Rasmussen outs Hesjedal

le petit braquet

Interesting that this is happening under the new UCI regime

UCI disputes Rasmussen’s claim that he was below reticulocyte threshold during 2005 Tour de France in Velonation

boege

As far as I can tell he seems to be only fessin up as he was going to be outed. For me there is no honour here, as this is no differnet than failing a test.

Is he still not subject to punishment by UCI or is there a time limit?

and will his results continue to stand during the period in which he has admitted cheating?

and if no punishment is applied, then is this not an effective amnesty?

Lots of challanges here for the new UCI head.

NeedMoreGears

ROK ON wrote: »

Is I only did it the once becoming the new I never doped.

Sounds a bit like " I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" :eek:

Quigs Snr

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Sounds a bit like " I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" :eek:

Well that was Basso's defence....

le petit braquet

A few random points.

To play devil's advocate are people saying that it's not possible for someone to try PEDs and then decide it's not for them? Is that not what Paul Kimmage did?

I'm not sure what Hesjedal's grand tour programme has been for the last 10 years and what testing he was subjected to, but surely he might be able to remove suspicion by authorising tests on any samples that still exist with modern technology.

To reinforce ROK ON's and Hermy's points see this on Velonation about another Canadian cyclist who didn't dope.

The more stuff comes out in this drip, drip fashion then it reinforces the need for a truth and reconciliation commission to put the last 15/20 years in context.

corny

Same story.

I used PED's just for a short time. TBH i didn't like that i got better and i easily got away it. To tell you the truth the guilt has been eating away at me while i've amassed a small fortune. Oh and i certainly didn't dope post 2006-2007.

I place no importance on admissions or denials of guilt anymore.

Lusk_Doyle

corny wrote: »

I place no importance on admissions or denials of guilt anymore.

Neither did the Soviets and look where it got them!

laraghrider

godtabh wrote: »

For a first time offence only a 2 year ban

He'll probably get away with crucifixion. First offense.

What is really annoyingly about all of these revelations is the method in how they are coming out. Where are all these riders sitting down and giving full blown interviews to Eurosport or L'Equipe etc... No the ever so honest and holy of those, Millar, Hamilton, Rass etc.. Looking to cleanse their souls and lift the burden of guilt through releasing a book and making a packet in the process.

The only way we find this out is the serialisation of a book in a paper. If those dopers were really so self righteous why not just come out now and give full disclosure interviews. Regardless of how honest they are now they are looking to package it up in a nice earner. Therefore they are still making money from doping.

pelevin

Didn't Ullrich quite recently confess without releasing a book. Michael Boogerd confessed recently in a press conference. Rasmussen confessed in a press conference earlier in the year. Rolf Sorensen likewise.

It is simply not true that all these confessions are coming out with a vested financial interest at heart - that "the only way we find this out is the serialisation of a book in a paper."
The world doesn't have to be pure black and white. And also to take for example Tyler Hamilton - there is no way he could be remotely as comprehensive about his experiences as a pro-cyclist if he confined himself to an interview rather than as he did, releasing a book. I'd say his book did a lot of good in bringing stuff to the surface, far far outweighing any issue of personal financial gains for him doing the book.

To add, I hate doping, & hope there's a big change in the general ethos going on in pro-cycling. I stopped watching it around 2000 because of the doping but tobh I don't really get the idea of immersing oneself now in that world & getting righteously all annoyed about the doping that went on in the recent past. That's like being annoyed about it getting dark earlier in the winter. We know how prevalent it was, & how long can anger be sustained?

If it annoys anyone that much about a rider potentially gaining benefits years after a period of doping, I really think they should stop paying pro-cycling any attention for at least several more years. What pleasure could there be in peering into what they are clearly perceiving as still such a defiled world? To perhaps clarify - not that I am questioning the inner response that would feel so irritated or angry, but if that is the inner feeling, it's hardly as if one should be stuck for other ways of spending one's time, & that's largely the reason I stopped watching cycling years ago.

Slo_Rida

pelevin wrote: »

If it annoys anyone that much about a rider potentially gaining benefits years after a period of doping, I really think they should stop paying pro-cycling any attention for at least several more years. What pleasure could there be in peering into what they are clearly perceiving as still such a defiled world? To perhaps clarify - not that I am questioning the inner response that would feel so irritated or angry, but if that is the inner feeling, it's hardly as if one should be stuck for other ways of spending one's time, & that's largely the reason I stopped watching cycling years ago.

Yeah like I saw a guy bring the answers into a test once so I quit college.
Bike racing is entertaining, peds are a problem, but bike racing is entertaining.

pelevin

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Yeah like I saw a guy bring the answers into a test once so I quit college.
Bike racing is entertaining, peds are a problem, but bike racing is entertaining.

Not sure what you're specifically saying but if you're comparing the rare event of one guy cheating in a college exam to the rampant use of ped's in cycling in the Armstrong era, then I'd say that'd be quite obviously a ridiculous comparison. And personally, no, I'd experience the knowledge of virtually an entire professional sport pumped up on drugs, as it was then, to be the opposite of 'entertaining,' & not worth looking at.

Lusk_Doyle

pelevin wrote: »

That's like being annoyed about it getting dark earlier in the winter.

