Doping

Rabo-USPS-Phonak is the hat-trick

Rasmussen's book will be interesting.

One surprising thing about Hesjedal is that he didn't come out along with the other Garmin riders last year. I know he wasn't under USADA jurisdiction, but it continues the drip feed of doping stories that I thought Vaughters was keen to avoid.

There is no incentive whatsoever to confess unless you've already been offered a deal. If Hesjedal called a news conference and said, "I doped in the past but I've been clean for the past x years", he'd likely still face a significant ban and, and this is really a much lesser point, face no end of accusations from internet forum people.

I'm sure Vaughters knows his past, and has probably advised him to wait until a) he has no choice or b) has retired before any confession.

Hesjedal admits he doped, no ban as the time when he doped is, rather conveniently, outside the statute of limitations;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hesjedal-admits-to-doping-says-evidence-was-given-to-usada

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24730151

^that question was what started this thread but then it all went tits up

a) he has no choice

He only spoke to authorities after Rasmussen named him in his confession in Jan.

Life bans for any clearly non-accidental doping?

life bans for genuine medical use of steroids?

the Garmin stance.
only hire known dopers?

According to JV we have now reached "the bottom of the barrel"

only hire known dopers?

They've been very clear from the off that they would offer ex-dopers the chance to compete in an environment where doping was actively discouraged. So, yes, basically.

At some point we can hope that there are riders around who've never doped, but I'd think they are probably still in the minority in the peleton today.

the problem with vaunting a 'clean' team then having one of your riders retrospectively making a limited confession that is somewhat conveniently entirely outside of the statute of limitations is that you make yourself look dirtier than the teams who just protest their ignorance or cry about abuse of trust between individual athletes and the team.

For someone like Millar who was caught, did the right thing and confessed, then wore his heart on his sleeve then tried to re-gain public trust, i can understand Garmin's policy.

For someone who won the Giro and was vaunted as this 'clean' champion and subsequently proves to have dirty laundry that was kept hidden until it was outed by someone with an axe to grind, it looks bad indeed, especially given his lack of form since.

This is where some kind of truth and reconcilliation process with no statute of limitations is really needed, as this drip feeding of limited accountability and denial feels just as cynical.

Life bans for any clearly non-accidental doping?

Why would you want to ban life? The last time I checked, it was a pretty good thing.

According to JV we have now reached "the bottom of the barrel"

Be prepared to be disppointed yet more...

Why would you want to ban life? The last time I checked, it was a pretty good thing.

Be prepared to be disppointed...

Hmmmm.

Yeah I think the bottom of the barrel is a fair way off yet...

I don't think we're even at the top of the bottom of the barrel.

I think he was referring very specifically to Garmins current barrel of dopers who had yet to go public.

Ah, I see.

The Italian anti-doping authorities are set to re-test Ryder Hesjedal's samples from last year's Giro.

I'm not quite sure what that says about the current state of testing, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

"Maybe if we pour it into the machine a bit faster Luigi?"

Team Garmin, the cycling equivalent of the Betty Ford Clinic.

It's a tough one for them, as mentioned up-thread- if there was to be a truth and reconciliation process which effectively draws a line under the period then everyone could come forward, display their various skeletons and then move on.

As it stands the riders have too much to lose by admitting to doping within the statute of limitations period, even if they wished to do so in order to emphasise that they turned their back on it.

Or maybe some of these guys can own up whilst they still have something to lose, given how much they have already taken from others?I know this is naive.

Hesjedal has come out of this looking morally vacuous at best.

.

I think you have to be in a relatively desperate place to commit to doping, that or just be amazingly cynical.

Please note, I am not excusing Hesjedal, but I can see why he'd feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Personally I believe that people can change- the child is father to the man, but should we allow the actions of our past condemn our future?

I think that you must at least allow the possibility of (unfashionable word) redemption, of sorts at least.