collapse


just some guy

  • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
  • Hall of Fame'r
  • Country: 00
  • Posts: 30398
  • Liked: 10220
  • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016Reigning Spring Classics Prediction ChampJSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
« Reply #90 on: August 03, 2016, 12:27 »
seems Lizzie has changed the story about contesting the 1st test again
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6008
    • Liked: 3151
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #91 on: August 03, 2016, 13:55 »
    hmm - the first missed test the way she puts it - she was there, at the hotel, in the room she said she would be in ... but they tried to call her and she didnt answer so they didnt bother any further.

    BUT

    she said she contested this with UKAD at the time and they dismissed her appeal ... so there must be more to it.  If that was really the case, surely UKAD would have seen that at the time.


    The second test - the filing failure.

    she says that they didnt actually try and test her, so it wasnt a missed test.  That they found out essentially from checking paperwork that she could not have been where she said she was.




    Surely - if you knew that you had 2 missed tests - you would move heaven and earth to ensure that EVERYTHING was correct.  Even allowing for family emergencies.

    The third test was supposedly a family emergency - but it wasnt enough of an emergency for them to give her a pass on it (she tried that avenue too it seems).


    I have to say - I am not convinced here.

     :(
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7809
    • Liked: 897
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #92 on: August 03, 2016, 15:42 »
    Statement reads like balls, imo.

    Should've been suspended. As Rasmussen, as Offredo.
  • ReplyReply

  • Havetts

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 3220
    • Liked: 1056
    • Awards: Fanboy of 2016Doper Shoot Out 2013
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #93 on: August 03, 2016, 21:27 »
    She says she hates doping sinners and she values integrity highly, so wrap the discussion up. She would never!!!!!!!!!!!
  • ReplyReply

  • Servais Knavendish

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 319
    • Liked: 288
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #94 on: August 03, 2016, 22:41 »
    This is really difficult, and there is no evidence that she has doped despite the frustrating test situation.  However putting this specific case to one side we have got to the stage where if you miss three tests then unless there is a an unequivocal justification (within redrafted regulations) then you take a reduced censure for missed tests - 2 years; and if you really love the sport then you take the penalty and accept that right or wrong, for the good of the sport in general these tests are essential and will be enforced. 

    Back to this case any success on Sunday is now incredibly tainted, not by guilt but by the stain of the situation that is discussed in detail above.  Nowhere near the same level as Vino in London, which was gut wrenching, but if you loved the sport despite your innocence should you ride and further inflame the debate, or withdraw and set more hares running??  I really don't know and wish I could have just cheered her on without this complex backstory

  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 30398
    • Liked: 10220
    • Awards: Best Avatar of 2016Reigning Spring Classics Prediction ChampJSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    pastronef

    • National Champion
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 978
    • Liked: 532
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #96 on: August 05, 2016, 10:01 »
    Pauline takes a selfie with Pellizz... ah no, with Jannie Longo  :P

    https://www.twitter.com/cyclesierra/status/760731992963051521
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #97 on: August 27, 2016, 12:30 »
    OK so a few weeks on and after the dust has settled let's take a look.  The premise at post one was "why does women's cycling get such a free pass ?"  and then the poster brought us back to the realities of life and the sport with the suggestion that anyone who doubts there are not women as committed to lies, deception and doping, just as seriously as their male equivalents are dumb, and being male, probably thinking using that part of their brain located in their testes.

    Up thread I was given a hard time about "silent bans" - basically I was being fanciful suggesting they could exist in this day and age of easy and immediate mass communication.  The logic behind them seemed counter productive - why would any sane organisation use them ?  Surely they are self defeating ?  My answer was of course they were self defeating but the idiots who used them, used them not because they wanted to but because of a series of prior dumb actions meant they were basically in a position where the silent ban v. going public was a far more favourable situation to the organisation, generally the National Federation having compromised itself upstream and to go public would bring even greater scorn and negative press on themselves for prior actions.

