CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah, I do cycle chuffing fast to work.
I suspected that you would consider commuting a sport...0 -
My own rule would be 'do you change attire specifically for the activity'?
I do usually when I commute to work, so I'd count that as participating.
I wouldn't say my weekend pootle to the butchers would count.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Most sports see a drop off in 15-24 yo participation. Boys and girls discover each other and would prefer to hang out together than play sport.
Also up to 15 they can ride comparatively cheap bikes and still be and feel competitive.
Buying and maintaining a bike and entering races then becomes significantly more expensive too, and many won't be able to afford to continue.
They also discover alcohol. We've all been there.
I wouldn't have that as the target age range. Getting more people into sport aged 7-15 would be my target.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:My own rule would be 'do you change attire specifically for the activity'?
I do usually when I commute to work, so I'd count that as participating.
I wouldn't say my weekend pootle to the butchers would count.
Cycling & Walking are possibly unique in that they can have both utility and fitness / sporting value.0 -
3 times the distance to work and back ;-)TheBigBean wrote:bompington wrote:I'm currently commuting 120 miles a week - always going as hard as I can. I hardly get out at all apart from that, so I guess I'm Not A Real Cyclist.
What's that based on?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Most sports see a drop off in 15-24 yo participation. Boys and girls discover each other and would prefer to hang out together than play sport.
Also up to 15 they can ride comparatively cheap bikes and still be and feel competitive.
Buying and maintaining a bike and entering races then becomes significantly more expensive too, and many won't be able to afford to continue.
They also discover alcohol. We've all been there.
I wouldn't have that as the target age range. Getting more people into sport aged 7-15 would be my target.
And I suspect in that age group participation (even using sport only as the definition) is up, that's certainly the age group where my club has seen a massive increase.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Most sports see a drop off in 15-24 yo participation. Boys and girls discover each other and would prefer to hang out together than play sport.
Also up to 15 they can ride comparatively cheap bikes and still be and feel competitive.
Buying and maintaining a bike and entering races then becomes significantly more expensive too, and many won't be able to afford to continue.
They also discover alcohol. We've all been there.
I wouldn't have that as the target age range. Getting more people into sport aged 7-15 would be my target.
Its keeping them in there thats the big hurdle
Plus, encouraging families to take up cycling has been another focus - a good one IMO0 -
Keeping a proper road bike as a uni student is a ballache.
BSO, sure. But a road bike you want to ride - PITA.0 -
Yeah, that's when I stopped mountain biking a lot (and got fat) - there was nowhere to keep my bike where it wouldn't get nicked when I was in halls.0
-
bobmcstuff wrote:Yeah, that's when I stopped mountain biking a lot (and got fat) - there was nowhere to keep my bike where it wouldn't get nicked when I was in halls.
I always found somewhere inside for my bikes.
The biggest mountain biking shock for me was discovering that my university town simply didn't have the same terrain as where I grew up. And then I moved to London.
Now my mountain bike sits unused in the office. At least when I commuted to work on a bike I rolled it out during snow.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Yeah, that's when I stopped mountain biking a lot (and got fat) - there was nowhere to keep my bike where it wouldn't get nicked when I was in halls.
I kept mine in my room. And my winter bike was stored in the second toilet in our 6 person flat.0 -
0
-
It's notable that for all the information Sky have provided, the Daily Mail, who started all this, have provided nothing more than 'anonymous source' and a 'mystery package'. It's time for them to step up and put a bit more meat on the bones. Although I suspect they have little of substance.Slim Boy Fat wrote:Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's notable that for all the information Sky have provided, the Daily Mail, who started all this, have provided nothing more than 'anonymous source' and a 'mystery package'. It's time for them to step up and put a bit more meat on the bones. Although I suspect they have little of substance.Slim Boy Fat wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.0 -
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)
So if Sky are at it and they don't win every race I assume you must think everyone is at it. So the obvious question to ask is, why do you bother watching at all?0 -
Amongst other things, finding out if a recepient of tens of millions of pounds of public funding has been using the money to cheat using drugs to gain unfair advantage is exactly what our MPs should be doing. Even if the loose thread is a drop box account.0
-
Slim Boy Fat wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)
So if Sky are at it and they don't win every race I assume you must think everyone is at it. So the obvious question to ask is, why do you bother watching at all?
Its not about if everyone is at it, its about if BC and sky are at it.0 -
Sky don't get any public funding.Vino'sGhost wrote:Amongst other things, finding out if a recepient of tens of millions of pounds of public funding has been using the money to cheat using drugs to gain unfair advantage is exactly what our MPs should be doing. Even if the loose thread is a drop box account.Twitter: @RichN950 -
And that answered my question how?Vino'sGhost wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)
So if Sky are at it and they don't win every race I assume you must think everyone is at it. So the obvious question to ask is, why do you bother watching at all?
