Michael Rasmussen fessing up and ...

[jdtate101]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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

The Keith Richards of Cycling?

 

[Noodley]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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?