    Well even the cynic that is myself could not have imagined that in 2016, just prior to the Olympics the theory that "the silent ban exists in contemporary sport" would be proven with a factual account and that person would a) be a GB star and b) a cyclist and c) the current World Road champion.   So let's take a deeper look at how this mess may have occurred.


    The facts are that Lizzie has not tested positive but has committed three whereabouts violations. 
    She was banned from competing as a consequence.
    We know she appealed the conditions relating to at least two of the violations and the CAS found in her favour in one of them, (which was all they needed to do to get her off the hook).

    Lizzie (and her team) lied to the public about the reason she left the Giro stating it was for reasons of ill health.
    Lizzie (and her team) lied to the public about the reason she did not ride the GB champs stating it was so that she could prepare properly for Rio.
    Lizzie (and her team) lied to the public about the reason she did not ride La Course, stating it was so that she could prepare properly for Rio.
    Lizzie (and her team) lied to the public about the reason she did not ride the London race, stating it was so that she could prepare properly for Rio.

    From this press campaign, based on lies, Lizzie garnered favourable comment from the cycling journalists in various places stating wasn't she devoted, foregoing an inevitable national title/La course /etc. in favour of dedicating herself to maximising her preparation for the biggest prize in women's cycling.   Hell - in every negative there just has to be a positive you can spin.  Fact - she span it, she did not need to but she did.
     
    Lizzie tells us that one of the reasons she had a whereabouts violation was because of a family crisis.  We know that she is an inveterate twitter poster. Conveniently around the time of the "crisis" dear Lizzie has a silent twitter account. However, late on the day before the violation - which came in the early am of the following day, she was busy arranging bands for her post-Rio Wedding and posting to two companies about the band she had chosen to play at her wedding.  During this "family crisis" she found time to wipe her twitter record clean of all this activity.  Two of the companies had responded to her during this "crisis", one of them taking a screen shot of her tweet she had removed and using it to promote themselves.  Had they not done so, Lizzie's deception would have been complete and we would have had no evidence other than a block of "no activity" in her twitter account, rather than a "wiped account".   The evidence as presented to us would have been of some event being so traumatic to stop her usual activity of posting about all sorts of nonsense like the band she has booked for her wedding.

    Then we have three very interesting aspects of the story which raise many more questions than they answer.

    One - on the face of it quite innocent.  After the second violation UKAD and BC have a specific meeting with her warning her of the seriousness of her situation.  BC even employ some guy to wipe her backside and change her nappy.  This is astonishing given the continued story we have had about her, and from her, about her awesome attention to detail.  Firstly this "fastidious" person needs a minder for something so basic !  Then one admin error away from a career ending violation and you don't notice Mr Nappy Changer did not show up for three weeks ?  Either you can swallow that story - in which case I wish you well and may your God look after you in this life and the next - or you can accept the absolutely show stopping contradiction it generates. Not a single athlete has come out since and said they sympathise with Lizzie over this.  All professional athletes, have said completing whereabouts dominates their lives but it is a necessary fact of the life of an elite sports star.  This is an aspect with little room for a grey area.  It is either black or white, you either have to believe her tale or doubt it and doubting it, causes doubt elsewhere, that only a fool could suspend.

    Two - The timing of the ban.  On the face of it, hellish convenient. She committed her third violation.   Afterwards she was allowed to start to ride and then finish, and win, the new GB race, the race with the largest prize purse on the whole of the women's circuit, the golden jewel in the crown of the new born again, GB-centric women's World Tour.   The ban could have come in earlier, straight after notice of the third violation but somehow, some weird decision was taken to not apply it for a few weeks - Why ?  I will develop my answer to that after the third point.

    Three - the absolute lock-down on news about the ban.  It was a silent ban.  Post the leak, we had a load of rubbish about the rights of the athlete etc.  Hold on a minute.  One of the tenants of the social order of Western Democracies is that justice is not only conducted but observed to be conducted.  Making the news at a similar time was https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/06/senior-uk-soldier-accused-of-sexual-assault-in-canada.  The case has not been heard yet, no decision made and the whole of the world knows the guy's name and what he is accused of.  His case has not yet come to appeal, because a verdict has not yet been reached.  Somehow, all the Lizzie fans are screaming that despite an official verdict having been reached - she is banned, somehow her being is so precious that the decision must remain hidden until the CAS have heard her appeal and produced their view on it and I would add, there is no compunction on the CAS making their decision public or even making public that they have even heard such a case on her behalf.  I would suggest those arguing most strongly for the sanctity of such an obviously flawed system are not doing so on behalf of "precious Lizzie" and her ilk but for entirely selfish reasons - they wish to maintain their own delusion.  They have so much emotional investment in this delusion they know it is best if they preserve themselves from uncomfortable fact.  If Lizzie tumbles, so might Froome, and if he goes it could be Brad and who knows where the domino chain might stop - Boardman and Keen - heaven forbid - that would put the skids under the whole GB Olympic success story. 

    So let's look at three and two together.  Nobody is saying Lizzie and BC constructed the system that enabled silence over the decision and appeal process at CAS to be facilitated.  It was there, designed in by the sporting officials who constructed the process.  These are the same bunch of numpties that got sport to where it is at the current time, these are the Sepp Blatters, the Samaranchs, the Diacks of the World, to whom dishonesty and theft are part of the natural order of life to be exploited by the most able.   Cookson, Verbruggen and Coe are just treading in well worn footsteps, their lack of fibre not enabling them to tread the more difficult alternative.   A vehicle existed to enable BC, UKSport UKAD and last of all Lizzie, to keep the whole thing out of the public eye.  UKSport and UKAD need a fig leaf to put in place if ever it becomes public so they don't want to go "soft" on Lizzie and let her off. BC do not want one of their stars felled because of the domino effect.   However, you need to know an event like the Women's tour of Britain will have a vast investment of public money in its organisation.  Yes there is a headline sponsor, but the bulk of the money for running it comes from the public purse by way of a distribution of lottery funds authorised by UKSport.  In 1999 Hein and Pat had a situation where Lance tested positive at the tour but presented Johan and him with a "give us a good reason and we will let you off" opportunity.  Johan and Lance googled things until they came up with a saddle sore cream that contained the stuff and then told the doc to sign a fictitious post dated TUE, which a very grateful Hein and Pat accepted. Of course Hein and Pat were both one step away from the actual decision makers with the race commissaires being the executors of the decision process.   This delicious and prescient side-step enabled Hein to successfully challenge  Cookson, stating that the CIRC was misleading in its references to Hein being engaged in deception over the Lance story and of course in another meeting Cookson kept secret from us, he agreed to handing Hein  many tens of thousands of pounds of of the UCI's membership's money to Hein by way of compensation.  Of course Hein being Hein he just could not go along with keeping Cookson's embarrassment silent but proclaimed it to the World with a press announcement.  (Many thanks Hein - you just confirmed all we knew - you and Cookson are both sh1ts cut from the same cloth.)   So let's have a look at the decision on the timing of Lizzies ban. Flip that burger and see the fall out if the ban had been immediate. 

    Getting the costs on bringing the Tour of France start to GB in 2014 is quite difficult.  Have a look at this
    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tour_de_france_costs
    Here also at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28424843
    "This year, inside the M25 TfL alone paid £6m for the finish of Stage Three. "
    So we can easily imagine a figure of between say £20 million and £60 million for the whole extravaganza.  From what I learnt the Grand Depart went seriously over-budget with a good number of agencies very free with their spending of money from the public purse.  I would suggest that the longer Women's Tour , but taking place in less prominent localities, cost a smaller but still substantial figure.  No sponsor for 2017 and it would be either more public money or cancel the show.  Now that is a hard decision.

