Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[stutue]

no, not widely held in general, but almost universally held by British people (similarly to how Americans thought the same of their athletes in Lance's poisoned era)

And your evidence for this is?

 

[Ripper]

The thought also occurs if they aren't using Tramadol, what the hell did they give Geraint Thomas to allow him to ride the Tour with a broken a*se.

A big hug and a thumbs up.

 

[elduggo]

And your evidence for this is?

this thread

 

[stutue]

this thread

Oh right. So "this thread" represents the collective "almost universal" view of 63,182, 000 British people.

No point continuing this conversation.

 

[martinvickers]

A big hug and a thumbs up.

A thumb up where??

Actually, don't answer that....

#shudder

 

[The Hitch]

And your evidence for this is?

I have seen it in the media a few times. Notably when that telegraph reporter who ghost wrote wiggos book offered his race supremacy theory about how brits could never win the tdf because it was doped but now that they have, it's the litmus test for cycling being clean.

I think it's also implicit when the BBC accuse Chinese or north African athletes of doping because they had surprising transformations but don't breathe a word about mo farah.

Not all brits or course, nor just Britain.but racist thinking does often hide behind what is portrayed as harmless cheering for your compatriots.

I think I've seen it more from Australians though, especially that ****er the secret pro who believes doping is ok if done by Australians.

 

[Catwhoorg]

There is an "element of Brits don't dope" around, but I don't think its even a majority of people I know, and every time a "serious player" gets caught, then that proportion goes down.

Anyone I know personally who actually plays or even seriously follows just about any sport acknowledges there are Britsih dopers.

Most of my ex(now we are all older)rugby playing buddies, are a little ashamed at the prevalence of doping in rugby, but at least UKAD are trying to tackle it head on.


Mind you some of them still think that massive IC urine testing is a way to catch cheats.

 

[elduggo]

Oh right. So "this thread" represents the collective "almost universal" view of 63,182, 000 British people.

No point continuing this conversation.

the olympics and the big love-in following britain's 'success' when clearly there was something very suspicious going on.

 

[stutue]

I have seen it in the media a few times. Notably when that telegraph reporter who ghost wrote wiggos book offered his race supremacy theory about how brits could never win the tdf because it was doped but now that they have, it's the litmus test for cycling being clean.

I think it's also implicit when the BBC accuse Chinese or north African athletes of doping because they had surprising transformations but don't breathe a word about mo farah.

Not all brits or course, nor just Britain.but racist thinking does often hide behind what is portrayed as harmless cheering for your compatriots.

I think I've seen it more from Australians though, especially that ****er the secret pro who believes doping is ok if done by Australians.

I think you make some good points here, and I'm sure there are some British people who still think that British sport is whiter than white, just as you would find in any nationality. But, it is a very long way from being 'universal'.

The reality is that most British are pretty ignorant of cycling....but if you ask them for the very first word that comes to mind they will say 'doping'. I don't see that they exclude British cyclists from this.

Actually, its funny that you should mention the Aussies as I once had a very dear friend, an Aussie turned British, stating absolutely adamantly that cheating at sport is just not in the Australian psyche and it wouldn't be tolerated by Australians.

You are quite right about racist stereotypes but remember that those aren't just international but national too. I don't know if you are British or resident here, but if you are you will almost certainly remember the opprobrium handed out to Dwain Chambers , and to a similar degree Modahl and Christie.

I think you'll always get a bit of flag-waving around sports in every nation, and especially during large events like the Olympics. That is normal and it is not peculiar to the British.

 

[The Hitch]

Let me simplify my point.

The premise is that ex-doper staff=doping team, therefore Sky are doping, but so is everybody else.

The premise isn't that Sky are NOT doping.

The point is, if Sky are doping and so is everyone else, what explains Sky's considerable success.
.

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter to a -are they doping or not, discussion. If they dope alone, they dope. If they dope with everyone else, they still dope.

You seem to be advancing 'talent', and yet that flies in the face of other statements frequently made that Wiggins and Froome are not talented. In fact, it is the belief of their lack of previous talent that's leads to the conclusion that they must be doping, given their recent run of success.

No it's a lot of things that lead to the conclusion but the main one has been the performances. If froome and Wiggins had been top from day 1 people would still think they dope. The lack of previous talent merely makes it look even more ridiculous.

