Rasmussen outs Hesjedal

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.

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.