    So with no Lizzie there is no story about the "growth of women's cycling and how UKSport and BC are driving to new plains of achievement" as pedaled so many times during the race.  Instead we get - "current GB World champion gets 2 year ban from competition - for missing three, yes can you believe it, three violations despite being given a personal arse wiper and nappy changer".  "Biggest race on the calendar now a non-event as the biggest star goes missing".    A tearful Lizzie bleats "its all their fault - they did not employ two arse wipers, so when one went and got a better job there was still somebody else around to wipe my back-side".  (Which is what she did say but the farcical effect was somewhat lost with all the build up to Rio.)  I put it to you that, just as the commercial future of Men's cycling hung in the balance in 1999 post Festina, so the fall out of Lizzie having her ban made public and not riding the GB Women's Tour would have been catastrophic for the women's scene.  (Somebody else can correct me but aren't the current sponsors on long term notice that this was their last year and the organisation was trawling around for replacements.  Part of that deal will be wining and dining potentials at this year's race.  Imagine the conversation at the hospitality suite.  The deals would be killed. )  The stakes for Lizzie's ban were higher for the agencies around and were more important to those agencies, than Lizzie's personal circumstance.

    And then to the rider herself.  I think most human beings knowing that a decision on a possible career threatening 2 year ban, even with the prospect of a later challenge at CAS, was pending, might put them off their conrflakes each morning whilst waiting.  But hold on a minute, iron-woman Lizzie (yes the same Lizzie Wizzie who's extra sensitive feelings need to be put foremost in keeping this all out of the public domain) manages to ignore all this stuff and not only ride and win the biggest race outside the Olympics but also promote the forward sales of her book due out straight after the Olympics.  Hold on a minute - isn't there something I am waiting to hear about that could influence the final chapter - How I won gold in Rio ?  Just remind me what am I waiting to find out about ? 

    Well - knock me down with a feather - who'd have thunk it  - she just rode and won ! We can't know, but the circumstantial evidence that the timing was arranged and the nature and way around the decision was shared with Lizzie prior to the GB Tour looks one that is way more likely than unlikely and that, my friends really stinks and may well be the real reason the tale found its way to Matt Lawton at the Mail.  Because sure as hell BC, UKSport and UKAD and Lizzie herself did not want nasty Mr Lawton getting that story but it is complete fact - somebody told him; an uncomfortable fact that even the most ardent BC/Sky/Lizzie fan cannot deny.  And that somebody just had to be somebody who did not like what he saw was going on.

    And of course, if you accept that degree of connivance  - the construct of a "silent ban" exists for this incident, then one can accept that it may not be unique - it might have happened before.  It then explains why having two strikes did not generate in Lizzie the change of attitude to whereabouts that lots of fellow athletes have gone public with sharing.   Missing one is serious - you don't miss two.  Missing two is a life changer.  Not for Lizzie, two down - who cares - her priority is booking bands and wiping her twitter account after the event.  Just who else has gone to CAS and been let off - is Lizzie really the first ?  Of course we don't know because the system as designed does not have to tell us.  Believing we knew the first time it occurred, is like thinking Femke is the only ever pro cyclist to have ever used a motor in her bike.   You can believe it if you want to, but it takes some doing. 

    There is nothing out there to tell us Vos was on a silent ban.  However, construct a scenario where the Dutch Fed got themselves into an identical situation to that BC/UKSport/UKAD have just done with the Lizzie affair and came up with the same "master-plan" - just tell them your are ill and preparing for some race or another (exactly like the lie Lizzie told us).  It would not take an unimaginable leap of faith to adopt a position where Lizzie, BC and UKAD all knew that Vos had, in the recent past, been on such a silent ban.  Now that road ahead - spinning the deception does not look twisting and pot holed, it looks like a positive four-lane highway.   Imagine if it gets too hot - you just have to turn the finger and point.  Just how hard are UKAD going to fight any decision at CAS ?  That now becomes not only a walk-over but completely sold out before it was ever even contemplated.  "Yes my lud our testers screwed up big style - please let the poor innocent little waif off". 

