Doping brits

BarryBonds

Which of our current crop of riders do you think (if any) will be the first to get caught using?

and will the bust be from a large well funded organised team (like Sky) or one of the continental teams or another pro tour team?

we could have a book

fleshtuxedo

< insert libellous comment here >

Brilliant thread, well done

RowCycle

Maybe you should read

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12611535

P_Tucker

I'm going to stick my neck out and say David Millar. What's that? He's aleady been busted? Well that was easy.

Anonymous

I think most of them are clean. I was surprised at G's quotes in the BBC article - either they made it look bad, or he's not wording things as strong as I'd want him to.

jerry3571

I would be suprised if anyone got booked for thinking anything. Expressing thoughts are a human right and part of free speaking society.
Now, If you said you know something then that could be challenged in Court.

I think Miller dabbles from time to time, Thomas has won a big race recently and I would think that he may be charged up. Cavendish is a top top rider and I believe he could be caught at some point if he changed Teams; HTC too clever or have some deal going to avoid getting caught.
I think these things and they are based on what is in my head and are not fact hence I think. That doesn't stop me from being correct though.

-Jerry

AndyRubio

Choppered wrote:

I think most of them are clean.

Actually, the evidence is strong in this poster's favour i.e. they don't win very much, and when they do it's not very important.

mr_poll

This thread has no credibility, I am off to start a new website called www.facts4brits.com to debunk these myths.

Bakunin

mr_poll wrote:

This thread has no credibility, I am off to start a new website called www.facts4brits.com to debunk these myths.

"This thread has no credibility" -- that's a classic.

Cycling has no credibility.

RichN95.

BarryBonds wrote:

Which of our current crop of riders do you think (if any) will be the first to get caught using?

and will the bust be from a large well funded organised team (like Sky) or one of the continental teams or another pro tour team?

we could have a book

Barry. Your general feelings about doping may be more suited to 'The Asylum' forum on Cycling News.

There you can find opinions such as:

Switzerland need to remove McQuaid to keep their EU membership
The Armstrong case will destroy Nike
All people who look slightly ugly are on HGH
Armstrong will get a worse jail sentence than Bernie Madoff, because his crimes are worse
and plenty more stupidity like that.

As long as you appear rabidly anti-Armstrong*, everything you say will be seen as a great truth and any challengers to it will be banned.


*The most rabid LA haters always make me think of a quote a Liverpool fan said when Torres moved to Chelsea - "We hate him so much, because we loved him so much"

P_Tucker

Bakunin wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

This thread has no credibility, I am off to start a new website called www.facts4brits.com to debunk these myths.

"This thread has no credibility" -- that's a classic.

Cycling has no credibility.

WHOOOOOOOOOSH.

BikingBernie

This is what I thought when I read the thread title.

A huge question mark must hang over Wiggins. It is interesting how he went from being a Tour no-hoper who said things like "If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that", to a supposed Tour contender who not only stopped making outspoken comments about doping, frequently sang the praises of the likes of Armstrong. He never even commented on the Landis revelations, and his Twitter feed went conspicuously silent the day the story broke.

Wiggin's explanation for his transformation into a 'TDF contender' also had an Armstrong-like flavour to it, claiming it was due to him losing weight. However like Armstrong's version what he said was riddled with inconsistencies. First he claimed he had been under the guidance of a doctor who ensured that he lost only fat and not muscle, then people did the maths and pointed out that according to his figures he was previously racing with over 12% body fat. Then he changed his story and claimed he had lost a lot of muscle mass as well...

Miller is another one who has made it clear that he thinks the sport should just shut up about the issue of doping, and attacked Landis for revealing what he knows. Oh and he has been busted for Epo use in the past.

Cavendish also has also sung the praises of Armstrong and is supposedly a good mate of his. He also seems to be very competitive, as long as there is no climbing involved...

On the management side Yates has a long history of associating with some very dodgy teams and people, not least Armstrong and Bruyneel.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

Barry. Your general feelings about doping may be more suited to 'The Asylum' forum on Cycling News...As long as you appear rabidly anti-Armstrong*, everything you say will be seen as a great truth and any challengers to it will be banned.

If that was true the real loonies on there - the fanboys such as Polish - would have been banned long ago.

Gazzaputt

Again same old Pro Race posters talking out of their arses.

I'm sure you believe Elvis is still alive, man never walked on the moon and Harvey Oswald never shot Kennedy.

Drop you cynicism and you may enjoy this sport better.

rick_chasey

Gazzaputt wrote:

Again same old Pro Race posters talking out of their arses.

I'm sure you believe Elvis is still alive, man never walked on the moon and Harvey Oswald never shot Kennedy.

Drop you cynicism and you may enjoy this sport better.

You mean biking bernie?

He went away for ages untill Hamilton piped up.

Avoid the doping threads eh?

No_Ta_Doctor

mr_poll wrote:

{THIS THREAD IS NOT CREDIBLE} I am off to start a new website called www.facts4brits.com to debunk these myths.

Corrected that for you.

CyclingBantam

P_Tucker wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

This thread has no credibility, I am off to start a new website called www.facts4brits.com to debunk these myths.

"This thread has no credibility" -- that's a classic.

Cycling has no credibility.

WHOOOOOOOOOSH.

You beat me to it!

He he.

CyclingBantam

BB is spouting his usual bizzare ramblings.

I'm all for theories with something behind them but to form the basis of the fact some brits doping being that they are 'friends' with Armstrong... dont you reread that and cringe to yourself a little?

:oops:

andyp

If Wiggins improvement is down to doping, how come he's not maintained his form since his breakthrough Tour?

I blame Sean Yates.

Cumulonimbus

BikingBernie wrote:

Wiggin's explanation for his transformation into a 'TDF contender' also had an Armstrong-like flavour to it, claiming it was due to him losing weight. However like Armstrong's version what he said was riddled with inconsistencies. First he claimed he had been under the guidance of a doctor who ensured that he lost only fat and not muscle, then people did the maths and pointed out that according to his figures he was previously racing with over 12% body fat. Then he changed his story and claimed he had lost a lot of muscle mass as well...

If his explanation is innocent though do you think he would go around telling everyone he exact reason why? Then everyone else could do the same thing.

calvjones

Wasn't that long ago a Brit was rested from a high profile event for having a Hct greater than 50.

but that was track so doesn't count, eh Dave?

dougzz

Cumulonimbus wrote:

If his explanation is innocent though do you think he would go around telling everyone he exact reason why? Then everyone else could do the same thing.

Well if he knew why and it was straight forward what happened last year, he forgot?

Cumulonimbus

dougzz wrote:

Cumulonimbus wrote:

If his explanation is innocent though do you think he would go around telling everyone he exact reason why? Then everyone else could do the same thing.

Well if he knew why and it was straight forward what happened last year, he forgot?

People's form varies from year to year. Maybe he thought he could improve but the extra work or whatever caused him to be too tired at the start, etc.

BikingBernie

CyclingBantam wrote:

I'm all for theories with something behind them but to form the basis of the fact some brits doping being that they are 'friends' with Armstrong... dont you reread that and cringe to yourself a little?

A rather selective interpretation of what I said, but I would not expect anything more from you.

I would have thought that any rider who was clean and had been kept off the podium of the Tour de France by someone with as much evidence against them as Armstrong would be indignant, and yet not a peep from Wiggins. Similarly, I would have thought that anyone who was dedicated to clean cycling would not hesitate to speak up against dopers, as 'the old' Wiggins used to do, yet we have the like of Millar calling for Landis to shut up. The omerta is clearly still alive and well and those who uphold the omerta are a part of the problem, not the solution.

disgruntledgoat

I would have thought that any rider who was clean and had been kept off the podium of the Tour de France by someone with as much evidence against them as Armstrong would be indignant, and yet not a peep from Wiggins.

Does the size of Armstrong's political clout within the sport only count when you're castigating him then?

Lets say Wiggins gets all publically indignant about being kept off the podium by (and i'm talking in strictly legal terms here) never failed a test, seven time Tour winner and most powerful rider in the sport. Would he not suddenly find he had much fewer friends and allies in the peloton, great difficulty finding teammates or contracts and even less chance of finishing on the podium?

At the end of the day, he has to live with these guys day in day out and feed his family. And that is why I presume many riders, who may loath and detest high profile cheats, never speak out. Would you bet your livelihood on the UCI doing the right thing with an unsubtantiated allegation?

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Does the size of Armstrong's political clout within the sport only count when you're castigating him then?