You seem to be advancing 'talent', and yet that flies in the face of other statements frequently made that Wiggins and Froome are not talented. I

I'm not advancing it I'm acknowledging it as a possibility. They could be talented or not talented, they are doping either way. The only way they are not doping is if they are the two most talented athletes jn the history of cycling if not sport and that's not an exaggeration because their speeds and performancws, when standardized against doped performances, are just so much greater than what anyone else has ever achieved.

My side has a massive margin of error. Could be wrong on a great many things and sky would still be doping. Doesn't matter if one person says froome has no talent and the other says he has some talent, because both accommodate doping. The side that believes on the other hand has 0 margin for error. If they aren't right on absolutely everything and froome and Wiggins aren't the two in a billion physiological freaks of nature, the story falls apart.

 

[stutue]

the olympics and the big love-in following britain's 'success' when clearly there was something very suspicious going on.

See the last paragraph of my previous post for my view on that.

As an aside, why was there 'clearly' something suspicious going on? Where? Which events? Just the one ones the the British had some success?

Perhaps you need to conduct an honest assessment of your own motivations
There might be a little closet racism going on in threre...

 

[martinvickers]

I have seen it in the media a few times. Notably when that telegraph reporter who ghost wrote wiggos book offered his race supremacy theory about how brits could never win the tdf because it was doped but now that they have, it's the litmus test for cycling being clean.

I think it's also implicit when the BBC accuse Chinese or north African athletes of doping because they had surprising transformations but don't breathe a word about mo farah.

Not all brits or course, nor just Britain.but racist thinking does often hide behind what is portrayed as harmless cheering for your compatriots.

I think I've seen it more from Australians though, especially that ****er the secret pro who believes doping is ok if done by Australians.

The 'Brits don't dope' crap has its roots in the post tour win wiggins book, where he goes on a bit of a rant about the relative treatment of Virenque post-admission and how a brit would be treated by the brits, post-admission. He says somewhere something along the lines of "it's just not acceptable here" - it's part of his "I don't dope" argument.

Of course, on a limited level it's true (the first bit anyway, the bit were it's supposed to show wiggo won't dope is nonsense) - different cultures (not 'races' #weareallmonkeys) have shown different attitudes to dopers over the years, for complex sociological and cultural, and even historical reasons - the mediterranean countries (italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) have all experienced different forms of fascism over the last century, as well as catholic conservatism. Some quite recently, historically speaking.

Americana seems to see itself as a walking moral bastion. Accusations against american heroes are to be met with fierce indignation, crys of jealously and ill disguised contempt. One the doper is uncovered - Marion Jones, Lance - there's a good chance they;ll be treated like a leper who 'betrayed american values'. that's the thing about Americana. The pople may let you down, but the idea is sancrosanct.

The Irish had the conservatism, but not the facism - it's possibly not entirely accidental how many of the Pains in Lance's **** were Irish - nor is it accidental that we still give Sean Kelly a big 'benefit of the doubt' - as a culture, we have an inate sympathy for 'doing what it takes' to get one over 'the biog boys'. 'Cute hoorism' - the Irish actively enjoy watching the dodgy little guy getting the win - if he does it on our behalf, all the better. Hell, Fianna Fail have dominated southern politics on that basis for the better part of 90 years. Not always mind. Michelle Smith ain't popular. There seems to be a statute of liitations on moral indignation. If you can paint it as, those were the bad days at the moment you're found out, youi've a much better chance.

The Brits tend to a similar belief in moral purpose of sport to the americans, and a puritanism once an athlete is found out. see, Chambers, Dwaine. Other cultues have other cultural reactions. Neither better, nor worse; just different.

That has somehow become the idea that brits believe that no brit dopes, which is patently, frankly, absurd. Even casual sports watchers know of Dwaine Chambers - the campaigns to keep him out of a GB vest were many and public, including in the telegraph. And to 'forgive' their dopers (and forgiveness is the right word) the Brits expect a certain 'public repentance' (honest or otherwise), and a narrative about how this 'bad person' has seen the light and is saving others from the darkness. Hence David Millar.

