GB Track Team

[Franklin]

This is a fascinating idea to me. Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that Team GB does have a doping strategy in mind. If you really are going to do it, using taxpayers money (lottery proceeds ?) then you would have to be "all in", as the card players say.

Nonsense. The origin of the money doesn't elevate the need for secrecy. And there are MANY examples of "suspected" teamwide doping which didn't materialize so far. I'll give two obvious cases:

1. The chances of Phonak having a teamwide doping program are tremendous. The idea that nobody knew that Hamilton, Perez and Floyd were doing is beyond belief.
2. The same for Saunier Duval.

Yet all these scandals were rolled upon the riders, never the team.

Preeminent doping skills and a comprehensive plan, perhaps even including synthesis of novel compounds and a strategy to cover things up so thoroughly that the truth would not come out. This would be so audacious it would be breathtaking.

Again; nonsense.

1. you don't need novel drugs and the evasion scheme is not extremely complicated.
2. Only the managers (including head medical) and the riders need to know. Heck you can dope the riders without them being 100% sure of the others. "Hey Timmy, we understand you have a rough patch, but this is gonna help you. Not a word to the others of course!" And yes, there are stories similar to this scenario as well, this is not fictional.

I personally don't think that this has happened or could have happened in this case. IMHO this is what Pharmstrong and US Postal did but were not ultimately "all in", as the moles were more than willing to divulge what they know.

I beg your pardon? The extraordinary length to get where we are now (which is basically still nothing until we see a verdict) shows how effective the Omerta is. And that is ONE team which has been hunted down by all means neccesary.

Do you honestly belief that it was just USPS????? Are you that naive? Are you really buying into the mantra that the riders dope without the team knowing of it?

The sad truth is that most stories never see the light of day and that all we see is the crumbs.

 

[Franklin]

To the point;

First we had Wiggins saying that the stakes were to high and people bought that. Yet we know that the stakes didn't stop others, so Wiggins, even if truthful, didn't put forward a convincing argument.

Now the same argument is made about the whole team because it's taxpayers money and somehow this raises the stakes even more?

Do you guys have any idea what would happen if anyone gets busted? The most common scenario:

"Yesterday I took the drug for the first time. I did it myself, I'm deeply ashamed for hurting the team"

We have seen this movie a few hundred times, so why people are now thinking that it's somehow different for team Sky/GB is amazing.

How much history is going to be disregarded to make the story work?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If I am correct, there have been 7 track cycling events? The Brits taking 5 gold, one bronze and one DQ wich they were the clear favourites for?

Well, in the DQ i.e Womens Team Sprint - China would have been favourites but anyway...

Wonder why road cycling fans don't take track cycling serious.

Really? Given the history of road racing I think you are slightly deluded there.

This is take from the Lemond thread and would be equally relevant here

It would be nice to see some real evidence, like

over a dozen direct witnesses
Multiple positives
Questionable blood values
Drugs and Syringes dumped by team staff
Admissions

Evidence like this would be interesting.

Now, certainly the dominance in the track cycling is suspicious. I would say not necessarily the medal count but the times being posted. However, what else is there that points to doping?

 

[The Cobra]

Nonsense. The origin of the money doesn't elevate the need for secrecy. And there are MANY examples of "suspected" teamwide doping which didn't materialize so far. I'll give two obvious cases:

1. The chances of Phonak having a teamwide doping program are tremendous. The idea that nobody knew that Hamilton, Perez and Floyd were doing is beyond belief.
2. The same for Saunier Duval.

Yet all these scandals were rolled upon the riders, never the team.



Again; nonsense.

1. you don't need novel drugs and the evasion scheme is not extremely complicated.
2. Only the managers (including head medical) and the riders need to know. Heck you can dope the riders without them being 100% sure of the others. "Hey Timmy, we understand you have a rough patch, but this is gonna help you. Not a word to the others of course!" And yes, there are stories similar to this scenario as well, this is not fictional.



I beg your pardon? The extraordinary length to get where we are now (which is basically still nothing until we see a verdict) shows how effective the Omerta is. And that is ONE team which has been hunted down by all means neccesary.

Do you honestly belief that it was just USPS????? Are you that naive? Are you really buying into the mantra that the riders dope without the team knowing of it?

The sad truth is that most stories never see the light of day and that all we see is the crumbs.

Point 1) Didnt Floyd himself say that when he joined Phonak he made it clear to the management that he would have to dope to win the Tour. They accepted it and knew what was going on but that is totally different form the USPS setup where they actively supplied the drugs etc. Every team would have been aware of what was going on but I doubt many took the trouble of organising team wide doping to the extent USPS did.

Point 2) I could believe that only a few people would know for Team Sky where youre talking about a very small group of riders hidden away on top of a volcano. But the entire track team?? Im sorry thats just not plausible that they could make the riders believe that they were the only one and the rest of the team is clean so they had to keep quiet.

This isnt the 90's anymore. They will have to go to quite some length to organise doping for the entire team and avoid detection. This would by no means be a small operation and there would have to be many many people complicit.

 

[Ferminal]

Hammer, who holds the world record in the pursuit, beat Trott by nearly a full second in the race, setting a new track record of 3:29.554 in the process

7 secs away from her IP WR set at Altidtude in a multi-sport event isn't bad at all.

Its not just team GB going fast. Others are doing it as well.

Not that great if we consider what Hansen and Clancy were able to do.

 

[hiero2]

Now, certainly the dominance in the track cycling is suspicious. I would say not necessarily the medal count but the times being posted. However, what else is there that points to doping?

Nothing, yet. And maybe there never will be. In one way, I hope that there never is anything else that points to SOMETHING suspicious. It is just that, I can not enjoy several of the remarkable victories this year as I would have in the past.

But, we will see. History will tell. If Brailsford and Britain have hit on a winning combination for training or nutrition, we will see it repeated by other teams. And, eventually the news of "how" will trickle down to us peons.

 

[arthurvandelay]

Franklin, Cobra, etc.

With respect to doping in the 90's and 00's in the road peloton I certainly do believe that doping was widespread. The point that I was trying to make is that USPS appears to be the only group that went for an audacious "all-in" doping strategy: hell yes we're gonna dope, flat out, and aggressively protect our image at the same time. I do believe that if Lance had given Floyd a job or a few bucks when he asked, that USPS would not be involved in any of this WADA and USADA stuff. The current imbroglio could result in the complete cashiering of UCI's authority to regulate cycling worldwide.

My hypothesis is that IF Team GB is doping, it would have to be similar in scope and aggression similar to what USPS attempted.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Nothing, yet. And maybe there never will be. In one way, I hope that there never is anything else that points to SOMETHING suspicious. It is just that, I can not enjoy several of the remarkable victories this year as I would have in the past.

But, we will see. History will tell. If Brailsford and Britain have hit on a winning combination for training or nutrition, we will see it repeated by other teams. And, eventually the news of "how" will trickle down to us peons.

Well this is the perennial problem isn't it? When teams have dominated this much then inevitably they have been shown to be doping. What makes us think this is different? Nothing really but other than the medals and times there is not much else I can see as evidence. Still, as you say time will probably tell.

 

[Dalakhani]

I'm not sure about the logic of

"Team Sky are doping, Brailsford runs team Sky, Brailsford runs the track team, therefore the track team must be doping... and must have been doping for years".

Here's a theory (with a bunch of assumptions underlying it):

Team GB were successful on the track (and on the road for women) clean. They achieved this by working on the science of the sport (with a superior budget).

They then set up Team Sky in the belief they could teach road racing "how it's done" by using the same science - and by not using people with a drug past. (With the exception of Yates.)

The figurehead was to be Wiggins who showed his ability by finishing 4th in the 2009 tour.

2010 was a disaster for Sky. They had no consistency, and no results.

At the end of that season, they admitted they needed more road expertise behind the scenes - and that that would mean bringing in people with "tarnished" pasts. So they brought in this Rabobank doctor.

They soon realised that Wiggins wasn't that good. That his 2009 result wasn't a sign of better things to come, but a case of a dog having his day.

They may have been told (perhaps by their doctor) they had no chance of dominating on the road unless they juiced, because (some) rivals were juicing. (Or maybe it was Yates that came to that conclusion.)

So, faced with the choice between:

(a) being a bunch of also rans
(b) closing down the team
(c) juicing

they chose the 3rd option.

And, from 2011, they were suddenly operating at a different level.

Now, of course, this is just a theory.

But it's one way to be very sceptical about the mens road racers, without needing to believe Brailsford has been running a programme for a decade without someone breaking ranks.

 

[Franklin]

It's possible. However, the hurdle to implement it in team GB would be lowered by a huge margin. In for a penny, in for a pound. Your point does have some merit if we just consider the tenerife group as dopers. It might be just that cell.

Or they might be clean for all we know. We have absolutely nothing substantial on the track team besides their peculiar record over the years. And even that could be explained by sublime peaking.

But is a clean Kenny really stronger than a probable doped Bauget? Is Bauget really a donkey? It's all about faith in the end.

 

[The Cobra]

That his 2009 result wasn't a sign of better things to come, but a case of a dog having his day.

Dalakhani I agree with most of your post except for this bit. I don't think its possible to fluke a 4th place finish clean in the Tour. If he was clean its becasue he had the talent, that doesnt just disappear.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

But is a clean Kenny really stronger than a probable doped Bauget? Is Bauget really a donkey? It's all about faith in the end.

One thing to take into account is that Bauge had a recent (back dated) suspension for missing drug tests. Not sure if it is two strikes and you are out but, if so, he might be erring on the side of caution if he was previously doping. That would surely effect his form.

 

[cycladianpirate]

Don't all of these arguments boil down to:

1. "Don't be so cynical!"

2. "I have every reason to be cynical!"

 

[Dalakhani]

Dalakhani I agree with most of your post except for this bit. I don't think its possible to fluke a 4th place finish clean in the Tour. If he was clean its becasue he had the talent, that doesnt just disappear.

OK, let's say on the "talent scale", he scores 80 - whatever that means, it's not important, but it's a high number.

And let's say that, against dopers (remember who were 1, 2 and 3), 80 can give you a 4th place... if you're on great form, if the course suits you, if the weather suits you, if luck goes your way.

Ok, next year he comes back. He's still an 80... but the course doesn't suit him as much, the weather doesn't suit him as much (wasn't 2010 quite hot during the tour?), he didn't get so much good fortune, he was no longer under the radar...

So, while his talent doesn't disappear, his luck just isn't in the way it was the previous year. And people realise the chance of a "perfect storm" coming together in a future Tour that would put him 1st is highly improbable.

In which case, with the sponsors throwing a lot of money at the team, and expecting domination in return, what do you do?

(And what do you do about your prima donna team leader who's given up gold medals to ride for your team on the road?)

Remember, this is just a theory. There are plenty of holes in it!

 

[lemoogle]

Whatever Bauge does , he does it consistently, performing and slowly improving at a regular rate over the last 4 years.
Whatever Kenny(+ hoy and co) does gives him a massive boost between April to August every four years, don't tell me he trains harder for 4 months and that's why he wins the olympics, I can believe that Bolt works really hard after getting beat at the national selections and that making a difference, but that's a special case.

The scarcity of the UK's "super" performances shows that whatever it is doing , they are careful with it and only pulling it out when it needs to be, i.e. at the olympics, tour de france the year of the olympics etc.

