I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will

spasypaddy

its the letter that was written to the UK doping team to help them catch people. not that victor conte article

heres the letter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic ... 403158.stm

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Ha!
I raised Gene Therapy at around Post 4. Neatly ignored.

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Never heard of Alan Wells?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#100_metres

Take a look.

It's only reasonably recently that it has been dominated by Caribbean nations. It's a pretty mixed group, and it's not like black athletes haven't always been competing.

Genes plays only a very small part. Athletes are genetic outliers anyway - that's why they're exceptionally good at what they do. The likelihood that they may be the correct outlier to be good at a particular event might be marginally higher amongst certain groups. The main drivers for success in sport is funding, the quality of the sports structure, the ability to identify talent etc etc.

daviesee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Never heard of Alan Wells?

Shhh.
I have heard first hand stories about that 4x100 team.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Maybe just outside your lifetime, but Allan Wells was not African-Caribbean. From what I've read, the predominance of certain ethnic groups in certain sports is more to do with social factors than genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#100_metres

Take a look.

It's only reasonably recently that it has been dominated by Caribbean nations. It's a pretty mixed group, and it's not like black athletes haven't always been competing.

Genes plays only a very small part. Athletes are genetic outliers anyway - that's why they're exceptionally good at what they do. The likelihood that they may be the correct outlier to be good at a particular event might be marginally higher amongst certain groups. The main drivers for success in sport is funding, the quality of the sports structure, the ability to identify talent etc etc.

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

pitchshifter

Can someone explain how they can issue a life ban rather than 2 years? Has this been done before? OK we can assume he doped, but so did the others.. I am aware he won't be coming to back to the sport regardless of how long the ban is, but where is the consistency?

rick_chasey

You hear the same bull about long distance runners.

Then you see Paula Radcliffe get the world record and Rupp get silver in the 10,000m olympics.

rick_chasey

pitchshifter wrote:

Can someone explain how they can issue a life ban rather than 2 years? Has this been done before? OK we can assume he doped, but so did the others.. I am aware he won't be coming to back to the sport regardless of how long the ban is, but where is the consistency?

It's not about the taking doping.

It's about conspiracy to dope, conspiracy to cover up, drug trafficking, persuading and assisting others to dope.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... ng0613.pdf

page 10. The other charges for the others involved are above.

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

Yeah and Black guys can't fly planes... genetics innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

pitchshifter

Rick Chasey wrote:

pitchshifter wrote:

Can someone explain how they can issue a life ban rather than 2 years? Has this been done before? OK we can assume he doped, but so did the others.. I am aware he won't be coming to back to the sport regardless of how long the ban is, but where is the consistency?

It's not about the taking doping.

It's about conspiracy to dope, conspiracy to cover up, drug trafficking, persuading and assisting others to dope.

Ahh I see. Surely Bruyneel has that list of charges too? He's very optimistic when he talks about Radioshack next year then...

gabriel959

BigMat wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Will be interesting to see who gets taken down with Bruyneel - presumably Lance's teammates who have testified, Contador, Schlecks? If they retrospectively reward the highest placed unblemished riders, Wiggins will potentially have a 2nd tour win on his palmares. I suspect they won't bother though, just scrub Lance's wins. Its a sad day for the sport, but in UK at least I think the good news from the Tour / Olympics is enough to keep the interest of the public / sponsors. It'll be the US cycling market that hurts the most from this.

I don't think we will know, that is why Lance has made the decision of throwing the towel so it doesn't have to break the omerta.

I am more interested about the systematic doping that happened during 2009 and 2010 than the old stuff. There is still organised doping in cycling...

Do you genuinely believe Sky have an organised doping programme, or do you just have a healthy cynicism about any team doing well? I found the recent Vaughters interview interesting, he was basically saying that there may still be doping (probably always will) but the testing, passport etc have made it impossible to get the same extreme advantage that used to be possible, to the extent that the accumulation of marginal gains can now mean that a clean rider (he quoted Hesjedal) can win even against dopers. I'd like to think he's right.

I wasn't speaking about Team Sky here? I was just speaking about his return in 2009 and 2010 when the passport was then present he came back with some decent results but with a network of organised doping (where Ferrari was still present) and other doctors and managed to fool the passport and everyone else once more.

I was picking up on your comment in bold really, and I remember you airing suspicions re Sky a while back. Just curious.

I am still suspicious about them but this thing about Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 has nothing to do with them.

tailwindhome

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

Yeah and Black guys can't fly planes... genetics innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

Or swim

dhope

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

Yeah and Black guys can't fly planes... genetics innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

Or swim

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

You hear the same bull about long distance runners.

Then you see Paula Radcliffe get the world record and Rupp get silver in the 10,000m olympics.

Rupp being part of the same 'house doping' ring as Mo

Gazzaputt

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Alan Wells 1980 Moscow you really that young?

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

Yeah and Black guys can't fly planes... genetics innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

Or swim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen_Jones

Or cycle.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#100_metres

Take a look.

It's only reasonably recently that it has been dominated by Caribbean nations. It's a pretty mixed group, and it's not like black athletes haven't always been competing.

Genes plays only a very small part. Athletes are genetic outliers anyway - that's why they're exceptionally good at what they do. The likelihood that they may be the correct outlier to be good at a particular event might be marginally higher amongst certain groups. The main drivers for success in sport is funding, the quality of the sports structure, the ability to identify talent etc etc.

So in the 100m sprint between 1984 and now where are the non African/Caribbean guys?

The rest of what you say, you state as though fact. Yes, social factors will play a part in being a driver for success I still think genetics play a part in the potential for success.

Genetics play a part, but they are the genetics of that particular athlete, and how they interact with their environment, not general genetic traits of particular populations. Australia dropped down the medal table due to a drop in funding; similarly Kenya did badly in distance running and questions are being asked about funding in that country.

Once a country gets a reputation for prowess in a particular sport, that attracts funding, and grass roots interest, so they get more success. British success in cycling isn't due to some peculiar genetic mutation specific to the British Isles.

DonDaddyD

Gazzaputt wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Alan Wells 1980 Moscow you really that young?

I was born after 1980.

rjsterry

Going back to that graphic of Rick's if 75-80% of the contenders were doping at the time, does Armstrong's achievement (tainted as it is) not still stand to some extent?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Going back to that graphic of Rick's if 75-80% of the contenders were doping at the time, does Armstrong's achievement (tainted as it is) not still stand to some extent?

Nah.

Vaughters looks into this.

People respond differently to different drugs.

Take 2 cyclists with the same performance.

One has that performance at a natural heamocratic level at say, 38, the other guy at say, 45.

They both can only thicken their blood with EPO (to make it more efficient) to a certain amount before they either get busted or they die. Let's say, arbitrarily 50.

Cyclist #1 is going to be able to take significantly more EPO and experience significantly more improvement as a result than cyclist #2.

Anonymous

actually a vast proportion of all individuals have the genes, but in the EU if you are fast, you play football/rugby. in the carribean, you run

tailwindhome

Would Alan Wells have won had the USA not boycotted?

Paul E

coriordan wrote:

actually a vast proportion of all individuals have the genes, but in the EU if you are fast, you play football/rugby. in the carribean, you run

One trick pony... as the olympics showed, was a bit boring watching the sprint races

JamesB5446

coriordan wrote:

actually a vast proportion of all individuals have the genes, but in the EU if you are fast, you play football/rugby. in the carribean, you run

Hang on, are you saying that footballers and sprinters have a similar genetic makeup/physique/blend of ft&st fibres?

If so, that's rubbish.

Rugby, to some extent I can see, but not football.

Gazzaputt

DonDaddyD wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

Alan Wells 1980 Moscow you really that young?

I was born after 1980.

Explains a lot ( you knew that was coming didn't you? )

Gazzaputt

JamesB5446 wrote:

coriordan wrote:

actually a vast proportion of all individuals have the genes, but in the EU if you are fast, you play football/rugby. in the carribean, you run

Hang on, are you saying that footballers and sprinters have a similar genetic makeup/physique/blend of ft&st fibres?

If so, that's rubbish.

Rugby, to some extent I can see, but not football.

Err our newest GB 100m sprinter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Gemili

Anonymous

Relatively speaking comprared to Jamaica, sprinting is a "non sport" in the EU. Everyone who shows a degree of talent will want to or be encouraged to play football or rugby where the money and infrastructure exists to nurture talent. Now I know we have some fantastic track and field athletes, but not young men on the track.
In jamaica, conversely they would see a talent and put it into sprinting.

Now of course there are the odd "superhuman" athletes and bolt may be one of those, like phelps in the swimming, but as far as I know there is actually a surprisingly high proportion of running genes in whites/Europeans as well which are untapped.

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

The next stage in doping is gene theraphy and dna tweaking. BBC touched on it just before the 100m final at the Olympics. They said that a person has to have the right DNA sequence to have the right fast kind of twitch muscles.

If we see a non African-Caribbean in the 100m final at the next Olympics then we will know that I am right.

There it's been said.

And no, I don't think I'm being racist or predujice, there hasn't been a white guy (there have been those from mixed ethnic backgrounds) in a 100m final that I've seen in my lifetime.

In the conversation between Jackson and Johnson, apparently researchers (for a documentary one of them was in) found that about 70% of non-African/Caribbean people tested had the same fast-twitch muscle fibres and Johnson commented that success was more nurture than nature.