I am watching the British riders win many races with consumate ease at these current World's. What are the views here towards whether these performances we are watching are clean based on correct training or that the team is dirty as sin?

I would like to point out here that although certainly there have been dopers in UK sports/athletics (such as Miller, Christie, Chambers, Myerscough, and almost certainly Regis) it is not usually something associated with us Brits be it Cycling stars (Boardman, Obree, Wiggins), Rugby players (Wilkinson), Football stars (Rooney, Beckham), Boxing stars (Lewis, Hameed, Hatton, Calzaghe) or Track & Field stars (Holmes, Black, Coe etc). This is also perhaps part of the reason why we lose most of the time, but this is what worries me the most, we don't normally dominate world events.

So ..... how believable are these performances?

I don't know about British cycling in general. I do see some of the track sprinters that come to T-Town and I can tell you that they include some of the most muscle bound athletes I've ever seen in any sport. (I come from a wrestling and football background). I don't know if it is genetics, hard work or something else.

I think the muscles are more down to very low body fat levels alongside cycling being one of the best general exercises there is.

Madison winning speed by UK team 56 km/h .... isn't that scarily quick?

wiggins is probably clean.

There rest, would assume the opposite. Feel sorry fo Geraint Thomas to land under Corti's stable.

He said of Thomas "there are alot of things you can do with a rider that can hold 60kmph"

all forget?

UCI world track ...

__________________
For inches and centimetres, let fools contend."
-- Damian Grammaticus

http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Hayl...-of.3923822.jp

2007 - 41%
2008 - ????

I know answer...Verbruggen like Brailsford not like RSC ..and Italian fede..

__________________
For inches and centimetres, let fools contend."
-- Damian Grammaticus

Guys & Gals, here is a new technique to detect whether a rider is doping or not: after the rider's test results are announced, make him/her make a phone call to his/her spouse. One can apparently judge whether he/she is telling the truth or not by listening in to the call. We can name this test the "Brailsford test". Quote below from italiano's link:

BS Brailsfor.


Lotteries revoke doping funding.

riddle me this batman... WTF is staunch anti-doping Wiggins doing there then? He's very vocal when it's not one of his buddies but now?

hypocrite

Thunder - I think it is polite to wait until the next 2 weeks of intensive testing are finished. After all 50% is arbitary and if he has a naturally high Haemocrit then possibly he is innocent.

I know i'm being a gullible fool after everything that has gone before but I still want to see due process.

This is the first time I am watching track cycling (well, I did watch it as a kid, but at that time, I didn't know anything much about the sport), and I too was surprised by the immense muscular stature of most of the competitors.

that is a charade.

How many hematocrit tests has he had over his career? Lets say circa 20, to be conservative. It may well be 3 figures.

Likelihood of illness or dehydration? Next to zero. He was on a taper. No long miles, no hot weather. He is a professional athlete and knows the nutritional demands.

The testing is a charade. The numbers will reside. The window for EPO is 3 days depending on ones physiology, more for Aranesp, and it may not even register with microdose. So no legacy of EPO in his system even if he used it. He could hav etaken dynepo. Or a blood transfusion.

He was on Cofidis for a few years. Those years, one hears, that the only guys who were clean were Janek Tombak and Davide Moncoutie. He never tested +50 crit there. Never got a pass like Cioni, Ricco and Wegelius. Not that I believe Ricco and Wegelius are genuinely in need of passes, just a means to cover their breaches like Hayles.

Hayles is a veteran, surely there would be the numbers on the table, that support his high natural hematocrit, and they could have appealed and had him racing, if they showed all his tests from 45-49 which would have been plausible. But it was not plausible, because he boosted his crit illegally.

The chances of him having a naturally high hematocrit above 50% are negligible to non-existent IMHO. If he did have a very, very rare high natural value... he and the whole of British Cycling would have known about it before the test. I don't know one cyclist in the elite pro ranks of road cycling who had/has a natural hematocrit around 50% or above. This smells real bad.... and IMO, isn't improved by the damage control statements that seem to imply that a natural explanation is highly likely.

__________________