GB Track Team

[JimmyFingers]

Out of interest, who makes the final call on the legality of bikes for the OGs?

Boardman was saying on telly during the Tour that every nut and bolt of the GB Olympic bikes had been approved by the UCI, specifically to avoid any surprises during the Games themselves. As the UCI are the final arbiters of what's allowed in Olympic bike races, if they say the bikes are OK then they're OK, one would think. Are you saying that different bikes were used to those approved?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were inventing rules that don't actually apply, so you can claim GB are cheating by breaking them.

He's moronic, the bikes are legal of course

 

[Benotti69]

Out of interest, who makes the final call on the legality of bikes for the OGs?

Boardman was saying on telly during the Tour that every nut and bolt of the GB Olympic bikes had been approved by the UCI, specifically to avoid any surprises during the Games themselves. As the UCI are the final arbiters of what's allowed in Olympic bike races, if they say the bikes are OK then they're OK, one would think. Are you saying that different bikes were used to those approved?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were inventing rules that don't actually apply, so you can claim GB are cheating by breaking them.

The UCI change the rules to suit who ever is paying!

BroDeal is bang on.

 

[JimmyFingers]

BroDeal is bang on.

Surprising

 

[BroDeal]

Out of interest, who makes the final call on the legality of bikes for the OGs?

Boardman was saying on telly during the Tour that every nut and bolt of the GB Olympic bikes had been approved by the UCI, specifically to avoid any surprises during the Games themselves. As the UCI are the final arbiters of what's allowed in Olympic bike races, if they say the bikes are OK then they're OK, one would think. Are you saying that different bikes were used to those approved?

Boardman is lying by deflecting the question. Approval for bikes only means that they have passed UCI technical specifications. I can make a frame in my garage, submit it to the UCI (along with the required fee), and get approval. Official frame, wheel, etc. approval says nothing about whether the equipment abides by the rule that it be commerically available to all competitors. Boardman knows this.

They are cheating plain and simple.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Boardman is lying by deflecting the question. Approval for bikes only means that they have passed UCI technical specifications. I can make a frame in my garage, submit it to the UCI (along with the required fee), and get approval. Official frame, wheel, etc. approval says nothng about whether the equipment abides by the rule that it be commerically available to all competitors.

They are cheating plain and simple.

Yet you can buy it

 

[BroDeal]

Yet you can buy it

No one has been able to. That they are for sale is a fiction. It is glaring evidence that GB knows it is cheating and is trying to make it appear that they are not.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No one has been able to. That they are for sale is a fiction. It is glaring evidence that GB knows it is cheating and is trying to make it appear that they are not.

Have you tried?

 

[BroDeal]

Have you tried?

I'll take the Australians word on it. The fact that in two years they have sold zero bikes would seem to be conclusive.

It really is hilarious that you guys have gone from ludicrous assertions that the British would not cheat, it's not in the culture, there is no win at all costs attitude, and other assorted forms of poppycock to using pretzel logic to excuse a clear-cut case of cheating. Then you are outraged that people make the obvious inference: A team willing to cheat with illegal equipment is just as likely to cheat with drugs.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I'll take the Australians word on it. The fact that in two years they have sold zero bikes would seem to be conclusive.

Do you have evidence to back up this assumption?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Forgive me if I am wrong but if the GB Team was doping that would be the entire team right? .

I don't think so. The Women's results on the track (and road) were very reasonable given historic performances. Not just Team GB either.

The Men's track results are all over the place over the years I looked at over at the UCI's site. My understanding is the track team members changed over time. So it's very hard to know. My bias is to believe some riders did it. I could be wrong.

 

[BroDeal]

Do you have evidence to back up this assumption?

What assumption. It's fact. Boardman says so. Zero bikes.

It's not my fault that Team GB is cheating. Maybe you should contact them and ask why they are disgracing the nation with unsportsman-like behavior and casting suspicion on the whole program.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do you have evidence to back up this assumption?

How about you? How many bikes have they sold?

 

[blackcat]

supporters of Great Britian

dont worry, you are not winning gold because of doping.


critics of Great Britain

dont worry, they are not winning because of doping


ME

they (Olympic podium competitors) are all doping and using the pharmaceutical weapons at their disposal. Bauge et al, cannot cry fowl (sic), or wolf on a Surrey manor.


= a doping equilibrium

only caveat is that peds have different effects for individual athletes. But we left mythological olympic ideals behind many decades ago. you go to London to win medals, you are buying in to the culture. even if you dont plunge a hypodermic

 

[Ferminal]

supporters of Great Britian

dont worry, you are not winning gold because of doping.


critics of Great Britain

dont worry, they are not winning because of doping


ME

they (Olympic podium competitors) are all doping and using the pharmaceutical weapons at their disposal. Bauge et al, cannot cry fowl (sic), or wolf on a Surrey manor.


= a doping equilibrium

only caveat is that peds have different effects for individual athletes. But we left mythological olympic ideals behind many decades ago. you go to London to win medals, you are buying in to the culture. even if you dont plunge a hypodermic

GB would have an advantage as a home Olympics. For Australia it was all Spain/Italy but once they left the continent what could they do?

 

[blackcat]

GB would have an advantage as a home Olympics. For Australia it was. All Spain/Italy but once they left the continent what could they do?

I am merely adding a coherency the thread left out.

Brits won, on the same terms, as all other compititors. They deserve their gold medal ascendancy.

The Brits did not start doping recently. An individuals physique will not mimick others in the same disipline, tho there is a strong correlation. GB do have the lithe and supple athletes, that are not "traditional looking". But what the heck is "tradtional looking"? And there is one salient term. "Looking". I know Berhard Kohls preparetore Bernhard Matschiner had the Kenyan runners on hormones and bllod tranfusions. Even the skinny runners on the track do other hormones. Just cos Kenny or Pendleton are not the Chris Hoy or Bauge physique, means less that you believe. You wish to believe = cleanliness. bunkum.

It was not Sky that started it, or this decade, or the last decade. The Brits are no different.

But they won on their merit. They were indeed doping, but it was not the dope that won. Kenny beat Bauge fair and square. And Baugue is a hypocrite.

 

[blackcat]

To be brutally honest, the level of competition in track cycling is very thin, as there are very few countries with the infrastructure to run an operation like the GB set up, and only the Aussies really bother, if truth be told.

true dat.

track cycling is a sport where a nation can get good bang for its buck to outspend other rivals. When you have the infrastructure already built, you can really exploit that.

There are few undercover veledromes now, internationally speaking, that can be exploited for medal programs.

 

[blackcat]

N.B. Curious how all of those in Mo Farah's training camp suffer from thyroid conditions ...

dont forget Floyd had the thyroid disorder...

...

...

more than coiincidence?

 

[blackcat]

China has 4 times as many failed dope tests for swimming than any other nation. They recently had a 16 year old banned for EPO use. They are a controlled totalitarian state. They have had entire squads banned. They came from nowhere to dominate women's distance running and once athletes started getting caught, just as quickly disappeared again. Their history on doping absolutely stinks. Balding was absolutely right to at the very least ask the question of an outlying performance.

What's GB Track Cycling's history on doping? Nothing. No failed tests, just a consistent winning record with a team that since Boardman has run to hundreds of people, none of whom have ever 'squeeled'. Not one shred of evidence that even suggests doping. You think The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph wouldn't want to put one over on Murdoch, even if it meant destroying the sport? So we are well within our rights to give it hoorays and Britannia rules the waves, cause in certain sports, we do.

rob hayles got a hematocrit temporary suspension before manchester worlds.... which was gonna be the performance test for Beijing track pursuit team eh

but natural

or deyhdrated

or sick

or diorrhea

take your pick

interest in this sunk like a stone

 

[blackcat]

One thing that should be pointed out with respect to the whole "marginal gains" thing is that three words are being routinely missed out: "The aggregation of..."

Brailsford isn't claiming the gains are small, he is claiming that making gains in every available department (and there are prima facie more such departments in cycling than in most other sports) leads to large gains overall.

Now, whether this is ridiculous or not is another question. I think the idea is frequently being misrepresented here.

there is a market in these "gains" and even their aggregation. The market would find an equilibrium as competitors sought to neutralise a competitors advantage.

The fact that Brailsford is "marketing" his weasal words and "marginal gains" says it is something other, it is the figleaf. Because you do not give a competitor your competitive advantage do you? Or do you? You do when you wish to leave the rubes with some talking points as to why you are so superior and your muscular christianity and toil is cos of your inherent britishness.

 

[Morbius]

So based on recent posts:
Every winner in the Olympics is doped
Every team and every competitor knows this
Every governing body and drug testing agency is covering up
Every journalist hides the truth to keep in with their sources
The only place where the truth is understood is right here

This forum has some fascintating info, such as the analysis of the Armstrong case, but the assumption that winning = doping is just nuts.

 

[3wheeler]

So based on recent posts:
Every winner in the Olympics is doped
Every team and every competitor knows this
Every governing body and drug testing agency is covering up
Every journalist hides the truth to keep in with their sources
The only place where the truth is understood is right here

This forum has some fascintating info, such as the analysis of the Armstrong case, but the assumption that winning = doping is just nuts.

That about sums it up .. A Laughable thing this Clinic Section of the Forum

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

On the GB bikes front, I think we can safely assume that no-one has bought one. The question is why is this the case?

Three broad scenarios seem possible:

1 - No-one has been sufficiently bothered to try either due to a belief that the "secret squirrel" stuff is b*llocks or due to lack of attention to detail.

2 - Attempts have been made, but buyers have been deterred by the price.

3 - Attempts have been made, but the buyers have been thwarted by the British cycling secret police.

Now, as far as I know, after all the World Cup and World Champs events, there are press conferences, with riders and coaches etc. available for the esteemed members of the press. If either 2 or 3 above applied, then surely the issue would have been raised at one of the press conferences. In extremis, a French (or Aussie) journalist, at the behest of the thwarted cycling authorities in France, could have asked Sir Chris how they could get hold of one of the bikes.

Once in the public domain, the issue would have been impossible for Brailsford to duck, even with the full resources of MI5 and MI6 at his disposal, which is, of course, the least that we would expect for a man with such attention to detail.

So, how likely is is that attempts have been made to buy the bikes?

 

[Benotti69]

That about sums it up .. A Laughable thing this Clinic Section of the Forum

why are you here then?

 

[King Boonen]

This thread is highlighting everything that seems to go wrong with threads in the Clinic.

This should be a place to discuss real doping cases and ones where there is evidence. A discussion of how GB managed to break so many world records would be fine, a sensible discussion. But this is all just random hand waving.

Boardman's treatment is in line with treatment for Osteoporosis, and just because he hasn't noticed it doesn't mean he doesn't have it.

The bikes are available to buy, just because no-one has bought one doesn't mean you can't. Maybe L'Equipe or some other paper should try a sting operation rather than just hand-waving.

I think a fair few of you should read this:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/british-cycling-funding/#more-10312

France doesn't even have a heated indoor track, while GB will soon have four.

 

[Hawkwood]

...A team willing to cheat with illegal equipment is just as likely to cheat with drugs.

I don't see how one follows from the other? It's not a rational statement. In fact you could argue that a team that found some great technological advantage might decide not to use drugs on the basis that it was too risky. Your statement would be more accurate if it read `A team willing to cheat with illegal equipment might consider using other forms of cheating such as drugs.'