Dekker just doesn't get it

[Kender]

in reference

to http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dekker-angry-over-two-year-suspension

“Why do I get two years, while Ricco was suspended for four months less?" Thomas Dekker asked de Telegraaf. “Ricco tested positive during the Tour on the latest EPO variant Cera. I tested positive for EPO at an out-of-competition control in winter, but never used dope during a race. It was only eighteen months later I was found positive in rechecking.

yeah because thinking you'd got away with it compares exactly to providing some names like ricco did, and doping out of competition is ok.. oh wait

“I really don’t understand what the basis for the maximum punishment is. I also don’t know what steps I may have to take. This is another heavy blow. Honestly I had not counted on it."

of course not, he thought he was going to cheat and not be caught. for this comment alone he deserves everything he gets

“They won't get me down. I will definitely return and clear my name.”

too late, you'll always be the cyclist that thought he'd got away with it only to be caught with a retest

I bet there are a few cyclists looking at this shaking in their boots about retesting. hopefully this sort of suscess will deter all but the most determined dopers. a step in the right direction

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

hopefully this sort of suscess will deter all but the most determined dopers. a step in the right direction

+1 That's the point of retrospective testing. It's not a backwards looking witch hunt, but an attempt to deter cyclists from doping in future.

Good on you for posting instead of lurking too.

 

[BroDeal]

+1 That's the point of retrospective testing. It's not a backwards looking witch hunt, but an attempt to deter cyclists from doping in future.

Oh, B.S. Retrospective testing is a way for the UCI to get rid of riders who have become inconvenient to the inside elite. A large number of riders should have their old samples tested for Dynepo and CERA but that has not happened because the UCI knows that too many of the wrong people would test positive..

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh, B.S. Retrospective testing is a way for the UCI to get rid of riders who have become inconvenient to the inside elite. A large number of riders should have their old samples tested for Dynepo and CERA but that has not happened because the UCI knows that too many of the wrong people would test positive..

Actually, all you guys/girls or right.

If Dekker had said "why were the Giro 2008 samples not tested when it was offered to the UCI" he may have had a point.

But - retroactive testing - if used properly and consistently is a great tool for the anti-doping authorities.
But again this shows the weakness of having the International sporting authority in charge of the anti-doping.

 

[IntheMidwest]

Well, I'd like to add this, Ricco admitted to injecting CERA the Wednesday before the tour because he "was tired from the Giro" - quote from this months issue of ProCycling Mag. He also ratted out Santuccione - one of the more significant acts that had a direct effect on the pelotons' reaction to his situation, IMHO. Compare this to what Dekker has done. Dekker has done what he is "supposed" to do - deny any and everything. Does that mean he's not a superb cyclist, no it does not. He'll be back just like Ricco, probably though with open arms....

BroDeal hit the nail on Retrotesting though, only those that can go down will.

 

[theyoungest]

Dekker is right. His suspension is completely random. And the point about deterring cyclists from doping with retroactive testing is complete BS in his case, because when Dekker's sample was taken he didn't even know it could be tested again in 18 months.
Don't get me wrong, he's a doper and deserves to be suspended, but so do a lot of other riders who are still free to roam the streets of Cycleworld.

 

[luckyboy]

Who cares? One doper caught is better than no dopers caught.

when Dekker's sample was taken he didn't even know it could be tested again in 18 months.

He should have read up on retro-testing then

 

[python]

why the whining ?

my first gut reaction to the thread was to unload a long rant laced with technical details as to why retro testing is needed, how its supposed to work and why it’s utopian to expect it being fair. But on a second thought whilst reading some of the reactions i decided on a more basic contribution.

dekker had one excellent option not to get caught -- not to dope.
ricco had one excellent option not to get caught with dynepo-- not to dope.
armstrong had one excellent option not to get caught by lndd’s research -- not to dope.

whining post fact means none of them came to grips with the underlying principle of fair completion and adulthood - personal responsibility for your own actions should come first. period.

good riddance when they get caught and I don’t care how.

well actually i do. i prefer proper testing to police raids as i mentioned before.

 

[theyoungest]

whining post fact means none of them came to grips with the underlying principle of fair completion and adulthood - personal responsibility for your own actions should come first. period.

I think nobody disagrees with you on that (maybe even Dekker won't), but the problem is the complete randomness of it all.

 

[RTMcFadden]

well actually i do. i prefer proper testing to police raids as i mentioned before.

Unfortunately, I don't think "proper" testing will be done without police raids.

 

[Animal]

I think nobody disagrees with you on that (maybe even Dekker won't), but the problem is the complete randomness of it all.

That's just the way with law enforcement.

Do you expect to be let off speeding tickets because not everyone gets caught?

 

[sir dopealot]

That's just the way with law enforcement.

Do you expect to be let off speeding tickets because not everyone gets caught?

+1

What I don't get is all the bs about clearing one's name (Dekker's in this case) after getting caught. What on earth is there to clear? You doped, you got caught, you will always be remembered as a known doper. There is nothing to be cleared except your throat before telling how organized the doping was in your team.

 

[Galic Ho]

I think Dekker found a new job as an actor. Borrowed out Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles season 2. Cue the cast list and in bold at the start, Thomas Dekker. Heck, he leads the future resistance of mankind against the machines! We need to be supporting this guy, not bringing him down. Sheeesh, a drug or two mixed with some blood refills can hardly compare to robotics androids!

 

[ulrichw]

I think nobody disagrees with you on that (maybe even Dekker won't), but the problem is the complete randomness of it all.

I beg to differ on this.

The randomness is actually a good thing if you're not going to catch everyone.

Given that there's going to be incomplete enforcement of doping regulations (which I think is a fair assumption), complete randomness creates more of a deterrent, in my opinion.

Let's use the speeding example: Let's say that the police catch 1% of speeders (that's probably way too high a number, but let's go with it for sake of the example). What would act as more of a deterrent to speeders? If they choose to catch all of the speeders on a specifically selected 1% of the roads, or if they choose to catch 1% of speeders on all of the roads. I would think it would be the latter - in the former case, you would just try to avoid the areas where they're enforcing.

The former represents systematic incomplete enforcement, and the latter represents random enforcement.

My point is that keeping the dopers guessing as to how they might get caught is probably not a bad thing, even though it may seem arbitrary and capricious to us.

 

[BroDeal]

Let's use the speeding example: Let's say that the police catch 1% of speeders (that's probably way too high a number, but let's go with it for sake of the example). What would act as more of a deterrent to speeders? If they choose to catch all of the speeders on a specifically selected 1% of the roads, or if they choose to catch 1% of speeders on all of the roads. I would think it would be the latter - in the former case, you would just try to avoid the areas where they're enforcing.

Let's say the cops catch the speeders in the poor side of town while letting the rich side rich side speed with impunity. Let's say they mostly give tickets to blacks. Let's say they accept bribes to not give tickets. Let's say that people who have upset the city council are targeted for citations.

 

[Lifeshape]

Pain and Repetition are the only things humans understand to change behaviors. I liked Dekker before all of this, but now I could care less if he comes back to "clear his name." Good on retrotesting...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Let's say the cops catch the speeders in the poor side of town while letting the rich side rich side speed with impunity. Let's say they mostly give tickets to blacks. Let's say they accept bribes to not give tickets. Let's say that people who have upset the city council are targeted for citations.

So the 'logic' of opposing retrospective testing because it's currently unjustly applied should be extended to all testing?

Oppose the corruption and injustice, not the testing.

And why is everyone so sure that Dekker getting busted was completely random anyway? Maybe his blood values really were extreme as the UCI claims. So maybe Dekker got picked on because he is a flagrant doper, as well as a little guy who makes a nice scapegoat.

 

[HelmutRoole]

I tested positive for EPO at an out-of-competition control in winter, but never used dope during a race. It was only eighteen months later I was found positive in rechecking.

This is my favorite part. He just used it in training.

 

[velosopher54]

I used to really like Dekker and his reaction to getting caught doping caught me off. Just because it was 18 months ago he doped(he says)and just because it was 'only' used in training makes it justifiable in his mind. Wonder how he rationalized all that?

From what I understand he was retrotested because of suspicious values found in testing, just what the Passport was designed to do.

Having said that, he must have p!ssed someone off, we do know getting busted for peds is very selective, in that top riders(other than FLandis)don't generally get caught.

velo54

 

[skidmark]

Let's say the cops catch the speeders in the poor side of town while letting the rich side rich side speed with impunity. Let's say they mostly give tickets to blacks. Let's say they accept bribes to not give tickets. Let's say that people who have upset the city council are targeted for citations.

I don't disagree with this extension of the metaphor, and that the system is corrupt. However, do you think it is so skewed, numerically? I've heard a lot of comments about 'only small fish' being caught, and have sort of leaned that way in my own thinking, but have never really seen a numbers breakdown. Let's say since 2006 and Puerto, X number of doping suspensions have taken place. If you broke up the peloton into loose categories, how many of the 'super elite' have been caught and suspended? Basso, Di Luca, Vino, Rebellin, Valverde (if that ever actually goes through)... How about a second category of pretty consistent winners and general threats? Dekker, Rasmussen, Landis, Ricco, Schumacher... then there are decent riders, occasional winners or high up there, like Gusev, Pfannberger, Sella, Beltran and several others... then there are the nobodies/has beens. Guys like Duenas, Moreni, De Bonis, Fofonov, Caucchiolli, etc etc.

Anyway, I'm just wondering how skewed it really is. If you take the thesis that most guys are doping at most levels of the peloton (which I know many here do), are the 'small guys' really getting caught proportionally more? It seems to me that there are far less Valverdes in the peloton then there are Morenis, so it would be normal to expect far less doping positives/suspensions, numerically speaking, amongst that elite. So for every Cancellara, Contador or Armstrong that you could suspect of getting away with doping, there could be ten domestiques getting away with it, and for every Di Luca getting caught, there would be ten domestiques getting caught.

 

[flicker]

Let's say the cops catch the speeders in the poor side of town while letting the rich side rich side speed with impunity. Let's say they mostly give tickets to blacks. Let's say they accept bribes to not give tickets. Let's say that people who have upset the city council are targeted for citations.

Lets say drug testing all african american and africaneuropean cyclistspros.

Not to many. Dekker not tested. Dekker continues to race. No problem.

 

[frenchfry]

Let's say the cops catch the speeders in the poor side of town while letting the rich side rich side speed with impunity. Let's say they mostly give tickets to blacks. Let's say they accept bribes to not give tickets. Let's say that people who have upset the city council are targeted for citations.

This is the first I have heard that the UCI is now in charge of speeding controls.

Where do I send my donation?

 

[frenchfry]

Having said that, he must have p!ssed someone off, we do know getting busted for peds is very selective, in that top riders(other than FLandis)don't generally get caught.

velo54

I don't think you have been paying attention.

Pantani
Ullrich
Basso
Vinokourov
Di Luca
Rebellin
Schumacher
Virenque
Heras
Hamilton
Jeanson
etc...

 

[BroDeal]

I don't think you have been paying attention.

Pantani
Ullrich
Basso
Vinokourov
Di Luca
Rebellin
Schumacher
Virenque
Heras
Hamilton
Jeanson
etc...

Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, and Virenque never tested positive (aside from Ullrich using Ecstasy while recovering from knee surgery).

Rebellin and Schumacher were not taken down by the UCI. They were caught by the AFLD and IOC using an undetectable drug. The UCI then refused to retrospectively test any of the Giro samples for that drug.

Hamilton and Vino were targeted for some reason. It is interesting that they were both on teams sponsored by Rihs. Riders on team Phonak could barely p!ss in a bottle without testing positive; and when Rihs moved to Astana, the team's top riders were all targeted by the UCI. Coincidence or did Rhis refuse to pay protection money?

 

[frenchfry]

Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, and Virenque never tested positive (aside from Ullrich using Ecstasy while recovering from knee surgery).

Rebellin and Schumacher were not taken down by the UCI. They were caught by the AFLD and IOC using an undetectable drug. The UCI then refused to retrospectively test any of the Giro samples for that drug.

Hamilton and Vino were targeted for some reason. It is interesting that they were both on teams sponsored by Rihs. Riders on team Phonak could barely p!ss in a bottle without testing positive; and when Rihs moved to Astana, the team's top riders were all targeted by the UCI. Coincidence or did Rhis refuse to pay protection money?

Pantani was disqualified under the 50% HCT rule on the eve of a Giro victory. Not exactly positive, but he was "busted".

Ullrich and Basso were collateral damage from OP, even though they didn't test positive they were banned when their blood was found at Fuentes' clinic.

You are right though that they never tested positive in a doping control.