The revenge of Rasmussen ...

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
sniper said:
but i do feel for Erik
I'm willing to believe that, compared to the likes of Lefebvre and Riis (to name just two), Breukink has been a much more moderate enabler. Yet those two may continue as DS, while Breukink will have major problems finding a new job.
I'm not even sure that's an accurate description. The only thing Rasmussen mentions about him is that he (Breukink) knew about his doping use, and that he told him in 2006 that he couldn't get a second transfusion, and in 2007 that they didn't want them to do transfusions at all. It sounds like he was aware of what was going on, but didn't have an active role in organising or planning the doping use. For sure he doesn't deserve a place in cycling anymore, but that's about it.

Comparatively, it sounds like De Rooy and especially Leinders had a much larger role. With those guys, especially Leinders, criminal investigations are needed (and coming in the case of Leinders).
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Lanark said:
I'm not even sure that's an accurate description. The only thing Rasmussen mentions about him is that he (Breukink) knew about his doping use, and that he told him in 2006 that he couldn't get a second transfusion, and in 2007 that they didn't want them to do transfusions at all. It sounds like he was aware of what was going on, but didn't have an active role in organising or planning the doping use. For sure he doesn't deserve a place in cycling anymore, but that's about it.
well he enabled doping in as far as he allowed it to happen within his team.
Like you, I also think he wasn't very proactive wrt doping.

Comparatively, it sounds like De Rooy and especially Leinders had a much larger role. With those guys, especially Leinders, criminal investigations are needed (and coming in the case of Leinders).
You're being optimistic here.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Belgians are interested in getting to the bottom of this.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
sniper said:
well he enabled doping in as far as he allowed it to happen within his team.
Like you, I also think he wasn't very proactive wrt doping.


You're being optimistic here.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Belgians are interested in getting to the bottom of this.
I would hesitate to use the term 'Belgians' in this manner. Sure, the Belgian media and teams have fully embraced the omerta, but their justice department doesn't seem too bad (they did take down Museeuw and VDB in the past), they have started an official investigation into Leinders, which is more than can be said that most countries do: http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/1.1550475
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Lanark said:
I would hesitate to use the term 'Belgians' in this manner. Sure, the Belgian media and teams have fully embraced the omerta, but their justice department doesn't seem too bad (they did take down Museeuw and VDB in the past), they have started an official investigation into Leinders, which is more than can be said that most countries do: http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/1.1550475
Indeed, 'the Belgians' are very hard on doping, much more than 'the Dutch'.

http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2013/afleveringen/28-02-2013

They just seem to forget to catch le Patrick L. ;)
 
theyoungest said:
I mean to say: he has reason to lie. It will earn him money. His body language doesn't tell me anything, cyclists have a career-long experience at lying.

This is the reaction of Breukink, usually tranquility personified:

"This man hasn't changed in recent years. What a liar. That a.sshole is only after the money, it's horrible.

I've never talked about blood bags with him. I only told him to follow the rules, like I told everyone else. Everyone believes him now, because he came with a confession. But this is simply not true."

Now who do you believe? The guy with the cutest smile?
Just like Rasmussen's money motives Breukink can simply sue Rasmussen to get some cash out of the malaise.

But Breukink won't do that, because he knows the bomb is ticking.

Same with Menchov.
 
Jan 11, 2010
12,582
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Just like Rasmussen's money motives Breukink can simply sue Rasmussen to get some cash out of the malaise.

But Breukink won't do that, because he knows the bomb is ticking.

Same with Menchov.
Why would Breukink do that? He won't get rich from Rasmussen.
 
Apr 20, 2012
254
0
0
I don't believe for a second that Breukink was completely uninvolved, as he claims. So I dont 'like his credibility' when he calls Rasmussen a liar and a 'klootzak'.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
The only thing I trust 100% coming from Rasmussen is that he doped. All the rest is easily a variation of the truth to whatever degree he needs it to be.

