- May 26, 2009
- 10,230
- 579
- 24,080
[Crosspost from Russia thread]
'Someone' hacked into Russian whistleblower Yulia Stepanova's ADAMS account - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-08/wada-confirms-illegal-activity-on-yuliya-stepanovas-adams-account
And it's unclear exactly what is happening but now the only Russian allowed in track and field (long jumper Klishina) seems to have been banned from competing by the IAAF and is appealing to CAS. Seems to be new evidence related to McLaren Report..
'Someone' hacked into Russian whistleblower Yulia Stepanova's ADAMS account - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-08/wada-confirms-illegal-activity-on-yuliya-stepanovas-adams-account
And it's unclear exactly what is happening but now the only Russian allowed in track and field (long jumper Klishina) seems to have been banned from competing by the IAAF and is appealing to CAS. Seems to be new evidence related to McLaren Report..
- Mar 29, 2016
- 6,974
- 2
- 9,485
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympic...-games-for-doping-source-20160813-gqrz13.html
Russia's sole track and field competitor at the Rio Olympics, Darya Klishina, has been suspended from the Games, the international athletics federation (IAAF) said on Saturday, confirming it had withdrawn her special eligibility status.
A source close to the proceedings, who spoke on condition of anonymity said Klishina had been suspended as new evidence had emerged in relation to a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) report, the McLaren report.
Russia's sole track and field competitor at the Rio Olympics, Darya Klishina, has been suspended from the Games, the international athletics federation (IAAF) said on Saturday, confirming it had withdrawn her special eligibility status.
A source close to the proceedings, who spoke on condition of anonymity said Klishina had been suspended as new evidence had emerged in relation to a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) report, the McLaren report.
When I grew up there was only one known British track rider named Reginald Harris and that was it. Believe it or not He came out of retirement in 1974 and won the British sprint championship age 54 ! So much for the competitions then, but now all of the sudden the British riders, men or women stealing everything left and right with one of the biggest dopehead in the front...Wiggins sorry Sir Wiggins.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 1,249
- 19
- 10,510
Re:
If you really want to know, an appropriate way of describing him would be either "Wiggins", "Sir Bradley," "Bradley," or "Sir Bradley Wiggins" but "Sir Wiggins" is never right. I hope that helps with your problem.
Very ungracious, these "stealing" and "dopehead" allegations. Typical sour grapes. On the Clinic it's not a great surprise. It's time you got used to the change in the range of riders and their abilities since the days of Reg Harris. You will see that the Brits don't always win gold. Are those who beat them also dopeheads? Are those on their wheel dopeheads too?bikinggirl said:
If you really want to know, an appropriate way of describing him would be either "Wiggins", "Sir Bradley," "Bradley," or "Sir Bradley Wiggins" but "Sir Wiggins" is never right. I hope that helps with your problem.
Re: Re:
I have no problems, the British have a huge problem with doping or you must be incredible naïve!wrinklyvet said:
- Mar 3, 2013
- 1,249
- 19
- 10,510
Re: Re:
Yes, sure, everyone says so. No, I'm not naive. I have been around at least as long as you and know my own mind. Enjoy the sport!bikinggirl said:
Got to say, the idea of GB 'peaking' for the Olympics better than everyone else isn't ridiculous. They do genuinely have good sports science people on board, and they do have the pretty massive motivation of the omnipotent Funding Cycle. The ridiculous thing is suggesting that that in itself explains away the times posted by Team GB, and that it makes doping allegations unbelievable. If you've got a program as good as GB's, you probably do have ways of legitimately peaking for the Olympic cycle; we know from people like Ferrari that there's huge crossover between legitimate sports science and doping, and GB probably has the best at both. Doping isn't a panacea, especially since other teams are likely doping as well. It's all tied up with questions of motivation and training, in ways which aren't fully captured by polarised arguments.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re:
True. But it would never explain things like Radcliffe, Farah, Wiggins and Froome, all in far far far more competitive sports.