Its not about if everyone is at it, its about if BC and sky are at it.0 -
If they (whoever they are) know had have evidence of it then they need to put it out in the open and confront people with it, otherwise this is an expensive wild goose chase. If they are waiting to try and trip someone up after several months then this is just about the ego of the accusers rather than any search for truth.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)Twitter: @RichN950 -
But sky and bc at the time were intimately linked. Wiggins and brailsford both received benifit. Please stop being wilfully naive.RichN95 wrote:
Sky don't get any public funding.Vino'sGhost wrote:Amongst other things, finding out if a recepient of tens of millions of pounds of public funding has been using the money to cheat using drugs to gain unfair advantage is exactly what our MPs should be doing. Even if the loose thread is a drop box account.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
And that answered my question how?Vino'sGhost wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)
So if Sky are at it and they don't win every race I assume you must think everyone is at it. So the obvious question to ask is, why do you bother watching at all?
Its not about if everyone is at it, its about if BC and sky are at it.
Well, your assertion is that if the investigation isn't global we shouldn't be investigating those organisations that we do have some oversight of. It is a it's ok cause they're doing it mentality. It lacks mental rigour.0 -
It's quite amazing that you took that from a very simple question I asked. I did none of what you suggest, I didn't assert anything. I simply asked if Rodrego is so convinced that the sport is dirty despite a complete lack of any evidence other than innuendo, hearsay and a huge dollop of BS, why Rodrego bothers watching.Vino'sGhost wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
And that answered my question how?Vino'sGhost wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Well this is it. Given the amount of tax payers money has been spent on this so far, the Mail and their source have to step up and say what they know. Because MPs time shouldn't be spent finding out if people can use Dropbox properly.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
I think they 'know', the same way a few other people 'know'
Although in reality and as I think I pointed out previously, the only people who actually 'know' are Phil Burt who packed it and the person who opened it at the other end. And we are assuming that what Phil Burt packed, is what was on the label of the packet.
what was in the packet is a red herring (not literally), the real issue is what was given to Wiggins (if indeed it was him), how it was given to him and when it was given to him.
Alternatively, they know that Team Sky are up to no good and are letting them dig a big hole for themselves.
If they were clean, this would have been cleared up a long time ago.
From what I understand, tramadol aside, the GB team are clean. So why BC aren't going through Team Sky with a fine toothed comb is a mystery.
Team Sky will get found out, they all do, and they will bring more suspicion onto the national team.
there will be plenty of collateral damage thats for sure.
It's worth watching 'A year in Yellow' again now, knowing what we know (or suspect)
So if Sky are at it and they don't win every race I assume you must think everyone is at it. So the obvious question to ask is, why do you bother watching at all?
Its not about if everyone is at it, its about if BC and sky are at it.
Well, your assertion is that if the investigation isn't global we shouldn't be investigating those organisations that we do have some oversight of. It is a it's ok cause they're doing it mentality. It lacks mental rigour.
I think that is your problem Vino, you see a pretty simple piece of information, in this case my question, and that gets distorted and turned into what it's not to suit your own preconceived idea of what the truth is. It explains an awful lot.0 -
I think you see things how you want them to be seen. Its ok I understand.
Bless0 -
And then you always resort to a bit of name calling or a little dig. Are you under the age of twenty? Genuine question.Vino'sGhost wrote:I think you see things how you want them to be seen. Its ok I understand.
Bless
For the record, I've got no idea if Sky are operating a systematic doping programming, I've seen nothing to suggest they are but I just don't know. I'll certainly not waste my time on innuendo and hearsay however. The day someone plonks some solid evidence in front of me I'll know. Until then I'll enjoy the racing in the knowledge that they very well could be.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:I think you see things how you want them to be seen. Its ok I understand.
Bless
Oh?
And of course you, being Mr Objective, don't. :roll:"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:I think you see things how you want them to be seen. Its ok I understand.
Bless
Oh?
And of course you, being Mr Objective, don't. :roll:
Now now when the children call names the weakness of their position is clealy becoming an issue.
And that's the problem. Sky is in a pickle because it treats people like chumps. They may or may not be drug cheats, the cynic in me says totally they are, the evidence says cant yet be proven.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:I think you see things how you want them to be seen. Its ok I understand.
Bless
Oh?
And of course you, being Mr Objective, don't. :roll:
Now now when the children call names the weakness of their position is clealy becoming an issue.
And that's the problem. Sky is in a pickle because it treats people like chumps. They may or may not be drug cheats, the cynic in me says totally they are, the evidence says cant yet be proven.
Edit.
Can't be arsed."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
