Michael Rasmussen fessing up and ...

[Strathlubnaig]

Interesting read from Jen Voigt here

 

[beastie]

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]

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]

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]

At least you ateconsistent

So are you!

 

[ufkacbln]

So are you!

I must apologise for that Troll moment....

Hook, line, sinker!

I knew you would bite

 

[just jim]

The mind boggles.

 

[rich p]

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]

The mind boggles.

My apologies Jim - this really is my last word.

 

[Crackle]

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

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

My apologies Jim - this really is my last word.

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

 

[ufkacbln]

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]

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

 

[ufkacbln]

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?