    So you can make your choice, even on the evidence of the recent weeks, I would suggest the arguments for innocence on behalf of the rider and no connivance by the agencies, is too thin to be sustainable by any rational observer.    Throw in distant history of the sport and peripheral events such as Lizzie accusing the twitter army of bullying her on the same day her fiance uses that same media to go public to bully FPF and the evidence is more damning.  Follow the pro career of previous boyfriend Adam Blythe and I want to meet the person who will commit that Blythe would not have been exposed to managers, support staff and other riders who would have versed him in the dark arts; then the "missed tests" have a very much blacker potential.  We are back at trying to somehow break the link Sky fans use straws, as that is all they have available, to break- Froome is married to Cound.  Cound's mum is a champion bodybuilder with a ripped body that could only possibly have been generated in the manner all champion body builders have done over the last few decades - with chemical assistance.  That Froome's mother in law may have used steroids to sculpt her body in no way is evidence that Froome may have used PEDs to win the Tour, but explaining away the moral code of your life partner and justifying that in a sport riddled with dopers you are the rarest of individuals, a character with morals and the ability to beat without using those who do use PEDs to improve their performance, somehow becomes a lot, lot, lot harder. 


    Are there silent bans in our sport ? I was criticised for making the suggestion.

    Gore Vidal said the best four words in the English language are "I told you so".

    A few weeks ago there was a super post over at the clinic.  The poster wrote that he thought the whole BC/Sky thing was the World's most elaborate trolling experiment, just trying to see how far a story so similar to that of US Postal and Lance could be shoved down people's throats so quickly after the original was exposed.  My favourite moment of this whole episode was when Lizzie stated she was one of the most tested athletes in sport, the implication being that she just had to be clean.  I hope Lance read that. 
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 14:33 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #98 on: August 27, 2016, 13:27 »
    This is really difficult, and there is no evidence that she has doped .................

    Back to this case any success on Sunday is now incredibly tainted, not by guilt but by the stain of the situation that is discussed in detail above.  Nowhere near the same level as Vino in London, which was gut wrenching, but if you loved the sport despite your innocence should you ride and further inflame the debate, or withdraw and set more hares running??  I really don't know and wish I could have just cheered her on without this complex backstory

    I found it hilarious that Vino won in London - just the absolute example of why the sport is where it is. ( Didn't Cookson put the medal round his neck - why doesn't he have that as his headline picture on his twitter account - way more fun than the picture he currently has there ? )

    I am not too sure how many fans of the sport would have been able to miss the irony of that win, but somebody did.


    "I just find it upsetting because the sport that I love, cycling, is clean now. My sport now is not that sport anymore."   Lizzie Armitstead Jan 16th 2013

    Yes Lizzie your sport is clean. Vino won the day before you got silver and  Zabelinskia towed you and Vos to the finish in the Mal keeping the break away from the bunch.  Just imagine without that doper's efforts it might have been Bronzini with gold and you with nothing.  So  nothing odd to see there.  I hope you were alongside Emma at the TT podium cheering the three medal winners in Rio - let the best rider win !  Zabelinskia was back from her 18 month ban and picking up a silver to go with Bronze from London 4 years before. 

    Servais - if Vino's win sticks in your throat 4 years later so you can post about it, can you imagine being a clean athlete and flogging yourself stupid and that Vino win somehow passing you by so you come out with crap like Lizzie did in January 2013 - "my sport is clean now".   Sorry but I disagree with you Sevais - I don't find it difficult at all.  The dreadful cynic in me tells me all I need to look out for.  Some riders are trying to take the p1ss and treat me like a fool and I don't like it.
  • ReplyReply

  • Kiwirider

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 196
    • Liked: 331
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #99 on: August 27, 2016, 14:56 »
    A few weeks ago there was a super post over at the clinic.  The poster wrote that he thought the whole BC/Sky thing was the World's most elaborate trolling experiment, just trying to see how far a story so similar to that of US Postal and Lance could be shoved down people's throats so quickly after the original was exposed.  My favourite moment of this whole episode was when Lizzie stated she was one of the most tested athletes in sport, the implication being that she just had to be clean.  I hope Lance read that.

    This is perhaps the single most [insert adjective here] thing about modern road cycling to me.

    We see exactly the same behaviours, see the same closed mouth riding at mega speeds in the mountains, hear the same comments and see the same "tactics" (although I find it hard to truly define "juice the team to the eyeballs, put them on the front, ride hard until the finish" as tactics - it requires zero imagination or strategic thought) as we did in the "dirty era" of the '90's and early '00's. Yet somehow there are a vast swathe of people who swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    I am most [insert equivalent verb here] by the likes of a friend of mine who has raced for years - including as a lower level pro in Europe - and works in a bike shop to this day. "Froomey" is a hero and is, as far as my mate's concerned, cleaner than a whistle. Given what he knows from his own experience - eg., getting given handfuls of drugs by the mechanics and being told "take them or leave the team" - how can he be anything other than cynical? Although, to be fair, he does think that pretty much every French, Italian, Belgian and Dutch rider is doped to the eyeballs. Yeah, that's right, the ones that are being beaten by the clean Team Marginal Gains ... (Wait a minute, there's something in that logic that I'm not quite following ....   :slow :slow   :cheesy :cheesy )

    And as for my missing adjective, I honestly don't know what it is.
    Words like annoying, worrying, mind-flippingly astounding all spring to mind ... but then there's also the bit where I just - quite literally - switch off  when I see what is effectively a trip back to the racing of the late '90s. The situation is so farcical that I really am at the point where I don't give a sh*t and really have next to zero interest in road racing. (Sadly the UCI is doing its best to even turn me off MTB - the road that they used in Rio being a classic example of why ... but that's another story.) And I definitely don't talk about cycling with anyone other than my partner - who is almost as cynical as I am - since 99% of people who I know in the biking community are new-comers who believe the "purity and light" myths.

    Some of this comes down to the old line of "those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat its mistakes" - and with the short term-ism of the net and media, it is very easy to be ignorant of history. (As a benign example, I remember a discussion here about no precedent for hilly TTT's in the Tour and went to try to find details of 1989's TTT - which was seriously hilly and put Delgado in trouble, with Reynolds having to hold back to stop him being eliminated on day 2! - but struggled to even find the results of the stage, let alone details of it.)

    And this is not to say that other sports are any better. As an obvious example, how can people accept that Usain Bolt is clean when he blitzes Ben Johnson's drug fueled time - and when we know that everyone in that final at Seoul was doped (or at least failed tests at some stage, so were "very suspect")? The human body just does not change that much in a generation.

    Anyhow, thanks RTS - your post gave me a chance to get something off my chest, which felt good. I doubt that either of us will have swayed any of the naive dreamers blind fools fans ... but at least it feels good to vent ...  :omg    :D

     
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #100 on: August 27, 2016, 16:51 »
    Hi Kiwi,  I have to say I share with you an induced reclusiveness.  Way too many of my old cycling acquaintances have swallowed the Sky thing when they were critical of Pantani.  But seeing as  how I spent time writing the replies above  I thought I would "treat" myself with a watch of the live stream of GP Plouay to see how the girls rode.

    Get stuffed - more taking the p1ss. 

    I only watched the last half lap of the Olympic RR and somebody told me that Vos had spent a key section of the race riding like an idiot.  Today that was not "riding like an idiot", that was a deliberate plan to race and not win.  So she has the biggest guilty conscience and is now committed to riding and to enlivening the race but not allowing herself to get in a winning position.  What the hell went on with her ban ?  Repeated positives - allowed back to the sport but with some sort of weird conditions - perhaps even self-imposed ?  I have no idea what I was watching but it was not a cycle race she was engaged in.  Nobody could ride as tactically well as she did in 2006 to 2012 and then ride as ridiculously as she did today.  Even at the finish she could not have selected a more unlikely wheel to follow and then delayed so long a time to allow herself to be blocked in.  Very amusing.  Even gave us thumping the handlebars in faux frustration as something for her "fans" to cling onto.  Err frustrated - I think not Marianne - that little show went exactly to plan. 

    Armitstead.  I smelt a rat as soon as she hit the front to come through the finish area, for the crowds with 2 laps to go. Why do that, if you are racing or even supporting a team-mate to a win you have no place on the front at that time.  Then straight away, when on the front, she not only had a drink but started mucking about getting a bar out of her back pocket and opening it - all whilst on the front.  This was no dedicated team mate committed to another team-mate winning, this was somebody going through the motions of taking part because she had to but knowing she could not win.  When she went out the back for the final time she looked like she was on a club-run and was keeping out of the way of the young boys going for a sign.  Not out of breath, not on the rivet, just somebody who could not be bothered to race.   Well enjoy your share of the public funding to BC because I resent it being wasted on a rider like you.

    I have no idea what else I was seeing but I will single out Longo Borghini for a special mention for failure to know how to ride tactically.  She did indeed seem to want to win, which, given the company was a big plus, but had little idea on how to go about it.  Time and again she put herself in the right place at the right moment but then did the wrong thing.  As a break is forming you don't ride second wheel, let the lead rider pull off, stay on the front and ease up, then decide to look around you to see what is happening, tap along for a while and then jump through making sure you drop third wheel, then just as you have done that ease, pull over and look for third wheel to come through.  Time and again it was gob smackingly bad.

    Unless I missed it I did not see a single of the current female pro's offer any censure of the return of Zabelinskia, the cutting short of her ban to just 18 months or her silver at Rio.   Along with the silence on all the Vos not riding stuff for the last two years and that weird 2014 World Road race finish and somebody tell me if I am wrong but wasn't Armstrong not in the whereabouts pool on the run up to Rio before her gold ? Which again along with the alarming win for such a rider - straight of the grandpa Horner book of how to do it - should have raised some serious questions from her fellow pros.   All of which tells me the women's peloton is a bit like the men's scene in the late 80's - few are making any money, and the scene is shaky and corrupt, so either get lost or keep quiet and pray it gets lucrative before you have to quit.  Exactly the conditions that led to the "fukc it" attitude "dope as much as you can, because otherwise you are leaving this sport with nothing" that ran through men's cycling in the 90s and generated the mess that facilitated Lance. 

    I did not enjoy that race today.  I am sorry I wasted time watching it. 
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 17:23 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #101 on: September 05, 2016, 20:39 »
    Chrono Des Nations - Glad to see that erstwhile prime female doper Hanna Solovey, repeatedly thrown under the bus (kicked out from the female Team Astana  for "unprofessional conduct" (!! what does that mean given the context - the mind boggles)) has recovered from some weird stuff at the World Champs (de-selected at the last minute ?)and managed to get 2nd today.  Only beaten by Russian Tatiana Antonshina. 

    I really am concerned that the strange stuff going on and the factual lack of blood passport and lack of out of competition testing for so many of the top riders means it is getting to be like the wild west on the women's scene - either (i) leave, (ii) don't compete to win  or (iii)  dope.

    Does anyone know if they do testing of the women or espoirs at the Chrono ? (or even the Junior men or women for that matter ?)

    I noticed Hanna Solovey getting a 9th in the Holland Ladies Tour and I was looking to see what I had said in the past about her.

    Oh dear - 2nd last year, beaten by Tatiana Antonshina. 

