Doping

oh come on

Flecha comment was tongue in cheek.

cheers for clarifiyng that. I think Gerard Vroomen's right on the money here

Sooo... by admission a career long deceitful liar and a cheat, with nothing to gain from carrying on lying other than saving his business and of course selling more copies of his book, is Rasmussen now considered a creditable witness?

Personal I'll believe just about anything by now, but nevertheless I consider it a vital problem that virtually every rider who's ever come clean, including Armstrong, Hamilton, Riis, Rasmussen and so on, could be accused of doing so for personal gain and/or damage limitation.

In this specific case for instance, what exactly makes Rasmussen so much more creditable than than Riis and others, past and present riders, getting the knife in Rasmussen's new book? Anyway you look at it, the list of people stepping forward purely for the sake of the sport are few and far between.

He can't win though, can he? He was criticised for not being truthful, now he's saying what he saw and he's being criticised for being truthful.

Rasmussen spent considerable time with the Danish anti-doping agency, detailing his doping regime, suppliers, facilitators and so on. I think anyone who does that should be commended, as it helps WADA et al in combating doping.

I'd separate your list of examples into two, those that have told all and those that have admitted as little as possible. Hamilton and Rasmussen are in the former, Armstrong and Riis in the latter.

How Riis has managed to escape sanction when it's clear he facilitated widespread doping in his teams is beyond me.

Yep. But then again, he has confessed to doping as a rider, and the same goes for any other DS from that era, don't you think?

"He can't win though, can he?"

Probably not.

"How Riis has managed to escape sanction when it's clear he facilitated widespread doping in his teams is beyond me."

That makes two of us.

"Rasmussen spent considerable time with the Danish anti-doping agency, detailing his doping regime, suppliers, facilitators and so on. I think anyone who does that should be commended, as it helps WADA et al in combating doping."

This is an ongoing investigation I believe... I'll be looking forward to hearing their conclusion.

"I'd separate your list of examples into two, those that have told all and those that have admitted as little as possible. Hamilton and Rasmussen are in the former, Armstrong and Riis in the latter."

I'm not convinced. While I agree that Armstrong and Riis only admitted as little as possible, Hamilton is now making a very comfortable living telling "the truth" and obviously Rasmussen is fighting to save his business.

In any event there are still way to many skeletons in the closet, and everyone involved in professional cycling in that era has something to tell. Frankly not enough people are coming forward, and until they do there's no hope in hell of even beginning to resolve the issue.

Let him make some money from books and after-dinner speeches. But enforce a lifetime ban from any role in professional cycling.

It needs to be impossible for doping riders to have a career in cycling. Keeping them out helps those there for the right reasons to shape it's future.

Let him make some money from books and after-dinner speeches. But enforce a lifetime ban from any role in professional cycling.

It needs to be impossible for doping riders to have a career in cycling. Keeping them out helps those there for the right reasons to shape it's future.

And Garmin riders...?

I admire much of what Vaughters has done and it's moved thing forwards. Obviously if and when lifetime bans materialise they'll apply to doping offences from that date forward – in the same way laws are applied.

Ryder Hesjedal's timing though... how the hell does Vaughters defend that? Hesjedal should be joining the talented riders (and Chris Horner) without contracts for 2014.

#trashtalk

Katjuscha verfolge als ein Mitglied der Bewegung für einen glaubwürdigen Sport (MPCC) eine strenge Anti-Doping-Politik, Zabel sei deshalb nicht mehr tragbar.

Ryder Hesjedal's timing though... how the hell does Vaughters defend that? Hesjedal should be joining the talented riders (and Chris Horner) without contracts for 2014.

#trashtalk

Garmin's policy is clear-ish; if and when you are approached by anti-doping investigators you must give them a full and frank account of what you did but you don't have to volunteer it before being asked.

JV said he knew what RH had been up to well before he signed him in '08.

Rasmussen has already back tracked on Freire and Flecha. He didn't see them dope, which doesn't mean they didn't but certainly makes Rasmussen look like a chancer. He seems more like Ricardo Ricco than Hamilton or Landis - a weak and pathetic character, an egotist and, as it were, devious, truculent and unreliable.

lifetime ban

Rasmussen race mustn't.

^^^ But the public didn't and still don't (know what they've done).

It's a realistic and more honest approach than some other teams but it's not a policy of transparency. To be ethical it sort-of relies on us all liking JV and trusting his judgment because all we're getting is half-truths.

So an amnesty now followed by lifetime exclusion in future?

JV is offering his riders what a "truth and reconciliation" process has to offer - no punishment as long as you tell the whole truth. Because UCI/WADA do not currently have it in their power to offer such a deal, it's hard to insist that people volunteer information, as that could be very costly for a rider without giving him any benefit.

Any lifetime ban (as any new rule) would have a date in which it would come into effect. An amnesty preceding this might help. It depends what it's aim is really.

It sounds a bit facile, but to draw a line under it I guess.

The first step to admitting you have a problem is to admit that you have a problem, then face it, etc etc.

Might be good to have a confessional moment, clear the air (insofar as that is possible) and then from that time onward go for a straight lifetime ban.

It does sound a bit naive maybe, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that there should be no penalties for doping, but as it stands we seem doomed to a sort of evolutionary stasis if you will, where a certain percentage of riders will take advantage of doping techniques that are ahead of the curve of detection.

I'm not sure that an amnesty would persuade current riders from doping, if they were so minded, even in conjunction with a lifetime ban.

Principal purpose of an amnesty would be to stop the drip feed of historic doping stories that damage the sport. It's a PR idea really.

Principal purpose of an amnesty would be to stop the drip feed of historic doping stories that damage the sport.

Is it damaging the sport? I know there has been much hand-wringing from within the tent that having a fresh doping story from a decade ago every week is damaging, but I'm not sure that it really has any effect on people outside the sport - they all think all cyclists are on all the dope all the time, so that particular ship sailed a long time ago.

The 'doping' stories are less embarrassing than the corruption/incompetence.

An amnesty is a distraction. Focus on the system. Lifetime ban!

angrymob.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XC05mFCVaO0/UHU9eLRUqaI/AAAAAAAAAdw/bfo0iCxkfr0/s1600/Simpsons-Angry-Mob.png