Drugs in other sports and the media.

manic_esso

Jimmocrates wrote:

But why is Cycling vilified to such a greater extent when doping is rife and unrepentent in other sports?

From my perspective one of the issues is the peleton themselves.

How many behave like Paula Radcliffe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_dept ... 483621.stm) when cyclists and / or teams dope ?

or this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... sense.html

Not something you see much, if at all, in cycling (Greg Henderson apart and even that might have been misjudged)

Until the dopers who come back into the sport (especially the high profile ones) are treated more like the cheats and liars that they are by their fellow pros rather than the "Oh well, he got caught and did his time but I'm sure he's clean now" approach that seems to prevail nothing will ever change.

jmacsam

This made me laugh - comments from Gatlin after being 'kicked' out of the upcoming race in Beijing -


"But I'm not a man like that. I'm not the kind of guy to cheat people of their money or let the fans down ... that's not what I do."

it just beggars belief!

Bo Duke

The irony of it even being suggeted he not partake in a race in Beijing of all places for doping reasons.... you couldn't make it up.

k1875

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-3 ... ws_central

Mo Farah's coach accused of doping stablemate Galen Rupp. Claims denied. Rupp is apparently one of the US's most tested athletes...

TheStone

k1875 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32877702?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Mo Farah's coach accused of doping stablemate Galen Rupp. Claims denied. Rupp is apparently one of the US's most tested athletes...

This could be huge.

hammerite

TheStone wrote:

k1875 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32877702?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Mo Farah's coach accused of doping stablemate Galen Rupp. Claims denied. Rupp is apparently one of the US's most tested athletes...

This could be huge.

Not only stablemate, but very good friend. I think I remember the BBC making quite a big deal out of them both medalling at the London Olympic with them being such good friends.

takethehighroad

It seems as though athletics is becoming like cycling was 5-10 years ago, and I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Do I feel good that cycling is no longer the easy target for people to say "it's full of druggies"?

Or do I feel bad for athletics fans that feel like I did through all those positives in 06/07/08?

jawooga

I don't want to pre judge the program and apparently there's no evidence that Mo has doped. However there has long been criticism of lack testing in the running heartlands of east Africa and I always thought athletes such as Mo and Rupp leave themselves open to suspicion when they go to Kenya for winter training.

andrewjoseph

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32883944

ben@31

Anyone else just watched tonights Panorama documentary on athletics doping ?

joelsim

jawooga wrote:

I don't want to pre judge the program and apparently there's no evidence that Mo has doped. However there has long been criticism of lack testing in the running heartlands of east Africa and I always thought athletes such as Mo and Rupp leave themselves open to suspicion when they go to Kenya for winter training.

The main thing that you are missing is that testing is almost useless. Something I've been banging on about, to many people's chagrin, for months. The testing can't catch people whilst they are doing it, passport or spot tests. No sport is anywhere near clean.

Macaloon

ben@31 wrote:

Anyone else just watched tonights Panorama documentary on athletics doping ?

There's been a terrible mistake. The state broadcaster allowed a journalist to cover a sports story connected with the Olympic turd. The entire light entertainment department, and Lord Coe, will be in uproar.

Surprised to see Nike associated with anything shady. And astonished by the hand-wringing disbelief by some athletes on Twitter. I don't believe their shock is genuine.

I'm not sure the segment on not flagging the passport was valid, or that spending more minutes on Alan Wells than he's had since Moscow was relevant. But making direct accusations against Farah's coach was worth the airtime.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Anyone else just watched tonights Panorama documentary on athletics doping ?

There's been a terrible mistake. The state broadcaster allowed a journalist to cover a sports story connected with the Olympic turd. The entire light entertainment department, and Lord Coe, will be in uproar.

Surprised to see Nike associated with anything shady. And astonished by the hand-wringing disbelief by some athletes on Twitter. I don't believe their shock is genuine.

I'm not sure the segment on not flagging the passport was valid, or that spending more minutes on Alan Wells than he's had since Moscow was relevant. But making direct accusations against Farah's coach was worth the airtime.

Why not valid? There have been plenty of studies now showing that the passport isn't sensitive enough to catch any micro-doping. Add to that the spot testing that isn't sensitive enough at 7am the next morning. Add that it still clearly gives a significant benefit by all accounts. Cheating still pays, and when that happens people will cheat. Simplistic maybe, but correct yes.

joelsim

Always nice to see a thyroid story too isn't it Mr Kreuziger.

RonB

Here's the big question - how many puns will we get about Quorn on Twitter?

But seriously, many issues but the saddest thing for me was the heartfelt interviews of the Gouchers and Magness, kicking against the dreaded omerta, by the looks of things.

joelsim

RonB wrote:

Here's the big question - how many puns will we get about Quorn on Twitter?

But seriously, many issues but the saddest thing for me was the heartfelt interviews of the Gouchers and Magness, kicking against the dreaded omerta, by the looks of things.

Very sad, and I don't blame the athletes as that is their only choice as others are doing it.

I seem to remember another person (albeit not as likeable as Mo) doing a very similar commercial.

rick_chasey

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Or do I feel bad for athletics fans that feel like I did through all those positives in 06/07/08?

Wasn't all that bad was it?

Macaloon

Joelsim wrote:

Why not valid? There have been plenty of studies now showing that the passport isn't sensitive enough to catch any micro-doping. Add to that the spot testing that isn't sensitive enough at 7am the next morning. Add that it still clearly gives a significant benefit by all accounts. Cheating still pays, and when that happens people will cheat. Simplistic maybe, but correct yes.