Think of it as : if you have a secret move, and you use it all the time, someone is going to notice it and either copy it or find a way to stop it, if you use it once in a while it will take them a lot longer to. And when they do find a way to notice it, well maybe those samples will be gone then ( or equipment )

 

[The Cobra]

Don't all of these arguments boil down to:

1. "Don't be so cynical!"

2. "I have every reason to be cynical!"

Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

 

[lemoogle]

And will people stop saying Bauge was simply off form. You can't have been watching if you think that's the reason.
Same for the Team sprint. The French actually improved on their world champ time.

 

[lemoogle]

Don't all of these arguments boil down to:

1. "Don't be so cynical!"

2. "I have every reason to be cynical!"

I wish, except it's more 1. "No way, I'm british , you guys are just jealous, it's normal that my british riders are destroying all world records and all other competitors that have been either beating them or very close to them recently at <insert olympics or TDF here> They have been working hard !! "

 

[The Cobra]

And will people stop saying Bauge was simply off form. You can't have been watching if you think that's the reason.
Same for the Team sprint. The French actually improved on their world champ time.

He wasn't at his best though was he.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I can believe that Bolt works really hard after getting beat at the national selections and that making a difference, but that's a special case.

I wish, except it's more 1. "No way, I'm british , you guys are just jealous, it's normal that my british riders are destroying all world records and all other competitors that have been either beating them or very close to them recently at <insert olympics or TDF here> They have been working hard !! "

So why is Bolt a special case then?

 

[JimmyFingers]

I thought it was hilarious Bauge got beat, and his reaction to it. Indeed the fact that France are fuming at the GB success is almost as good as all the gold we've won. Magic wheels.....

 

[the big ring]

I'm not sure about the logic of

"Team Sky are doping, Brailsford runs team Sky, Brailsford runs the track team, therefore the track team must be doping... and must have been doping for years".

The fish rots from the head.

If the head started rotting in 2009, your only course is to assume the rest of the fish is stinky in 2012.

 

[Corona]

To the point;

Do you guys have any idea what would happen if anyone gets busted? The most common scenario:



We have seen this movie a few hundred times, so why people are now thinking that it's somehow different for team Sky/GB is amazing.

How much history is going to be disregarded to make the story work?

Franklin,

The reason that it's somehow different for Team Sky/GB is that I can't recall anybody doping for this level of domination/success before.

Surely, common sense dictates that if you are going to dope then at least try and moderate it to allow some semblance of respectability.

For this reason I genuinely don't think they are doping (in the conventional sense). To go this far I reckon they would have to be 100% convinced they won't ever get caught, even years down the line.

I think it's more likely that what we'll hear when it all comes out is 'we didn't breach any rules'.

Daryl Webster has touched upon 'genetic modification' on the Sky thread. It's far too scientific for me to begin to understand it but I suspect 'cheating' of this type far more than I do conventional doping as we know and understand it now.

I think when it all comes out, Brailsford will have the cop out somewhere that it wasn't 'against the rules' at the time to save face.

Marginal gains are interesting but just because you have marginal gains doesn't mean you don't also have significant gains. Sky/GB obviously do have significant gains as well and I think they must come from science that the world will acknowledge as 'cheating' but will allow the perpetrators to stick behind the 'not against the rules' mantra.

This could also be why other teams are being slow in catching up, it's probably not enough to know that the riders are spending 2 hours a day in the 'juice box', they need to know what the 'juice box' settings are and even the riders may not know that.

 

[LastDamnation]

The fish rots from the head.

If the head started rotting in 2009, your only course is to assume the rest of the fish is stinky in 2012.

I think the bit that doesn't add up is that if they were doping in Beijing, then why weren't sky dominant in 2010?

 

[red_death]

The fish rots from the head.

If the head started rotting in 2009, your only course is to assume the rest of the fish is stinky in 2012.

Except where is the evidence (even circumstantial?) that GB started doping in 2009?

Brailsford has been involved with British cycling a lot longer than 2009.

This is 60 pages of "magic wheels" nonsense...