CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling
Comments
-
mfin wrote:nickice wrote:There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
I think that you have to wait to see how this all unfolds in full before drawing any final conclusions. At the moment, I think everyone agrees that some specific details of what is being uncovered looks really bad.
I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised doping still happens, how could they be when doping does happen and people get caught still and probably will for our lifetimes and beyond.
On a side note, I don't think anyone who's been posting who's been convinced Sky are doping have brought anything to the table in the debate on this forum. At best they play their own game of connect the dots which they change the rules of as they go along. For those without any emotional investment either way, it is annoying to have to sift through the crap on a forum where there are actually plenty of impartial posters, completely open to facts but not to obvious agenda-ridden guesswork.
+1 very well put0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The testosterone is the issue here.
That has turned what is ultimately a non-story into one.
Yeah, that's what's turned me from fairly ambivalent to very suspicious.
That and the stuff about 60-70 doses of Kenalog and the stories about administering it to staff etc. - just doesn't hold water.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The testosterone is the issue here.
That has turned what is ultimately a non-story into one.
Yeah, that's what's turned me from fairly ambivalent to very suspicious.
That and the stuff about 60-70 doses of Kenalog and the stories about administering it to staff etc. - just doesn't hold water.
The suspect package and the confusion over getting their story straight rang alarm bells. Then their eventual explanation didn't ring true, to go to that bother to send a medicine that could be sourced locally, which of course is why initially they tried to provide a cover story for the trip.
It is fair to say there were posters on here aggressively dismissive of anyone who found Sky's explanation over that implausible.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Pross wrote:nickice wrote:There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
UKAD don't seem to agree (or weren't fully open with the CMS committee).
I meant circumstantial evidence for most people to make up their minds. I doubt there is enough to bring a case but then again, it's very difficult to bring a case successfully.0 -
Would be interesting to hear from Dr Freeman. What a pity he's so poorly...0
-
bobmcstuff wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The testosterone is the issue here.
That has turned what is ultimately a non-story into one.
Yeah, that's what's turned me from fairly ambivalent to very suspicious.
That and the stuff about 60-70 doses of Kenalog and the stories about administering it to staff etc. - just doesn't hold water.
That a guy who worked in football handed out corticosteroids like sweets shouldn't surprise many people should it?
As discussed at length in the other sports thread, having a whack of it and returning to the fray is considered honourable and courageous in most sports. To the point where the person involved will tweet about it...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
nickice wrote:There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
Talking generally, for many riders it would not be worth the risk. The majority of pro riders do not have to win races to gain or keep a contract. They can do their job based on natural ability, focused coaching and hard work. If they did win minor races this would not significantly enhance their earning capacity. They and their families have a good lifestyle and standard of living which would suffer dramatically from the loss of significant income that a 4 year ban would entail. Clearly, some riders do act in a stupid and illogical manner, given positive tests, but I suggest the vast majority would not feel that the reward exceeds the risk, even if they were morally deficient.0 -
lyn1 wrote:nickice wrote:There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
Talking generally, for many riders it would not be worth the risk. The majority of pro riders do not have to win races to gain or keep a contract. They can do their job based on natural ability, focused coaching and hard work. If they did win minor races this would not significantly enhance their earning capacity. They and their families have a good lifestyle and standard of living which would suffer dramatically from the loss of significant income that a 4 year ban would entail. Clearly, some riders do act in a stupid and illogical manner, given positive tests, but I suggest the vast majority would not feel that the reward exceeds the risk, even if they were morally deficient.
You're coming at it from an angle that most riders don't dope. I don't buy that.
It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.0 -
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
Training is recovery. It's why the defence of "I've trained really hard" is utterly irrelevant. Doping enables athletes to train harder.
Regarding the earlier point. Athletes want to win at all costs.0 -
lyn1 wrote:nickice wrote:There's probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sky now. Is anyone actually surprised that doping still happens. It's well worth the risk.
Talking generally, for many riders it would not be worth the risk. The majority of pro riders do not have to win races to gain or keep a contract. They can do their job based on natural ability, focused coaching and hard work. If they did win minor races this would not significantly enhance their earning capacity. They and their families have a good lifestyle and standard of living which would suffer dramatically from the loss of significant income that a 4 year ban would entail. Clearly, some riders do act in a stupid and illogical manner, given positive tests, but I suggest the vast majority would not feel that the reward exceeds the risk, even if they were morally deficient.
This is just wrong, performance is all, they either contribute significantly to or have to win to keep a place and most of these people are not earning massive salaries (depending on your definition of "significant income"). Stepping out of the pro tour and the rewards are smaller still.0 -
That's just not true. Never has been.TheBigBean wrote:Regarding the earlier point. Athletes want to win at all costs.Twitter: @RichN950 -
TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
Training is recovery. It's why the defence of "I've trained really hard" is utterly irrelevant. Doping enables athletes to train harder.
Regarding the earlier point. Athletes want to win at all costs.
I think it's pretty clear that whatever is going on in the peloton now it's nothing on the scale of widespread EPO abuse from the 1990s/2000s.
Doesn't make it right of course.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that whatever is going on in the peloton now it's nothing on the scale of widespread EPO abuse from the 1990s/2000s.
.
We'll see.
I think it's unlikely, but I thought Cav wouldn't win MSR in 2009 because it was too long for him so what do I know?0 -
I meant more in terms of the strength of the drugs than anything else.Rick Chasey wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that whatever is going on in the peloton now it's nothing on the scale of widespread EPO abuse from the 1990s/2000s.
.
We'll see.
I think it's unlikely, but I thought Cav wouldn't win MSR in 2009 because it was too long for him so what do I know?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
I really don't understand why you defend ped abuse as you do.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
I really don't understand why you defend ped abuse as you do.
because if teams like Astana, Movistar, Katusha , etc are fine and dandy than is normal that Sky should also be tranquilo and doing their own thing in peace.
for now they didn't had 5 positives in the past 2 years like some other teams that are doing just fine.0 -
I'm not.Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
I really don't understand why you defend ped abuse as you do.
Synthetic testosterone has been around since the 80s at least. It wasn't dramaticly changing riders then and it isn't now. It won't take anyone from a small contract to a big one.Twitter: @RichN950 -
0
-
argyllflyer wrote:
To save time and avoid duplication, it's covered here. viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13077162&start=100#p200842020 -
Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
0 -
EnacheV wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Is testosterone that much of a game changer though. It doesn't make riders that much better - it's more for recovery. So it won't make that much difference to your earning potential - unlike EPO.nickice wrote:It absolutely is worth it. For both major and minor players. Major players can potentially make millions and minor players can financially survive. Cycling doesn't pay that much. The only person who looks like he'll severely suffer financially is Armstrong and, even then, he'll still probably be in a better position than he would have been had he hadn't doped.
I really don't understand why you defend ped abuse as you do.
because if teams like Astana, Movistar, Katusha , etc are fine and dandy than is normal that Sky should also be tranquilo and doing their own thing in peace.
for now they didn't had 5 positives in the past 2 years like some other teams that are doing just fine.
So you think its alright for sky to dope because other do too?0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:
So you think its alright for sky to dope because other do too?
Except we have no evidence that Sky have been doping. And unless UKAD have changed their view in a week, neither do they.0 -
andyp wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:
So you think its alright for sky to dope because other do too?
Except we have no evidence that Sky have been doping. And unless UKAD have changed their view in a week, neither do they.
So, do you think that it would be OK for Team Sky to dope because other teams have had doping infractions in the past?0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:andyp wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:
So you think its alright for sky to dope because other do too?
Except we have no evidence that Sky have been doping. And unless UKAD have changed their view in a week, neither do they.
So, do you think that it would be OK for Team Sky to dope because other teams have had doping infractions in the past?
I believe that all teams should follow the rules of the sport, but especially the WADA code and the anti-doping rules.0 -
andyp wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:andyp wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:
So you think its alright for sky to dope because other do too?
Except we have no evidence that Sky have been doping. And unless UKAD have changed their view in a week, neither do they.
So, do you think that it would be OK for Team Sky to dope because other teams have had doping infractions in the past?
I believe that all teams should follow the rules of the sport, but especially the WADA code and the anti-doping rules.
Do you think that teams that have said that they hold themselves to a higher standard, should be judged to that standard?0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
Do you think that teams that have said that they hold themselves to a higher standard, should be judged to that standard?
No, I think that's PR bullshit and I recognise it as such.
Do you think the MPCC rules should apply to all teams, despite them going further than the WADA code?0
