UKC

(not cycling for once)

The Telegraph is running a load of headlines about Justin Gatlin being 'involved' with doping.

Is it all getting rather silly.

If you win a sprint based athletic event and are obviously more 'cut' than the others you are probably taking drugs
If you win a cycling grand tour and are obviously more 'skinny' than the others you are probably taking drugs.

WHY is this being reported as surprising. It's pretty damn obvious. People will cheat, especially the poorest (with the most potential financial gain) and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. Given the tiny discrepancies at the top end between genetics and nuture, along with event specialisation, does anyone really expect anyone who is 'stand out' not to be doping?!

In reply to ClimberEd:

Hear hear!

Spot on.

If you're Winning in elite pro sport then you're probably on the gas.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I find that after a few spliffs my running style is far more relaxed

In reply to ClimberEd:

Ukclimbing home of informed comment.....

How does Salbutamol make you thin?

In reply to ClimberEd:

Not surprised, just saddened, given the advances in technology that will be coming along it is hard to see how 'doping' will not play a part. I don't feel ripped off but do think it puts off some who would like to compete 'clean'.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

I wasn't talking about Salbutamol.

And I suppose I should really have said 'that top athletes take drugs and push the rules', as doping by definition is illegal consumption of performance enhancing drugs.

I just find it surprising (or perhaps not given that journalists are prone to hyperbole) that headlines continue to take a shocked tone when a top athlete gets busted for doping. Anecdotal evidence continues to suggest that in any top sporting event a certain, not insignificant % of athletes will be doping.

The idea that they are any more hypocritical, and culpable, because they publicly declare they don't dope, change the paradigm, always stay within the rules etc is ridiculous. An athlete is hardly going to announce publicly that they believe in doping, or trying to push the rules, or find work arounds are they.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I have wondered what a Drugs Olympics would be like, with everyone openly on steroids and the like, what could be acheived.

In reply to ClimberEd:


How can lying about it be anything other than hypocritical?

In reply to J1234:


Probably a few deaths I'd imagine.

In reply to J1234:

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/strongest-man-deaths-place-bbc-under-fire-1-...

In reply to J1234:

I reckon it would be rather an unstable event with a few emotional outbursts and perhaps some tense confrontations. I was in Johannesburg when Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend and as you can imagine in most of my meetings on that trip, conversation started with Oscar. Most of my customers being from the close-knit Afrikaner community, Oscar was well known and the universal verdict was "'Roid rage" as he was known to be taking steroids and fond of guns.

In reply to krikoman:

I'm always amazed how fit my dog is on a couple of bowls of cardboardesque kibble. Non stop, sprinting, chasing, sniffing more chasing, more sprinting, alert.

Might have a look at the ingredients.

In reply to ClimberEd:

There is an opinion that Athletics is where cycling was 15 years ago, whereas sports like Football are where cycling was 50 years ago. So for all those saying Froome's case shows nothing has changed in cycling need a sense of perspective.

Where there are rules about what you can and can't take, then it inevitable that people will work out what they can to do to stay within those rules. Some will decide to use the maximum allowed within the rules, and some will see if there is a way to circumvent the rules.

Does this mean we should just abandon the rules - of course not. But we do have to remember that they are there to protect the health of the athletes and not to promote good sport.

However I'll repeat what I said on the other thread - once you take the position that winning is proof of cheating then you may as well just give up watching sport.

In reply to krikoman:


Beat me to it!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



I knew a bloke who tried living on dog food; he reckoned the biscuits were nutritionally perfect. But I bumped into him a few months later and he was all smashed up, with his arm in a sling and his head badly cut. He told me he had been hit by a car while sitting in the middle of the road licking his balls....

In reply to timjones:

By qualifying hypocrisy by its own definition.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

"once you take the position that winning is proof of cheating then you may as well just give up watching sport."

I think a lot of people have begrudgingly adopted that attitude with cycling

In reply to ClimberEd:

>"especially the poorest"

Yeah, them oiks from the council estate have no moral compass.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


>


I absolutely don't take this position. However I am simply never surprised when an athlete is bust for doping.
For example, regarding Sky my personal opinion is that they sail very close to the wind but try not to cross it. For me this isn't doping as doping is by definition what isn't allowed. They might screw up this judgement at some point when they also happen to get tested.

In reply to JLS:



Ha, that isn't what I was referring to at all. I was thinking more of things like marathon running which can lift someone (and their extended family) out of poverty - even for a low income country - into wealth - even by a high income country standard.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Yep, that's my position, both generally and with regard to Sky.

Furthermore I do think it's possible to enjoy pro-cycling without being too bothered about supporting a particular team or even rider. It doesn't have to be black and white - you can enjoy Bertie dance up a climb in full knowledge of his past and with doubts over his present.

And if you can't well you can still enjoy the scenery and the chateaus. I rather enjoyed all that fuss over Spartacus a few months back, not because I have a strong opinion on whether he used a motor or not, but because everyone was posting vids and pics of the Muur, and that me back to my best day on the bike this year.

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):



Increased metabolic activity - sympathetic agonist.

D

In reply to J1234:


You've er like watched 'The Olympics' right?

D