Not only has he changed his stories so many times according to what he needed it to be at different points in time, but there are several old colleagues going way back to when he was MTB who say he's still full of it as he was already doping at the time he claims to have started. Why would he still lie about it if he's come clean? Because then he can keep fostering the illusion that he was a massive talent and won his MTB titles clean and that he tested better power/weight that any Danish rider before him. Full. Of. It.

By the way - Christina Watches who he part owns and who is currently pushing themselves as a team fighting dope has just hired Bo Hamburger as DS. He's admitted to having doped 95-97 when he was active and has today maintained that as the truth when queried on it. Any problems? Yeah, a positive for EPO in 2001 and hematocrit issues around 98 unless I'm wrong...

If anyone has any less credibility than the Armstrong camp it's this one... Throwing others under the bus and passing blame around has always been a great deflector.
 
theyoungest said:
But if you've followed Breukink a bit, this reaction is really out of character for him, which (if we're playing amateur lie detector) makes me believe him to some degree.

I don't know if Breukink has ever used the word 'klootzak' (lit. 'ballsack') about someone in his life.
Erik Breukink raced in an era where blooddoping became a need to compete. After his cyclingcareer we had the festina affair and Epo wasn't traceable after what 2000, 2001? During his career as member of the management of Rabobank he saw guys like Hamilton, Heras, Perez etc. go down for blooddoping, and then we had the Puerto case.
And then we have his riders Rasmussen, Boogerd and Dekker fly up the mountains riding better then all 3 ever had (oh and Menchov winning a couple of GT's in the process).

I know this case essentially is about 1 question: Was Rabo aware that he wasn't in Mexico. And there might indeed be a chance that Breukink really didn't know where Rasmussen was, but no way, no way that Erik Breukink did not know that his topriders including Rasmussen were doping. Anybody with his background and position knew.

He probably wasn't the one who did the transfusions, he might not even have seen them ever take dope, but he knew these guys were doping and let it happen. Saying 'i didn't do that, all medical stuff was done by the medical people' is probably correct in the sense that he didn't administer the dope, but imo he enabled the doping in his team and was aware of it.
 
theyoungest said:
Why would Breukink do that? He won't get rich from Rasmussen.
Many potential other reasons to deny the statement of Rasmussen other then trying to get a few bucks from Rasmussen (which i don't believe breukink is looking for):
- it implicates his own cycling career (why not dope yourself but enable others)?
- it will hurt his chances of having a decent position in cycling in the future
- His management contract with Rabobank likely had some clauses in it that he was not allowed to be involved with doping, with damage clauses.
- It isn't unlikely that when the Rasmussen case started Rabobank asked statements from him about this case and what they did do and not do. I'm pretty sure he didn't 'confess' to what Rasmussen is telling now, so that might be fraud or something like that.
- Rasmussen implicates him being involved in illegal activities, which might result in him getting into legal issues, both in the Netherlands as France.
- He might have lied under oath before and now has the perjury issue

just out of the top of my head some potential reasons.
 
JPM London said:
The only thing I trust 100% coming from Rasmussen is that he doped. All the rest is easily a variation of the truth to whatever degree he needs it to be.

Not only has he changed his stories so many times according to what he needed it to be at different points in time, but there are several old colleagues going way back to when he was MTB who say he's still full of it as he was already doping at the time he claims to have started. Why would he still lie about it if he's come clean? Because then he can keep fostering the illusion that he was a massive talent and won his MTB titles clean and that he tested better power/weight that any Danish rider before him. Full. Of. It.

By the way - Christina Watches who he part owns and who is currently pushing themselves as a team fighting dope has just hired Bo Hamburger as DS. He's admitted to having doped 95-97 when he was active and has today maintained that as the truth when queried on it. Any problems? Yeah, a positive for EPO in 2001 and hematocrit issues around 98 unless I'm wrong...

If anyone has any less credibility than the Armstrong camp it's this one... Throwing others under the bus and passing blame around has always been a great deflector.
Is there anyone in cycling who is credible?

I think it's time we acknowledged that a good majority of cyclists doped from 91 to present day.

In my mind. Those who still pretend cycling is clean or half-confess are the ones who lack credibility.

Cristina Watches has way more credibility then say.... team Sky when it comes to the 'fight against doping'*







* (c) J.Vaughters
 
Roninho said:
Erik Breukink raced in an era where blooddoping became a need to compete. After his cyclingcareer we had the festina affair and Epo wasn't traceable after what 2000, 2001? During his career as member of the management of Rabobank he saw guys like Hamilton, Heras, Perez etc. go down for blooddoping, and then we had the Puerto case.
And then we have his riders Rasmussen, Boogerd and Dekker fly up the mountains riding better then all 3 ever had (oh and Menchov winning a couple of GT's in the process).

I know this case essentially is about 1 question: Was Rabo aware that he wasn't in Mexico. And there might indeed be a chance that Breukink really didn't know where Rasmussen was, but no way, no way that Erik Breukink did not know that his topriders including Rasmussen were doping. Anybody with his background and position knew.

He probably wasn't the one who did the transfusions, he might not even have seen them ever take dope, but he knew these guys were doping and let it happen. Saying 'i didn't do that, all medical stuff was done by the medical people' is probably correct in the sense that he didn't administer the dope, but imo he enabled the doping in his team and was aware of it.
I think what Breukink is practicing is called "plausible deniability".
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
thehog said:
Is there anyone in cycling who is credible?

I think it's time we acknowledged that a good majority of cyclists doped from 91 to present day.

In my mind. Those who still pretend cycling is clean or half-confess are the ones who lack credibility.

Cristina Watches has way more credibility then say.... team Sky when it comes to the 'fight against doping'*

So we agree MR lacks credibility :)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JPM London said:
The only thing I trust 100% coming from Rasmussen is that he doped. All the rest is easily a variation of the truth to whatever degree he needs it to be.

Not only has he changed his stories so many times according to what he needed it to be at different points in time, but there are several old colleagues going way back to when he was MTB who say he's still full of it as he was already doping at the time he claims to have started. Why would he still lie about it if he's come clean? Because then he can keep fostering the illusion that he was a massive talent and won his MTB titles clean and that he tested better power/weight that any Danish rider before him. Full. Of. It.
That's part of the game.
When you dope, you lie. So of course the story changes as layers of their deceit start to uncover.

But he did admit he started doping in 98, which was very early in his MTB career. So not sure what your colleagues are saying that contradicts that.

JPM London said:
By the way - Christina Watches who he part owns and who is currently pushing themselves as a team fighting dope has just hired Bo Hamburger as DS. He's admitted to having doped 95-97 when he was active and has today maintained that as the truth when queried on it. Any problems? Yeah, a positive for EPO in 2001 and hematocrit issues around 98 unless I'm wrong...

If anyone has any less credibility than the Armstrong camp it's this one... Throwing others under the bus and passing blame around has always been a great deflector.
Armstrong? Now that's a deflection - the guy has not admitted anything past his own doping and is vague on details.

You call it throwing people under the bus - what part of a full frank admission does not include naming others?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
That's part of the game.
When you dope, you lie. So of course the story changes as layers of their deceit start to uncover.

But he did admit he started doping in 98, which was very early in his MTB career. So not sure what your colleagues are saying that contradicts that.


Armstrong? Now that's a deflection - the guy has not admitted anything past his own doping and is vague on details.

You call it throwing people under the bus - what part of a full frank admission does not include naming others?
Whether we like it or not, it is not just cycling or sport, where people don't like a "snitch", it is actaully something that gets ingrained in society, which explains why those caught are reluctant to throw others under the bus.
 
Wait, for me Rasmussen is no snitch at all. He's just ****ing all the guys and the system now that punished, deserted and tricked him earlier. Nothing wrong about it. If then he's a martyrer on a vendetta.

Still controversy & entertaining.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
staubsauger said:
Wait, for me Rasmussen is no snitch at all. He's just ****ing all the guys and the system now that punished, deserted and tricked him earlier. Nothing wrong about it. If then he's a martyrer on a vendetta.

Still controversy & entertaining.
He wasn't exactly the holiest of dopers, he actually already ****ed the system himself. When even Contador can't hold your wheel towards the end of the 2007 Tour, then imo you're going too far in dope usage. Rasmussen is one of the dirtiest ever, Boogerd was a noob compared to that guy.
 
Pentacycle said:
He wasn't exactly the holiest of dopers, he actually already ****ed the system himself. When even Contador can't hold your wheel towards the end of the 2007 Tour, then imo you're going too far in dope usage. Rasmussen is one of the dirtiest ever, Boogerd was a noob compared to that guy.
so 5 BB's instead of 2 makes one more dirty?
Sorry, to me Boogerd is no different than Rasmussen. Both dopers, cheated clean riders (if anybody were around) on a regular basis. All results void.

Perhaps only difference is Rasmussen was not controllable by the cronies at UCI or Rabo management. Does that make him dirtier? I don't think so.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
so 5 BB's instead of 2 makes one more dirty?
Sorry, to me Boogerd is no different than Rasmussen. Both dopers, cheated clean riders (if anybody were around) on a regular basis. All results void.

Perhaps only difference is Rasmussen was not controllable by the cronies at UCI or Rabo management. Does that make him dirtier? I don't think so.
Boogerd took a lot of top 10's in his day, and everyone behind him had probably never even heard of the juice. ;) But surely there weren't many clean riders around during those years... that's just common sense.

Rasmussen peaked like no other for the Tour, all his efforts and trips to Austria were pointed towards a good performance in July, at least Boogerd spread it out over the season, and he wasn't such a chemical waste depository like the Dane.
 
Pentacycle said:
He wasn't exactly the holiest of dopers, he actually already ****ed the system himself. When even Contador can't hold your wheel towards the end of the 2007 Tour, then imo you're going too far in dope usage. Rasmussen is one of the dirtiest ever, Boogerd was a noob compared to that guy.
Well, Contador was upcoming that year as a gt prospect. It was his breakthrough in 2007. He wasn't as strong as he is today.

Of course The Chicken was an enormous cheater. But cheating is part of the game isn't it?

And of course Boogerd is a noob. Look at his laughable confession. I saw it on RTL Z and immediatly thought "Poor Boogerd totally forgot to cry".
 
Pentacycle said:
Boogerd took a lot of top 10's in his day, and everyone behind him had probably never even heard of the juice. ;) But surely there weren't many clean riders around during those years... that's just common sense.

Rasmussen peaked like no other for the Tour, all his efforts and trips to Austria were pointed towards a good performance in July, at least Boogerd spread it out over the season, and he wasn't such a chemical waste depository like the Dane.
Rasmussen was a joke and cheated. Only a July doper performer. Boogerd got several top 10 placements in minor races but doped in the Tour.

Sorry I still don't see the difference.

Both crap riders, incapable of winning anything important without doping. Just cheaters with perhaps Rasmussen more focused on the Tour in a ruthless manner.
 
Feb 17, 2012
2,762
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Both crap riders, incapable of winning anything important without doping. Just cheaters with perhaps Rasmussen more focused on the Tour in a ruthless manner.
Tell me who weren't incapable of winning anything without doping in 2006/07. Do tell...
 
I used to be a fan of Rabo, but not of Rasmussen. It very odd how the world changes, as I am really starting to appreciate the guy.

Perhaps it is a Floyd Friendliness Flip, given that I find myself on the other sidd of my own arguments there as well. But I think that this strategy by Rasmussen deserves tremendous accolades:

...Rasmussen, who is currently litigating for wrongful termination from the Rabobank team after it sacked him in 2007 over whereabouts violations, is hinging his 5.6 million euro case on proving that the team knew he was purposefully eluding the anti-doping authorities in order to dope as preparation for the Tour de France...

Now, if only Lance would pursue a similar strategy. Because, well, Lance was a team owner and officer. He might as well get in line to collect from himself, Especially given that he has an even higher likelihood of success than Rasmussen may have.

Dave.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS