyone else.
 
May 19, 2011
4,857
1
0
mb2612 said:
Yeah, you haven't been in a rowing boat have you?

The seats come off by you just pushing them off the end of the slide, as you can see him do just before he holds it up. What looks like it happened, from what the British coach was doing, is that the hook, which runs underneath the slide and is there to stop the seat falling off, got slightly bent, causing slightly more resistance.

The most likely cause of this, is the seat coming off of the back of the rails.

In novice, rowing, which I am fairly familiar with, this is common, and boats coming to a grinding stop within 100m is not an unexpected result, however in general one would expect this to be caused by the boat not being set up correctly, something I don't believe British Rowing would do.

In conclusion, I think he just lent back too quickly, tilting the seat, which caused him to fall off somewhat. Then given it was in the first 100m he stopped and got a restart. In any of my rowing no one would restart and you would just accept the couple of metres lost ground and try to make it up, but there was an opportunity to get a restart and he used it. Britain yet again are better at the rules than anyone else.
oh yeah, Brits certainly are. Tom Daley re-diving is just an vivid example!!
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
lemoogle said:
NZ got about the same start. What about a team that started much better the first go than the second one? Would they be happy? It's much easier to mess up once you know you were doing really well before the restart.

By other restarts I meant in the UK's favour, not the men's double sculls in particular, sorry for the imprecision.

Also,
It took 30 minutes to disqualify Pendleton each time, for the team sprint, they even let the men go first before making a decision.
it took them however one minute to disqualify the chinese team for an infraction that was a million times less obvious and much more debatable.

Also stuffing a batton change is not really luck. It happens to loads of other teams and it's due to them messing up, not luck. Pendleton's first disqualification was also by quite some margin ( compared to the chinese at least ) and I wouldn't call it luck. The second one was similar, although we can debate wether mears was at the origin of pendleton's mistake.
I don't remember it taking 30 minutes to dq Pendleton in the team sprint, it seemed to happen quite rapidly, and this was despite Brailsford having a heated conversation with the main official involved. The second dq in the women's sprint final also didn't take long and again this was despite another intervention from Brailsford. The official who disqualified Pendleton the first time was also the one who was on the case re the men's sprint team restart. The `quite some margin' you speak of was in fact half a wheel fo the British, the Chinese were closer to not breaking the regulation, quarter of a wheel or less, and this was taken up by Porter and Boardman the BBC commentators. Both teams were doing 60 km/h at that point, so `quite some margin' in the British instance was a mistake of about 0.02 seconds in their timing, for the Chinese 0.01 or less I guess.
 
Jul 8, 2012
702
0
0
Hawkwood said:
I don't remember it taking 30 minutes to dq Pendleton in the team sprint, it seemed to happen quite rapidly, and this was despite Brailsford having a heated conversation with the main official involved. The second dq in the women's sprint final also didn't take long and again this was despite another intervention from Brailsford. The official who disqualified Pendleton the first time was also the one who was on the case re the men's sprint team restart. The `quite some margin' you speak of was in fact half a wheel fo the British, the Chinese were closer to not breaking the regulation, quarter of a wheel or less, and this was taken up by Porter and Boardman the BBC commentators. Both teams were doing 60 km/h at that point, so `quite some margin' in the British instance was a mistake of about 0.02 seconds in their timing, for the Chinese 0.01 or less I guess.
Listen, I'm not arguing it, the officials didn't make a mistake for the men's Team Sprint that's not the point that he was the same for pendleton ( there was one same leading official for the whole of the events in the velodrome ). The bias came when the badminton players were banned for unsportmanship but it was completely ignored ( and twisted to the british media ) that hindes had said that they fell on purpose.

To me more than twice the difference of the chinese is quite enough to say a lot more. On the distance of a 2 person team sprint, half a wheel is miles.

And they did take AGES to take the decision. They started discussing it early but no decision was taken, it was only announced to the crowd and taken into account officially after the men had done their qualifying, the bbc commentators had no clue either. For the chinese they announced it before the chinese could even get halfway through the journalists.

IMO I dont even see how Brailsford was even allowed to argue with them for 10 minutes, didn't see them discussing it for 10 minutes with the chinese coach before announcing it.
 
Jul 20, 2012
12
0
0
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
86TDFWinner The Clinic 4

ASK THE COMMUNITY