None of which changes the other reality, either. All countries have doping, without exception - probably even the Vatican City state all-priest footie team. Some countries, for non-racial historical reasons have worse problems than others (poverty, politics, prizemoney), and some have worse problems in some sports than others. Some appear to be trying to tackle it (Russia, even today, yet more high profile positives - from the blood passport programme no less, is still better than the former denial). some, sadly, don't (Jamaica seem to be hounding the officials who banned Powell, Kenya)

And for the record Ye Shewin was defended, broadly by the BBC (and some fo their non-brit pundits like Thorpe) when the americans went all in. Cram was however publicly 'troubled' by the turkish women and Makhloufi. Given Makhloufi seems to have gone to ground, and Çakır Alptekin's subsequent 2nd bust, since 'cleared' by the turks, was he entirely wrong?

 

[stutue]

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter to a -are they doping or not, discussion. If they dope alone, they dope. If they dope with everyone else, they still dope.



No it's a lot of things that lead to the conclusion but the main one has been the performances. If froome and Wiggins had been top from day 1 people would still think they dope. The lack of previous talent merely makes it look even more ridiculous.


I'm not advancing it I'm acknowledging it as a possibility. They could be talented or not talented, they are doping either way. The only way they are not doping is if they are the two most talented athletes jn the history of cycling if not sport and that's not an exaggeration because their speeds and performancws, when standardized against doped performances, are just so much greater than what anyone else has ever achieved.

My side has a massive margin of error. Could be wrong on a great many things and sky would still be doping. Doesn't matter if one person says froome has no talent and the other says he has some talent, because both accommodate doping. The side that believes on the other hand has 0 margin for error. If they aren't right on absolutely everything and froome and Wiggins aren't the two in a billion physiological freaks of nature, the story falls apart

I don't think it is possible to hold a position of certainty either way at the moment because there has not been any analysis of comparative performances that passes the credibility test and therefore I can't accept a judgement that concludes that a clean Wiggins must be one of the two most talented cyclists ever.

If I had to guess, I'd come down in your position. But a guess is still just a guess

 

[Catwhoorg]

The reality is that most British are pretty ignorant of cycling....but if you ask them for the very first word that comes to mind they will say 'doping'. I don't see that they exclude British cyclists from this.

Funny little anecdote. When I put in for my summer vacation time, to take my daughter to the UK for family visits, I casually mentioned that the timing was partly dictated by le Tour, we aim to stand by the roadside somewhere in Yorkshire and watch the first two stages fly by. (Hopefully with Cav in Yellow on Sunday)

His response was, why ? They are all a bunch of dopers.

He is originally Indian, though naturalized in the US for quite a while.

Even if Cycling was 100% clean as of now (and it isn't), it would STILL take 20 years or more to overcome the reputational damage of the recent past.

 

[stutue]

The 'Brits don't dope' crap has its roots in the post tour win wiggins book, where he goes on a bit of a rant about the relative treatment of Virenque post-admission and how a brit would be treated by the brits, post-admission. He says somewhere something along the lines of "it's just not acceptable here" - it's part of his "I don't dope" argument.

Of course, on a limited level it's true (the first bit anyway, the bit were it's supposed to show wiggo won't dope is nonsense) - different cultures (not 'races' #weareallmonkeys) have shown different attitudes to dopers over the years, for complex sociological and cultural, and even historical reasons - the mediterranean countries (italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) have all experienced different forms of fascism over the last century, as well as catholic conservatism. Some quite recently, historically speaking.

Americana seems to see itself as a walking moral bastion. Accusations against american heroes are to be met with fierce indignation, crys of jealously and ill disguised contempt. One the doper is uncovered - Marion Jones, Lance - there's a good chance they;ll be treated like a leper who 'betrayed american values'. that's the thing about Americana. The pople may let you down, but the idea is sancrosanct.

The Irish had the conservatism, but not the facism - it's possibly not entirely accidental how many of the Pains in Lance's **** were Irish - nor is it accidental that we still give Sean Kelly a big 'benefit of the doubt' - as a culture, we have an inate sympathy for 'doing what it takes' to get one over 'the biog boys'. 'Cute hoorism' - the Irish actively enjoy watching the dodgy little guy getting the win - if he does it on our behalf, all the better. Hell, Fianna Fail have dominated southern politics on that basis for the better part of 90 years. Not always mind. Michelle Smith ain't popular. There seems to be a statute of liitations on moral indignation. If you can paint it as, those were the bad days at the moment you're found out, youi've a much better chance.

The Brits tend to a similar belief in moral purpose of sport to the americans, and a puritanism once an athlete is found out. see, Chambers, Dwaine. Other cultues have other cultural reactions. Neither better, nor worse; just different.

That has somehow become the idea that brits believe that no brit dopes, which is patently, frankly, absurd. Even casual sports watchers know of Dwaine Chambers - the campaigns to keep him out of a GB vest were many and public, including in the telegraph. And to 'forgive' their dopers (and forgiveness is the right word) the Brits expect a certain 'public repentance' (honest or otherwise), and a narrative about how this 'bad person' has seen the light and is saving others from the darkness. Hence David Millar.

None of which changes the other reality, either. All countries have doping, without exception - probably even the Vatican City state all-priest footie team. Some countries, for non-racial historical reasons have worse problems than others (poverty, politics, prizemoney), and some have worse problems in some sports than others. Some appear to be trying to tackle it (Russia, even today, yet more high profile positives - from the blood passport programme no less, is still better than the former denial). some, sadly, don't (Jamaica seem to be hounding the officials who banned Powell, Kenya)

And for the record Ye Shewin was defended, broadly by the BBC (and some fo their non-brit pundits like Thorpe) when the americans went all in. Cram was however publicly 'troubled' by the turkish women and Makhloufi. Given Makhloufi seems to have gone to ground, and Çakır Alptekin's subsequent 2nd bust, since 'cleared' by the turks, was he entirely wrong?

You forgot Tommy Simpson. The most famous British cyclist before the new Sky era.

Famous for what? Dying of amphetamine induced heart failure.

Yeah. Brits really think that Brits don't dope

 

[elduggo]

See the last paragraph of my previous post for my view on that.

As an aside, why was there 'clearly' something suspicious going on? Where? Which events? Just the one ones the the British had some success?

Perhaps you need to conduct an honest assessment of your own motivations
There might be a little closet racism going on in threre...

I have the conservatism, but not the fascism

Suspicious - the number of athletes reaching their absolute peak performance, setting of world records, etc, when the games were at home. How some athletes (not a track and field fan but I'm thinking of a Moroccan 1500 meter runner) have their performances dismissed out of hand, while Mr Mo (TUE) Farah, does what he does.

I remember the Annecy stage of the TdeF last year. I was in a bar in Annecy (attended the start but didn't travel to the finish in Semnoz) watching the final climb on the TV. I recall Froome being awarded his yellow jersey and a chorus of 'boos' rang out around the bar. Then it turned out some Brits were present and they began cheering loudly, trying to drown out the boos. Then some fights broke out. It was good sport for those of us there who cared, but not really that much.

All of those Brits believed Froome (and I think its fair to assume, by extension) every other Brit athlete, was clean.

And this isn't racism, though thats a convenient tactic to kill off a discussion. This is the Sky thread. Thats why people are talking about Brits. Nice try though.

 

[elduggo]

The Irish had the conservatism, but not the facism - it's possibly not entirely accidental how many of the Pains in Lance's **** were Irish - nor is it accidental that we still give Sean Kelly a big 'benefit of the doubt' - as a culture, we have an inate sympathy for 'doing what it takes' to get one over 'the biog boys'. 'Cute hoorism' - the Irish actively enjoy watching the dodgy little guy getting the win - if he does it on our behalf, all the better. Hell, Fianna Fail have dominated southern politics on that basis for the better part of 90 years. Not always mind. Michelle Smith ain't popular. There seems to be a statute of liitations on moral indignation. If you can paint it as, those were the bad days at the moment you're found out, youi've a much better chance.

Irish people are more concerned with how our opinions on matters such as our athletes doping, reflect on ourselves, than anything else. It was never popular to hate on Kelly. Everyone turned on Smith de Bruin very quickly (but not instantly), but I think that was largely down to her own brazenness.

Look how quick people were to forgive Roy Keane sure, even though (regardless his reasons) he effectively walked out on the country.

We don't really do sporting pariahs here.

 

[SundayRider]

Richard Keys is at it again and being called bitter again.

https://twitter.com/richardajkeys

 

[red_flanders]

I have the conservatism, but not the fascism

Suspicious - the number of athletes reaching their absolute peak performance, setting of world records, etc, when the games were at home. How some athletes (not a track and field fan but I'm thinking of a Moroccan 1500 meter runner) have their performances dismissed out of hand, while Mr Mo (TUE) Farah, does what he does.

