Dekker's book.

[Valv.Piti]

despite how discouraging is the topic, I'm cool with TD's book disclosing the whole Rabobank's pandora's box. I wonder if in his book Oscarito's name came up.....

Don't know about Oscarito, but Ten Dam's Name came up:

"Ik ken hem al jaren: we zijn begonnen met wielrennen bij hetzelfde Noord-Hollandse wielerclubje. Lau is een van de weinige renners voor wie ik mijn handen in het vuur zou steken wat betreft doping. Hij doet niks. Hij zegt dat hij er het type niet voor is. Hij fietst voor de lol, hij is geleidelijk aan beter geworden. Hij voelt niet de druk om grote koersen te winnen. Niet van de ploeg, niet van zichzelf."

Rough translation

"I have known him for years: we started racing at the same Club in North Holland. He is one of the few for who I would put my hands in the fire with regards to doping. He is not doing anything. He says he's not the type for that. He rides his bike for fun, and he became better step by step. He is under no pressure to win a big race, neither from the team, nor from himself.


He also says that Ten Dam helped him clean up the room after a messed up Infusion, so Ten Dam was of course not in the dark about what was going on.

Ten Dam not doping actually makes somewhat sense, I think I'd believe that for some reason. Especially if it wasn't for Ax-3-Domaines in 2013.

 

[red_flanders]

despite how discouraging is the topic, I'm cool with TD's book disclosing the whole Rabobank's pandora's box. I wonder if in his book Oscarito's name came up.....

Don't know about Oscarito, but Ten Dam's Name came up:

"Ik ken hem al jaren: we zijn begonnen met wielrennen bij hetzelfde Noord-Hollandse wielerclubje. Lau is een van de weinige renners voor wie ik mijn handen in het vuur zou steken wat betreft doping. Hij doet niks. Hij zegt dat hij er het type niet voor is. Hij fietst voor de lol, hij is geleidelijk aan beter geworden. Hij voelt niet de druk om grote koersen te winnen. Niet van de ploeg, niet van zichzelf."

Rough translation

"I have known him for years: we started racing at the same Club in North Holland. He is one of the few for who I would put my hands in the fire with regards to doping. He is not doing anything. He says he's not the type for that. He rides his bike for fun, and he became better step by step. He is under no pressure to win a big race, neither from the team, nor from himself.


He also says that Ten Dam helped him clean up the room after a messed up Infusion, so Ten Dam was of course not in the dark about what was going on.

Completely believable. Ten Dam has progressed and rides in a way you'd expect from a clean rider. In stark contrast to some members of the current peloton.

 

[movingtarget]

Ho hum another book. I hope no one buys it. They want to be heroes for their fans while competing while taking the big money and then they want to be heroes again for finally telling the truth as dopers. As for Ullrich he has never fully disclosed what he was doing like his old team mate Vino but people still seem to like him and he was probably as bad as Armstrong as far as the length of time he was doping goes if not worse. Even Ricco admitted what he had done. At least Zabel caved after he first said he doped once and never did it again. The big problem is they let them back into the sport at the professional level. After the admission by Riis he should have been kicked out of the sport for good but instead he is a long term team manager and owner ! They should not be allowed to hold any sort of race cycling licence or official capacity in the sport. If that is not possible legally then they should change the rules and make it possible.

 

[The Hegelian]

despite how discouraging is the topic, I'm cool with TD's book disclosing the whole Rabobank's pandora's box. I wonder if in his book Oscarito's name came up.....

Don't know about Oscarito, but Ten Dam's Name came up:

"Ik ken hem al jaren: we zijn begonnen met wielrennen bij hetzelfde Noord-Hollandse wielerclubje. Lau is een van de weinige renners voor wie ik mijn handen in het vuur zou steken wat betreft doping. Hij doet niks. Hij zegt dat hij er het type niet voor is. Hij fietst voor de lol, hij is geleidelijk aan beter geworden. Hij voelt niet de druk om grote koersen te winnen. Niet van de ploeg, niet van zichzelf."

Rough translation

"I have known him for years: we started racing at the same Club in North Holland. He is one of the few for who I would put my hands in the fire with regards to doping. He is not doing anything. He says he's not the type for that. He rides his bike for fun, and he became better step by step. He is under no pressure to win a big race, neither from the team, nor from himself.


He also says that Ten Dam helped him clean up the room after a messed up Infusion, so Ten Dam was of course not in the dark about what was going on.

Somehow or other, that statement is the pithy quintessence of all of these threads: it gets close'ish to showing us what you can do with serious talent but no desire to succeed at all costs.

If it's true, he has pretty good palmares. I personally would have assumed that top 10'ing any serious GC race would be beyond a clean rider.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I wonder how he would react if someone posted the entire book online for free. I think that would be fitting punishment for dopers. Rules? What rules?

you have to post ALL the dopers' books online, otherwise it's not fair... the level should be the same for everyone

It's not about the bike
It's not about the book
It is about the bucks

 

[sniper]

I would take TDs statements on LTD with a few buckets of salt.
They are buddies, and if you read the passage, it basically says TD never heard LTD speak about dope, he's not interested in it, yadiya.
I've heard that tons of times before about other dopers, some of them popped and busted.

So have to disagree, Hegelian. I don't think it shows any such thing.
Ten Dam made some other statements in interviews that don't suggest any kind of antidoping mentality.
If he's clean, you wonder why he isn't more opposed against doping.
His results don't suggest cleanliness either.

 

[GJB123]

Not every non-doper is as vocal as the other about doping. You keep putting up these de minims thresholds they have to live up to but no one person acts and reacts the same or according to your rules. Perhaps he is keeping schtumm just to keep a job. God knows enough have been ostracized for speaking out and if he feels he hasn't been cheated to of wins per say, he is bloody weel entitled to deal with it he way he sees fit.

Now LtD might very have cheated himself, but the fact that a former team mate speaks out in the sense that he never saw him do PED's nor heard about him doing PED's speaks volumes if said team mate admitted doing PED's himself and basically points out a host of others in the team that also did or facilitated PED-abuse.

 

[IndianCyclist]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-react-to-thomas-dekker-book-revelations/
std denials in progress

 

[sniper]

Re:

Not every non-doper is as vocal as the other about doping.

which nondopers? In procycling thanks to the corrupt UCI and WADA there isn't anyone to be positively sure about.
Huge rewards, minimal risks.
Simples really.

What we have here is a guy saying his buddy is clean. Shocker.

You keep putting up these de minims thresholds they have to live up to but no one person acts and reacts the same or according to your rules.

Not really. I'm just saying he's still more likely to be a doper than not. His buddy TD saying he's clean means very little.

Perhaps he is keeping schtumm just to keep a job. God knows enough have been ostracized for speaking out and if he feels he hasn't been cheated to of wins per say, he is bloody weel entitled to deal with it he way he sees fit.

Sure, that's true. But you'll have to take this up with UCI and WADA. Thanks to them there is no reason to assume Ten Dam is clean. I mean, why would he be clean if (a) it's so easy to beat the system, (b) (b) said system isn't even interested in catching you and (c) there are huge financial rewards for those who dope.

Now LtD might very have cheated himself, but the fact that a former team mate speaks out in the sense that he never saw him do PED's nor heard about him doing PED's speaks volumes if said team mate admitted doing PED's himself and basically points out a host of others in the team that also did or facilitated PED-abuse.

Ask yourself, has Dekker in his book spilled anything about anyone who hadn't been exposed as a doper yet?
Not that I know.
So no, imo TD covering his buddy's ass doesn't 'speak volumes'.

This book is very nice and welcome, but it doesn't come close to the Rasmussen, Jaksche and Floyd revelations in terms of exposing previously unknown doping.

 

[Tienus]

Ten Dam was riding with Thomas in the Rabobank development team. Unlike Thomas he did not make it into the Rabo pro tour team. Instead he ended up at Unibet.com which was a cycling team owned by Jacques Hanegraaf. Yes Jacques Hanegraaf who introduced Thomas to Fuentes and Cecchini. At the moment Stef Clement, who has also been under management of Hanegraaf, is making clear he does not like this book.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Ten Dam was riding with Thomas in the Rabobank development team. Unlike Thomas he did not make it into the Rabo pro tour team. Instead he ended up at Unibet.com which was a cycling team owned by Jacques Hanegraaf. Yes Jacques Hanegraaf who introduced Thomas to Fuentes and Cecchini. At the moment Stef Clement, who has also been under management of Hanegraaf, is making clear he does not like this book.

nice pointe


Here's Ten Dam in 2014 outlining his antidoping stance, or something:

“I think the team of 2010, 11, 12, wasn’t rotten. We all know what happened from Rassmussen’s book around the time of 2007, but from 2008 I didn’t see anything. I think we’ve been a clean team and we’re part of the solution. And if Rabobank wanted to stop for those reasons, they should have pulled out in 2007.”

“Doping is no longer the conversation at the dinner table. The attitude to doping from riders has radically changed. If you dope or cheat, you’re now an *** and if you notice something on your team, you now go straight to the doctor and tell him. We’re moving in the right direction and I really think that we’re now racing against the cleanest peloton from the last 40 years… if I believe all the stories coming from the 70s until now.

“It’s nicer to be a cyclist now as you don’t have to make that choice they did in the 90s for example. You can be a really good cyclist like me who did the first two weeks at the Tour in the top five without any issues. Just train, rest, eat, sleep. Repeat.

“Leinders was a nice guy and if you ask the Sky guys you’ll find they say the same things,” Ten Dam says.
“He never proposed anything bad to me and I thought he was a good doctor with me.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ten-dam-why-im-clean-and-a-peloton-that-offers-me-more-opportunities/

Most convincing indeed.

 

[Tienus]

According to Thomas:
Leinders was there for the cortisone injections and Jean Paul van Mantgem for the EPO planning.

Interesting since we know Wiggins won the tour with the help of a certain TUE.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Ten Dam was riding with Thomas in the Rabobank development team. Unlike Thomas he did not make it into the Rabo pro tour team. Instead he ended up at Unibet.com which was a cycling team owned by Jacques Hanegraaf. Yes Jacques Hanegraaf who introduced Thomas to Fuentes and Cecchini. At the moment Stef Clement, who has also been under management of Hanegraaf, is making clear he does not like this book.

nice pointe


Here's Ten Dam in 2014 outlining his antidoping stance, or something:

“I think the team of 2010, 11, 12, wasn’t rotten. We all know what happened from Rassmussen’s book around the time of 2007, but from 2008 I didn’t see anything. I think we’ve been a clean team and we’re part of the solution. And if Rabobank wanted to stop for those reasons, they should have pulled out in 2007.”

“Doping is no longer the conversation at the dinner table. The attitude to doping from riders has radically changed. If you dope or cheat, you’re now an * and if you notice something on your team, you now go straight to the doctor and tell him. We’re moving in the right direction and I really think that we’re now racing against the cleanest peloton from the last 40 years… if I believe all the stories coming from the 70s until now.

“It’s nicer to be a cyclist now as you don’t have to make that choice they did in the 90s for example. You can be a really good cyclist like me who did the first two weeks at the Tour in the top five without any issues. Just train, rest, eat, sleep. Repeat.

“Leinders was a nice guy and if you ask the Sky guys you’ll find they say the same things,” Ten Dam says.
“He never proposed anything bad to me and I thought he was a good doctor with me.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ten-dam-why-im-clean-and-a-peloton-that-offers-me-more-opportunities/

Most convincing indeed.

I don't see anything particularly incriminating about those statements. They could be consistent with a rider who was or wasn't doping. **Shrug**. Regarding his earlier team, it would be nearly impossible for someone to come up through the ranks without association to someone involved in doping, given the history of cycling. The guilt by association thing is interesting, but ultimately leads nowhere.

Now I'm not putting my hand in the fire for anyone, but I can believe it's possible that Ten Dam has ridden clean. I wouldn't go into shock if it turns out he's been doping, but at least it's not blatantly obvious that he's doping. If he is doping, he's not particularly talented or doesn't respond well.

 

[sniper]

Sure, not incriminating per se.
Yet, Dekker himself details in his book that cycling docs are only there for the doping, and Leinders was there for the cortisone.
Then you see Ten Dam was working with Leinders, well that certainly doesn't bode well.
Even if it's not incriminating, let's say it's not reassuring either.

Sure, the guilt by association thing is a lazy argument. Just like the "look at his results" argument. It's lazy and not worth fighting about.
But even if lazy and lame, they are valid arguments nonetheless.

That's because procycling is demonstrably filled with dopers, ex-dopers, and facilitators. Estimations of people who've spoken out vary between 90 and 95 percent. And such guesses are just plausible, considering what doping does for you, considering the rewards, considering the corruption.

All that means: If you say Ten Dam is likely clean, you have the burden of evidence, and the burden to explain why his results and associations do not count as evidence of his doping.

Also I just don't see any plausible answer to the question "why ffs would he be clean?"

If anybody wants to look for clean riders, look in the lower echelons, where there is less money at stake.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Sure, not incriminating per se.
Yet, Dekker himself details in his book that cycling docs are only there for the doping, and Leinders was there for the cortisone.
Then you see Ten Dam was working with Leinders, well that certainly doesn't bode well.
Even if it's not incriminating, let's say it's not reassuring either.

Sure, the guilt by association thing is a lazy argument. Just like the "look at his results" argument. It's lazy and not worth fighting about.
But even if lazy and lame, they are valid arguments nonetheless.

That's because procycling is demonstrably filled with dopers, ex-dopers, and facilitators. Estimations of people who've spoken out vary between 90 and 95 percent. And such guesses are just plausible, considering what doping does for you, considering the rewards, considering the corruption.

All that means: If you say Ten Dam is likely clean, you have the burden of evidence, and the burden to explain why his results and associations do not count as evidence of his doping.

Also I just don't see any plausible answer to the question "why ffs would he be clean?"

If anybody wants to look for clean riders, look in the lower echelons, where there is less money at stake.

Do you really believe that? What cyclist is riding in the "lower echelons" for fun? They're riding to be promoted through the ranks, chasing that giant carrot called money... Doping in the lower ranks is prevalent, maybe as much as WT level, I don't know for sure though I would have to research that last statement...

 

[sniper]

Re:

According to Thomas:
Leinders was there for the cortisone injections and Jean Paul van Mantgem for the EPO planning.

Interesting since we know Wiggins won the tour with the help of a certain TUE.

Is this (the cortisone injections) literally in the book, or is it just about synacthen?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Do you really believe that? What cyclist is riding in the "lower echelons" for fun? They're riding to be promoted through the ranks, chasing that giant carrot called money... Doping in the lower ranks is prevalent, maybe as much as WT level, I don't know for sure though I would have to research that last statement...

Agreed.
With lower echelons I really mean low friggin echelons.

I guess all I'm saying is, while some procyclists may be clean (and I do have one or two in mind, though not from the current crop), the default attitude should be one of skepsis. And certainly one guy calling his buddy clean because 'he never talked about doping' is not anywhere near enough to take that skepsis away.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

Agreed.
With lower echelons I really mean low friggin echelons.

I guess all I'm saying is, while some procyclists may be clean (and I do have one or two in mind, though not from the current crop), the default attitude should be one of skepsis. And certainly one guy calling his buddy clean because 'he never talked about doping' is not anywhere near enough to take that skepsis away.

But I think we can agree that Dekkers remarks are evidence that Ten Dam didn't dope?

About the lower Echelons, I think that assumption is wrong, even when we're talking about low friggin echelons. Money is just one aspect that makes someone cheat, and I don't think it's the most important one.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I recommend everyone to read it, but I expect that will be hard for non-Dutch readers.

It's insane. Not just Dekker, but also the stories of other riders. Boogerd was nuts as well

 

[Tienus]

Is this (the cortisone injections) literally in the book, or is it just about synacthen?

I havent read the book yet. It was written in this NRC article:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/15/mateloos-talent-trekt-maten-mee-bij-zuivering-geweten-5303791-a1531949

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Agreed.
With lower echelons I really mean low friggin echelons.

I guess all I'm saying is, while some procyclists may be clean (and I do have one or two in mind, though not from the current crop), the default attitude should be one of skepsis. And certainly one guy calling his buddy clean because 'he never talked about doping' is not anywhere near enough to take that skepsis away.

But I think we can agree that Dekkers remarks are evidence that Ten Dam didn't dope?

About the lower Echelons, I think that assumption is wrong, even when we're talking about low friggin echelons. Money is just one aspect that makes someone cheat, and I don't think it's the most important one.

There's no way to really tell if he doped or not, as Ten Dam is the only one that really knows that answer.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
But I think we can agree that Dekkers remarks are evidence that Ten Dam didn't dope?

good work ignoring what's been said on the previous page.
if it's evidence, it's thin as hell and easily outweighed by evidence to the contrary.

Money is just one aspect that makes someone cheat, and I don't think it's the most important one.

I do think it's the most important one.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Is this (the cortisone injections) literally in the book, or is it just about synacthen?

I havent read the book yet. It was written in this NRC article:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/15/mateloos-talent-trekt-maten-mee-bij-zuivering-geweten-5303791-a1531949

cheers!

 

[Tienus]

If you read the fp article about Jan Mathieu:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dekker-says-former-silence-lotto-doctor-injected-him-with-cortisone/

In an interview after the Gilbert accusations he says in 9 years of requesting TUE for cortisones he never got a negative reply.
in Dutch @ 0:40
http://nieuws.vtm.be/sport/40820-dokter-gilbert-niks-verkeerd-gedaan

He has also been the Doctor of the Belgium national cycling team and the olympic team.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Sure, not incriminating per se.
Yet, Dekker himself details in his book that cycling docs are only there for the doping, and Leinders was there for the cortisone.
Then you see Ten Dam was working with Leinders, well that certainly doesn't bode well.
Even if it's not incriminating, let's say it's not reassuring either.

What is meant by "working with Leinders"? Was he on the same team on which Leinders was a doctor, or do we have some definitive facts about their relationship? Honest question, I have no idea. I think if not the latter, than to say he was "working with Leinders" is facts not in evidence.

Sure, the guilt by association thing is a lazy argument. Just like the "look at his results" argument. It's lazy and not worth fighting about.
But even if lazy and lame, they are valid arguments nonetheless.

Performance is telling, but not definitive. If someone performs outside the window of previous human performance, suspicion is warranted. I make the argument, subjective as it is, that Ten Dam looks like I would expect a non-doper to look. This proves nothing. It is again in stark contrast to riders who perform beyond what we think we understand to be clean human physiological parameters, riders who had no history of greatness before they suddenly became so. Quite different than what we've seen from Sky.

Guilt by association is a simple inductive fallacy. Quite another thing.

That's because procycling is demonstrably filled with dopers, ex-dopers, and facilitators. Estimations of people who've spoken out vary between 90 and 95 percent. And such guesses are just plausible, considering what doping does for you, considering the rewards, considering the corruption.

All that means: If you say Ten Dam is likely clean, you have the burden of evidence, and the burden to explain why his results and associations do not count as evidence of his doping.

Also I just don't see any plausible answer to the question "why ffs would he be clean?"

If anybody wants to look for clean riders, look in the lower echelons, where there is less money at stake.

I don't disagree with the general notion that cleanliness in this sport, particularly amongst top riders is an extraordinary claim which bears the burden of proof. I don't claim Ten Dam is clean. I find it plausible to think it could be so. It's certainly not un-believable, in contrast to Wiggins or Froome. There is nothing plausible about their performances or their background.