The journalist is not an elite athlete, he was taking EPO for only a few weeks, and his data was 'smuggled' into the system. I don't disagree that it seems possible to beat the passport while doping. What nobody knows is the extent of the benefit.

joelsim

I gather there was someone else who could have been in that programme too, but the lawyers are obviously very good. Give it time though.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Why not valid? There have been plenty of studies now showing that the passport isn't sensitive enough to catch any micro-doping. Add to that the spot testing that isn't sensitive enough at 7am the next morning. Add that it still clearly gives a significant benefit by all accounts. Cheating still pays, and when that happens people will cheat. Simplistic maybe, but correct yes.

The journalist is not an elite athlete, he was taking EPO for only a few weeks, and his data was 'smuggled' into the system. I don't disagree that it seems possible to beat the passport while doping. What nobody knows is the extent of the benefit.

Let's just think what we think, there's little point in arguing or trying to change each other's minds.

mm1

The hand wringing by assorted joggers and jumpers has been fun. Lots of familiar stuff in there: doping juniors -check; psychopathic bullying - check; cultishness. Cara Goucher's disgust at how she was supposed to lose her baby fat was still pretty raw.

mechanism

Macaloon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Why not valid? There have been plenty of studies now showing that the passport isn't sensitive enough to catch any micro-doping. Add to that the spot testing that isn't sensitive enough at 7am the next morning. Add that it still clearly gives a significant benefit by all accounts. Cheating still pays, and when that happens people will cheat. Simplistic maybe, but correct yes.

The journalist is not an elite athlete, he was taking EPO for only a few weeks, and his data was 'smuggled' into the system. I don't disagree that it seems possible to beat the passport while doping. What nobody knows is the extent of the benefit.

I know its only one case but WADA say that the French TV doping study methods would have been picked up by the ABP (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-05/wada-statement-on-france-televisions-abp-documentary).

Mad_Malx

This is interesting, even if it does need controls and another ten volunteers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932

edit: just realised this relates to the panorama posts above.

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

This is interesting, even if it does need controls and another ten volunteers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932

edit: just realised this relates to the panorama posts above.

It's lousy 'science' by someone who knows nothing about science.

He's attributing any improvement to the drugs and the drugs alone, when there are, in fact, several factors. For example, the placebo effect, experience of the tests second time round, motivation and the subconscious need to produce certain results for his programme, added training etc.

Mad_Malx

RichN95 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

This is interesting, even if it does need controls and another ten volunteers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932

edit: just realised this relates to the panorama posts above.

It's lousy 'science' by someone who knows nothing about science.

He's attributing any improvement to the drugs and the drugs alone, when there are, in fact, several factors. For example, the placebo effect, experience of the tests second time round, motivation and the subconscious need to produce certain results for his programme, added training etc.

Hence my comment about the need for controls.
It's not lousy science, because it's not a scientific experiment. I'm not even sure it is pretending to be.

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

Hence my comment about the need for controls.
It's not lousy science, because it's not a scientific experiment. I'm not even sure it is pretending to be.

But it is pretending to be. Otherwise what's the point of it? It was highly misleading (and to my mind either ignorant or dishonest) and really undermines the rest of the programme. It's all too common in TV world. But it plays to the audience so they keep doing it.

manic_esso

manic_esso wrote:

Until the dopers who come back into the sport (especially the high profile ones) are treated more like the cheats and liars that they are by their fellow pros rather than the "Oh well, he got caught and did his time but I'm sure he's clean now" approach that seems to prevail nothing will ever change.

Good interview with Luke Rowe - at last someone saying what everyone in the peloton should be doing

http://rouleur.cc/journal/riders/luke-rowe-interview

“I think the riders have to take more of a stance. Say an ex-doper comes back? They get welcomed back like any other rider. Imagine you’re an ex-doper, you come back, you turn up to a race and say hello to someone. And they don’t reply. Say hello to someone else – and they don’t reply.

“You should make it so hard for them that they don’t want to come back. They move up the side of the peloton: chop ‘em up. We shouldn’t give these guys any respect. Don’t make them feel welcome, don’t talk to them, don’t give them an inch on the road. Treat them with the respect they deserve, which is minimal.”

DeVlaeminck

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

It seems as though athletics is becoming like cycling was 5-10 years ago, and I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Do I feel good that cycling is no longer the easy target for people to say "it's full of druggies"?

Or do I feel bad for athletics fans that feel like I did through all those positives in 06/07/08?

Pretty certain that the UCI will feel the same way Bob Geldof did - tonight thank God it's them instead of you.

ben@31

Joelsim wrote:

I gather there was someone else who could have been in that programme too, but the lawyers are obviously very good. Give it time though.

Yep, I've heard many times now on the BBC News and Radio that quote " The BBC are not making any allegations against Mo Farrah". Despite mentioning his name many times in a doping documentary. Sounds like they're covering their butt against libel defamation.

Whats also worth noting is... "None of the NOP athletes has ever failed a drug test, but the BBC has heard claims". Basically the BBC just have hearsay or speculation.

I wonder if all sports like NFL, baseball, World Cup winning soccer teams, have a PED problem too? And it's not just PEDS, did rugby league have a problem with pain killer abuse?

joelsim

Can't find the MPCC thread, but Bardiani are leaving it.

What a farce.