I remember the Annecy stage of the TdeF last year. I was in a bar in Annecy (attended the start but didn't travel to the finish in Semnoz) watching the final climb on the TV. I recall Froome being awarded his yellow jersey and a chorus of 'boos' rang out around the bar. Then it turned out some Brits were present and they began cheering loudly, trying to drown out the boos. Then some fights broke out. It was good sport for those of us there who cared, but not really that much.

All of those Brits believed Froome (and I think its fair to assume, by extension) every other Brit athlete, was clean.

And this isn't racism, though thats a convenient tactic to kill off a discussion. This is the Sky thread. Thats why people are talking about Brits. Nice try though.

I think the term you're looking for is nationalism.

 

[martinvickers]

Irish people are more concerned with how our opinions on matters such as our athletes doping, reflect on ourselves, than anything else. It was never popular to hate on Kelly. Everyone turned on Smith de Bruin very quickly (but not instantly), but I think that was largely down to her own brazenness.

Look how quick people were to forgive Roy Keane sure, even though (regardless his reasons) he effectively walked out on the country.

We don't really do sporting pariahs here.

Michelle was the classic irish example.

THe woman was a dyed in the wool cheat, of the first water. Hell, she had everything but fins and an onboard motor.

When 'we' believed her, she was Michelle Smith.

When 'we' could no longer deny the obvious, she was Michelle De Bruin.


Such is national pride.

 

[martinvickers]

Richard Keys is at it again and being called bitter again.

https://twitter.com/richardajkeys

Excellent stuff. Testing the newly patented Mourinho sarcasm defence....

 

[martinvickers]

I have the conservatism, but not the fascism

Suspicious - the number of athletes reaching their absolute peak performance, setting of world records, etc, when the games were at home. How some athletes (not a track and field fan but I'm thinking of a Moroccan 1500 meter runner) have their performances dismissed out of hand, while Mr Mo (TUE) Farah, does what he does.

I remember the Annecy stage of the TdeF last year. I was in a bar in Annecy (attended the start but didn't travel to the finish in Semnoz) watching the final climb on the TV. I recall Froome being awarded his yellow jersey and a chorus of 'boos' rang out around the bar. Then it turned out some Brits were present and they began cheering loudly, trying to drown out the boos. Then some fights broke out. It was good sport for those of us there who cared, but not really that much.

All of those Brits believed Froome (and I think its fair to assume, by extension) every other Brit athlete, was clean.

Sounds to me more anger at the French accusations, than necessarily belief in Froome. Consider the reaction if a liverpool fan is asked to discuss if Luis Suarez is a cheating diving b******. Now consider the reaction of a bar full of liverpool fans to a bar full of mufc fans chanting "cheating b******' at the television.

Don't confuse affiliation for belief.

 

[nslckevin]

Suspicious - the number of athletes reaching their absolute peak performance, setting of world records, etc, when the games were at home.

I listened to a really interesting podcast with Michael Hutchinson the other day. It's called "Cycling Time Trial Podcast" and he was a guest.

During the course of the interview he talked about what team GB was doing to prepare for the 2012 Olympic team pursuit. First they assumed that it was take a world record time of 3:50 to win the gold medal. They they back calculated all of the power/speed requirements for EACH PERSON on the team. i.e., the first guy was going to take these pulls at these speeds at these power level's. Same for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys. Each person had a different set of requirements to fit and each person was on a similar but different training schedule.

That I think is an example of just how seriously they took winning their home Olympics. Take a ginormous budget, home olympic motivation, quality riders who are freed by their teams to focus on team pursuit and that level of detail and it's not terribly surprising that they won the gold medal is it?

Could they all have been doped to the gills? Who knows. But I hate this culture of assuming that any good performance is practically proof of "obvious doping" without anybody really knowing what is going on behind the scenes (non-doping).

I don't think that we should just assume that everybody is telling the truth about not doping, but that is no better than just assuming that they ARE doping. Both are just lazy thought processes.

 

[The Hitch]

The 'Brits don't dope' crap has its roots in the post tour win wiggins book

No.

And I don't have time to read this essay at the moment, but I'm guessing it's your usual roundabout schtick to explain how your favourite country is superior to everyone else.

 

[The Hitch]

Cram was however publicly 'troubled' by the turkish women and Makhloufi. Given Makhloufi seems to have gone to ground, and Çakır Alptekin's subsequent 2nd bust, since 'cleared' by the turks, was he entirely wrong?

Looks to me like you employ extremely different standards to Wiggins and froome than you do to makhloufi. What a surprise