Anyone who wants to make an intelligent argument that Britain win the minor medals no one remembers, through peaking, might make some sense. But a blanket - "All brits are clean cos they are brits" argument is just stupid and no surprise that the dumbest people on the forum are the ones who make it
Cannibal72 said:
True. But it would never explain things like Radcliffe, Farah, Wiggins and Froome, all in far far far more competitive sports.
Anyone who wants to make an intelligent argument that Britain win the minor medals no one remembers, through peaking, might make some sense. But a blanket - "All brits are clean cos they are brits" argument is just stupid and no surprise that the dumbest people on the forum are the ones who make it
- Jun 22, 2010
- 5,017
- 1,103
- 20,680
The Brits have really focused on sports/events where they see they can excel at, thus more funding and more active recruitment of top talent, top coaches, top doctors, etc to those sports/events. Rowing, track cycling, road cycling (maybe?), and others. Of that there is no doubt. I think a lot of countries that have the money, resources, personnel and enough enthusiasm and ministry or sport support will do that. The Lithuanians, as a good example, have always had the talent in basketball, even since the Soviet days. They really supplied the Soviet team with a lot of talented players, and even though the Union dissolved in 1991, the Lithuanian team still kept/keeps producing talent and most of all, interest in that sport. They perhaps may not be as good as they were, but they are still there or thereabouts. Same with the Dutch in speed skating, same as the Slovenians in alpine skiing and ski jumping, Hungarians in water polo, etc. It doesn't mean that doping isn't there, it just means that unless you are a country with a big population and a massive land mass like the US, China, Russia, with a lot of different sports/events where you can challenge and develop talent, you have to specialize.
I know that in the former Yugoslavia, it was team sports that dominated the scene. Basketball, football, handball, volleyball, water polo..these sports were where the Olympic Committee could really rely on for medals at world's and olympics, and most of the time they delivered. It's just historical. You don't see it as much today, because all the former Yugoslav countries aren't as strong economically and most of the national teams are spread all over world, playing for different clubs and systems, whereas in the past a lot of them would be playing in the country, where the quality was top notch, so there was no need to go abroad. Individual sports, like track and field, swimming, boxing, wrestling, judo, shooting, gymnastics, etc, relied on individual talents. There were clubs, but it wasn't as big as the US system. It went up and down, but even there you saw contenders. Obviously with a country of no more than 24, 25 million people, you are not going to be challenging the US, or USSR or China or even France and GB for most medals, but it wasn't bad.
That brings me back to the Brits. They know where their strength lies and they put a lot of eggs in those baskets. Doesn't mean they aren't doping, or aren't getting something systematic out of it, but they are smart enough to know where to put their focus. If in a few years they get more top swimmers on their team, the caliber of Adam Peaty or something similar, perhaps they'll start to fund swimming more and we'll see a similar rising trend.
I hope I didn't steer too far off topic.
I know that in the former Yugoslavia, it was team sports that dominated the scene. Basketball, football, handball, volleyball, water polo..these sports were where the Olympic Committee could really rely on for medals at world's and olympics, and most of the time they delivered. It's just historical. You don't see it as much today, because all the former Yugoslav countries aren't as strong economically and most of the national teams are spread all over world, playing for different clubs and systems, whereas in the past a lot of them would be playing in the country, where the quality was top notch, so there was no need to go abroad. Individual sports, like track and field, swimming, boxing, wrestling, judo, shooting, gymnastics, etc, relied on individual talents. There were clubs, but it wasn't as big as the US system. It went up and down, but even there you saw contenders. Obviously with a country of no more than 24, 25 million people, you are not going to be challenging the US, or USSR or China or even France and GB for most medals, but it wasn't bad.
That brings me back to the Brits. They know where their strength lies and they put a lot of eggs in those baskets. Doesn't mean they aren't doping, or aren't getting something systematic out of it, but they are smart enough to know where to put their focus. If in a few years they get more top swimmers on their team, the caliber of Adam Peaty or something similar, perhaps they'll start to fund swimming more and we'll see a similar rising trend.
I hope I didn't steer too far off topic.
Re: Re:
Yep, absolutely agreed. And BullsFan posts well below as well. (Interesting to bring in Australia to that, a country who put huge amounts of money & effort into sports they're good at.)
The Hitch said:
Yep, absolutely agreed. And BullsFan posts well below as well. (Interesting to bring in Australia to that, a country who put huge amounts of money & effort into sports they're good at.)
- Dec 23, 2011
- 691
- 0
- 9,580
Re: Re:
Yes, we concentrate on certain sports that we're good at. Rowing and cycling are where we've put big money and effort, and it's paying rewards. Accusing us of doping because we're winning ignores the real facts of funding and effort.
Is anyone saying that? Saying "Brits are doping because they are" is just as dumb. And people are saying that.The Hitch said:
Yes, we concentrate on certain sports that we're good at. Rowing and cycling are where we've put big money and effort, and it's paying rewards. Accusing us of doping because we're winning ignores the real facts of funding and effort.
- Jul 6, 2014
- 1,645
- 318
- 11,180
bigcog said:
It's not a big improvement. It's a totally astonishing shift from being cycling minnows - track and road - to being utterly, utterly dominant, always, almost without a blip, in every big race that really matters. On a world-historical footing, in the last decade, Brits have produced the greatest cyclists ever, full stop. Look at Froome's climbing times + the constantly smashed track records. Champion after champion is unearthed - once in a generation talents have been discovered, across the disciplines, both men's + women's at a rate virtually unseen before.
Who the hell can believe that all of that is a plausible a clean story, especially when it is well known that doping has become institutionally epidemic across most sports? And in cycling - one of the few sports where all the dirty laundry got properly hung out to dry very, very recently, and in which every astute observer recognises tremendous (institutional + people) continuity between then and now.
- Dec 23, 2011
- 691
- 0
- 9,580
Forgetting, for one moment, the hyperbole, how is it that British Cycling is doing this? Are we dopers, and everyone else is clean? Is everyone doping, and we're just doing it better than everyone else?The Hegelian said:
These wins aren't massive. They're minor increments each time, and we're not blasting the opposition out of the park. We're winning by small margins. So exactly what are we doing that makes us winners, and everyone else losers? Because so many on here are convinced that the whole of British cycling is doped to the gills, and they even have "proof" (because we've improved over a few years). When some of us point to investment in programmes and facilities, others say that those programmes and facilities exist in other countries, too.
So, come on accusers - exactly what is British cycling doing?
- Feb 20, 2010
- 33,064
- 15,256
- 28,180
Re: Re:
1) much smaller set of variables in outcomes and shallower pool of opposition therefore better chance of success
2) much larger number of Olympic medals available, a currency much more immediately obvious to the non-fan than the various trophies and competitions available on the road other than the Tour de France
Even now, a lot of the riders in the track are only part time trackies, and that goes for the British teams as well (Owain Doull for example), but also it's worth noting that the current Olympic program absolutely favours the pure sprint-only track cyclists over the more endurance-based ones; races like the Scratch, Points and Madison are comparatively marginalized with the Team Sprint and Omnium coming in, and a historic event like the 1km time trial being replaced by the BMX (that's not a track issue, but I have a huge problem with that, mainly as I don't like the BMX). A lot of countries where track and road blend a lot historically have few riders specialized to the sprint events, although of course there have always been some. It's very different to how a lot of the history of the sport via the Six Days events has been, but also this is something that the British team (sorry, "Team GB", ugh) has been able to target, and the fact that in Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton they've had two excellent and marketable sprint/keirin type riders has definitely helped because these are the types of riders who aren't as capable of transitioning to the road as the pursuiters or points/scratch riders. Hence why we see a multiple world champion in these events, Giorgia Bronzini, electing instead to working on her climbing because she has more chance of competing in a Road Race totally unsuited to her than the track sprints off of the short distance events.
The issue with looking to deprecate the "peaking" point is that it is far too convenient to argue that others "missed their peak"; not only is it patently obvious that the British performances have been them at their best at the Olympics (they're setting Olympic and World records regularly) but the same argument was used to justify Sky in 2012; everybody was looking to peak for the Tour and the Olympics, and that's why Sky beat them so easily at Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphiné... except that they didn't peak at those races, and Sky/the Sky riders were still just as dominant; the justification was that everybody screwed up their peaking. Really? Every single other country messed up their peak, then sorted it out only to fall into the same trap the next Olympic year? Not only that, but it's really not fair to say others are missing their peaks when the US women's team pursuit set a World Record in the qualifying, and the Australian men were beaten by the tiniest of margins by that British team setting a World Record in the final. Clearly the British track program is built around peaking specifically for the Olympic Games and not caring too much about the races in between, but that's part of the reason people are calling out the likes of Kristin Armstrong, so why shouldn't the same scepticism be applied to others?
Rowing yes, but cycling isn't a sport that the Britons have traditionally been good at, it's a sport that they've targeted because they already had a couple of quality riders and, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, there's a lot of medals on offer in a comparatively shallow pool of competition, and the variables are much more controllable than the road. Back in the Cold War era, the track was an area that the Eastern Bloc nations put a lot of focus on because of cycling being amateur at the Olympics then. However, when the Berlin Wall fell and professional careers became available to many of those DDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and USSR riders, they moved West and took them, but as a result, as most of the money in cycling is on the road, the majority of them moved onto the road accordingly, and those that didn't were no longer receiving the same funding/backing from their states in rebuilding processes; this had a negative effect on the depth on the track. However, there's only 2 gold medals available for each gender in road racing (mass start road race and ITT), as opposed to a huge amount of track events, so for a nation which, at the time of the program being set up, had little real cycling heritage, track cycling was an obvious target for two reasons:doolols said:
1) much smaller set of variables in outcomes and shallower pool of opposition therefore better chance of success
2) much larger number of Olympic medals available, a currency much more immediately obvious to the non-fan than the various trophies and competitions available on the road other than the Tour de France
Even now, a lot of the riders in the track are only part time trackies, and that goes for the British teams as well (Owain Doull for example), but also it's worth noting that the current Olympic program absolutely favours the pure sprint-only track cyclists over the more endurance-based ones; races like the Scratch, Points and Madison are comparatively marginalized with the Team Sprint and Omnium coming in, and a historic event like the 1km time trial being replaced by the BMX (that's not a track issue, but I have a huge problem with that, mainly as I don't like the BMX). A lot of countries where track and road blend a lot historically have few riders specialized to the sprint events, although of course there have always been some. It's very different to how a lot of the history of the sport via the Six Days events has been, but also this is something that the British team (sorry, "Team GB", ugh) has been able to target, and the fact that in Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton they've had two excellent and marketable sprint/keirin type riders has definitely helped because these are the types of riders who aren't as capable of transitioning to the road as the pursuiters or points/scratch riders. Hence why we see a multiple world champion in these events, Giorgia Bronzini, electing instead to working on her climbing because she has more chance of competing in a Road Race totally unsuited to her than the track sprints off of the short distance events.
The issue with looking to deprecate the "peaking" point is that it is far too convenient to argue that others "missed their peak"; not only is it patently obvious that the British performances have been them at their best at the Olympics (they're setting Olympic and World records regularly) but the same argument was used to justify Sky in 2012; everybody was looking to peak for the Tour and the Olympics, and that's why Sky beat them so easily at Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphiné... except that they didn't peak at those races, and Sky/the Sky riders were still just as dominant; the justification was that everybody screwed up their peaking. Really? Every single other country messed up their peak, then sorted it out only to fall into the same trap the next Olympic year? Not only that, but it's really not fair to say others are missing their peaks when the US women's team pursuit set a World Record in the qualifying, and the Australian men were beaten by the tiniest of margins by that British team setting a World Record in the final. Clearly the British track program is built around peaking specifically for the Olympic Games and not caring too much about the races in between, but that's part of the reason people are calling out the likes of Kristin Armstrong, so why shouldn't the same scepticism be applied to others?
- May 26, 2009
- 10,230
- 579
- 24,080
I read someone (Caley Fretz?) say that GB's equipment budget is more than the entire USA track cycling budget (which I guess is the second largest, or near that), which sounded crazy. Whatever's going on the least you can say is that the 'financial doping' will be giving them a big advantage.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram