# Michael Rasmussen fessing up and ...



## rich p (31 Jan 2013)

... naming names apparently.
http://ekstrabladet.dk/sport/cykling/article1911515.ece
Still a bit garbled with Google translate but you can just about make sense of it.
Maybe a few riders quaking now.
By fessing up he avoids a lifetime ban for the second offence but it's not clear why he has chosen now to do so.


----------



## rich p (31 Jan 2013)

It's on cyclingnews now
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-expected-to-confess-to-doping


----------



## Hont (31 Jan 2013)

The chutzpah of these people never ceases to amaze me. How could he continue with his lawsuit, knowing he is guilty? It's like Landis taking public money to take his case to CAS, or Armstrong suing The Times.

There's no scumbag quite like an elite-sport-cheating scumbag


----------



## thom (31 Jan 2013)

Thanks rich - interesting _times_, I wonder how many other riders have _clocked_ whats happening. They should _watch_ out. Another usual suspect gets a _tick_ beside their name.


----------



## User169 (31 Jan 2013)

Just after he got busted and chucked off the tour, he raced in a crit local to me. Turned up dressed head to toe in yellow.


----------



## Rasmus (31 Jan 2013)

The press conference has just ended. Live text here.

For those of you who don't speak Danish, here's the main things:

Michael admits doping from 1998-2010.
Michael is suspending his active career, but will continue in a different capacity in the team.
He is apparently intending to "spill the beans", and cooperate fully with WADA, Anti Doping Denmark, USADA, and the Dutch authorities


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Jan 2013)

He pretty much did everything: EPO, HGH. steroids, transfusions...


----------



## raindog (31 Jan 2013)

the sneaky little scrote


----------



## Hont (31 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> the sneaky little scrote


If he was really sneaky he'd had fessed up the same day as the Armstrong interview. He would have barely been noticed.


----------



## Dayvo (31 Jan 2013)

2286541 said:


> But not sunbeds


 
He just needed the spray-on stuff for the rest of his, er, body!


----------



## Rasmus (31 Jan 2013)

Full text of MR's statement (google translate with a few corrections for the most glaring errors). Source



> I announce that I have from today suspended my career as an active cyclist.
> 
> The reason for this is that I have chosen to cooperate with the relevant anti-doping authorities to help solve cycling's most serious crisis ever.
> 
> ...


----------



## rich p (31 Jan 2013)

Another one who never failed a drug test yet was chock full of every damned product.
It makes the repeated bleating from the Armstrong supporters in recent years (and supposedly clean riders) seem ever more ridiculous.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2013)

What it shows is two things

Inadequate testing

That it is a simple case of knowing how to beat the system

The question it raises is what proof is required for a rider to be guilty?

Take Jens Voigt... Some of the first posted comments on news sites were that he is a doper in denial

Is he?


----------



## Noodley (31 Jan 2013)

Jens is a doper.

Also, I can guarantee that Rasmussen would never test positive for PIE, or fish supper.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Jan 2013)

I dont like to think Voigt is a doper. What proof do you have ?


----------



## jdtate101 (31 Jan 2013)

I too would HOPE that Jens is not a doper, as he's one of the most likeable guys in the sport. It would be a huge shame to learn he's also a fake. Here's hoping he's not!!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> What it shows is two things
> 
> Inadequate testing
> 
> ...


 
The first thing is very true, however it's also the case that the system appears to have been set up to be beaten.

The second is just the same bollocks you have been repeating about Lance Armstrong ad infinitum because seemingly you still can't admit you were wrong. It's not about 'proof'. It's about having enough evidence to show that rules have been broken, and increasingly it seems, having enough evidence to encourage riders to confess. 'Proof' is a red herring.


----------



## ayceejay (31 Jan 2013)

It is unlikely that someone could dope consistently for 12 years as a lone ranger without support and without being caught. This cocktail of drugs if used indiscriminately is lethal. What this points to is that he must have had medical support most likely team support plus bungs to officials.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The first thing is very true, however it's also the case that the system appears to have been set up to be beaten.
> 
> The second is just the same bollocks you have been repeating about Lance Armstrong ad infinitum because seemingly you still can't admit you were wrong. It's not about 'proof'. It's about having enough evidence to show that rules have been broken, and increasingly it seems, having enough evidence to encourage riders to confess. 'Proof' is a red herring.



Same misinterpretation as usual

Your inability to see that asking for a systematic proof is supporting doping is naive and really your problem to solve

The real question is what the sport needs to do to identify doping riders

To censure the guilty is unequivocal ,questioning where the present system fails is both realistic and sensible

Asking what proof is needed is equally sensible

At what point do you censure a rider?

Rumour, testimony, allegation, or testing?

Take the Wiggins / Kimmage spat....


----------



## johnr (31 Jan 2013)

I wonder whether we're getting to some kind of tipping point: Niermann and Rasmussen fess up this week, Spanish minister resigns after being outed in Fuentes trial, UCI's 'truth' and reconciliation debacle's going to throw up who knows what, the Dutch and Spanish authorities in-trays groaning... the dopers must be weighing up whether to put their hands up now or wait until someone comes for them.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Jan 2013)

2287295 said:


> I reckon that we have reached that tipping point. The good news would be that, if this is in fact correct, the will be no need to cut LA any sort of a deal and he can be left on death row.


 
You might be right - in terms of cycling.

What about other sports though.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> I too would HOPE that Jens is not a doper, as he's one of the most likeable guys in the sport. It would be a huge shame to learn he's also a fake. Here's hoping he's not!!


There are those like Basso, Ullrich and Contador who are/were dopers but are probably nice, likeable people. If Jens is a doper, he probably falls into that category. Yes, it would be a shame, but it wouldn't be a _huge_ shock.

There are/were dopers like Ricco who are unpleasant characters but who are pretty bloody stupid and harmless other than cheating clean riders out of wins. 

Then there are people like Armstrong ...


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jan 2013)

2287339 said:


> Contador likeable?


I wrote "_probably_"! 

I've obviously never met any of them but I have read what other people have written about them and watched interviews.

Everybody seems to like Basso and Ullrich. Contador doesn't come across as a nasty piece of work. Voight seems a great guy. 

Ricco was just a stupid little runt.

Armstrong though ... There is a scary intensity and ruthless coldness about him. You look in his eyes and can really see the self-serving calculations going on, but no sign of positive emotions. _*Shudder*_


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2013)

The Jens Voigt conundrum is the classic and contemporaneous example.

The naive and mischievous dismissal (and avoidance) that asking for evidence is "pro Armstrong" is pathetic, (especially given taht the question remains unanswered)

He is a popular rider who claims to be clean, but has circumstantial claims that he is not....




Noodley said:


> Jens is a doper.


 
The question that we need to answer is at what level of proof do we censure Voigt... should he have been allowed to participate in the TDU given the unequivocal statement above that he is a doper?


----------



## Fab Foodie (31 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> He pretty much did everything: EPO, HGH. steroids, transfusions...


 The Keith Richards of Cycling?


----------



## Noodley (1 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The question that we need to answer is at what level of proof do we censure Voigt... should he have been allowed to participate in the TDU given the unequivocal statement above that he is a doper?


 
Just to clarify, I am a middle-aged bloke on a cycling forum and have no authority over the regulation of pro riders and no affilliation with any governing body. My assertations regarding doping are merely my own opinions based in part on prejudice and cynicism. Please do not think otherwise or you may be disappointed if you are wanting "proof". But I stick by my statement that Jens is a doper. And I use "is" rather than "was" as, until he comes clean, he maintains the mindset of a doper irrespective of whether he is currently using chemical enhancement or not. I also think he is a "good guy", just like I think a lot of other guys who dope are "good guys". One of my favourite riders of recentish times was Mancebo, and he was/is a "good guy", but he is also a doper.


----------



## oldroadman (1 Feb 2013)

Someone posted earlier that "there is no scumbag like an elite sport scumbag". Wrong.
Bankers who rip people's life saving off, rapists, burglars, murderers, wife beaters...shall I go on?
I will never condone doping and want the dopers out, but a bit of proportion in the use of language would be good. Throwing accusations around, cheap shots really. I've seen a post on another site which puts Wiggins, Evans, Contador, Ullrich, all in the same group. I just wonder if these people have good lawyers, or just don't like their houses!
Odd that nobody accuses track riders of anything, next we'll have someone trying to blacken Sir Chris, Darren Kenny, and Laura, but I'll bet they would not say it to them face to face with witnesses.


----------



## Andrew_P (1 Feb 2013)

Does make you wonder just how clean the "clean" teams can be. If he was still be getting away with it in 2010 so could the whole peleton now. Just think how infested some of the other mainstream sports must be, with such high ££ gains and so little testing.


----------



## rich p (1 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Same misinterpretation as usual
> 
> Your inability to see that asking for a systematic proof is supporting doping is naive and really your problem to solve
> 
> ...


 
You just don't get it still, do you.
There is still no proof that Armstrong doped according to the forensic tests that you set. This is the point you keep spectacularly missing.
For months you argued that USADA didn't have jurisdiction, Judge Sparks would likely over-rule their decision and much more.
The evidence that we cited from alleged past positives, verbal evidence from witnesses such as Andreu, Landis, Hamilton and others was dismissed by you as inadmissable hearsay from bitter people out to make a quick buck.
I understand that this makes you feel marginalised and foolish but let me repeat that by your criteria...
...THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT ARMSTRONG DOPED

...but he did and has admitted it. Thanks, in the main, to people who kept saying it despite the deniers
The rest of us will keep banging the same drum about the rest of the riders we deduce, from the evidence available, in the hope that they will be exposed just as Armstrong was despite people like you who defended him using false analogies and courtroom melodrama language.
Thus we can say that Contador is/was a doper; A&F Schleck, Menchov, Basso, Scarponi, Garzelli, Cobo too.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2013)

Please actually read what is written as opposed to your weird interpretation ?

The question raised recognises this. Now instead of a fanciful rant, why not try contributing?

Take Jens Voigt as an example 

Of he is (as stated above) a doper , then he should not be racing

At what point do you remove him from the race?


----------



## Hont (1 Feb 2013)

2287339 said:


> Contador likeable?


Just because someone is a doper, does not make them unlikeable as a person. In the same way as being likeable does not mean you can't be a doper.

Contador behaved with great dignity during the Armstrong spat of 2009, still lives in his home-town, and he appears to have a lot of former teammates who remain friends with him and loyalty appears to be mutual.

That being said, I wouldn't put any sportsman at the top of his sport on a pedestal - they are just too driven, selfish, sometimes morally suspect and single-minded. And we never really know what they're actually like from the image they present to the media.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> You just don't get it still, do you.


 
I think it's best just to ignore Cunobelin. He's living in a fantasy world in which he is Henry Fonda in _12 Angry Men_...


----------



## rich p (1 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Please actually read what is written as opposed to your weird interpretation ?
> 
> The question raised recognises this. Now instead of a fanciful rant, why not try contributing?
> 
> ...


 
It seems that anyone who posts disagreeing with you is dismissed as a ranter. Almost an Armstrongian defence!
Answer this for me if you have time - Is Armstrong guilty despite never having any evidence against him that satisfies you?

In other news, you are still missing the point and just as spectacularly.

We, I, Noodley, Flying Monkey et al, do not have the authority to remove riders from the race.
This is not a court of law. This is the internet as Noodley pointed out above.
We will still carry on voicing concern about riders we think doped (or are doping) whilst you, no doubt, will continue to defend them until they are caught with a syrringe and a red-faced look of horror.


----------



## Hont (1 Feb 2013)

2288218 said:


> I just find him a bit cold. Admittedly that might be a language thing.


You're not alone. Ned Boulting says much the same thing in his Yellow Jumper book.


----------



## Rob3rt (1 Feb 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Someone posted earlier that "there is no scumbag like an elite sport scumbag". Wrong.
> Bankers who rip people's life saving off, rapists, burglars, murderers, wife beaters...shall I go on?
> I will never condone doping and want the dopers out, but a bit of proportion in the use of language would be good. Throwing accusations around, cheap shots really. I've seen a post on another site which puts Wiggins, Evans, Contador, Ullrich, all in the same group. I just wonder if these people have good lawyers, or just don't like their houses!
> *Odd that nobody accuses track riders of anything, next we'll have someone trying to blacken Sir Chris, Darren Kenny, and Laura, but I'll bet they would not say it to them face to face with witnesses.*


 
TBH, I would expect doping to be (potentially) just as rife on the track, possibly different drugs, but doping all the same, especially when you see some of the mass on those monster sprinters.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Another one who never failed a drug test yet was chock full of every damned product.
> It makes the repeated bleating from the Armstrong supporters in recent years (and supposedly clean riders) seem ever more ridiculous.


Trouble is the current crop haven't failed tests either and they bleat about being clean too. Worrying times.


----------



## Crackle (1 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Trouble is the current crop haven't failed tests either and they bleat about being clean too. Worrying times.


Yes and no. Nothing would surprise me anymore but so far there's nothing but innuendo and the times and power outputs look believable....but, we wait..


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> It seems that anyone who posts disagreeing with you is dismissed as a ranter. Almost an Armstrongian defence!
> Answer this for me if you have time - Is Armstrong guilty despite never having any evidence against him that satisfies you?


Your agenda is closed to not agreeing with you is pro- Armstrong / Doping and you don't think outside that blinkered box.

As before - find a post where I have said he was not guilty - you failed to do so last time you were challenged and ran away ... Can you do better this time?




> In other news, you are still missing the point and just as spectacularly.
> 
> We, I, Noodley, Flying Monkey et al, do not have the authority to remove riders from the race.
> This is not a court of law. This is the internet as Noodley pointed out above.
> We will still carry on voicing concern about riders we think doped (or are doping) whilst you, no doubt, will continue to defend them until they are caught with a syrringe and a red-faced look of horror.


 
Again your lies and misinterpretation entirely.

Where on this or any other thread have I spoken out to support doping?

Put your money where your mouth is


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2013)

Edited

At the start the question was raised as to the level of proof required to remove a rider from a race.

My first post in this thread pointed out that testing was flawed and inadequate, and asked what level of proof was required to remove a rider. It used Jens Voight as an example as he is a classic case where he appears clean, but there are many claims that he is not.

Should the authorities act on testing alone given the failure or can other levels of proof be used (as happened with Armstrong) the question raised being at what level of proof you censure the rider



We know that testing is flawed, and also that there are ways to beat the system.

In other professions serious accusations of misconduct are treated seriously and the professionals suspended during the investigation. Hence the list of rumour, testimony, allegation, or testing?

This is where the (supposedly pro abuse) question arises as to whether given credible evidence / testimony / proof a rider like Jens Voight or many of the others could and should be suspended during the investigation of the allegations.

It is within the power of the teams and governing bodies to do so - should they?[/quote]


----------



## Noodley (1 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At the start the question was raised as to the level of proof required to remove a rider from a race.


 
No it wasn't.


----------



## Herbie (1 Feb 2013)

Dayvo said:


> He just needed the spray-on stuff for the rest of his, er, body!


 
he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

Noodley said:


> No it wasn't.



Amended


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

Herbie said:


> he looks awful...like an anorexic sufferer


 
Two reasons.

There is massive weigh loss in most of the long tours, The difficulty in maintaining the calorific balance is also though to contribute to the long term problems of low bone density in cyclists



Secondly if the body is pushed even further in the case of PEDs then the body cannot fulfill the demand from normal resources and will convert other tissue such as body fat to energy exacerbating the weight loss

The overall result is very similar to not getting sufficient calorific input due to eating disorders

Sunken eyes are always a giveaway as the fat at the rear of the orbit is absorbed


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Feb 2013)

Herbie said:


> he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer


yup, I was begining to worry that LA was a positive advert for EPO HGH and Testostorone as he looks pretty fit and healthy. That picture is the perfect counter balance.

I must admit to being tainted by the 100's of negative tests spouted by LA, in fact it is spouted by most Pros. I beleived the hype around that. The confessions bring everyones negative tests in to question. Quite a bubble burst for me.


----------



## raindog (2 Feb 2013)

Herbie said:


> he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer


To be fair, almost any pro rider - especially a skinny climber - will look pretty shocking naked to the waist just after finishing a tough stage.


----------



## beastie (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> What it shows is two things
> 
> Inadequate testing
> 
> ...


Why and how does it raise this question? Rasmussen lied about his whereabouts, then lied about lying. He WAS guilty and banned for a whereabouts violation.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Feb 2013)

Crackle said:


> Yes and no. Nothing would surprise me anymore but so far there's nothing but innuendo and the times and power outputs look believable....but, we wait..


I think at the time of London 2012 I suggested the medal ceremonies should be held over until Brazil 2016.

I worry that the times and output stats might be down, down to 90's and 00's levels, and they still might be doping.

and if Jens Voight ever confesses to, or gets caught, doping I'll never watch another road race again.


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Your agenda is closed to not agreeing with you is pro- Armstrong / Doping and you don't think outside that blinkered box.
> 
> As before - find a post where I have said he was not guilty - you failed to do so last time you were challenged and ran away ... Can you do better this time?
> 
> ...


 
Not even you were daft enough to plead his innocence; instead you called all the evidence circumstantial , hearsay or inadmissable. Tyler Hamilton and Landis were proven liars out to make a buck, the other testifying riders were only testifying against LA to get their sentences reduced and thus were unreliable, the 1999 EPO tests were flawed and so on, ad infinitum.
Given that Armstrong and Rasmussen never failed a test and the rest of the evidence is still flawed in your eyes, can we believe these two when they say they're guilty of doping?
I'm interested when the epihany occcurred, and the evidence we and USADA had always believed, became credible to you.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Not even you were daft enough to plead his innocence; instead you called all the evidence circumstantial , hearsay or inadmissable. Tyler Hamilton and Landis were proven liars out to make a buck, the other testifying riders were only testifying against LA to get their sentences reduced and thus were unreliable, the 1999 EPO tests were flawed and so on, ad infinitum.
> Given that Armstrong and Rasmussen never failed a test and the rest of the evidence is still flawed in your eyes, can we believe these two when they say they're guilty of doping?
> I'm interested when the epihany occcurred, and the evidence we and USADA had always believed, became credible to you.


Your interpretation only - you have such a limited agenda that you assume anything else has to be supporting Armstrong, Voight and others

The discussion was over evidence

The simple (but outside your agenda) fact that this evidence was inadmissible in a court remains true, as does the point that was made that nailing Armstrong bang to rights in a court would have been a better outcome and would have prevented the present stalemate

Claiming this supports. Doping or does not recognise the present evidence is your issue 

The fact that I was right and it was settled out of court as I predicted must really rankle


However I suspect that is also beyond you as you simply are unable to comprehend concepts outside your box

At least you are starting to get the point though, now all you need to do is grasp the issue of suspension during an investigation... And explain how you surmised that this is supporting doping


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Out of court? I couldn't give a toss about courts. I just wanted him nailed by USADA, UCI, the IOC and WADA. Courts are irrelevant.

_*Claiming this supports. Doping or does not recognise the present evidence is your issue*_


You lost me again with this bit of garbage but not to worry. There's only so much fun I can glean from you.


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Feb 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> I too would HOPE that Jens is not a doper, as he's one of the most likeable guys in the sport. It would be a huge shame to learn he's also a fake. Here's hoping he's not!!


 
I, too, would like to hope he's not. Although I don't get the whole _'Jensie the Hero'_ thing, my middle child is quite taken by him and looks up to him. He certainly does entertain on quiet days and gives good TV.

Nonetheless, much about his teams, his birthplace, his teammates (Basso et al) and even his bosses (Bjarne et al) suggests that if he managed to get through PED-free for all those years he did very well to do so.

His performances too, including an almost pain-denying will to push where others (including known dopers) cannot or will not, suggests that it might have been more than more than just _pan y agua_ that he was fuelled with.

I think if some sort of TRC does bring some big truths out of the shadows, many of us will be very surprised at who did what in the 1990s and beyond.

This post might seem like a naughty attempt to see smoke around Jens, but it isn't. I just wouldn't be at all surprised.


----------



## jdtate101 (2 Feb 2013)

It's very sad when one's hero's are caught out as fakes. It makes you question your idea's around why you supported these people in the first place. As a fan you are emotionally invested in seeing someone win, which makes it doubly painful when they dope. I do wonder if pro cycling can ever shake off the shackles that the 90's era have put on it, it's now such a HUGE thing to overcome, with every result and performance called into doubt. Even with the greater testing and improved science today, it's still a very tainted sport and will remain so for years to come, which is a huge shame for any genuinely clean riders in the peloton today (of which I'm sure the vast majority are today).
How we fix this, I have no idea, but perhaps it will take every rider, coach and manager which had anything to do with that era, retiring or being forced out, in order to move things forward. A TRC would be good in my mind as it then removes any doubts about certain people in the fans minds.


----------



## Hip Priest (2 Feb 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> This post might seem like a naughty attempt to see smoke around Jens, but it isn't. I just wouldn't be at all surprised.


 
Me neither. I doubt any cyclist who made a name for themselves in that era was clean. I would think it was almost impossible to compete whilst riding paniagua. I think Boardman was clean, which is why he tended to fade in grand tours.


----------



## raindog (2 Feb 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I think Boardman was clean, which is why he tended to fade in grand tours.


I think he was clean too, but he wasn't so much fading as falling off his bike.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Out of court? I couldn't give a toss about courts. I just wanted him nailed by USADA, UCI, the IOC and WADA. Courts are irrelevant.
> 
> _*Claiming this supports. Doping or does not recognise the present evidence is your issue*_
> 
> ...




Once again as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and you are shown to be lying you feign misunderstanding

The first few times it was funny, it is now simply pathetic


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Once again as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and you are shown to be lying you feign misunderstanding
> 
> The first few times it was funny, it is now simply pathetic


Believe me, I'm not feigning!


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Believe me, I'm not feigning!


Actually I can believe that, the concept that there are views outside your agenda may really be too difficult for you


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

_*Claiming this supports. Doping or does not recognise the present evidence is your issue???????????*_
_**_
I did ask you to run it past your Mum.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

Don't give up the day job

You consistently make allegations and claims that are simply lies.....

As before please substantiate any of your claims

Ask your Mother about integrity?

Last time the moderators had to be involved to correct your allegations


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't give up the day job
> 
> You consistently make allegations and claims that are simply lies.....
> 
> ...


Eh? 
Anyway, I shall leave this now as it's getting sillier and sillier and I honestly have no idea what you're on about.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (2 Feb 2013)

Interesting read from Jen Voigt here


----------



## beastie (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Not even you were daft enough to plead his innocence; instead you called all the evidence circumstantial , hearsay or inadmissable. Tyler Hamilton and Landis were proven liars out to make a buck, the other testifying riders were only testifying against LA to get their sentences reduced and thus were unreliable, the 1999 EPO tests were flawed and so on, ad infinitum.
> Given that Armstrong and Rasmussen never failed a test and the rest of the evidence is still flawed in your eyes, can we believe these two when they say they're guilty of doping?
> I'm interested when the epihany occcurred, and the evidence we and USADA had always believed, became credible to you.


One point, Armstrong DID fail a test, then produced a TEC retrospectively(in a disgraceful bit of collision by his team, and a lack of balls from the UCI and ASO)


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Eh?
> Anyway, I shall leave this now as it's getting sillier and sillier and I honestly have no idea what you're on about.




Which validates the previous post

Allegation
Challenge
FAIL
Claims to Misunderstand

Runs away

At least you ateconsistent


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Feb 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Interesting read from Jen Voigt here


 
Some of what Voigt managed was unbelievable.... It troubles me that there is a resonance to that statement.

On the other hand, the performances he turned in on _Deliverance_ and _Midnight Cowboy_ were really quite something.

I hope he turns out to have been clean.


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At least you ateconsistent


 So are you!


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> So are you!



I must apologise for that Troll moment....

Hook, line, sinker!

I knew you would bite


----------



## just jim (2 Feb 2013)

The mind boggles.


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I must apologise for that Troll moment....
> 
> Hook, line, sinker!
> 
> I knew you would bite


You don't honestly expect anyone to believe that but nice try.


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2013)

just jim said:


> The mind boggles.


My apologies Jim - this really is my last word.


----------



## Crackle (2 Feb 2013)

All I can see is Rich arguing with a phantom. It looks a bit futile to be honest.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Feb 2013)

2289660 said:


> You are only maintaining the pressure to keep the silence going.


Nah, he takes no notice of me. It's a very one sided love affair.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> My apologies Jim - this really is my last word.


....and boldly Brave Sir Robin.....


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

beastie said:


> Why and how does it raise this question? Rasmussen lied about his whereabouts, then lied about lying. He WAS guilty and banned for a whereabouts violation.



So he was caught on a technicality in his case proven,but in most cases it would be difficult to prove whether a rider avoided the test or "forgot" . The system simply is not robust enough

The system still failed to identify his years of abuse and cheating 

He was not positively tested or censured for his offences


----------



## beastie (2 Feb 2013)

He was not positively tested,(at this point) but he was censured, ie banned.(twice)


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2013)

beastie said:


> He was not positively tested,(at this point) but he was censured, ie banned.(twice)



Absolutely!

This is where the authorities need to look 

A (now self confessed) doper who fully beat the system

Again do we need to look at the level of proof

In the US there is a three strikes and out policy, as with the parallel professional suspension under investigation ... Is it a way forward?


----------



## just jim (2 Feb 2013)

32 mins in should and will indeed sufficiently sum up this proceedings thuz far.

View: http://youtu.be/yqViFK7Px7A?t=35m


----------

