UKH

More like organized, state tolerated doping. Cheap copy of Russia, really. At least you got a handful of medals at the home Olympics and won a few TdFs afterwards.....

I really would like to hear from the team Sky apologists what they think about today's verdict.

CB

What exactly was found. A dodgy doctor ordered some testosterone for someone with a low testosterone count who apparently didn’t finish the five races they rode. Work that one out then.

Did I miss something in the news?

I'm not buying the lone-wolf/maverick doctor. This is a team that was infatuated by data and obsessed about the minutest detail, and no one knew? 

Added to the Triamcinolone injections on TUE right before the grand tours and the Jiffy bag with all the associated lies. It all stinks unfortunately.  

It rather seems that it does stink, and I say that from a background of really really wishing it didn't. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56367117

I would disagree about the claim it was a cheap copy of Russia though. It seems more like a very expensive and generally more competent version in that its not proven to the same degree.

Ah wow... that's shit.

Why do these idiots keep thinking they can get away with it?  Now the reputation of British cycling is naffed, including anyone who was clean.  Turns the whole sport into a joke, if it wasn't already.

I'm also amazed that athletes agreed to be involved and risk all their wins (especially after Armstrong).  But I guess the will to win is just that strong that it comes at any cost... 

I thought the marginal gains idea too good to be true.  A doctor who loses his laptop and doesn't keep records??  Sounds like a doctor who didn't want to keep records.   And the Tue s?  Just the latest way to fiddle the system.

I may be an old cynic but i reckon Brailsford didn't want to know how the doctors did their job. Plausible deniability.  He wanted them to fight clean but deliberately employed at least one person with a suspicious past.

One way to get ahead in sport is to push up against the limits defined by the rules.  Is that what marginal gains was all about?  Finding new ways to 'bend' the rules?

It stinks and unfortunately it now taints all that Sky and British Cycling achieved.

Dodgy as anything but.....

Surely I’m not the only one who has a sneaking suspicion that the doc was actually being honest about one thing... someone needing a stiffer frame so to speak 😂😂😂😂

Cheers

Toby

I'm kind of sad. I tried to suspend my disbelief and be happy when Wiggins, Froome, Cav were winning. Even the Olympic wins.

But the evidence that they pushed right up to and right over the line just grew and grew. This verdict is just confirmation.

Not saying they are better or worse than others in pro cycling. And don't get me started about sports like tennis and football.

I think what is needed now is a reanalysis of all the archived samples, for testosterone.  I understand that it is now very possible to discriminate between endogenous hormone and exogenous substance.  So you may be on the high end of the normal range, but any added from a syringe can be teased out.  We should go back maybe to 2008.  I agree it stinks like a shipload of rotting fish.  
Given the amount of funding our cyslicists receive there should be a full public enquiry, headed by a respected retired judge with the backing and funding to give us, the paymasters of the athletes and any clean athletes as much of the truth as can be gleaned.  What isn’t learned and anyone obfuscating/frustrating the work is clearly highlighted.

I think we are owed this.

It's a worrying and saddening verdict for sure.  This one will rumble on for a while.

I think you’re being too hard-on Shane Sutton. 

Did Santa explain that to you or the tooth fairy?

CB

I agree. If we don't have the whole story in detail, then there's always going to be doubt over every single achievement by British cyclists.

Those who are completely clean should demand the fullest enquiry otherwise they're all going to be tarred with the same brush. British Cycling was one organisation and I don't believe thee was simply one rogue element

That is one point that I REALLY do not understand.

The drug of choice for erectile dysfunction as such would have, by the 2000s, been Sidenafil/Viagra, not topically applied testosterone.

Why use that as a defense if it only adds to the implausibility of the whole story?

CB

So lots of riders have left Sky to ride for other teams, some have retired. Yet no one has been caught using or reported systematic doping at Sky. When riders left Armstrong’s team they were getting caught left right and center.

🤣

The mechanism for those riders getting caught was for Armstrong to piss off Landis one too many times and for Landis to offer testimony. Up until that point they were golden. 

That pack of cards fell when the riders had agents of the law with badges and guns knocking on their doors (to paraphrase either Hincapie or Hamilton).

I do think there will be some riders having sleepless nights over this.

It really disheartened me some years ago when Brailsford, asked in an interview, said Sky would do everything they could right up to the line. When asked where the line was, he replied "it's grey". 

I’m glad he stood up for himself though and it was dismissed.  😉😂

Cheers

Toby

This:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/bradley-wiggins-team-sky-face-uka...

I’m done watching cycling. Team GB and Sky worked so hard to persuade us that they were squeaky clean. And it looks as though Wiggins (without prejudice to any future evidence to the contrary) is a lying toad.

It's still quite fun watching it, but I have a business proposition for anyone who ever believed team GB and Sky dominated one of the most drug assisted sports in the world whilst squeaky clean - I just need some working capital in order to get my uncle's money out of Nigeria.

I still watch it, but dislike Sky or for whatever perverse abomination of a car they are currently named for their sheer, in your face hypocrisy.

The majority of GC riders of other teams won't be clean either, but at least they have the decency keep schtum about it.

Come on, it was fun in the 90s when Bjarne Riis was burning up that shortened alpine stage after having to walk around his room all night with his hematocrit of 60!

CB

edit, the other long endurance events are no better, especially cc skiing and marathons!

edit2, it was less fun when the neighbour of a good friend fell off his exercise bike at home in Belgium with a fatal stroke. He had also been riding for Team Telekom at that time, and these guys just overdid it massively!

Marginal gains, as in magic skin suits etc is a good cover story?

Out of curiosity I looked up testogel and the doctors guidance.

this bit caught my eye...

Potential testosterone transfer

Testosterone gel can be transferred to other persons by close skin to skin contact, resulting in increased testosterone serum levels and possibly adverse effects (e.g. growth of facial and/or body hair, deepening of the voice, irregularities of the menstrual cycle) in case of repeated contact (inadvertent androgenization). 

The physician should inform the patient carefully about the risk of testosterone transfer, for instance during close bodily contact between individuals including children and about safety instructions (see below).
 

So with the above in mind, perhaps not the best treatment for erectile dysfunction( well unless you prefer your partners to sport a beard)

But maybe explains the massive beard and rugby player build that Sir Brad was sporting last time I saw him on TV?

I wouldn't tarnish Cav the same as I would Wiggins.   Cavendish main marginal gain was his low size and good aerodynamics at a sprint finish, always his main advantage over rivals.  Having spent 1 year at Sky and having being successful before and after with little involvement in British cycling his reputation is not in doubt.  

Even Froome has more natural ability than Wiggins though his achievements will always be tarnished by association with team sky.  Main doubts definitely with Wiggins.

You don't rub it THERE!

More seriously, it is prescribed for general lack of male sex hormones (much slower and controlled release than by injection or pills), NOT erectile dysfunction.

It is just a nonsense excuse, where anyone knows that the other side knows you are bullshitting.....

CB

In reply to geode:

Brings to mind Jacques Anquetil saying something like "You don't think we do this on water, do you?

Being a lifelong cyclist and race fan I used to take seriously all the discussion about doping. When it came to Tyler Hamilton blaming his positive test on being one of two twins in his mother's womb, I gave up reading about it; not to mention Armstrong. Shame as road racing is a great sport. Dave.

This money?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-39595809

Haha, I liked the quote from the authorities that they *thought* the £32m in cash kept in a flat came from illegal means 😃

Cycling can still be fun to watch even when you're convinced the top riders are most probably doping which has basically always been, and probably still is, the case. Just enjoy the spectacle. Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani gave some of the best Tours de France to watch and knowing they were doping doesn't change that it was a thrill at the time.

I mean, if you took the line of not watching sport that has a doping problem then you really won't be left with many sports left to watch. Golf? Bowls? Chess?

Hamilton and Landis (and maybe other ex-team mates of Armstrong?) got caught by doping controls once they'd gone to other teams, implying that US Postal's doping regime was much more controlled and calculated than other teams to allow them to fall under the radar (with perhaps the help of the odd bung to the authorities). The legal intervention came much later on when most were retired.

Bowls??? Christ - they're Sanatogen'ed up to the eyeballs.

Golf could probably be helped especially to allow harder training and harder hits.

Chess could probably be helped by stuff like adderall and similar amphetamines assuming they worked as claimed for helping study.

As for bowls. What dont they take?

It is interesting the focus on cycling as opposed to other sports with the normal claim being those other sports are skill rather than endurance which misses the point that PEDs allow harder training to get the skill up plus skill drops rapidly once someone gets tired so 80mins into a game the person on PEDs will likely have a skill advantage.

Didn't Armstrong snitch on Hamilton? (Certainly validates the UCI in Armstrong's pocket theory. Can't remember if LA admitted as such or if TH claimed it).

Still, it shows that a team based, systematic approach is basically locked in for success unless someone breaches the silence. 

I did chuckle when I saw this. The folks at the club near us can be heard rattling from a mile away! 

Athletics definitely has a problem, but the cynic in me thinks that the likes of Nike and Adidas are too heavily invested in it for the problem to be outed. Rugby could probably be lumped in with this too. 

Cycling just doesn't have the exposure to make it bullet-proof. It's expected in cycling so the story starts and ends there. The other big money sports get a free pass. 

Ah maybe, I didn't know that was the case.

But yes, either way, it shows that intelligent approaches to doping work well and evade detection...I think the misconception is that Armstrong was doping more than everyone else when really he was doping *better* than everyone else.

Operation Puerto was fascinating for this. The determined noninterest by Spanish authorities into anyone other than a handful of cyclists.

Yes, this defence is truly baffling isn't it? So often used as a defence for footballers, when football is an incredibly physical game. 

I always use the example of it being extra time in the world cup final...if you get to the ball first, before that knackered defender who's also chasing it down, then you'll score the winning goal because the goalie and rest of the defence are also too knackered to stop you...now try saying that PEDs won't help a footballer.

A look down this and comparing by governing body is quite telling. It's UKAD, so not international, but still... https://www.ukad.org.uk/sanctions

I'm 99% sure on the LA/TH thing but might go back into the book to check. I also seem to remember that Floyd only went vocal after serving his ban and reaching out to LA. Lance ignored him. 

Absolutely this. I've never been a Sky fan boy though I was made up for Wiggins. Never warmed to Froome but have learned to appreciate what he's achieved. I'm saddened to think about G in all this. Really don't want him to be a bad 'un.

Biggest charge I'd launch against Sky is, for me, they made cycling boring! 

I like your word 'fascinating' 👍! I'm sure we could all think of some others too... 

Ha, yes they did make it boring. Though Lance had his share of boring ones thanks to USPS dominance, but his character was such that there was always some entertainment as he always had something controversial to say.

I didn't warm to Froome either at first, but the 2017(?) tour really changed my mind about him...he raced that knowing that he had to take every opportunity he could - attacking on a descent and riding like Wile E Coyote, attacking with Sagan on a flat stage in the cross wind and, when his bike was trashed on Ventoux and there was no team car, he didn't whinge about the bad luck like many would have...he ran up the mountain! Anyone who races a tour in that way is a real competitor and deserves their success. 

I'll likely never know if Froome doped illegally (as in, without a TUE) but, like Lance, whether he did or not does not change the fact that he is one hell of a cyclist and competitor. One doesn't excuse the other by any means, but I can enjoy one while knowing the other is hanging over it. It's kind of a conscious cognitive dissonance.

Oh yeah, LA rejecting Floyd into the team was probably Lance's biggest mistake of his career. If he hadn't have done that, Lance might still be the idol of the sport that many (myself included) once thought him to be.

I think it speaks volumes about the hubris of the man. Crazy decision. I guess at that time he really did think he was Brando in the Godfather.

I was a Greg fan boy, so could never like the Texan bravado of Armstrong. But boy, they could race. Pantani, LA and my fave of the time Ullrich. Fully accept my cognitive dissonance 😂. 

Agree about Froome and being an absolute competitor. Maybe it's because he was so bloody nice that turned me off him. Liked Wiggo but I fully expect he was a right handful and can imagine spending time with him could be difficult. Maybe that edge is what draws us to champions like that. 

Have you watched the ESPN doc "Lance", which is currently on iPlayer? It'll be right up your street. Brought back memories of the amazing/outlandish/disgusting things LA did, and also covers a bit of the logic behind not accepting Landis in the team (I think they were between a rock and a hard place - they knew he was a time bomb, but equally a liability in the team).

I did, and yes it was actually more revealing than I thought it would be. Get the impression there's more to be told, not in any sense of a revelation, more about the how's and why's. He certainly likes to control the narrative. 

Rugby definitely. I remember when players moving from Union to League bulked up massively. Nowadays players in both codes are far too bulked up to be accounted for by unassisted weight training 

It's not my game but I remember reading a piece from an ex pro (Scottish perhaps) talking, if memory serves, about his son and their experience of it. 

And, to be fair, at the time he was probably actually better than anyone else at the time as well.

If anyone is interested in doping in general, the clean sport collective podcast is excellent. Covers all sports: cycling, race walking, XC skiing, etc from the perspective of clean athletes and in some cases ex dopers. 

Yes, quite possibly, though the counterargument to that is that the doping denied us the chance of knowing whether that is the case. But of his rivals over those years, Armstrong was probably right that Ullrich was the only real threat. Such a shame he only once really managed to get it together to push Armstrong so close (2003).

Thanks, I'll check that out

Ulrich should have taken some doping for his brain first!

CB