Rasmussen outs Hesjedal

RobFowl

As it says on the tin..
The chicken outed Ryder Hesjedal who's now admitted doping a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Darkglasses

Linky: http://globalnews.ca/news/934686/danish-pro-cyclist-makes-doping-claims-against-hesjedal/

EDIT: Just noticed, that's about some other 2012 Giro d'Italia winner called Ryan Hesjedal. My bad.

Zyzz

"when he joined the US Postal System Service team"

lol

letape

Joacquim Rodriquez can't be feeling too happy...

Russman

Super for him that his performances improved when he stopped, around about the same time "cycling changed".

Brian?

Feck it anyway.

Glass Prison 1214

Horrible to see, but the more past dopers that are named and shamed the better. The current generation needs to know theres no getting away with it anymore.

Slo_Rida

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

Horrible to see, but the more past dopers that are named and shamed the better. The current generation needs to know theres no getting away with it anymore.

But get away with it is exactly what Ryder did. Grand tour to his name now and all.
And on it goes.

Chips Lovell

Nobody's saying he doped to win the Giro

Lusk_Doyle

letape wrote: »

Joacquim Rodriquez can't be feeling too happy...

Why?

Slo_Rida

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nobody's saying he doped to win the Giro

Well, he doped......and he won the Giro. Studies show doping can improve your ability for many years after you stop.
Oh but you're right sure he said it, I only did it this one time and stopped straight away, so I'm not REALLY a doper. Oh and Michael made me do it.

Nobody's saying he didn't dope to win it either.

Slo_Rida

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Nobody's saying he didn't dope to win it either.

If this gets me into trouble on boards I'll throw my hat at it.

Chips Lovell

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Nobody's saying he didn't dope to win it either.

a. Yes they are.
b. I'd think about the logical implications of that kind of assertion.

Macy0161

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

Horrible to see, but the more past dopers that are named and shamed the better. The current generation needs to know theres no getting away with it anymore.

They'd be better splitting samples into 4 or 5, storing some, and retro testing them when techniques improve, rather than this selective outing though. Re test samples 6 year later just before the statute of limitations expires.

Fair play to Ryder in one respect, he was ahead of the game stopping in 2003, rather than 2006 when most people stopped...

Slo_Rida

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

logical implications.

No idea what you're getting at, honestly.

To clear up any doubt, I'm saying that his doping helped him win the Giro, even though it has been stated that he stopped in 2003.

Beasty

Slo_Rida wrote: »

To clear up any doubt, I'm saying that his doping helped him win the Giro, even though it has been stated that he stopped in 2003.

The point is that you are not in possession of enough facts/evidence to make such a claim. If you said it may have helped him win, that may not be an unreasonable statement to make

Slo_Rida

Beasty wrote: »

The point is that you are not in possession of enough facts/evidence to make such a claim. If you said it may have helped him win, that may not be an unreasonable statement to make

Right, I know the rules here, fair enough.

I've always had my own theory on the benefits of doping after you stop and this seems to show evidence of it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24730151
I think muscle memory is the key point.
This really belongs in a different thread so apologies for the hijacking.

Lusk_Doyle

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Right, I know the rules here, fair enough.

I've always had my own theory on the benefits of doping after you stop and this seems to show evidence of it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24730151
I think muscle memory is the key point.
This really belongs in a different thread so apologies for the hijacking.

Some nine years later?!?

gordongekko

Is it not time for cycling to bring in much more serious punishments that will in reality be self policing ie if any member of a team is found guilty of doping the whole team is thrown out of the race and banned from that race the following year.

Slo_Rida

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Some nine years later?!?

""If it is sufficient to build muscle mass, I think it would be sufficient to give you this long term effect. I think it could last 10 years but I don't have the data to back that up. It would be my speculation yes," he said".

It always made sense to me in theory:
You're body is being powered to train more/harder than it was naturally meant to be able to. So it alters the makeup of the muscles in order to build them up. The built up-edness may go but the makeup remains changed thus allowing you to re-train to that level again without the use of drugs.

Slo_Rida

gordongekko wrote: »

Is it not time for cycling to bring in much more serious punishments that will in reality be self policing ie if any member of a team is found guilty of doping the whole team is thrown out of the race and banned from that race the following year.

The paper I referenced above is hinting that lifetime bans are needed if you dope because the benefits of doping last years, maybe a decade after you stop.

Chips Lovell

Slo_Rida wrote: »

No idea what you're getting at, honestly.

To clear up any doubt, I'm saying that his doping helped him win the Giro, even though it has been stated that he stopped in 2003.

Your're saying his doping in 2003 helped him win the Giro in 2012?

godtabh

Slo_Rida wrote: »

If this gets me into trouble on boards I'll throw my hat at it.

At boards? Good luck with that.

Will there be any consequences as a result of this?

gordongekko

Slo_Rida wrote: »

The paper I referenced above is hinting that lifetime bans are needed if you dope because the benefits of doping last years, maybe a decade after you stop.

i think there are legal issues doing that. Wasn't there a British sprinter given a lifetime ban from the olympics but managed to challenge this through the courts.

Slo_Rida

godtabh wrote: »

Will there be any consequences as a result of this?

WOW. What are you like.

Lusk_Doyle

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Your're saying his doping in 2003 helped him win the Giro in 2012?

Well Vlad, I had a mars bar in 2003 and I did Milan San Remo in 2012...:rolleyes:

Russman

Other than he knew it was wrong, and has felt bad about it ever since, does he say what made him stop back in 2003 or whenever he did ? That'd be an interesting question to put to him.

Maybe it was just that everyone else stopped too

godtabh

Slo_Rida wrote: »

WOW. What are you like.

Things are changing in cycling. A dopper has admitted doping. Ban him

Lumen

godtabh wrote: »

Things are changing in cycling. A dopper has admitted doping. Ban him

I think Slo Rida thought you meant for himself. :pac:

Slo_Rida

Thanks Lumen, I thought godtabh was calling for lifetime ban for me.

Lusk_Doyle

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Thanks Lumen, I thought godtabh was calling for lifetime ban for me.

Well at the very least your thanked posts and post total should not count towards your star rating for two years!

Slo_Rida

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Well at the very least your thanked posts and post total should not count towards your star rating for two years!

Is that how it works? The more you post and thank, the more stars you get?
Good to know!!

But NO WAY, a big bully made me do it and it was just the once and I'm clean now and I came out of my own free will and I'll testify against Lance and my book is out this christmas and EVERYONE else was doing it anywaaaaaaaaaaaay!

shutup

Slo_Rida wrote: »

But NO WAY, a big bully made me do it and it was just the once and I'm clean now and I came out of my own free will and I'll testify against Lance and my book is out this christmas and EVERYONE else was doing it anywaaaaaaaaaaaay!

By the way, There is no such thing as Santa.
How are you so upset and surprised by this story?
You may as well read it again but take out the name 'Hesjedal'. Insert anyone and everyone else from the era. Go nuts on boards.
EVERYONE else was doing it. ( Will I get a ban if I write that sentance in the present tense)

Raam

shutup wrote: »

By the way, There is no such thing as Santa.

HEY! This is my first year as Santa and I can tell you that I am very real.

shutup

Raam wrote: »

HEY! This is my first year as Santa and I can tell you that I am very real.

Sorry I didnt mean it.
Its hard for people like me who dont believe in miracles.

godtabh

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Thanks Lumen, I thought godtabh was calling for lifetime ban for me.

For a first time offence only a 2 year ban

Beasty

Some posts have been deleted and one poster banned. Doping speculation rules are not relaxed even if a rider has admitted to doing so in the past

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

Some posts have been deleted and one poster banned. Doping speculation rules are not relaxed even if a rider has admitted to doing so in the past

So if a rider doped in the past, but hasn't admitted to it in the present then that speculation would not be allowed? i.e. for instance casting doping aspersions on Lances 2009 comeback?

Darkglasses

Inquitus wrote: »

So if a rider doped in the past, but hasn't admitted to it in the present then that speculation would not be allowed? i.e. for instance casting doping aspersions on Lances 2009 comeback?

Correct

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82876961

RobFowl

Darkglasses wrote: »

Correct

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82876961

The USADA reasoned decision claimed LA doped after 2009 FWIW.

Research in doping is lacking (for obvious reasons) but there is emerging evidence that the effects of doping persist for up to and possibly longer than 10 years...

Can back up this with refs if required ........

Lusk_Doyle

RobFowl wrote: »

The USADA reasoned decision claimed LA doped after 2009 FWIW.

Research in doping is lacking (for obvious reasons) but there is emerging evidence that the effects of doping persist for up to and possibly longer than 10 years...

Can back up this with refs if required ........

Ah here, a one in a million chance is hardly conclusive evidence now, is it?

Darkglasses

RobFowl wrote: »

The USADA reasoned decision claimed LA doped after 2009 FWIW.

Research in doping is lacking (for obvious reasons) but there is emerging evidence that the effects of doping persist for up to and possibly longer than 10 years...

Can back up this with refs if required ........

There will still be no doping accusations or speculation unless it is proven. Proven means more than just evidence, theories, or hypotheses.

There have been a tonne of warning threads in the past, but always feel free to PM if there's any questions.

RobFowl

Darkglasses wrote: »

There will still be no doping accusations or speculation unless it is proven. Proven means more than just evidence, theories, or hypotheses.

There have been a tonne of warning threads in the past, but always feel free to PM if there's any questions.

So can it be said that dopers may still get benefits 10 years or more after stopping ?

Cos I can back that one up and could stand in court defending it........

Quigs Snr

I feel sorry for a lot of the dopers to be honest. They do it once, never again .... stop doing it, experience no drop whatsover in output and ability, sometimes even get stronger, go on to have great career's and then get caught for that youthful one time mistake many years later. Where's your compassion people ?

Darkglasses

RobFowl wrote: »

So can it be said that dopers may still get benefits 10 years or more after stopping ?

Cos I can back that one up and could stand in court defending it........

This all really belongs in Feedback or PM, no more debate about it in this thread.

I will keep this very straight-forward. You may not speculate about a rider currently doping, even if he has doped in the past. Any calls of doping in the past must be specifically kept in this context.

No more debate about it in thread. Feel free to PM, or look through some of the past threads on it in Feedback

dave_o_brien

Darkglasses wrote: »

This all really belongs in Feedback or PM, no more debate about it in this thread.

I will keep this very straight-forward. You may not speculate about a rider currently doping, even if he has doped in the past. Any calls of doping in the past must be specifically kept in this context.

No more debate about it in thread. Feel free to PM, or look through some of the past threads on it in Feedback

I run the risk of falling foul of the rules now, which I really am trying not to, but I don't think rob fowl is speculating on anything

Hesjedal doped, and has admitted as much. No speculation. He stopped in 2003, which is on the record. Rob fowl has scientific studies that substantiate the belief that the benefits of doping last potentially 10years. There doesn't seem to be any speculation there.

While I believe Hesjedal was clean for the giro, it's difficult to credit it in the same manner as before. It is, sadly, tarnished.

Peterx

I totally agree.
In an endurance sport you are going to reap the benefits of previous training, that's why we train, that's why cyclists have their prime years and why ould lads* can still kick ass, it's all cumulative and of course doing some of those years training with doping help is going to make a difference.

*racers in their 40s

Hermy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Your're saying his doping in 2003 helped him win the Giro in 2012?

Suppose a rider doped in 2002 and achieved great results because of that and got himself a contract with one of the big teams. Even if he never doped again that one year that he did could have a huge effect on his career over the following ten years.
So those who supposedly only doped once are just as much a part of the problem as the serial dopers.

ROK ON

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

ROK ON

The more that I think on this issue I think that the point raised by Hermy is the crux of the issue.

While Robs scientific papers maybe of interest for those with the competence to understand the findings it is less relevant IMHO

Riders (and Ryder) that claim to have doped for a short period of time then the extent to which they have claimed results during that period have altered the history of events over those that did not dope.

In many cases that led directly to divergent paths. Money and success and good teams. Others like Power and Scanlon left on the scrap heap o the sport.

The choices that Ryder made in the past contributed to his Giro victory. All of those choices.

Hermy

ROK ON wrote: »

The more that I think on this issue I think that the point raised by Hermy is the crux of the issue.

I think this was a point originally made by someone else regarding Armstrong's rise to the top [before the USADA report and Oprah interview revealed all] and how different things might have been had he been sanctioned for the failed test in '99.