Lets say Wiggins gets all publically indignant about being kept off the podium by (and i'm talking in strictly legal terms here) never failed a test, seven time Tour winner and most powerful rider in the sport. Would he not suddenly find he had much fewer friends and allies in the peloton, great difficulty finding teammates or contracts and even less chance of finishing on the podium?

Yes, Armstrong's power and mafia-like tendencies are bound to make riders think twice about attacking him, especially when the governing body of the sport seem to be intent on protecting him. However, there is a difference between spinelessly dumping one's principles in order to protect one's own interests and going out of one's way to actively praise Armstrong, as Wiggins had done.

The fact that Armstrong has been able to wield such power suggests that that majority of the peloton are as guilty as he is. If the majority were racing clean surely they would not stand in silence whilst they watch a few dopers take all the glory and money. Your suggestion that if he spoke out he might have a problem finding teammates or a contract suggest exactly the same thing.

The Prodigy

I would suggest that it is probably worth taking anything that Wiggo says with a pinch of salt BB. The man changes his opinion more often than he changes his underpants. Unfortunately he likes to have his say every now and again and lets everyone see what a fool he is.

First its everything for the Tour, then its not. He wants to have a good go at the Classics, then doesn't bother. He is interested in the track, he's not interested in the track.

If you ignore what comes out his mouth and just look at his results, TDF 09 was afluke, he has no idea how he did it and he won't be replicating such a good result in any race anytime soon.

The same goes for Cav actually.

ddraver

The Prodigy wrote:

The same goes for Cav actually.

Except that Cav DOES win when he says he's going to ...! (mostly)

I hope they re clean but as with the rest of this sport, nothing would really surprise me! Just another "only in cycling..." moment (Boulting & Renshaw, 2011)

inkyfingers

ddraver wrote:

The Prodigy wrote:

The same goes for Cav actually.

Except that Cav DOES win when he says he's going to ...! (mostly)

Agreed. Cav is pretty consistent in what he says and pretty consistently good in his results whereas Wiggins changes his mind left right and centre and only seems to turn in a good performance a couple of times a year. If I was team manager I know who i'd rather have as my team leader.

CyclingBantam

BikingBernie wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

I'm all for theories with something behind them but to form the basis of the fact some brits doping being that they are 'friends' with Armstrong... dont you reread that and cringe to yourself a little?

A rather selective interpretation of what I said, but I would not expect anything more from you.
I would have thought that any rider who was clean and had been kept off the podium of the Tour de France by someone with as much evidence against them as Armstrong would be indignant, and yet not a peep from Wiggins. Similarly, I would have thought that anyone who was dedicated to clean cycling would not hesitate to speak up against dopers, as 'the old' Wiggins used to do, yet we have the like of Miller calling for Landis to shut up. The omerta is clearly still alive and well and those who uphold the omerta are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Don't quite follow that bit.

You seem to be picking out theories but then putting them across as damning evedence to support your claims, as if there is no way there could be any other reason for them.

Whilst there is so much damning evidence against Lance, what other current riders have layed in to him? Untill he has been proven guilty (which I agree with you I'm sure he is) I don't think it is appropriate for riders to be judge and jury. From what Wiggins said about his 4th place, he was absolutely over the moon, and more than happy with it. He never felt like he had been kept off the podium.

I can't comment on the Millar comments. I didn't realise he had said Floyd should shut up. Have you a link?

Alot of your theories sheem to be around your opinion of how people 'should' react. Untill you live their life, you don't know why they react like they do. I am sure there are some pro's with far stronger views against doping than you or I but they don't react in the way YOU would expect.

shockedsoshocked

calvjones wrote:

Wasn't that long ago a Brit was rested from a high profile event for having a Hct greater than 50.

but that was track so doesn't count, eh Dave?

That was an anomaly remember nothing to do with the fact the lottery money would get pulled at the first sign of a positive and the rider in question was subsequently dropped like hit sh*t. And we all remember who was sat at the table with Millar when the police kicked his door in? Or what team Millar got another pro-contract with who later went on to be absolutely full of people charging up?

As for Wiggins, going from a self-confessed fat pursuiter to a GC contender due to working with Allen Lim and "losing some weight" isn't enough for me. Lim has worked with both Landis and Armstrong hasn't he?