When did the arms race stop?

I here a lot about a certain team started the arms race in doping, despite respected journalist David Walsh saying there is no organised doping on that team, anyway for those who hang their hat on that team started the arms race (apparently again), could they tell me when the arms race stopped.

This thread should not be about current doping (there are plenty of threads to discuss that), only when they think the so called arms race stopped.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BYOP88 said:
The arms race never stopped.
The sad thing is his complete ignorance of the Cold War, and the connotation of the term "arms race." Skoolz is being making people dimble some times...I won't even begin to explain the policy of escalation subscribed to by Ronald Reagan.
 
2008 for a few months. Then someone announced their comeback (may not necessarily be related).

Anyway, Walsh is factually correct. Even today there are no teams with organised doping, only groups within teams who are guided to dope outside the official boundaries of the team environment. Ok maybe a certain Pro Conti team but talking big teams usually associated with doping here. There's not much to talk about in terms of "team doping", it's a very poor measure of what is actually going on. Any arms race is driven by groups of individuals at arms length from the "team".
 
Ferminal said:
2008 for a few months. Then someone announced their comeback (may not necessarily be related).

Anyway, Walsh is factually correct. Even today there are no teams with organised doping, only groups within teams who are guided to dope outside the official boundaries of the team environment. Ok maybe a certain Pro Conti team but talking big teams usually associated with doping here. There's not much to talk about in terms of "team doping", it's a very poor measure of what is actually going on. Any arms race is driven by groups of individuals at arms length from the "team".
In which case, it was Festina that ended the arms race as they were the reason for the big switch from team-managed to Ferrari, Fuentes, Freiburg, (an intended nod to Floyd there) etc.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
In which case, it was Festina that ended the arms race as they were the reason for the big switch from team-managed to Ferrari, Fuentes, Freiburg, (an intended nod to Floyd there) etc.

Dave.
and motoman. and infusing yourself. or infusing levi. and levi infusing you.
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
D-Queued said:
In which case, it was Festina that ended the arms race as they were the reason for the big switch from team-managed to Ferrari, Fuentes, Freiburg, (an intended nod to Floyd there) etc.

Dave.
that's true, going from Cold War nuclear stand off, to terrorist attacks....
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Ferminal said:
2008 for a few months. Then someone announced their comeback (may not necessarily be related).

Anyway, Walsh is factually correct. Even today there are no teams with organised doping, only groups within teams who are guided to dope outside the official boundaries of the team environment. Ok maybe a certain Pro Conti team but talking big teams usually associated with doping here. There's not much to talk about in terms of "team doping", it's a very poor measure of what is actually going on. Any arms race is driven by groups of individuals at arms length from the "team".
you are probably right at large, but wrt sky i sometimes doubt whether it is just "guiding riders to dope ouside the oficial boundaries of the team environment". They've had Kerrison, Leinders, and a whole bunch of proven omerta upholders (yates, knaven). Would certainly be your guys to run a team-program.

Advantages of a team program: you don't have to tell your riders what they're taking (think soccer), and so it's perhaps easier to keep it secret.

I grant that your scenario probably applies at large, though of course the line between your scenario and actual team doping might in reality be rather thin, because even if riders get jacked up by extrenal providers, you will still need team doctors to check the riders' values and make sure they pass the intelligence test.
 
sniper said:
you are probably right at large, but wrt sky i sometimes doubt whether it is just "guiding riders to dope ouside the oficial boundaries of the team environment". They've had Kerrison, Leinders, and a whole bunch of proven omerta upholders (yates, knaven). Would certainly be your guys to run a team-program.

Advantages of a team program: you don't have to tell your riders what they're taking (think soccer), and so it's perhaps easier to keep it secret.

I grant that your scenario probably applies at large, though of course the line between your scenario and actual team doping might in reality be rather thin, because even if riders get jacked up by extrenal providers, you will still need team doctors to check the riders' values and make sure they pass the intelligence test.
I get the fact people are sceptical about Kerrison as a coach due to his lack of cycling background, but why would you think he would be a good man to help run a doping program? If he was doping British swimmers, based on their results, he'd be the last guy you'd want to help you.
 
del1962 said:
I here a lot about a certain team started the arms race in doping, despite respected journalist David Walsh saying there is no organised doping on that team, anyway for those who hang their hat on that team started the arms race (apparently again), could they tell me when the arms race stopped.

This thread should not be about current doping (there are plenty of threads to discuss that), only when they think the so called arms race stopped.
Even if Sky are clean, there's only so long that the rest of the sport is going to be willing to be Sky's punching bags in the big stage races Sky send the A-team to. Especially with Sky constantly pushing the "marginal gains" and "we're so squeaky clean" agenda right down their throats, whilst winning races by power alone because they have shown themselves not to be the most adept tactically. A lot of teams may suspect something about Team Sky and think they need to dope to get even, or they may not suspect anything about Team Sky, but need to dope to get enough winnings to keep the team going/keep their careers going (remember Steve Houanard, the French Froome, only coming into the late season without a contract, he got busted for EPO he'd taken to try to get good enough showings to keep his career alive, rather than the podium of the Vuelta and a never-mentioned-before illness?), or for those that already were doping, they need to do more, cut more corners and be more aggressive with it to compete. Remember usually team winnings are divided amongst the riders, so when the wins are being bogarted by one team, that's a whole bunch of disappointed domestiques on every other team.

