Rasmussen: yellow fever

[Pedrosanchezo]

Now that's kinky

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

 

[Strathlubnaig]

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

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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]

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]

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

 

[oldroadman]

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]

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]

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

The Chicken has flown the coop?

 

[oldroadman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

i see little reason to doubt the accusations/gossip.

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]

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:



(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.

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]

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.