    1 year later 31/5/2016 and courtesy of Feargal over at the clinic I noticed  in
    http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/17/63/88/20160829ProvisionalSuspensionEN_English.PDF

    Anotonshina tests positive and gets banned.

    Nothing mild mark you - Growth Hormone  - kicking the backside out of it prior to Rio?   Anyone know at what event the sample was collected ?

    Lots of info here on the first up in my list of google responses to the adverse code. 
    http://www.teampscarb.co.uk/index.php/the-very-basic-guide-to-ghrpghrh-peptides/

    Lots of stuff - I really need a prize winning body builder to explain how it all works.  Where is Cound's mum on twitter when you need her ?  Shall I DM Michelle on Froome's account ?
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #102 on: September 05, 2016, 20:49 »
    Really depressing - searched a little more and found all sorts of nausea inducing "gems".

    Buying it   http://www.uk-peptides.com/ghrp-2-5mg

    Various forums discussing how long it stays in the system and can be detected - the answer - nowhere near long enough to make any testing likely to get it.

    Then I gave up - one father talking about injecting his son and his son now bulking up nicely and the fat dropping off him. 

    I have had enough. 

    Jeepers this is Frankenstien II
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1773
    • Liked: 1045
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #103 on: September 13, 2016, 10:15 »
    ...

    The facts are that Lizzie has not tested positive but has committed three whereabouts violations. 
    She was banned from competing as a consequence.
    We know she appealed the conditions relating to at least two of the violations and the CAS found in her favour in one of them, (which was all they needed to do to get her off the hook)....
    Sir BW is always worth a read but I was astonished to read this in this weekend's Guardian magazine...

    But when I ask if it would have been better for all concerned had the British rider Lizzie Armitstead not been allowed to compete, after missing three drug tests in a row, he looks uneasy. “Umm, I don’t know. I just think that rules are rules, and they’re there for a reason.” Is it easy to miss three tests in a row by mistake? “No.” His bluntness takes me by surprise. Not even slightly? “No,” he repeats, maintaining a level stare.

    Is it practically impossible? “Well, it’s bloody hard because what happens is you miss one test, they write you a letter, they ask you to explain what happened and you’ve got two weeks to put a case forward. If you ignore that and then you get another one, you end up having crisis meetings. You get a lot of support from UK Sport. They’re brilliant, actually. They’re on the phone daily. They send you emails, reminders, they’ll put plans in place for you in terms of someone helping you with the whereabouts, so you don’t end up… well, it’s very difficult, then, to go from two to three. And to get three within eight or nine months, there’s no excuse. When you’re a professional athlete and you’re a world champion, there’s no excuse, because it’s your career. You’re setting the standard for everybody else, and to say, ‘Cycling wasn’t my priority at that time’ [as Armitstead did] is ludicrous, because you nearly lost your career over it. That’s just ridiculous. So I can’t fathom how that happened.”
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 209
    • Liked: 177
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #104 on: November 29, 2016, 21:26 »
    OK so upthread I was critical of Vos and floating a possibility of a silent ban.  And then she came back and I just felt I was watching a stage managed loss too many times.  Too much "conspiracy theory"?  Well if it is good enough for the IAAF who is to say it is not good enough for the UCI or Dutch Fed.  In the Seppelt story on the IAAF, the Russian girl is not given a ban, too much fuss, but allowed to compete in the Marathon at the Olympics but just as long as she knows she can't win.  Story out as fact now;  bribes, backhanders the lot.   

    I just think cycling could trump even that with one or two using motors as well and a tester or two being paid to turn a blind eye.  If you think Pat and Hein wanted to avoid Lance testing positive in 1999 as it would damage the Tour think "Lizzie" lately or "Vos" before that.  It would have wiped out women's cycling. 

    I really have no idea what I have been watching these last few years.  Remember, as of right now, the only competitive rider found to have used a motor is an evil U23 moto-cross girl.   

    As if................. !   
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top