# Rasmussen: yellow fever



## User (30 Oct 2013)




----------



## rich p (30 Oct 2013)

Hmmm, former USPS, Phonak ryder (sic), who wins an unlikely Giro GT after years of being unregarded and even leaving the Pro team ranks. Are we to assume that Hesjedal's use of epo was historic and he was clean at Garmin?
I wonder what his response will be?
"I came clean to JV after I'd seen the light and was clean at Giro 2012"?
Garmin must run pretty good checks if their PR is to be believed.


----------



## rich p (30 Oct 2013)

Lest we forget about ole Chicken...


----------



## raindog (30 Oct 2013)

rich p said:


> Lest we forget...


how could anyone forget that


----------



## rich p (30 Oct 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hesjedal-admits-to-doping-says-evidence-was-given-to-usada
Ryder H has fessed up now that he's been exposed. It seems as if he'd admitted it in private to JV before but another one bites the dust in the annals of the dopers.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (30 Oct 2013)

Why is it still news that Riis had a team that was full of dopers?


----------



## Noodley (30 Oct 2013)

Marmion said:


> Why is it still news that Riis had a team that was full of dopers?


 
Especially Jensie!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (30 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Especially Jensie!


 
Not sure if you are serious, I have always given Jens the benefit of the doubt. Not sure why.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Oct 2013)

Marmion said:


> Not sure if you are serious, I have always given Jens the benefit of the doubt. Not sure why.


Oh, Noodley's serious on this one!


----------



## montage (30 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Oh, Noodley's serious on this one!



Not as serius as this guy


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Oct 2013)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hesjedal-admits-to-doping-says-evidence-was-given-to-usada
> Ryder H has fessed up now that he's been exposed. It seems as if he'd admitted it in private to JV before but another one bites the dust in the annals of the dopers.



More than that, apparently he had already testified to both USADA and the Canadian sports ethics board and they seem quite happy for him to continue.


----------



## Noodley (31 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Oh, Noodley's serious on this one!


 
Not only serious, I am right! As, I am sure, time will tell...


----------



## Crackle (31 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Especially Jensie!



Witchfindergeneral: Have you ever ridden a bike?
Jensie: Yes
Witchfindergeneral: Did you know Lance Armstrong?
Jensie: Yes
witchfindergeneral: Burn Him!


----------



## zizou (31 Oct 2013)

Does this mean Hesjedal is rider 15?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (31 Oct 2013)

It appears that Rasmussen has flushed Hesjedal out. Though, whether honestly or conveniently, the admission only applies to events outside the statute of limitation.

http://road.cc/content/news/98037-2012-giro-champion-ryder-hesjedal-admits-doping


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It appears that Rasmussen has flushed Hesjedal out. Though, whether honestly or conveniently, the admission only applies to events outside the statute of limitation.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/98037-2012-giro-champion-ryder-hesjedal-admits-doping


 Indeed, who knows for sure.
That's the only time that Rasmussen and Hesjedal were together. I think we have to assume that RH fessed up to USADA and Garmin (JV) when the Rasmussen book was first mooted. RH must have known he was liable to be fingered. Not exactly open and honest if that's the case.
Whether that taints his Giro win is for individuals to decide.


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> photoshopped, surely?!


----------



## ColinJ (31 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> photoshopped, surely?!


Read anorexia in the peloton and this CyclingNews article.

You didn't think that being a pro cyclist was good for the body, did you ...?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It appears that Rasmussen has flushed Hesjedal out. Though, whether honestly or conveniently, the admission only applies to events outside the statute of limitation.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/98037-2012-giro-champion-ryder-hesjedal-admits-doping



That's what we've just been talking about...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (31 Oct 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> That's what we've just been talking about...


My mistake.


----------



## Hont (31 Oct 2013)

User said:


> Sørensen dug doping...Hesjedal...doping...Riis knew Fuentes....systematic doping on Bjarne Riis' team



None of that came as a great shock tbh. The cycling press are making a big deal of the Hesjedal revelation, but he was a USPS rider - it would have been a bigger surprise if he hadn't doped. I don't think it makes any difference to the credibility of his Giro win, most will have already made their mind up one way or the other. Like this guy for instance...

http://stevetilford.com/2013/10/31/remorseful-ryder-hesjedal/


----------



## oldroadman (1 Nov 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Read anorexia in the peloton and this CyclingNews article.
> 
> You didn't think that being a pro cyclist was good for the body, did you ...?


 
Unhealthy skinny and fined down to the minimum without losing power are two different things. Ras looks awful, the colour contrast and skin state does not help, and he naturally super thin anyway. Unlike my own little body which could never go below 54kg (Height 1,70) without power loss. Which accounts for "steady" climbing and plenty of grupetto time! Climbers are a breed apart, a lot don't even put much weight on once they stop, unless there's a real pig out session for months.
Have a read of David Millar's book, some good insights into the pressures at the top, lot's about the common problem on stage races, sleeping, and the (legal) methods to get that sleep recovery. Plus how that can so easily move to less legal methods.


----------



## rich p (1 Nov 2013)

Francois Parisien has a robust and understandably bitter view on Hesjedal.


----------



## montage (1 Nov 2013)

Ryder should be banned just for those stupid glasses


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Nov 2013)

Hont said:


> None of that came as a great shock tbh. The cycling press are making a big deal of the Hesjedal revelation, but he was a USPS rider - it would have been a bigger surprise if he hadn't doped. I don't think it makes any difference to the credibility of his Giro win, most will have already made their mind up one way or the other. Like this guy for instance...
> 
> http://stevetilford.com/2013/10/31/remorseful-ryder-hesjedal/


Horner has taken a forum full of stick for winning the Vuelta at the ripe age of 41. Hesjedal came out of nowhere and won the Giro and has since done nothing except upset expectations. 

People only seem to pointing to the fact that he cheated pre Garmin but as a doper, and his massive leap from a nobody to a GC winner, how can we believe any result that has come from him from then until now? History has taught us that a doper caught will confess to the lesser crime, years ago, but stress purity from greener pastures to present. 

I was a big fan of Hesjedal and now think the guy is a complete nobber. Of all people!! Not him.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Nov 2013)

rich p said:


> Francois Parisien has a robust and understandably bitter view on Hesjedal.


Just read that and it's bloody depressing. He was one of the few i had held high in my mind as someone who could compete with the best, through anonymity and decent form, but ends up being another one who's results are all tarnished with his confession. 

His confession seems like damage limitation to me. I don't doubt that he has doped beyond what he tells us.


----------



## Noodley (1 Nov 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> He was one of the few i had held high in my mind as someone who could compete with the best.


 
I look forward to seeing this statement a LOT once Jensie gets outed as a doper!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Nov 2013)

Noodley said:


> I look forward to seeing this statement a LOT once Jensie gets outed as a doper!


I thought he was outed? Doesn't T Hamilton finger him?


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Nov 2013)

Looking at Jens' performances across the 'dirty' years, I think there can be little doubt.

He is a funny comedy German, like Henning Wehn and some of the guys in 'Allo 'Allo, but the evidence suggests that he was very, very juiced and that it was he who said yes before the man from Del' Monte even thought of the question.

But I am drunk and know less than I do when sober. Sleep well, world. I hope to.


----------



## tug benson (4 Nov 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I thought he was outed? Doesn't T Hamilton finger him?


Now that's kinky


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Nov 2013)

tug benson said:


> Now that's kinky


I knew someone with a filthy mind would comment on that.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (5 Nov 2013)

The backtracking has begun
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-retracts-doping-allegations-against-freire-flecha


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Nov 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> The backtracking has begun
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-retracts-doping-allegations-against-freire-flecha


Doesn't fancy getting sued i imagine. 

One would surely think very hard about what you put in your book, and realise the consequences, before it is released. It's not like drunken texting where you wish you could take it all back or were misquoted. This is something he thought hard about before having published so to stand back now and change his stance is meaningless, it's there in a black and white for all to read - "Within the Rabobank team: 100% [used doping products]. Not everyone took the same products, but all riders were on some form of doping provided by the team".


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Doesn't fancy getting sued i imagine.
> 
> One would surely think very hard about what you put in your book, and realise the consequences, before it is released. It's not like drunken texting where you wish you could take it all back or were misquoted. This is something he thought hard about before having published so to stand back now and change his stance is meaningless, it's there in a black and white for all to read - "Within the Rabobank team: 100% [used doping products]. Not everyone took the same products, but all riders were on some form of doping provided by the team".



These allegations were not in the book - this is from a translation of a transcript of an interview he did. He never said specifically that Freire or Flecha doped, he just made a massive airy generalization and has now been forced to admit that he never saw Freire or Flecha do anything, indeed he's gone further with Flecha and said he was sure he knew nothing. This suggests that he is probably pretty certain that Freire did despite not seeing anything... 

As for the others, in many ways this is now more condemnatory - he is not backing down from accusing them of doping, along with the whole team organisation.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Nov 2013)

Yes, the article says it was said during an interview and not in the book.


----------



## oldroadman (5 Nov 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> These allegations were not in the book - this is from a translation of a transcript of an interview he did. He never said specifically that Freire or Flecha doped, he just made a massive airy generalization and has now been forced to admit that he never saw Freire or Flecha do anything, indeed he's gone further with Flecha and said he was sure he knew nothing. This suggests that he is probably pretty certain that Freire did despite not seeing anything...
> 
> As for the others, in many ways this is now more condemnatory - he is not backing down from accusing them of doping, along with the whole team organisation.


 
He won't race again, credibility os shot to bits, and he needs to sell books. So he goes on TV and makes statements which everyone involed in the programme knows full well will ensure controversy. The back tracking may be too late, as injured parties may be able to claim reputational damage anyway, whatever retractions the chicken issues. Lawyerfest on the way?


----------



## smutchin (5 Nov 2013)

oldroadman said:


> The back tracking may be too late, as injured parties may be able to claim reputational damage anyway



Pro cyclists? Reputational damage? Bit late for that, isn't it? (LOL.)


----------



## rich p (5 Nov 2013)

smutchin said:


> Pro cyclists? Reputational damage? Bit late for that, isn't it? (LOL.)


 The Chicken has flown the coop?


----------



## oldroadman (5 Nov 2013)

smutchin said:


> Pro cyclists? Reputational damage? Bit late for that, isn't it? (LOL.)


 That's a view which some would take, but not a lawyer! If nothing is proved against a rider, and he/she is willing to go through the process, there is still a case to answer. Although I doubt that many from a certain era would want to do so.
However if you KNOW you are clean, then there is nothing to lose.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2013)

oldroadman said:


> He won't race again, credibility os shot to bits, and he needs to sell books. So he goes on TV and makes statements which everyone involed in the programme knows full well will ensure controversy. The back tracking may be too late, as injured parties may be able to claim reputational damage anyway, whatever retractions the chicken issues. Lawyerfest on the way?


Yeah, it sounds like Rasmussen doesn't really think very deeply about any of this - rat-a-tat firing off some shots like a kalashnikov, no effort to aim, just create some headlines and try to drag some others into his mess.
Credibility very low.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Nov 2013)

thom said:


> Yeah, it sounds like Rasmussen doesn't really think very deeply about any of this - rat-a-tat firing off some shots like a kalashnikov, no effort to aim, just create some headlines and try to drag some others into his mess.
> Credibility very low.


True his credibility is hovering around the basement but tbh i see little reason to doubt the accusations/gossip. Such is the nature of the sport, these last 2 decades, that nothing is overly surprising.

Most pro's, past and present, agree that the sport being cleaner can only be a good thing and lead to fairer competition, though how many of these same pro's though have actually doped but wish to keep it a secret? How many live in hope that one day they won't pick up the paper, or a book, and read their name written by an ex pro who wants to unburden him/herself and come clean? Come to think of it how many ex dopers have come clean without first being tested positive for a banned substance? Even then how many don't fight to clear their name first. 

Is it still considered bad form to point the finger at others without proof? Breaking the code of silence? If the whole Armstrong saga taught us something it is that eye witness accounts can be very revealing, even if not from a legal standpoint - though in Armstrong's instance there were many many witnesses.


----------



## Hont (6 Nov 2013)

I seem to recall Floyd Landis' credibility being questioned at first. I suspect that Rasmussen is telling the truth but doesn't fancy a legal battle. I have no doubt that Freire doped - I can't imagine winning 3 world championships in that era riding clean.


----------



## smutchin (6 Nov 2013)

oldroadman said:


> However if you KNOW you are clean, then there is nothing to lose.



If you know you are clean, this means no one can possibly have any genuine evidence to use against you. Which is fine. But even then there's still the danger of someone paying a stooge $300k to say they saw you taking EPO in the early 90s. Or a convicted doper fabricating stories to generate publicity for his book.

Unfortunately, this is what you're up against:


Pedrosanchezo said:


> i see little reason to doubt the accusations/gossip.





Hont said:


> I can't imagine winning 3 world championships in that era riding clean.



(Not having a dig at Pedrosanchezo or Hont but their responses are typical enough to illustrate the point.)

The problem for any rider named by Rasmussen is that his accusations are certainly plausible in the context, regardless of how reliable you consider him as a witness. It's nigh on impossible for any pro rider of that era, even if they really were squeaky clean, to stay entirely free of the taint of doping. And even if you sued Rasmussen for libel and won, that may not change how you are perceived - all it will mean to some cycling fans is that you probably had better lawyers than Rasmussen.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 Nov 2013)

smutchin said:


> If you know you are clean, this means no one can possibly have any genuine evidence to use against you. Which is fine. But even then there's still the danger of someone paying a stooge $300k to say they saw you taking EPO in the early 90s. Or a convicted doper fabricating stories to generate publicity for his book.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is what you're up against:
> 
> ...


The flip side of that coin is any doped rider can be perceived as "squeeky clean" just because they are not coming forward and telling the truth. I mean how many pro's have come forward to confess their sins? Yet how many were reported to be dopers? Some estimations are around 90% of riders doped in the peloton! The numbers don't add up. There are simply dozens upon dozens of pro's and ex pro's out there who have doped yet we don't seem to be flooded with confessions. At least not unless they can make a buck by selling their books.


----------



## smutchin (6 Nov 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> The flip side of that coin is any doped rider can be perceived as "squeeky clean" just because they are not coming forward and telling the truth.



But very few are. Even Lemond is suspected by many fans.



> Some estimations are around 90% of riders doped in the peloton! The numbers don't add up. There are simply dozens upon dozens of pro's and ex pro's out there who have doped yet we don't seem to be flooded with confessions.



It doesn't necessarily take a confession or a positive test or a whistleblower for us to be able to make reasonable deductions about who is likely to have been among that 90% - we can use what we do know, especially about how certain teams operated thanks to the likes of Tyler Hamilton, to make the numbers add up, more or less. I certainly wasn't surprised when Ryder Hesjedal's name came out. But making a reasonable guess is not the same as blanket suspicion of any pro cyclist just because they're a pro cyclist. Rasmussen says everyone at Rabobank was at it, which sounds believable but is a bit of a sweeping statement. I'm reserving judgment at least until I've read a more detailed account in his book.


----------



## thom (6 Nov 2013)

Personally I don't really understand what is worth arguing about - riders like Hamilton and Rasmussen doped to win and did win once or twice. They both got caught, denied it for ages then wrote a book. 
Rasmussen appears to be following Hamilton's lead for me and is less sincere. Perhaps the difference between the two now is the apparent level of contrition - after Rasmussen was banned, Christina watches supported him back, he pleaded innocence and essentially screwed that sponsor. I have no great interest in forming a balanced opinion of Rasmussen to see if he comes across like Hamilton or Millar when he talks about doping. He was a relatively minor player craving the limelight as a rider and similarly now. He didn't do anything that different or interesting. And I have better confidence now that the doping authorities will follow all the leads and speculation, patiently revealing what needs to be told. 

Hopefully the UCI/WADA will create an environment all riders open up truthfully about the past and none are granted ludicrous amounts of individual attention just for being a bit more honest than they were in the past.


----------



## rich p (6 Nov 2013)

I don't like MR now and I don't think many of us ever did. Blanket, scattergun accusations are self-defeating because it only takes one to be wrong or retracted, like Flecha's, and trust in the others is damaged.
Having said that, I suspect a lot of Rabo were doping and a lot of what MR says now is true. We know from Hamilton that not even he was always on the dope (pan y agua), cost, fear of being caught, and availability being factors so it's pointless speculating on percentages of dopers.
Some undoubtedly were, some weren't, and some were sometimes.


----------



## smutchin (6 Nov 2013)

For me, it's not about whether they're genuinely contrite or their motivations for writing a book, it's whether they have anything interesting to say about their time as pro cyclists. I remain unconvinced about Hamilton's sincerity and I'm not sure I like him much as a person, but I consider his book essential reading for pro cycling fans. I suspect Rasmussen's book will be more of the same as we got from Hamilton, and as such probably won't reveal anything substantially new, especially not where CSC is concerned. It might still be worth reading though.


----------



## Crackle (6 Nov 2013)

rich p said:


> I don't like MR now and I don't think many of us ever did. Blanket, scattergun accusations are self-defeating because it only takes one to be wrong or retracted, like Flecha's, and trust in the others is damaged.
> Having said that, I suspect a lot of Rabo were doping and a lot of what MR says now is true. We know from Hamilton that not even he was always on the dope (pan y agua), cost, fear of being caught, and availability being factors so it's pointless speculating on percentages of dopers.
> Some undoubtedly were, some weren't, and some were sometimes.


Donald Rumsfeld said it best: There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns....

There's no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't buy Rasmussen a pint if I met him, nor would I pay too much attention to his stories but that doesn't mean I'd pay them no credence, I would. Considered carefully over a pint, not with Rasmussen.


----------



## rich p (6 Nov 2013)

Yebbut would you buy me a pint?


----------



## thom (6 Nov 2013)

rich p said:


> Yebbut would you buy me a pint?


@Crackle be careful, there's a picture of what happens to @rich p when someone buys him a bag of crisps alone.


----------



## Crackle (6 Nov 2013)

rich p said:


> Yebbut would you buy me a pint?


 Well......... I mull better with help, so I think we'd have to form a truth commission from amongst CC's finest and then appoint a prosecutor like, ooh I dunno.........Noods, say. We'd soon get to the bottom of things then.


----------



## User169 (6 Nov 2013)

thom said:


> @Crackle be careful, there's a picture of what happens to @rich p when someone buys him a bag of crisps alone.



Dont get the old codger drunk!

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/beer.10335/post-2749286


----------



## rich p (6 Nov 2013)

I shall not dignify these posts with a reply


----------



## oldroadman (6 Nov 2013)

rich p said:


> I shall not dignify these posts with a reply


----------

