• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
The Pro Cycling Thread (Part 2)
<<
<
256 of 279
>>
>
jim_lyons
02-08-2016
Of course the top cyclists aren't using drugs.

They are just naturally better than all the people who are using.

In other news, the moon is made of cheese and Eastenders is actually a documentary.
swingaleg
02-08-2016
Meanwhile.......back on the road

The Tour of Burgos is about to get underway on The Bike Channel

5 stages.......and surprisingly for a short stage race they have a Team Time Trial tomorrow
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“So they're not yet mandatory across the sports qualifying for the Olympics or are not good enough to be relied upon as sole measure of a clean athlete?”

I've no idea about other sports, Olympic or non-Olympic. And no Biological Passports are not the full answer, just another weapon in the armoury.
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“Don't know where you are getting idea that from - it's consistent with both of the previous years' Q4 reports which also reported about 9-10% missed tests.”

Still seems very high considering the number of missed tests and bans.
Marti S
02-08-2016
Dont think much of the commentator on The Tour of Burgos, never heard of him, cant even remember his name now.

Good win for Van Popple considering he looked like he had had a nasty fall earlier
swingaleg
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Marti S:
“Dont think much of the commentator on The Tour of Burgos, never heard of him, cant even remember his name now.

Good win for Van Popple considering he looked like he had had a nasty fall earlier”

It was Matt Rendell

I've never heard him commentate before but I had heard of him.......he's a cycling jounalist

bit of a weird voice and all the way through he was calling van Poppel 'Boy' when it was Danny......

Van Poppel had crashed earlier and strange to see someone win a stage with half their shirt and shorts missing.......
John259
02-08-2016
Rendell is very knowledgeable but hasn't got the voice or personality for broadcasting. He's better used as he was on the TdF, for the occasional obscure factoid.
Inspiration
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by culttvfan:
“Also, after Nicole Cooke's allegations about doping in women's cycling, Armitstead was very quick to assert the sport is clean. ”

Yeah I think Nicole's whistle blowing doesn't get anywhere near as much attention as it should. That was pretty damning stuff.

And of course we then have the "X doesn't look the type to cheat" or "X is British, how could they cheat?" or "There's no cheating in X sport now" thoughts/comments.

I think with doping there is only one way to approach it. You strip away the persons name, gender, nationality and get rid of this "sport doesn't have dopers anymore" mindset. And you examine the facts.. such as performance gains.. and tests. It's the only way.

We have to ask ourselves.. should an athlete be able to compete if they missed three tests.. downgraded to two misses. A lot of people will say no they shouldn't.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by John259:
“Rendell is very knowledgeable but hasn't got the voice or personality for broadcasting. He's better used as he was on the TdF, for the occasional obscure factoid.”

Yes, not quite a natural is he? Looks like a decent race, though, a fair scattering of Brits, Contador getting some preparation in the for the Vuelta and sponsored by a big giant wheel of cheese. Decisive stage will be an hors categorie finish on Saturday, will be tricky to squeeze it in.
culttvfan
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Inspiration:
“Yeah I think Nicole's whistle blowing doesn't get anywhere near as much attention as it should. That was pretty damning stuff.

And of course we then have the "X doesn't look the type to cheat" or "X is British, how could they cheat?" or "There's no cheating in X sport now" thoughts/comments.

I think with doping there is only one way to approach it. You strip away the persons name, gender, nationality and get rid of this "sport doesn't have dopers anymore" mindset. And you examine the facts.. such as performance gains.. and tests. It's the only way.

We have to ask ourselves.. should an athlete be able to compete if they missed three tests.. downgraded to two misses. A lot of people will say no they shouldn't.”

I think all those points are correct. I think it's particularly interesting how many people are prepared to defend athletes such as Armitstead for no good reason, including people who should know better such as the Telegraph's cycling correspondent Tom Cary, who asserts that "Personally, I do not believe for a moment that Armitstead is a doper", but then admits this view is based on no more than "gut instinct" and "knowing her a bit".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2...missed-doping/

I also don't think enough has been made of the fact that Armitstead did not challenge either of the first two missed tests until she had missed the third:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/...-missed-drugs/
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ellow-athletes

It's also interesting that she has received, quite rightly in my opinion, very short shrift from many other athletes from various sports. I don't think we've heard the last of this.

PS - And if I'd known beforehand British Cycling were paying her legal costs I certainly wouldn't have renewed my membership last week.
wns_195
02-08-2016
The Lizzie Armitstead situation is very disappointing.

It may be that Lizzie Armitstead was clean on those days. She hasn't been found to have been doping when she was racing.

Apparently you can change your location up to a minute before the hour during which you have said you'll be in a certain place. There is also the matter of Lizzie Armitstead not challenging the first miss at the time. It is so rare for somebody to miss three tests. Other athlete.


I cannot see why British Cycling would risk their reputation defending Lizzie Armitstead if she wasn't clean. They have much more to lose than any other sports governing body in the country. No sport has grown like cycling over the last 4 years. They wouldn't want interest and participation to evaporate. She must surely be clean.
sunnymeg
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by culttvfan:
“Armitstead herself though did not contest that she was at fault in this instance. As you are prepared to elucidate regarding this, perhaps you could provide some more information. Was this a close family member, did Armitstead attend the hospital as soon as she found out, and did she inform the testing authorities at the time she was not available for testing as she was visiting a sick relative? If not, was her phone switched on, was she contacted by the testers, and did she explain to them why she was unavailable?

Secondly, what were her reasons for missing the other test?.



Increasing the window any more would mean even more dopers slipping through the net. As I said earlier, many PEDs are only traceable for a short period of time.”

Yes it was a close family member who lives in a different part of the country and the family travelled down en masse from Yorkshire as the prognosis wasn't good. They are thankfully recovering albeit slowly and I saw them today. As for when and if Lizzie contacted the doping agency, I have no idea and I'm not going to raise the issue with them unless they mention it first. As for the other instances, I haven't got a clue. I merely posted because I knew some background regarding the third event.
culttvfan
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by sunnymeg:
“Yes it was a close family member who lives in a different part of the country and the family travelled down en masse from Yorkshire as the prognosis wasn't good. They are thankfully recovering albeit slowly and I saw them today. As for when and if Lizzie contacted the doping agency, I have no idea and I'm not going to raise the issue with them unless they mention it first. As for the other instances, I haven't got a clue. I merely posted because I knew some background regarding the third event.”

Thank you for your reply.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by jim_lyons:
“Of course the top cyclists aren't using drugs.

They are just naturally better than all the people who are using.”

Have a look at the UK Anti-Doping Authorities banned list. Every single one of them a lifelong second-rater, desperately trying to get some kind of pro success in a sport they're not very good at.
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“Have a look at the UK Anti-Doping Authorities banned list. Every single one of them a lifelong second-rater, desperately trying to get some kind of pro success in a sport they're not very good at.”

He's probably of the same opinion as a semi-regular poster on here from Dublin, you probably know who I'm on about. Namely, anyone who beats a proven doper must also be a doper as no clean competitor can possibly beat a doper.
stono
03-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“No, we are just not as good at women's World Cup cycling as the other nations. Lizzie apart, we don't really have anyone getting more than 2-3 wins a year. The Dutch, Italians, Americans, Germans etc get far more.”

the other nations just put more effort into developing road riders who can compete though, they dont have to win races necessarily, but scoring points in the qualification period is a good thing, but British Cycling/TeamGB just dont give it the same focus as the track side, so its left to only a few to score most of the points.

read Nicole Cookes book, theres basically no womans road racing development programme/or fulltime coach, so anyone who wants to be a road racer,has to do it on their own and probably has to have been pretty exceptionally gifted to make it to pro elite level to be picked up.

consequently there always seems to be a glut of capable road riders who never progress and quit the sport in frustration or just race domestically, look at the team TeamGB put out for Ride London, all from the Academy Endurance track squad,and Id be surprised if any of them felt their main cycling career goal was to that of being a road rider, albeit Ride London is more a criterium, but actually even then there are better criterium riders who would have been available to ride, it wasnt a team to contest the race.
gemma-the-husky
03-08-2016
Oh, it's Lizzie Armitstead.

I thought it was Lizzie Armstrong.
Department_S
03-08-2016
Very disappointed in British Cyclings defence of LA. (Ironic initials).


It's not just cycling that's got an issue with all this of course. Any sport that comes under the UKAD testing regime has a "three strikes" policy - I presume it's the same for WADA.

"We recognise that mistakes happen – that is human nature – which is why an athlete will only be charged with a ‘Whereabouts Failure’, under section 2.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code, if they receive any combination of three missed tests or filing failures within a 12 month period.

Athletes who make genuine mistakes, such as forgetting to update their information and therefore accidently miss a test, are supported by UKAD to ensure they learn from their mistakes and hopefully avoid them in the future. It is important to remember that athletes who miss tests may not necessarily be evading testers or cheating deliberately; mistakes could be simple admin errors. It is for that reason that athletes need to accrue a combination of three missed tests or filing failures within a 12 month period to be charged with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If that does happen then an athlete can be banned for a maximum of two years."

Miss one fine. Two very careless. Three out - surely. Her contention of the first missed test seemed to be finding an excuse on a technicality. I just wonder as she is the poster girl of British road cycling that she has been treated differently. It's always "them" that are at it and not "us" mentality.
Virtual Paul
03-08-2016
Originally Posted by stono:
“the other nations just put more effort into developing road riders who can compete though, they dont have to win races necessarily, but scoring points in the qualification period is a good thing, but British Cycling/TeamGB just dont give it the same focus as the track side, so its left to only a few to score most of the points.”

So a similar team mismanagement that Varnish was complaining about when GB failed to qualify for the Rio women's team sprint.

Did Dani King accumulate enough points to qualify a place or was her major injury during training last year a factor in her missing that? Would be doubly harsh if she qualified a team spot and they've decided to give it to Pooley or someone not even road racing proper this season.

Though I can see the benefits of Pooley (as we saw in the London 2012 road race) if she's on form, which will be invaluable on the hilly Rio course.
marke09
03-08-2016
I posted this in the Rio 2016 thread but in case you dont go there here is the statement that Lizzie Armistead has released today

Here is the Lizzie Armitstead statement in full, released after she missed three drugs tests.

In the statement, UK Anti-Doping is referred to as UKAD and British Cycling as BC.

I am writing this statement in my own words, something I have wanted to do from the very beginning.

Understandably people have questions which I want to answer as openly and honest as I can. I hope people understand that speaking with journalists is a necessary part of my job, speaking directly to the public in a statement like this, which has not been ghost written or moulded by somebody else is unheard of.

I want to take responsibility for this message, this is my life and not a game of headlines. I want to state the facts but also try to explain my situation further. I believe I owe this statement to sports fans, people who love sport like I do.

As an 18-year-old schoolgirl I was introduced to the whereabouts system, nine years ago. Since then the system has evolved and developed, post October 2015 I recognised this and requested further education from UKAD, I will come back to this later.

By submitting my whereabouts I am consenting to people coming into my house or hotel and taking blood and urine samples. This is a part of my sport that I accept and wholeheartedly support.

To add some background before I explain the specific details of my three 'strikes'.

I have been tested 16 times in 2016.

I have a clear and valid blood passport (a more detailed use of looking for doping violations by looking for trends versus anomalies in my blood values).

I have been tested after every victory this season.

I am on the road for around 250 days a year, with around 60 race days.

I have never tested positive for a banned substance.

I have never taken a banned substance.

I will present the facts of my three 'strikes'.

Sweden: August 20, 2015

UKAD are allowed a maximum of two weeks to inform you of a 'strike'. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.

Last week:

CAS ruled quickly and unanimously in my favour and cleared me of any wrong doing, because:

I was at the hotel I stated.

The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.

I was tested the next day, this test was negative.

Calling an athlete's mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.

Put simply I was available and willing to provide a sample for UKAD.

Second 'strike': October 2015

Despite being reported as a 'missed test' this was in fact a 'filing failure'.

UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.

A busy post world championship period meant I had no firm plans and as such was changing address and plans very quickly. I made a mistake. This was an honest mistake rather than trying to deceive anybody. A mistake that many athletes who are honest with themselves will admit to having made themselves. I was tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.

In December 2015, I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a third potential 'strike'.

Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi-weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail-safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.

Unfortunately, this system fell apart on the June 9 when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be.

Simon Thornton had left BC three weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD.

If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My overnight accommodation (the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.

This is where I believe I have the right to privacy. My personal family circumstances at the time of the test were incredibly difficult, the medical evidence provided in my case was not contested by UKAD, they accepted the circumstances I was in.

UKAD did not perceive my situation to be 'extreme' enough to alleviate me of a negligence charge.

A psychiatrist assessment of my state of mind at the time was contrary. In my defence I was dealing with a traumatic time and I forgot to change a box on a form.

I am not a robot, I am a member of a family, my commitment to them comes over and above my commitment to cycling. This will not change and as a result I will not discuss this further, our suffering does not need to be part of a public trial.

I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling, I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it.

To conclude:

I currently have one filing failure and one missed test.

The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.

In the days following the revelations in the press my family and I have been the victim of some incredibly painful comments.

I ask people to take a moment to put themselves in my shoes, I am an athlete trying to do my best, I am a clean athlete. I am the female road race world champion, I operate in a completely different environment to the majority of athletes in the testing pool.

I am self coached, I work outside British Cycling and its systems, I race for a women's team that doesn't have a budget to match a world tour men's team who have staff specifically in place to supports riders with whereabouts.

I don't wish to make excuses, I made one mistake which was noticed in a 'spot check' my second strike came at a time when anybody who lives for and loves their family would understand my oversight. It's as simple as ticking the wrong box on a form.

I love sport and the values it represents, it hurts me to consider anybody questioning my performances. Integrity is something I strive for in every part of my life. I will hold my head high in Rio and do my best for Great Britain.

I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport.

To any of the 'Twitter Army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind.
wns_195
03-08-2016
I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who is part of the Twitter mob. Perhaps cycling helps them to get all that anger out in a positive way.

We should be doing more to develop our women's road cycling, especially considering we have the Tour of Britain, Ride London and Tour of Yorkshire women's races.
cmq2
03-08-2016
Quote:
“The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.”

That does not hold water. The judges at CAS are highly trained legal experts. They are mandated to decide only on the information presented at the hearing. They have demonstrated they are more than competent at ignoring and over-riding preceding rulings and coming to a decision based on the facts. I doubt they waste their time on tabloids or social media.

Quote:
“To any of the 'Twitter Army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind.”

Her fiance hit out at Ferrand-Prevot's personal life on Twitter yesterday. What;s sauce for the goose..

It is the usual love of the enhanced celebrity status from sharing success and personal information on the social media; it turns to indignant complaints of hurtful abuse at justifiable criticism. The usual tactic is to cite the odd excessive and insulting post as characteristic of the whole of social media. The hashtag filter I scanned shows an almost exclusively reasonable, mundane range of opinions.
cmq2
03-08-2016
The UCI World Tour will expand next season to cover a number of familiar races including Ride London:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-...endar-for-207/
swingaleg
03-08-2016
Good to see GB get a World Tour race

But that's a massive jump in the number of events at one go.......from 27 to 37

I wonder if this will have lots of consequences .........will teams need bigger squads and hence bigger budgets ?

is it possible that some teams might just pull out because they can't finance the extra commitments ?

will the second tier races find it more difficult to attract world tour teams? ........like the stage races in GB, Tour of Britain, Tour of Yorkshire
Evo102
03-08-2016
Originally Posted by cmq2:
“That does not hold water. The judges at CAS are highly trained legal experts. They are mandated to decide only on the information presented at the hearing. They have demonstrated they are more than competent at ignoring and over-riding preceding rulings and coming to a decision based on the facts. I doubt they waste their time on tabloids or social media.”

Plus CAS ruled on 21 July 2016, when was she, British Cycling, UKAD etc. intending to actually make the story public? Or were they hoping it would slip under the radar?
<<
<
256 of 279
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map