That is one wierd way to illustrate your point. I don't think the comparison of doping to winter time darkness works!

Slo_Rida

pelevin wrote: »

Not sure what you're specifically saying but if you're comparing the rare event of one guy cheating in a college exam to the rampant use of ped's in cycling in the Armstrong era, then I'd say that'd be quite obviously a ridiculous comparison. And personally, no, I'd experience the knowledge of virtually an entire professional sport pumped up on drugs, as it was then, to be the opposite of 'entertaining,' & not worth looking at.

No. I'm saying that telling one not to watch a sport because it angers oneself when a rider admits to doping 10 years ago is "quite obviously ridiculous".
That is what one is saying.

pelevin

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

That is one wierd way to illustrate your point. I don't think the comparison of doping to winter time darkness works!

It's not weird at all since at this stage noone can be in denial about how rampant the use of stuff like EPO was in that era, and so for me the idea of watching modern pro-cycling is to accept how bad things were then and move on. To actually watch pro-cycling now & supposedly have deep qualms about people cheating from the very recent time when it's more or less accepted that if you were winning anything you were most likely taking certain substances - that makes no sense to me.

It's as blatant a truth as the days getting shorter that riders were taking drugs, and to watch it now is to accecpt that and move on - which is not, to point out the obvious, the same as abandoning one's ethical sense. And the idea of dwelling on whether riders who doped ten years ago are still benefiting from those activities - well if that's how someone genuinely feels, I'd struggle to see why they are bothering with pro-cycling now.

pelevin

Slo_Rida wrote: »

No. I'm saying that telling one not to watch a sport because it angers oneself when a rider admits to doping 10 years ago is "quite obviously ridiculous".
That is what one is saying.

Anger is generally an emotion which dies out quite quickly. Unless people enjoy being angry, stoking its fires intentionally, why the hell would they be watching pro-cycling whilst trying to sustain some pure ethical stance regarding pro-cycling, when everyone knows how dirty it's been right thru the very recent past?

Slo_Rida

pelevin wrote: »

Anger is generally an emotion which dies out quite quickly. Unless people enjoy being angry, stoking its fires intentionally, why the hell would they be watching pro-cycling whilst trying to sustain some pure ethical stance regarding pro-cycling, when everyone knows how dirty it's been right thru the very recent past?

Because watching it doesn't annoy them DOPING annoys them.
I'm out.

RobFowl

I see Ras said the entire Rabobank TDF 2007 team were on the sauce.
Freire is threatening to sue him unless he retracts it.
Seems one cyclist at least from that era is fairly sure he can prove he was clean.
Here's hoping !

Lusk_Doyle

RobFowl wrote: »

I see Ras said the entire Rabobank TDF 2007 team were on the sauce.
Freire is not threatening to sue him unless he retracts it.
Seems one cyclist at least from that era is fairly sure he can prove he was clean.
Here's hoping !

He's not threatening to sue him unless he retracts it? So if he doesn't retract it he won't get sued and if he does retract it he will get sued?

RobFowl

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

He's not threatening to sue him unless he retracts it? So if he doesn't retract it he won't get sued and if he does retract it he will get sued?

Darkglasses

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

He's not threatening to sue him unless he retracts it? So if he doesn't retract it he won't get sued and if he does retract it he will get sued?

RobFowl

Juan Gutierrez Guti ‏@Juan_Guti 30m

Rasmussen ya ha rectificado públicamente: "Ni una vez en mi vida vi doparse a Óscar Freire. De Flecha tampoco sé nada". Vía @EFEnoticias

corny

RobFowl wrote: »

I see Ras said the entire Rabobank TDF 2007 team were on the sauce.
Freire is threatening to sue him unless he retracts it.
Seems one cyclist at least from that era is fairly sure he can prove he was clean.
Here's hoping !

He claims Leinders doped the whole team..... Gert Leinders.... Interesting.

bcmf

corny wrote: »

He claims Leinders doped the whole team..... Gert Leinders.... Interesting.

Leinders. Now where did he end up?

Slo_Rida

RobFowl wrote: »

Juan Gutierrez Guti ‏@Juan_Guti 30m

Rasmussen ya ha rectificado públicamente: "Ni una vez en mi vida vi doparse a Óscar Freire. De Flecha tampoco sé nada". Vía @EFEnoticias

Eh?

Lusk_Doyle

RobFowl wrote: »

Juan Gutierrez Guti ‏@Juan_Guti 30m

Rasmussen ya ha rectificado públicamente: "Ni una vez en mi vida vi doparse a Óscar Freire. De Flecha tampoco sé nada". Vía @EFEnoticias

Allow me to translate:

"Rats must have public and menthol rectals: "Knee [No] one hi-viz on me livin la vida loca the dopey Oscar Freire. That Flecha ain't so fast no more". Via ef ef ef notices."

Pretty sure that's right.

Plastik

Now former teammate and triple world champion Oscar Freire has threatened legal action which has caused Rasmussen to retract his statements:

“There was organized doping, but it did not include all the riders,” Rasmussen told EFE.com. “Not once in my life did I see Oscar Freire doping. Flecha as well, he also didn’t know anything.”

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/11/rocacorba-daily-98/