Doping brits

paulcuthbert

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

I think Wiggins did in 2009. His performance in the mountains last year in the Tour wasn't at the same level as 2009, where he was pretty much with the lead group on most of the climbs. Whether he is now, I'm not sure...

I don't think Cavendish does at all. He's just the best at his game- and that's going fastest over the last 200m of a flat stage.

Millar I don't think is (any more). He seems like a great ambassador for British cycling, and I admire the way he has overcome his past and been strong and outspoken against doping. Didn't used to like him at all. Remember him being very mopey in 2003 and a grumpy git- but I think his attitude is different now, and he's riding clean.

Not too sure about Geraint Thomas...

BarryBonds

What a cynical lot we are

Yellow Peril

I don't think Wiggins is a doper. His TdF 4th was a massive coming together of luck, parcours and physical readiness. IIRC he appeared to follow Armstrong for most of the Tour which was a reasonable tactic as LA was rarely in the wrong place at the wrong time that year. In fact didn't Wiggo miss one time cut or break that could have seen him third?

I recall watching the decisive mountain stages and seeing the grimace on Wiggo's face as he dug in and the elastic snapped. It wasn't the face of a doper and the way that some guys rode away from him I would have asked for my money back if I was a drugs cheat.

simpoman

Problem with the current state of Pro-cycling is that suspicion immediately falls on anyone who wins consistently (cheaty Bertie) or anyone who wins anything big...when they haven't 'shown' previously (most of the Brits). It seems that the only thing that would suggest a 'clean' race would be for no-one to dominate and to have a truly close finish.... but hang on....perhaps that means they all dope!!??

It's a real sad state of affairs when any big Pro-cycling win/effort/achievement now always makes me wonder... I guess this is the legacy of people like LA, (I believe) AC and (whatever he believes and does now) DM

RowCycle

Yellow Peril wrote:

I don't think Wiggins is a doper. His TdF 4th was a massive coming together of luck, parcours and physical readiness. IIRC he appeared to follow Armstrong for most of the Tour which was a reasonable tactic as LA was rarely in the wrong place at the wrong time that year.

He also swapped teams didn't he between his 4th in 2009 (Garmin) and 2010 (Sky)?

Maybe the Garmin team/directors did a better job for him than Sky?

Pross

jerry3571 wrote:

We all have seen what a bit too much testosterone does to recovery as Landis previously demonstrated.

I thought the recovery aspect of testosterone and it's benefits in endurance sports as opposed to power sports was still highly disputed? Just because Landis tested positive for it doesn't mean that was what gave the benefit - if a rider is prepared to take one drug who's to say what else was being used?

dougzz

RowCycle wrote:

Maybe the Garmin team doctors did a better job for him than Sky?

Fixed that for you

The poster does not in anyway endorse the view that Brad Wiggins dopes or endorses doping. Other riders are available for insult, slur and slander.

Slimbods

Wiggins doped while at Garmin? Can't see that. They're so pro clean racing that it wouldn't be risked surely?

As I see it, his success in 2009 was a combination of the course fitting him and him flying under the radar while the attention was on the favorites.

Personally don't believe any of the current Academy graduates are doping, I don't see how they'd get away with it given the scrutiny they're under with the relationship between BC and Sky etc. The poor results of our boys in the big races seems to back this up

Turfle

simpoman wrote:

Problem with the current state of Pro-cycling is that suspicion immediately falls on anyone who wins consistently (cheaty Bertie) or anyone who wins anything big...when they haven't 'shown' previously (most of the Brits). It seems that the only thing that would suggest a 'clean' race would be for no-one to dominate and to have a truly close finish.... but hang on....perhaps that means they all dope!!??

It's a real sad state of affairs when any big Pro-cycling win/effort/achievement now always makes me wonder... I guess this is the legacy of people like LA, (I believe) AC and (whatever he believes and does now) DM

Every rider needs to find a level and stay exactly there.

BarryBonds

Slimbods wrote:

Wiggins doped while at Garmin? Can't see that. They're so pro clean racing that it wouldn't be risked surely?

As I see it, his success in 2009 was a combination of the course fitting him and him flying under the radar while the attention was on the favorites.

Personally don't believe any of the current Academy graduates are doping, I don't see how they'd get away with it given the scrutiny they're under with the relationship between BC and Sky etc. The poor results of our boys in the big races seems to back this up

I agree with this. Is max Sciandri still working with the youngsters in Italy?

RichN95.

BarryBonds wrote:

Is max Sciandri still working with the youngsters in Italy?

No, he works for BMC.

BarryBonds

RichN95 wrote:

BarryBonds wrote:

Is max Sciandri still working with the youngsters in Italy?

No, he works for BMC.

Thanks

ddraver

I think people consistently underestimate the difference of being a team leader or even just in the hunt for the win/podium. For example, when climbers do well in the last time trial compared to usual, this is often an effect of actually TRYING in that particular time trial as opposed to just cruising (relatively speaking) around, e.g.Andy Schleck last year, Rasmussen in the long long ago

Same with Wiggins and climbing, This was the first tour ever where his job was nt to pull some other team leader to the foot of the hill and then just sit back and relax (again, relatively speaking!)

Unfortunately too often in the past, this has just coincided with doping rather than being a result of doping...(e.g. Rasmussen)

andyp

ddraver wrote:

I think people consistently underestimate the difference of being a team leader or even just in the hunt for the win/podium. For example, when climbers do well in the last time trial compared to usual, this is often an effect of actually TRYING in that particular time trial as opposed to just cruising (relatively speaking) around, e.g.Andy Schleck last year, Rasmussen in the long long ago

Same with Wiggins and climbing, This was the first tour ever where his job was nt to pull some other team leader to the foot of the hill and then just sit back and relax (again, relatively speaking!)

Unfortunately too often in the past, this has just coincided with doping rather than being a result of doping...(e.g. Rasmussen)

I see where you're coming from, but am reminded of the final time trial from the 2005 when skinny climbers like Heras beat the likes of Menchov over 40 kms. I'm sure he just tried harder than normal!

jimmythecuckoo

Markwb79 wrote:

what would you lot talk about if we had a clean sport!

Sunglasses ?

BarryBonds

oooo bradders first loser

FransJacques

Has Jamie Burrows' name come up? He was with USPS back in the day and now runs a hotel in Italy IIRC. I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.

inseine

Wiggins didn't go from no hoper to 4th. You approach the race with a different frame of mind if you think you can get up there. I'm sure Cav could climb way faster if he needed to but he doesn't. Same With wiggins, being a minute quicker on a climb might make it worth while to have a go rather than sitting back a bit. Look at all the yellow jersey riders who pull out a good TT after always being an also-ran.

josame

[quote="I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.[/quote]

I'm glad to hear that - would'nt want you doubting yourself :roll:

andyp

FransJacques wrote:

Has Jamie Burrows' name come up? He was with USPS back in the day and now runs a hotel in Italy IIRC. I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.

The same Jamie Burrow who beat Pantani's time up the Plateau de Bielle?

eh

Talking of which, what happened to Jamie Alberts (U23 National Champ 2002)? I take it he didn't return to cycling after being caught for steroids.

ms_tree

FransJacques wrote:

Has Jamie Burrows' name come up? He was with USPS back in the day and now runs a hotel in Italy IIRC. I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.

You people who 'know something but won't say' nudge nudge wink wink make me sick. As the Duke said ' publish and be damned'. Go on - dare you.

jim453

FransJacques wrote:

Has Jamie Burrows' name come up? He was with USPS back in the day and now runs a hotel in Italy IIRC. I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.

Why not? how f*cking bad can this thing be? Is it worse than all the terrible stories of clandestine transfusions and corruption that we already know about?

Or maybe it's not cycling related. Is he a murderer? A rapist perhaps? or maybe he eats babies or something?

I can definitely imagine more depraved things than he has actually done. You're better off telling us or i'll just assume the very worst........

Sick bast*rd.

BarryBonds

jim453 wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

Has Jamie Burrows' name come up? He was with USPS back in the day and now runs a hotel in Italy IIRC. I defo know what I've heard about him but it's nothing I'd really repeat in public.

Why not? how f*cking bad can this thing be? Is it worse than all the terrible stories of clandestine transfusions and corruption that we already know about?

Or maybe it's not cycling related. Is he a murderer? A rapist perhaps? or maybe he eats babies or something?

I can definitely imagine more depraved things than he has actually done. You're better off telling us or i'll just assume the very worst........

Sick bast*rd.

Not weeing in the teapot surely?

paulcuthbert

Slimbods wrote:

Wiggins doped while at Garmin? Can't see that. They're so pro clean racing that it wouldn't be risked surely?

And possibly hypocritical if it's found that USPS were involved in systematic team doping when Vaughters rode for them...

BarryBonds

paulcuthbert wrote:

Slimbods wrote:

Wiggins doped while at Garmin? Can't see that. They're so pro clean racing that it wouldn't be risked surely?

And possibly hypocritical if it's found that USPS were involved in systematic team doping when Vaughters rode for them...

SHHHHHHHHH

Didnt Wiggins do well

simon_e

There are firmly-held opinions and beliefs about riders' histories all over this thread, each pulling in all sorts of supposed 'facts' to support their argument. You can dissect comments and interview snippets and form any kind of conclusion but it doesn't make it true. Discussions like this one cloud this issue further for me, rather than bring any clarity. Bernie, I have to say you are as bad as the rest of us but surely "ought to know better" about making 2+2=17.

What do the riders have to gain by throwing stones at fellow cyclists? Does it solve anything? Surely they just want the A/D system to catch the dopers and enforce the rules. It can't be fun seeing the house of cards that is the UCI screwing your sport but being afraid to speak out in public (apart from the spat about race radios, which hasn't shown either side's debating skills in an especially impressive light).

If doping/cheating is the means to keep your job or your then my response is: get another job. In that sense it's black and white - they choose either to tread that path or to ride clean or to take another line of work. No excuses. Did their parents not teach them right from wrong? Do so many people not have a moral compass?

Jez mon

Simon E wrote:

If doping/cheating is the means to keep your job or your then my response is: get another job. In that sense it's black and white - they choose either to tread that path or to ride clean or to take another line of work. No excuses. Did their parents not teach them right from wrong? Do so many people not have a moral compass?

But generally riders have very few alternative career options. It's not like a professional deciding that they want to go and do something else. Most riders forefit a good education due to their commitments as a junior. Besides, I sometimes get the feeling that amongst the European pros, doping wasn't seen as morally wrong, but part and parcel of the sports rich tradition.

So if it's dope and get paid to ride your bike, or don't dope and do menial work, it's not really much of a decision. Especially if you do not see doping as morally wrong and you have little chance of getting caught.

BarryBonds

Jez mon wrote:

[
But generally riders have very few alternative career options. It's not like a professional deciding that they want to go and do something else. Most riders forefit a good education due to their commitments as a junior. Besides, I sometimes get the feeling that amongst the European pros, doping wasn't seen as morally wrong, but part and parcel of the sports rich tradition.

So if it's dope and get paid to ride your bike, or don't dope and do menial work, it's not really much of a decision. Especially if you do not see doping as morally wrong and you have little chance of getting caught.

Good post, its ok judging from on high, but none of us knows what wed do in their unique situation.

I suspect id dope, i actually see very little wrong with it, not much difference to me using a power meter or using epo, all just training aids, a tool of the job. Id do whatever it took. I find the hypocrisy and bullying of the UCI and Armstrongs far more unhealthy and negative and its those human qualities that i find distasteful.

P_Tucker

BarryBonds wrote:

Good post, its ok judging from on high, but none of us knows what wed do in their unique situation.

I do, I'd dope like it was 1999.

I like that, it works on two levels.