The revenge of Rasmussen ...

Page 31 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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.

You call it throwing people under the bus - what part of a full frank admission does not include naming others?
Not my colleagues - his.
And that's the problem - it's not a full, frank admission. It's a deliberated admission picking and choosing which parts it makes sense to reveal and which not to.

With a guy like Floyd or a guy like Tyler I don't feel there's anything held back, anything hidden. On the contrary I very much feel that way about Rasmussen which means I have far less trust in what he says.

People often say motivation is irrelevant if you're talking the truth, however, motivation is often a key factor as to whether you're talking the full, un-embellished truth or not. Rasmussen simply has too many money and career motivations going on currently and combined with quite clearly holding certain things back about his own beginnings it's most definitely hurting his credibility. That's why I compared him to LA - anyone with half a brain can see LA didn't really admit to anything material.

It looks very much to me that MR's admissions are designed around fending for himself himself. Officially he - and his team - wants to clean up cycling. Those two things are not the same.
If he wants to clean up cycling, then why isn't he honest about when he started doping? Because it would become clear he never was that talented to begin with and he never, genuinely, tested to have the best power/weight ratio of any Danish rider (as he claims).
His mentions of other riders both in court and elsewhere sounds far more - to me at least - like him trying to paint the picture of him being a "normal doper/rider" than it's about cleaning up.

All he's saying might be correct and true, however, I don't trust it. And far less than anything that's come from Floyd and Tyler...
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
JPM London said:
Not my colleagues - his.
And that's the problem - it's not a full, frank admission. It's a deliberated admission picking and choosing which parts it makes sense to reveal and which not to.

With a guy like Floyd or a guy like Tyler I don't feel there's anything held back, anything hidden. On the contrary I very much feel that way about Rasmussen which means I have far less trust in what he says.

People often say motivation is irrelevant if you're talking the truth, however, motivation is often a key factor as to whether you're talking the full, un-embellished truth or not. Rasmussen simply has too many money and career motivations going on currently and combined with quite clearly holding certain things back about his own beginnings it's most definitely hurting his credibility. That's why I compared him to LA - anyone with half a brain can see LA didn't really admit to anything material.

It looks very much to me that MR's admissions are designed around fending for himself himself. Officially he - and his team - wants to clean up cycling. Those two things are not the same.
If he wants to clean up cycling, then why isn't he honest about when he started doping? Because it would become clear he never was that talented to begin with and he never, genuinely, tested to have the best power/weight ratio of any Danish rider (as he claims).
His mentions of other riders both in court and elsewhere sounds far more - to me at least - like him trying to paint the picture of him being a "normal doper/rider" than it's about cleaning up.

All he's saying might be correct and true, however, I don't trust it. And far less than anything that's come from Floyd and Tyler...
If they're his colleagues and not yours, how come you know what they're saying?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
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.
Considering what we know from the first case Breukink is a big liar, he was aware of Rasmussens whereabouts.

And to theyoungest:

If you think a rider of the quality of Breukink isn't capable of saying "*******" you might want to stop watching cycling. Every pro-cyclist, including Greg Lemond, Erik Breukink, fill in any other "nice guy" is an egotistical guy ready to cheat his competitors left and right (no, not doping, just bloody tactics!). They might be nice guys of the bike, but when it's crunch time every one of them is capable of being a hardass selfish MOFO.

And considering this is crunch time for Erik, we certainly can expect the veneer to come of and see the sportsman underneath. And thats not sarcasm.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Dazed and Confused said:
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.
Ahh yes, please point out the guys winning without doping? :rolleyes:

If you find them morally bankrupt, sure. But crap riders? Their palmares belies that.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
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.
question is,
friendliness appellation

appropriate when it has utility

means to end, = inauthentic. hidden motivation.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
D-Queued said:
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.
Both Fraud and Chicken doped their bottoms off to enormous personal success. Both got caught and lost everything. Now, each is trying to use the law to take money from the other cheaters who cheated with them.

Pro cycling is an ever-flowing wellspring of ironic hypocrisy!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
MarkvW said:
Both Fraud and Chicken doped their bottoms off to enormous personal success. Both got caught and lost everything. Now, each is trying to use the law to take money from the other cheaters who cheated with them.

Pro cycling is an ever-flowing wellspring of ironic hypocrisy!
There is a BIG difference though. Michael is simply refusing to take the fall and want's what he feel is his due do to the contract and the people involved.

He has a very good point. They signed the contract and then helped him dope. To deny him his bonus because he dopes is ridiculous.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Franklin said:
There is a BIG difference though. Michael is simply refusing to take the fall and want's what he feel is his due do to the contract and the people involved.

He has a very good point. They signed the contract and then helped him dope. To deny him his bonus because he dopes is ridiculous.
I agree that there is a difference, but in the end it's just another doper trying to get paid. It is fun to watch former doping co-conspirators now feeding off one another. An environment where the doping underlings are encouraged to turn on their one-time doping masters is a wonderful thing.

I would love to see Manzano own Manolo Saiz' house, for example. :)
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
Netserk said:
To be fair it's second hand witness. He didn't see Ras dope in 97, nor did he knew anything in 97. He says that Ras told him in 2000 that he doped in 97.

I do believe him that Ras doped in 97, but it still isn't first hand witness testimony.
I assume he was present when MR bragged about being doped in 97 - that's kinda first hand.

Also this is not about definite proof if MR doped prior to 98. It's about credibility and who has it. My point is that MR's credibility is most definitely still very debatable...
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
'Scientists':
http://www.ublad.uu.nl/WebObjects/UOL.woa/1/wa/Ublad/archief?id=1013986
Jo Marx in 2000 said:
Marx: "Central to our research was an analysis of the Dekker bloodcontrols who he had undergone the last three years. That there were many of them, only in 1999 for fourteen, with not only the hematocritvalues but also many ironparameters and other provisions. Those checks showed a constant image so that it is unlikely that Dekker has used EPO at any time. The high value must be created by different circumstances in the control.
In 2013, the retired Jo Marx:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hematologist-it-was-not-possible-to-clear-erik-dekker-of-epo-use-in-1999
"Scientifically, this research stood for nothing," the now-retired Marx told Volkskrant. "Research was applied with very poor means. Work that belongs in the trash. In my field there is a rule: if you can not publish something, it does not exist. This research does not exist. "
In Dutch we have a saying 'petje op, petje af', in English 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' perhaps?
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
'Scientists':
http://www.ublad.uu.nl/WebObjects/UOL.woa/1/wa/Ublad/archief?id=1013986


In 2013, the retired Jo Marx:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hematologist-it-was-not-possible-to-clear-erik-dekker-of-epo-use-in-1999


In Dutch we have a saying 'petje op, petje af', in English 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' perhaps?
The most easily supported conclusions come from research that is made up for the purpose.

That original quote is funny, though. Throw in some nonsense about "many ironparameters" to make it sound like you actually did something that was, like, really technical.

Many iron parameters! Oooh. Aaaah.

Funny that Floyd didn't try that along with his JD & beer defense.

Edit to add: The 'consistency' in the hematocrit values actually proves the opposite of the original assertion. What it proves is that he was extremely successful in managing his HCT for the 50% wellness threshold.

Dave.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Well, he could be a great asset to the UCI cover up bloodpassport panel, dont you think?
He has time at hand too.

The 2007 - post - Rasmussen 'investigation' might just be of the same quality.

Funny how Dutch 'media' at the time were silent.
 
The chicken is back in pro cycling, if he was ever gone. In the future he will be commercial boss on his team CWO. He is of course still banned. But as long as he is not involved with the riders of the team, it's okay.

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/rasmussen_tilbage_til_christina_watches/

Not everybody is happy about that. Michael Skelde is the boss of another danish continental team; Team Cult. Skelde does not approve the decision and states that the Chicken could not work for his team, since they have zero tolerance with doping.
http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/cykel-boss-kyllingen-ville-ikke-faa-lov-hos-os
Of course, Skelde was banned for doping himself, when he was pro:p

That's pro cycling..
 
Samson777 said:
The chicken is back in pro cycling, if he was ever gone. In the future he will be commercial boss on his team CWO. He is of course still banned. But as long as he is not involved with the riders of the team, it's okay.

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/rasmussen_tilbage_til_christina_watches/

Not everybody is happy about that. Michael Skelde is the boss of another danish continental team; Team Cult. Skelde does not approve the decision and states that the Chicken could not work for his team, since they have zero tolerance with doping.
http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/cykel-boss-kyllingen-ville-ikke-faa-lov-hos-os
Of course, Skelde was banned for doping himself, when he was pro:p

That's pro cycling..
LOL. You really cannot make this stuff up.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Is Rasmussen still banned? I was under the impression he served his time and was allowed to ride again.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Ferminal said:
Think he got another 2 years or something for admitting to doping his entire career.
I think MR is even more hated by the UCI as Vinokourov. I think the embarasment of 2007 is still felt. Consider that MR was actually removed for rather debatable reasons (I'm certainly not denying his doping) the UCI/ASO really dodged a bullet there (as the truth would eventually have surfaced).

He's not a likable person and I'm not loosing a night sleep about his fate, but he has been harder punished than many others. And as long as there is no rule to keep him out of the sport it would be illegal to block this.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
The return of the chicken will be another clear signal that UCI anti doping policy has failed. It's one thing having a relative unknown like DiLuca make doping penalties a joke, but having the high profile chicken return is going to hurt UCI and Uncle Pat no end in the popular press.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Tinman said:
The return of the chicken will be another clear signal that UCI anti doping policy has failed. It's one thing having a relative unknown like DiLuca make doping penalties a joke, but having the high profile chicken return is going to hurt UCI and Uncle Pat no end in the popular press.
I would say Di Luca's palmares are bigger than those of MR.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Tinman said:
The return of the chicken will be another clear signal that UCI anti doping policy has failed. It's one thing having a relative unknown like DiLuca make doping penalties a joke, but having the high profile chicken return is going to hurt UCI and Uncle Pat no end in the popular press.
Huh?

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?
 
Franklin said:
I would say Di Luca's palmares are bigger than those of MR.
MR is a bigger name for the man on the street, since tour de france is much bigger then any other race. Also the way he lost his tour win was a big history. Witouth his tour Win, MR's palmares can not match Di Luca's, with his tour win, with the tour win, it can. And I mean, who believe that the Chicken won against clean guys in his big tour??

Anyway, calling Di Luca unknown, is of course ridiculous..
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Apparently two Dutch journalists have written a book about doping at the Rabobank team (will be published tomorrow). Some juicy details:

The team management bought a Sysmex XE 2100 in 2007 to better test their riders and prevent a positive. They used this machine in the 2007 Giro. Rasmussen now good his blood from Matschiner instead of Humanplasma. In the 2006 Tour he used two Humanplasma bags of 220 milliliter. Matschiner only provided bags of 180 ml. Rasmussen was scared that two bags of 180ml wouldn't be enough in the Tour, so he did a little experiment in the 2007 Giro.

During that Giro he used two 180ml blood bags at the same time. Geert Leinders measured his blood the morning before and after the transfusion. His hemaglobin incread by 1 percentpoint, his hematocrit from 38.5 to 41.7. Not nearly enough to lead to any sanctions by the UCI. So in the 2007 Tour he used one bag before the start, and two bags simultanious at two ocasions (probably at the rest days).

It clearly shows how much Leinders and the rest of the team management were involved in the doping program.

Another nice detail. In the 2002 Tour Boogerd won what is probably his most celebrated victory, the stage to La Plagne. This was in large part thanks to his own brother, Rini Boogerd, who gave him a transfusions with his (Rini's) blood the day before in the hotel. Again, it was Leinders who did the medical work.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY