Dekker's book.

[thehog]

Re: Re:

True, Froome certainly wasn't aware of a Wiggins's doping st the 2012 Tour. Likewise, I'm sure Wiggins wasn't aware of what Froome was doing. Both appeared to be on AICAR, most likely without the other one knowing. Brailsford I'm sure was aware and Leinders was there to make sure no one tested positive.

What doping - surely you can't mean the legal TUE?

Legal in what sense?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

True, Froome certainly wasn't aware of a Wiggins's doping st the 2012 Tour. Likewise, I'm sure Wiggins wasn't aware of what Froome was doing. Both appeared to be on AICAR, most likely without the other one knowing. Brailsford I'm sure was aware and Leinders was there to make sure no one tested positive.

What doping - surely you can't mean the legal TUE?

There was nothing legal about Wiggins TUE. That has long been debunked.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

about as legal as the cortisone injections Dekker had

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

True, Froome certainly wasn't aware of a Wiggins's doping st the 2012 Tour. Likewise, I'm sure Wiggins wasn't aware of what Froome was doing. Both appeared to be on AICAR, most likely without the other one knowing. Brailsford I'm sure was aware and Leinders was there to make sure no one tested positive.

What doping - surely you can't mean the legal TUE?

legal or otherwise as the TUEs were, that wasn't all that propelled monsieur wiggins in his crazy 20102 season

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

True, Froome certainly wasn't aware of a Wiggins's doping st the 2012 Tour. Likewise, I'm sure Wiggins wasn't aware of what Froome was doing. Both appeared to be on AICAR, most likely without the other one knowing. Brailsford I'm sure was aware and Leinders was there to make sure no one tested positive.

What doping - surely you can't mean the legal TUE?

Legal in what sense?

legal in the Alan Clarke sense.....economical with the acualitié

 

[sniper]

there is quite a bit of literature on faking diseases.

As disturbing as it might be, faking cancer and other diseases isn’t illegal on its own. Generally, it only becomes a legal matter when someone starts asking for money under false pretenses.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/04/02/victoria_ann_marut_truman_state_student_fakes_cancer_pleads_guilty_to_forging.html

 

[Starstruck]

I'm completely shocked by it all. Did Dekker get into his Amateur days? Probably not. Carry on...

 

[sniper]

Re:

I'm completely shocked by it all. Did Dekker get into his Amateur days? Probably not. Carry on...

Dekkers book is Limited Hangout. I don't think it exposes anybody who hadn't been exposed before. Well except for the hooker and blow stories.

Rasmussen isn't pleased either, and for good reasons it seems:
https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/800096002405494784

Then there's the title of the book. Really any random *** on the street could've told them to change that title.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm completely shocked by it all. Did Dekker get into his Amateur days? Probably not. Carry on...

Dekkers book is Limited Hangout. I don't think it exposes anybody who hadn't been exposed before. Well except for the hooker and blow stories.

Rasmussen isn't pleased either, and for good reasons it seems:
https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/800096002405494784

Then there's the title of the book. Really any random *** on the street could've told them to change that title.

Considering how boring cycling has become with Sky & Froome, TDs book is a welcome return to the glory days. Good God how the English have made cycling a yawn.

 

[pastronef]

Raz pissed at Dekker

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974
1)In 2013 I asked @thomasdekker to testify in my lawsuit again Rabobank with the answer that he didn't have knowledge of anything relevant.

2) Apparently his memory is more vivid and clear now 3 years later!



here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

 

[thehog]

Raz pissed at Dekker

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974
1)In 2013 I asked @thomasdekker to testify in my lawsuit again Rabobank with the answer that he didn't have knowledge of anything relevant.

2) Apparently his memory is more vivid and clear now 3 years later!



here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

 

[sniper]

...here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

Swart has worked closely with Johnny Lee Ausgustyn.
Insiders know Augustyn was a couple times more talented than Froome.
If there's anybody who 'had the engine all along' it would have been the real saffa Augustyn, not Froome.

Meanwhile Dekker and Zonneveld are having quite a bit of headwind also in the Dutch press, some calling out the duo for 'selective gossiping', which from what I have read about the book so far seems like a legitimate criticism.

 

[pastronef]

Raz pissed at Dekker

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974
1)In 2013 I asked @thomasdekker to testify in my lawsuit again Rabobank with the answer that he didn't have knowledge of anything relevant.

2) Apparently his memory is more vivid and clear now 3 years later!



here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

actually I posted the Swart comment, just so someone could post that

I wanted to know who´d be the first to reply that way. you won

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

Also not relevant to the main thread but Rasmussen's 2007 heroics were hardly out of the blue considering the two previous years he had two polka dot jerseys, two stage wins and a top ten in two Tours. He was already a top climber, he just had to learn to time trial, which was mostly practise and position considering he was already doping big time, and there was a massive clearout of big contenders due to Puerto as well so the field was a lot more open.

Agreed, I don't think he was a stronger climber in 2007 than he was in 2005. He only lost 2 minutes to Basso and 3 to Armstrong in the mountains in 2005.

 

[GJB123]

...here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

Swart has worked closely with Johnny Lee Ausgustyn.
Insiders know Augustyn was a couple times more talented than Froome.
If there's anybody who 'had the engine all along' it would have been the real saffa Augustyn, not Froome.

Meanwhile Dekker and Zonneveld are having quite a bit of headwind also in the Dutch press, some calling out the duo for 'selective gossiping', which from what I have read about the book so far seems like a legitimate criticism.

Certain parts of the cycling community and certain parts of the sports press (and I sue that term loosely) are calling them out. Anybody with any knowledge and experience of what (Dutch) sports journalism entails (or how little) would not be surprised by that at all. Most of them condemn Dekker and Zonneveld with even having read the book and purely on the basis that it is part of the sportsmen code to not divulge anything that happend in the "confines of the locker room".

Sports journalists in general and Dutch sports journalists in particular have hardly shown any inkling to critical thinking and are basically preoccupied by being liked by the sportsmen and liked by the public in general (with Mart Smeets as the sad epitome of that culture).

Thijs Zonneveld has shown time and again his capacity to be very critical. He claims that it is not gossip for gossip's sake because he could have lined the story with many more salient details if that was his motive. He claims that the "gossip" (and is it really gossip if it is factually correct?) included in the book is merely to illustrate in what kind of world and environment Dekker found himself as a 22-year old (prodigious) talent. And if that is indeed the case, then that is fully justifiable in my opinion, because it can help the reader understand the persona of Dekker better.

Lastly, have you actually read the book sniper? I haven't, but certainly plan to do so. Until then I will reserve judgement on it one way or the other.

 

[Gregga]

Re:

Also not relevant to the main thread but Rasmussen's 2007 heroics were hardly out of the blue considering the two previous years he had two polka dot jerseys, two stage wins and a top ten in two Tours. He was already a top climber, he just had to learn to time trial, which was mostly practise and position considering he was already doping big time, and there was a massive clearout of big contenders due to Puerto as well so the field was a lot more open.

Why was Rasmussen so dominant in 2007 ?

2005 : Rasmussen wasn't allowed to use his 2nd blood bag by his team because his retycs were too low
2006 : All the BBs he had banked at Freibug Clinic were thrown by the doctors, he managed to have one for TdF
2007 : He had all the BBs needed with Matschinger in Vienna, made a trial during Giro to see if 2x330ml didn't affect too much his blood values, trained hard hidden in the Dolomites with Testosterone/EPO... during TdF he had Dynepo to avoid low retycs and cortisone with TUE. Everything was perfect - hence his dominance - until Cassani spoke.

Rasmussen was later (sept 2007) found positive for Dynepo, but one year after Landis, I think Pat would have swept it under the carpet, unlike Dekker who was the perfect sacrificial lamb (young, arrogant, without protection...)

 

[sniper]

...
Certain parts of the cycling community and certain parts of the sports press (and I sue that term loosely) are calling them out. Anybody with any knowledge and experience of what (Dutch) sports journalism entails (or how little) would not be surprised by that at all. Most of them condemn Dekker and Zonneveld with even having read the book and purely on the basis that it is part of the sportsmen code to not divulge anything that happend in the "confines of the locker room".

Sports journalists in general and Dutch sports journalists in particular have hardly shown any inkling to critical thinking and are basically preoccupied by being liked by the sportsmen and liked by the public in general (with Mart Smeets as the sad epitome of that culture).

Thijs Zonneveld has shown time and again his capacity to be very critical. He claims that it is not gossip for gossip's sake because he could have lined the story with many more salient details if that was his motive. He claims that the "gossip" (and is it really gossip if it is factually correct?) included in the book is merely to illustrate in what kind of world and environment Dekker found himself as a 22-year old (prodigious) talent. And if that is indeed the case, then that is fully justifiable in my opinion, because it can help the reader understand the persona of Dekker better.

Lastly, have you actually read the book sniper? I haven't, but certainly plan to do so. Until then I will reserve judgement on it one way or the other.

this all sounds very fair.
I agree about Zonneveld being among the better and more critical thinkers in the Dutch journaille.

Somebody on twitter commented that the doping stories are more than welcome, but that the hooker and blow stories are a bit questionable. I would agree (albeit merely based on the reviews I've seen/read on the internet), in the sense that some of those stories (a) are rather personal in nature AND (b) do not concern illegal activity. So it's different from doping in that sense. What you say sounds fair, that Zonneveld wanted to give a complete picture of the milieu. Still, there are two sides to this coin I think, and (again, merely based on what I've heard about the book second-hand) so I can understand some of the eyebrowraising among people like Boogerd and DeJongh.

I also think that Rasmussen has the right to feel a tad bit aggrieved, as Dekker refused to support him in court in 2012(13?).

Having said that, I do very much welcome the book, and credit to Zonneveld for putting it out there and defending it against criticism.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Somebody on twitter commented that the doping stories are more than welcome, but that the hooker and blow stories are a bit questionable. I would agree (albeit merely based on the reviews I've seen/read on the internet), in the sense that some of those stories (a) are rather personal in nature AND (b) do not concern illegal activity. So it's different from doping in that sense.

Last time I checked, hookers and blow were illegal in the UK and Dekker does some to be telling stories about using hookers and blow in the UK. So on the if-it's-illegal logic, then clearly these have to be talked about. However, that logic stinks, that logic is why we get sanitised stories, that logic is why other chamoirs never tell the full story, why even highly praised doping tell-alls rarely actually tell all, why some wet their pants with glee at the mere thought that LA took Flandis (a Mennonite!) to a titty bar, thinking this is actually shocking and unusual behaviour for young men with plenty of money and little control.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Also not relevant to the main thread but Rasmussen's 2007 heroics were hardly out of the blue considering the two previous years he had two polka dot jerseys, two stage wins and a top ten in two Tours. He was already a top climber, he just had to learn to time trial, which was mostly practise and position considering he was already doping big time, and there was a massive clearout of big contenders due to Puerto as well so the field was a lot more open.

Why was Rasmussen so dominant in 2007 ?

2005 : Rasmussen wasn't allowed to use his 2nd blood bag by his team because his retycs were too low
2006 : All the BBs he had banked at Freibug Clinic were thrown by the doctors, he managed to have one for TdF
2007 : He had all the BBs needed with Matschinger in Vienna, made a trial during Giro to see if 2x330ml didn't affect too much his blood values, trained hard hidden in the Dolomites with Testosterone/EPO... during TdF he had Dynepo to avoid low retycs and cortisone with TUE. Everything was perfect - hence his dominance - until Cassani spoke.

Rasmussen was later (sept 2007) found positive for Dynepo, but one year after Landis, I think Pat would have swept it under the carpet, unlike Dekker who was the perfect sacrificial lamb (young, arrogant, without protection...)

Very interesting info.

Curious: MR said prior to the start of the 05 Tour, he was approached by the UCI of very low reticulocytes suggestive of blood-manipulation. However, with no ABP at that time, what would be his concern since no punitive action could be taken? (e.g., with no ABP there would would be no Off-score to be adversely affected by low retics & elevated Hct). The only concern I would think for any punitive action that could be consequential back then with autologous blood transfusions would be a no start rule for breaching the 50% Hct level. He says his baseline Hct was 39/40, and he was boosting to 46...I wonder why he wasn't boosting right up to the threshold 50% limit?

http://www.velonews.com/2015/01/news/testimony-sheds-light-leinders-rabobanks-systematic-doping_359008

He also blames his "drunk" mechanic for screwing up his TT bike prior to the penultimate TT stage in 05, where he says it cost him 7 minutes to Armstrong and a chance at a podium finish...too funny:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-the-bus-driver-hid-epo-in-his-underpants/

 

[thehog]

Somebody on twitter commented that the doping stories are more than welcome, but that the hooker and blow stories are a bit questionable. I would agree (albeit merely based on the reviews I've seen/read on the internet), in the sense that some of those stories (a) are rather personal in nature AND (b) do not concern illegal activity. So it's different from doping in that sense.

Last time I checked, hookers and blow were illegal in the UK and Dekker does some to be telling stories about using hookers and blow in the UK. So on the if-it's-illegal logic, then clearly these have to be talked about. However, that logic stinks, that logic is why we get sanitised stories, that logic is why other chamoirs never tell the full story, why even highly praised doping tell-alls rarely actually tell all, why some wet their pants with glee at the mere thought that LA took Flandis (a Mennonite!) to a titty bar, thinking this is actually shocking and unusual behaviour for young men with plenty of money and little control.

Prostitution is legal in the UK whilst solicitation is not. Paying for sex under consent is perfectly within the bounds of the law.

Prostitution in the United Kingdom. ... In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.

A report has revealed that there are 70,000 prostitutes working in Britain - who make an average of £2,000-a-WEEK.

The major study into the UK's sex industry found they charge around £78 for services - and have around 25 clients each every week.

Whilst possession of cocaine is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act, it's very uncommon to be caught and even if you are for the first offence you're unlikely to serve any time, more so community service and a fine.

I don't think anyone who resides in London, young, middle aged or old think cocaine as very exciting or salacious. It's almost as much a part of the economy as alcohol.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Raz pissed at Dekker

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974
1)In 2013 I asked @thomasdekker to testify in my lawsuit again Rabobank with the answer that he didn't have knowledge of anything relevant.

2) Apparently his memory is more vivid and clear now 3 years later!



here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

actually I posted the Swart comment, just so someone could post that

I wanted to know who´d be the first to reply that way. you won

Guys, I've stated it before. I go on facts not innuendo.

Until then I am not flaming anyone.

I said the same for Sky and when we got some credible evidence I didn't hold back on criticism.

The same applies to anyone else.

 

[pastronef]

Raz pissed at Dekker

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974
1)In 2013 I asked @thomasdekker to testify in my lawsuit again Rabobank with the answer that he didn't have knowledge of anything relevant.

2) Apparently his memory is more vivid and clear now 3 years later!



here´s Swart comment

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
@MRasmussen1974 @thomasdekker you know what they say guys...there's no honor amongst thieves

Wow Swart is awesome, perceptive, I guess he means the same for Froome digging in on the Wiggins TUE, #%#^ all you stupid %##%!

actually I posted the Swart comment, just so someone could post that

I wanted to know who´d be the first to reply that way. you won

Guys, I've stated it before. I go on facts not innuendo.

Until then I am not flaming anyone.

I said the same for Sky and when we got some credible evidence I didn't hold back on criticism.

The same applies to anyone else.

you know Jeroen, criticism is welcome just when it is directed to some riders/team.
say something about Raz/Dekker and it goes: "yes but why dont you also blame that other guy..."
I wanted to see how long it would take for the word "Froome" to be posted
it was fast

 

[Gregga]

Re: Re:

MR said prior to the start of the 05 Tour, he was approached by the UCI of very low reticulocytes suggestive of blood-manipulation. However, with no ABP at that time, what would be his concern since no punitive action could be taken? (e.g., with no ABP there would would be no Off-score to be adversely affected by low retics & elevated Hct). The only concern I would think for any punitive action that could be consequential back then with autologous blood transfusions would be a no start rule for breaching the 50% Hct level. He says his baseline Hct was 39/40, and he was boosting to 46...I wonder why he wasn't boosting right up to the threshold 50% limit?

No BP back in 2005 but a no-start lower threshold at 0.3% for retyculocytes (and 133 upper limit for Off-Score), Ras was at 0.23 and should have been sent home, but Leinders fixed that with his friend Zorzoli. The latter was often warning doctors and asked them "not to do it again". Which meant no more blood bags for Rasmussen during that TdF. That's why so called undetectable EPOs (Dynepo, CERA) were so important back then, using them one could use more blood bags without triggering any alarm.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-against-Hesjedal-Sorensen-Hj-and-others.aspx

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

MR said prior to the start of the 05 Tour, he was approached by the UCI of very low reticulocytes suggestive of blood-manipulation. However, with no ABP at that time, what would be his concern since no punitive action could be taken? (e.g., with no ABP there would would be no Off-score to be adversely affected by low retics & elevated Hct). The only concern I would think for any punitive action that could be consequential back then with autologous blood transfusions would be a no start rule for breaching the 50% Hct level. He says his baseline Hct was 39/40, and he was boosting to 46...I wonder why he wasn't boosting right up to the threshold 50% limit?

No BP back in 2005 but a no-start lower threshold at 0.3% for retyculocytes (and 133 upper limit for Off-Score), Ras was at 0.23 and should have been sent home, but Leinders fixed that with his friend Zorzoli. The latter was often warning doctors and asked them "not to do it again". Which meant no more blood bags for Rasmussen during that TdF. That's why so called undetectable EPOs (Dynepo, CERA) were so important back then, using them one could use more blood bags without triggering any alarm.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-against-Hesjedal-Sorensen-Hj-and-others.aspx

Didn't know that about the no-start rule for a threshold on retics. I've skimmed over that velo article before and must have missed that info. When was the retic threshold implemented? Were they also using the 133 Off-score as a no-start threshold? (i.e., three no-start thresholds that could be enforced: Hct, retics & Off-score?). I wonder why Leinders wasn't elevated the retics with an ESA of some sort when MA was transfusing...can't imagine Ferrari allowing an oversight like that to occur with LA. Lol.

 

[Tienus]

I wonder why Leinders wasn't elevated the retics with an ESA of some sort when MA was transfusing

Leinders was not worried about getting caught. From the original news source:
Confidential papers show that topriders and teammanagers were invited to come to the UCI headquarters in Switzerland where UCI’s chief doctor Mario Zorzoli gave them powerpoint presentations showing UCI’s anti-doping strategy and giving them information about found suspect values. Other riders were called, either by Zorzoli or by Lon Schattenberg, Dutch member of the UCI anti-doping commission.

Dutch riders were warned as well. Karsten Kroon confirms to Vrij Nederland that Lon Schattenberg called him in 2004 to inform him about his abnormal bloodvalues. Kroon was riding for the Rabobank cycling team at the time.

https://www.vn.nl/hein-verbruggen-uci-for-years-cycling-federation-warned-armstrong-and-other-riders-with-suspect-values/