The sport is still cleaner than it was a decade ago. Guys like Sella, Riccò, Schumacher, Sayar, Santambrogio and di Luca are all very, very plainly obvious now. But if performance level changes like Froome's (very sudden, from pack fodder to pack destroyer) and Horner's (from decent climbing pro at 35 to GT winner at 42) happen with any regularity, others will want to get theirs as well.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
King Boonen said:
I get the fact people are sceptical about Kerrison as a coach due to his lack of cycling background, but why would you think he would be a good man to help run a doping program? If he was doping British swimmers, based on their results, he'd be the last guy you'd want to help you.
come on, take off the blinders already.
look at kerrison's palmares.
Here for instance: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/27/bradley-wiggins-giro-tim-kerrison
a lot of gold medals in a discipline where doping is known to give you the edge.
of course, if you don't think sky are doping, you won't see anything suspicious here. But the question here is not whether sky dope.
The question is, if sky dope on a team-level, would kerrison be the right man to supervise it or even introduce new methods? I think so.
 
sniper said:
come on, take off the blinders already.
look at kerrison's palmares.
Here for instance: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/27/bradley-wiggins-giro-tim-kerrison
a lot of gold medals in a discipline where doping is known to give you the edge.
of course, if you don't think sky are doping, you won't see anything suspicious here. But the question here is not whether sky dope.
The question is, if sky dope on a team-level, would kerrison be the right man to supervise it or even introduce new methods? I think so.
Three golds in swimming with a country known for being good at swimming seems reasonable? (although we now know to expect doping in pretty much every sport in Aus).

You still haven't explained why he wasn't able to do it at GB Swimming. They have huge funding and consistently under-performed throughout the time he was there in comparison to what was expected. In a sport where "doping is known to give you the edge", either they weren't doping or Kerrison is rubbish at it.

Either way, he wouldn't be the man to lead team-wide doping program, I wouldn't even want him involved in that case. Leinders might be.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
King Boonen said:
Three golds in swimming with a country known for being good at swimming seems reasonable? (although we now know to expect doping in pretty much every sport in Aus).

You still haven't explained why he wasn't able to do it at GB Swimming. They have huge funding and consistently under-performed throughout the time he was there in comparison to what was expected. In a sport where "doping is known to give you the edge", either they weren't doping or Kerrison is rubbish at it.

Either way, he wouldn't be the man to lead team-wide doping program, I wouldn't even want him involved in that case. Leinders might be.
fair and interesting point.
i didn't know about this.
still, many (including wiggins himself, i think) see kerrison as the mastermind behind wiggins' 2012 tdf.
(e.g here: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/27/bradley-wiggins-giro-tim-kerrison)
would be interesting to know what kerrison's role consisted of if it wasn't about juicing up wiggins.
 
sniper said:
you are probably right at large, but wrt sky i sometimes doubt whether it is just "guiding riders to dope ouside the oficial boundaries of the team environment". They've had Kerrison, Leinders, and a whole bunch of proven omerta upholders (yates, knaven). Would certainly be your guys to run a team-program.

Advantages of a team program: you don't have to tell your riders what they're taking (think soccer), and so it's perhaps easier to keep it secret.

I grant that your scenario probably applies at large, though of course the line between your scenario and actual team doping might in reality be rather thin, because even if riders get jacked up by extrenal providers, you will still need team doctors to check the riders' values and make sure they pass the intelligence test.
My idea of how big the "team" is, is that you have your group of favoured riders (usually friends/training buddies) who are willing to step their game up to the next level and become the A-Team. They then work out a plan with a DS "who understands cycling" or an experienced elder teammate. Procurement/use etc is through outside channels which allow for plausible deniability, but if the team has a good doctor/swanny on board then they may be "assigned" to ensure the "safety" of the riders.

This could happen with or without the explicit (it could be implied) backing of the GM and higher management/ownership.

To me this isn't team doping in the classic sense. It's not packages wrapped in foil, brown bags, every rider on the team being offered injections from the team doctor. I can't speak for others but usually if I say a team is dodgy I'm referring to pockets of riders/management and not saying the entire team is a write off.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
King Boonen said:
Kerrison could be the decoy?

New and radical training from a guy outside cycling causes massive improvement, enough to fool people who don't look hard enough.
Hasnt the clinic been laughing at Kerrison from day 1? Maybe the real world is dumber but still, hard to think anyone would take him seriously.
 
King Boonen said:
Kerrison could be the decoy?

New and radical training from a guy outside cycling causes massive improvement, enough to fool people who don't look hard enough.
Yeah, but that improvement was exactly like 2012's revolutionary performances.

I postulate they have their own Motoman that gets the GT guys so skinny with ultra-super-duper never-seen-before power output. Remember that the classics riders do not have access to the same incredible power at super, super low weights. Why? I have no idea.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
Team Sky are a complete fraud, but other teams are catching up.
You do crack me up with your jokes, mind Sky where deceived by some canadian

What is it with Canadians and dope? BJ, MB , GJ (from a young age so alway had talent:eek:) and such an insignificant country

Anyway it is doubtful with Brunyeel under control RS backed off, look at Schleckette now scared off by his brothers positive, luigi rides for them aswell, not sure how someone of his size managed to stay within two minutes on La Planche de Belles Filles
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS