Damsgaard conflict of interest.

[Ripper]

Yeah well, the question about Damsgård for some time now has been, "Is he incompetent or is he corrupted?"

Perhaps both

 

[R.0.t.O]

Perhaps both

lolz that would be a good racket... not knowing anything about doping but convincing enough people you're an expert so they pay you to keep quiet... me spots a business opportunity.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Damsgaard is an embarrassment to anti-doping.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Mørkeberg, who called BS on Armstrong's profile, is "not an anti-doping expert", but Rasmus "opinion for sale" Damsgaard is "very ethical" and "aware of the pragmatic issues involved".

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

These guys are a cancer to cycling, not sure if it is appropiat to say but that is how I feel.

Bloodgangsters.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

“I never could and still cannot guarantee that CSC's anti-doping program would find riders who really wanted to cheat,” he told sporten.dk. “But I can guarantee that it was the best anti-doping program in the world at that time and if some of the riders cheated, then it had to be with such small quantities that the effect of their cheating on performance was highly questionable.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/damsgaard-cant-rule-out-doping-at-csc-in-2007-tour-de-france

Well, that explains why he's JV's favourite anti-doping expert (aside from his "pragmatism"). He recognizes that doping is "almost irrelevant, from a pure performance perspective" in the bio-passport era. I'm not sure what the point of JV's CN-article was. Doping has already been reduced to irrelevancy. The war has been won. Right?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I wonder what "small amounts of doping" means to someone who denies LA's doping in 2009? CSC must have been juiced to the gills.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Curious that on this page the values are mentioned as "morning" values.

Increase in levels during the race: Mørkeberg also highlights the increases seen around the two rest days; on July 11th the hematocrit value was 40.7, increasing to 43.1 on July 14, while the July 20th and July 25th morning blood control levels were 41.7 versus 43. This year’s rest days were July 13th and 20th.

How can they get the blood test time so wrong in 2009, when Damsgaard in 2012 seems so confident the 25th blood value was taken 15 minutes post-Ventoux climb.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Curious that Bo Belhage and Rasmus Damsgaard are both qualified as anesthesiologists.

One of our esteemed PhD forum members shares this same honour.

Just a curious observation - nothing implied or otherwise insinuated.

 

[Race Radio]

Gotta laugh at Damsgaard. This has been discussed for almost 4 years and he suddenly comes up with the idea that the blood control was taken AFTER the Ventoux stage? Post stage blood testing is very rare, it is used to test for products, not the Biopassport. All the reporting in the last 4 years has said it was a morning control

He also ignored the jump in Hct 2 weeks into the Tour and the wacky rect.

 

[meat puppet]

a look at the data & rebuttal of damsgaard http://youtu.be/fck_OZDBE_o

 

[sniper]

Gotta laugh at Damsgaard. This has been discussed for almost 4 years and he suddenly comes up with the idea that the blood control was taken AFTER the Ventoux stage? Post stage blood testing is very rare, it is used to test for products, not the Biopassport. All the reporting in the last 4 years has said it was a morning control

He also ignored the jump in Hct 2 weeks into the Tour and the wacky rect.

whatever lance took, it didn't help him much.
The BP works. In addition: Lance must have felt immense pressure from the media and a great fear of getting caught.
All that suggests he was either clean or on a very minimal program.
it was not the dope that brought him on the podium in 2009.
Just ask JV.

 

[Escarabajo]

Gotta laugh at Damsgaard. This has been discussed for almost 4 years and he suddenly comes up with the idea that the blood control was taken AFTER the Ventoux stage? Post stage blood testing is very rare, it is used to test for products, not the Biopassport. All the reporting in the last 4 years has said it was a morning control

He also ignored the jump in Hct 2 weeks into the Tour and the wacky rect.

Remember that he had a strong case of diarrhea and that explains the increase in crit.

Also the rectics increased... wait. Never mind.

And because of him being sick on rest day he could not climb with the best the day after ... oh wait. Never mind either.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I am not sure which is worse, the dopers, or the anti-doping fellow travellers.

 

[BroDeal]

Did anyone check to see if Armstrong gave Damsgaard a $10K bike? That seems to be his going rate for giving a free pass.

 

[frenchfry]

Did anyone check to see if Armstrong gave Damsgaard a $10K bike? That seems to be his going rate for giving a free pass.

You beat me to this comment.

Damsgaard has already proven he is for sale. No reason to believe he wasn't bought off again this time.

The same can be said for the UCI, who is now attempting to defend Armstrong's claim that he rode clean in 2009/2010.

Once corrupted, always corrupted.

 

[pmcg76]

whatever lance took, it didn't help him much.
The BP works. In addition: Lance must have felt immense pressure from the media and a great fear of getting caught.
All that suggests he was either clean or on a very minimal program.
it was not the dope that brought him on the podium in 2009.
Just ask JV.

Oh sniper you are an idiot as always.

I think that Ashenden and others have said that Armstrong's BP values should have triggered red flags but guess what cyclist is regarded as being extra protected by UCI!!! So the BP works but the guys running it, UCI didn't do their job.

If anything Armstrong's comeback in 2009 actually backs up the theory of the sport cleaning up.

A guy who had been retired for 3 years, comes back at almost 38 years of age, breaks his collarbone forcing him to miss a vital training period in the spring and he still finishes 3rd in the Tour ahead of a lot of young talented guys.

So either a few blood bags gave him this advantage over his competitors which would suggest they were a lot cleaner or Mr Armstrong has a lot more talent than he is given credit for on this forum

 

[sniper]

Oh sniper you are an idiot as always.

I think that Ashenden and others have said that Armstrong's BP values should have triggered red flags but guess what cyclist is regarded as being extra protected by UCI!!! So the BP works but the guys running it, UCI didn't do their job.

If anything Armstrong's comeback in 2009 actually backs up the theory of the sport cleaning up.

A guy who had been retired for 3 years, comes back at almost 38 years of age, breaks his collarbone forcing him to miss a vital training period in the spring and he still finishes 3rd in the Tour ahead of a lot of young talented guys.

So either a few blood bags gave him this advantage over his competitors which would suggest they were a lot cleaner or Mr Armstrong has a lot more talent than he is given credit for on this forum

that is not a bad point, admittedly.

On the other hand, if any genuinely clean guys (a certain Wiggo comes to mind) missed out on the podium because of a doped-up Lance, I would have expected a bit more outrage, rather than blatant fanboyship.

still, your point stands, I assume.

 

[D-Queued]

that is not a bad point, admittedly.

On the other hand, if any genuinely clean guys (a certain Wiggo comes to mind) missed out on the podium because of a doped-up Lance, I would have expected a bit more outrage, rather than blatant fanboyship.

still, your point stands, I assume.

There is no outrage because there is shared guilt. Omerta at work.

Lance went on Oprah allegedly to confess, and ended up creating entirely new lies.

Apparently we are overdue for a magnetic pole reversal. I'll wager we see that before we see Lance stick to the straight and narrow.

He coordinated the most advanced doping network and cover-up ever. He would just stop?

He would do that because he sought counsel from his dumped ex-wife?

What is the bigger lie in there?

Remember that spousal privilege cannot be asserted for events following a divorce.

So, she can now be deposed and Lance's lawyers cannot tell her not to answer the question.

As a refresher from LeMond Cycling versus Trek Bicycle Corporation versus Greg LeMond

Deposition of Kristin Armstrong 1 October 2009.

Q (BY MR. DI BOISE) I want to clarify just one thing. There was a question you were instructed not to answer, and I'm sure you'll be instructed on this one, as well, but I just want to make the record clear.

A ( BY MS ARMSTRONG) Okay.

MR. DI BOISE: Did you get that or not.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yeah, I got it.

(BY MR. DI BOISE) During the, the period of time that you were living in France or Spain and with Mr. Armstrong, did you ever observe him using, using any substances to aid his cycling?

MR. HERMAN: Objection, and instruct the witness not to answer on the same basis as outlined above, including a spousal communications privilege.

Dave.

 

[python]

everyone needs to be reminded that in 2009 there was a great charade played out in public.

...dr catlin was brought over to an un-retirement press-conference as another antidoping expert who will guarantee clean armstrong only to be booted weeks later with an explanation - 'dr damsgaard and the uci already are doing the job'

looked at in a broader light, damsgaard's contribution to anti-doping is perhaps positive, but he was too vocal (and in my view a bit sloppy) with several of his public statements on blood test interpretations ...

 

[sniper]

Wanted to look a bit more into Swart's and the GSK guys' ties to Froome/Sky prior to testing Froome in September 2015. We've already done that in the froome data thread which, however, is closed now, so this could be the right thread to continue(?)
mind, there's no suggestion here of any wrongdoing wrt the 2015 tests. On the contrary.
The mere purpose is to scrutinize the use of the notion of "independence" in regard to those tests.
And I trust that this thread will quietly sink away again should i be the only one having an issue with that.

So what have we got:
we've seen Furber works for UK antodoping (though I'm not sure what he does for them), we've heard Brailsford call both of the GSK guys "good lads" with whom he's had contact before (though here too I'm not sure what this previous contact exactly consisted of). What else. There's Swart working with Augustyn when Augustyn was at Sky, which raises the question if Swart has had other contacts with Sky?
Here's one tweet that suggests Swart knew Julich, the coach often credited for Froome's transformation.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 25. Okt. 2012
@richardmoore73 disgraceful that Bobby isn't allowed to continue with @TeamSky. Honorable, humble & one of the nicest guys in the business.

Is there anything else that hasnt been disclosed by the three 'independent' testers?

 

[Irondan]

Please post comments to the topic at hand.

Any off-topic comments will be removed by mods.

Cheers