The revenge of Rasmussen ...

Page 49 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
red_flanders said:
He said that after threatened with lawsuits. Somewhat diluting the clarity.
Kinda my point. His "facts" are morphing into opinion later on. Hard to tell one from the other once that's happened, even if only once.
 
When I here some of his opinions, I don't think much of them, one which I thin I heard from him (tried to find it again) was that the tour de france in 2007 was worse of without him, why would any tour be worse of with a dopper missing.

From the impression I get from him is that he is not sorry for doping, only for getting caught, I do accept that where he says he saw X doping, or Y gave him drugs that it is highly likely that he is not lying, as of his claims about the rabo squad all doping in 2007, I am not so sure.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
del1962 said:
When I here some of his opinions, I don't think much of them, one which I thin I heard from him (tried to find it again) was that the tour de france in 2007 was worse of without him, why would any tour be worse of with a dopper missing.

From the impression I get from him is that he is not sorry for doping, only for getting caught, I do accept that where he says he saw X doping, or Y gave him drugs that it is highly likely that he is not lying, as of his claims about the rabo squad all doping in 2007, I am not so sure.
i'd be interested in seeing how exactly he phrases that in his book.
anyway, it would be seriously odd to have one clean guy in the middle of a bunch of well-prepared pros.
as leipheimer said, it was part of the business. either you'd dope or you'd go home.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Kinda my point. His "facts" are morphing into opinion later on. Hard to tell one from the other once that's happened, even if only once.
Yeah, it is hard to tell. On the one hand I tend to believe the original statement as it appears candid, whereas the retraction seemed forced by Freire's legal action.

Oscar Freire said:
"I do not understand," Freire told marca.com. "He can speak for himself or who he has seen taking substances but not the whole team, I cannot allow that."
Sounds like the ol, "He is breaking the unwritten rules".

Then again, it's within the realm of realism that a couple of one-day guys with as uneven palmares as Freire and Flecha might have been clean or "low octane".
 
sniper said:
i'd be interested in seeing how exactly he phrases that in his book.
anyway, it would be seriously odd to have one clean guy in the middle of a bunch of well-prepared pros.
as leipheimer said, it was part of the business. either you'd dope or you'd go home.
Well, even Festina had Bassons. In his case some of the dopers vouched for his innocence though.
 
Jan 11, 2010
12,582
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Except he lost that case.

There's no doubt Rasmussen is a smart guy. But, this kind of narrow, difficult effort to discredit him doesn't fit with a bigger narrative that the guy has gone on a confessional spree much more detailed and regretful than say Landis and Hamilton.
I admire your ability to believe in him as a Harbinger of Truth, but the fact is he's taking that case to a higher court (again), so he's far from the impartial deity you make of him.

His confession spree is only detailed when it suits him, and mainly focuses on the involvement of as many people as possible, even up to the bus driver, to complete the picture of organized doping which everyone on the team was aware of.
 
del1962 said:
From the impression I get from him is that he is not sorry for doping, only for getting caught, I do accept that where he says he saw X doping, or Y gave him drugs that it is highly likely that he is not lying, as of his claims about the rabo squad all doping in 2007, I am not so sure.
Of course he's not sorry for doping, that's how things worked. Landis, Hamilton and Jaksche aren't sorry for the doping itself either, because they aren't huge hypocrites.
 
hrotha said:
Of course he's not sorry for doping, that's how things worked. Landis, Hamilton and Jaksche aren't sorry for the doping itself either, because they aren't huge hypocrites.
Not saying anything aboult Floyd or Jaksche, but from what I have heard from Tyler (and I may be wrong), I get the feeling he is genuinly sorry about it, I don't get that feeling with Ras.

And why would being sorry make them huge hypocrites?
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Okay.

So, the Belgian cycling federation is taking action on the front of anti-doping, surely it could not be against a Belgian? No, they're going after Boogerd.

I don't know, I'm not against retroactive prosecution, but with anti-doping funding as low at it is now, it seems like such a waste of resources to prosecute someone who's just withing the statutes of limitation.

Moreover, this case screams "Look at us doing anti-doping stuff (but don't ask us to go after our 'own' riders)" pr crap.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
WillemS said:
Okay.

So, the Belgian cycling federation is taking action on the front of anti-doping, surely it could not be against a Belgian? No, they're going after Boogerd.

I don't know, I'm not against retroactive prosecution, but with anti-doping funding as low at it is now, it seems like such a waste of resources to prosecute someone who's just withing the statutes of limitation.

Moreover, this case screams "Look at us doing anti-doping stuff (but don't ask us to go after our 'own' riders)" pr crap.
the most farcical part is perhaps the time it took them to take action.
1 and a half year after his confession.
i hope boogerd gets banned from cycling, otherwise he's about to become the umpteenth ex-doper DS.
 
It is even more cynical than that. I heard an interview with Boogerd on Dutch radio this morning and his story was somewhat along these lines.

- He talked to the Dutch ADA and gave them information on his own doping past. Dutch ADA referred him to the Belgian authorities to find out what if any steps would be taken against him.
- At the presentation of this new team he spoke to the chairman of the Dutch cycling union (Mr. Wintels) and asked him if e would be facing any problems. Mr. Wintels informed him it was best to to talk to the UCI and keep "schtumm".
- Boogerd talked to the UCI who gave him the following options. One was to talk to Belgian ADA and do a tell-all. Boogerd didn't want to do that because he doesn't want to e rat (that is omerta for you). Another option was to ask the Belgian ADA what the status was, but he was advised not to do that and just sit and wait if anything would come of it (that's omerta for you again but then from UCI).

I would have expected UCI to advise him in all cases that revealing all to the relevant ADA was the best and only way to go. To actually advise him to sit still and keep his mouth shut I found staggering.

Also the victim role was not very becoming for Boogerd. He did the crime so you do the time (unless the SOL is in the way). If you cooperate you do less time. There was no contrition on his part that his fame and money was down to cheating nor that his involvement in the new team was only possible because of his ill-gotten wins in the past. He doesn't have to do hara-kiri for me but portraying yourself as some sort of victim is squarely on the other end of the spectrum.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
neineinei said:
He really should have phoned CIRC. He still can. To rat on the Belgians.
Not going to happen. He is managing a team and wants to stay in the sport.

Even JV did not rat everyone and everything till long after SOL and even then he did not rat out team mates from CA, Voigt and O'Grady to name 2 obvious.
 
Benotti69 said:
Not going to happen. He is managing a team and wants to stay in the sport.

Even JV did not rat everyone and everything till long after SOL and even then he did not rat out team mates from CA, Voigt and O'Grady to name 2 obvious.
You don't know how much info JV has reported, even if he did give evidence againts a doper, the Anti-doping authority has to have enough to secure a conviction (probably more than just one eye witness), look how many testimonies where required to sanction Armstrong.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
del1962 said:
You don't know how much info JV has reported, even if he did give evidence againts a doper, the Anti-doping authority has to have enough to secure a conviction (probably more than just one eye witness), look how many testimonies where required to sanction Armstrong.
Why would he unnecessarily snitch on those two guys?
Could only jeopardize his vested interests.
I think JV sang what USADA wanted him to sing in order to hang Lance, but nothing else.
There are plenty of morons in and around the peloton, but JV isn't one of them.
There are also some really good guys who did tell all, but then again these few aren't in or around the peloton anymore.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
del1962 said:
You don't know how much info JV has reported, even if he did give evidence againts a doper, the Anti-doping authority has to have enough to secure a conviction (probably more than just one eye witness), look how many testimonies where required to sanction Armstrong.
JV was not the major player in taking down Armstrong! Floyd Landis was.

We dont know how many witness are needed. Tygart got lucky that he sat in on Feds testimony or that Feds were hanging over the whole thing and no cyclist wanted to do time. But saying that Livingstone kept his gob shut as did Horner.

Can you point anyone on CA or any other team JV rode for that got sanctioned due to JV not playing the omerta game?
 
Benotti69 said:
JV was not the major player in taking down Armstrong! Floyd Landis was.

We dont know how many witness are needed. Tygart got lucky that he sat in on Feds testimony or that Feds were hanging over the whole thing and no cyclist wanted to do time. But saying that Livingstone kept his gob shut as did Horner.

Can you point anyone on CA or any other team JV rode for that got sanctioned due to JV not playing the omerta game?
Can you point to anyone on any of Floyds or Tyler's teams(not Postal) who were sanctioned beacuse of their confessions. How about team-mates of Manzano or Simeoni perhaps?? Maybe buddies of Kohl or Jaksche?? How many people were sanctioned because of Sella's confessions? Only 2-3 people cos that's how many people were doping at his team!!!

Saying as I like to grind on Kimmage, he has former team-mates who are still running Pro-Teams today. Has he ever outed them? Nah, must be ometra mate.

What about Basson's? Did Mr Clean give up any names or throw anybody under the bus?

Fact of the matter is this, in most walks of life normal people take responsibility for their own personal actions and behaviour and don't willingly throw other people to the wolves, even if those peoples actions might have impacted on them and especially not when they were doing the same things themselves. That is not ometra, that is human nature.

How many people here would report a friend or colleague to the police for driving under the influence?

What if you yourself had done it, would this may you even less likely to report someone?

How many people would admit to seeing a friend or colleague driving under the influence if called to testify or give evidence in court?

Everyone can rant on about ometra and try and take the moral highground but you can be guranteed 99% of people would act in the exact same manner.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
pmcg76 said:
Can you point to anyone on any of Floyds or Tyler's teams(not Postal) who were sanctioned beacuse of their confessions. How about team-mates of Manzano or Simeoni perhaps?? Maybe buddies of Kohl or Jaksche?? How many people were sanctioned because of Sella's confessions? Only 2-3 people cos that's how many people were doping at his team!!!

Saying as I like to grind on Kimmage, he has former team-mates who are still running Pro-Teams today. Has he ever outed them? Nah, must be ometra mate.

What about Basson's? Did Mr Clean give up any names or throw anybody under the bus?

Fact of the matter is this, in most walks of life normal people take responsibility for their own personal actions and behaviour and don't willingly throw other people to the wolves, even if those peoples actions might have impacted on them and especially not when they were doing the same things themselves. That is not ometra, that is human nature.

How many people here would report a friend or colleague to the police for driving under the influence?

What if you yourself had done it, would this may you even less likely to report someone?

How many people would admit to seeing a friend or colleague driving under the influence if called to testify or give evidence in court?

Everyone can rant on about ometra and try and take the moral highground but you can be guranteed 99% of people would act in the exact same manner.
Fair points about riders not outing others. Omerta is strong. But didn't Kohl out the university of Freiburg.

Just because riders tend not to out team mates, doesn't make it right. Rasmussen outed Hesjedal and it meant Hesjedal had to admit otherwise fans would not have known what loads suspected.

I think Kimmage would out people today and IIRC he did out some riders in Rough Ride. Kimmage has admitted that was naive enough to think the UCI didn't know what was going on in 1990 so when he told them they would work to end the problem. He left the anti doping in their 'capable' hands.

But to compare driving under the influence and doping in sport is way off.

Driving under the influence can lead to someone else's death as well as your own, doping might lead to your own death. Bad analogy.
 
neineinei said:
He really should have phoned CIRC. He still can. To rat on the Belgians.
The same CIRC that already stated it wants to give Armstrong a reduced ban?

Their credibility as impartial is already gone with statements like that.

I'd say their credibility to defend the UCI at all costs is quite high. That means Boogard's claims vanish and who knows what other strange procedural things might happen.

pmcg76, all very good points.
 
GJB123 said:
It is even more cynical than that. I heard an interview with Boogerd on Dutch radio this morning and his story was somewhat along these lines.

- He talked to the Dutch ADA and gave them information on his own doping past. Dutch ADA referred him to the Belgian authorities to find out what if any steps would be taken against him.
- At the presentation of this new team he spoke to the chairman of the Dutch cycling union (Mr. Wintels) and asked him if e would be facing any problems. Mr. Wintels informed him it was best to to talk to the UCI and keep "schtumm".
- Boogerd talked to the UCI who gave him the following options. One was to talk to Belgian ADA and do a tell-all. Boogerd didn't want to do that because he doesn't want to e rat (that is omerta for you). Another option was to ask the Belgian ADA what the status was, but he was advised not to do that and just sit and wait if anything would come of it (that's omerta for you again but then from UCI).

I would have expected UCI to advise him in all cases that revealing all to the relevant ADA was the best and only way to go. To actually advise him to sit still and keep his mouth shut I found staggering.
To the bolded, then you don't understand how the system actually works. No doping controversy is the best outcome in all situations.

The Dutch ADA did a great job. Passing the case to the Belgians was brilliant. That's the way the sports federation like it.

Thank you for posting this. It is very informative.
 
Jan 11, 2010
12,582
0
0
GJB123 said:
Also the victim role was not very becoming for Boogerd. He did the crime so you do the time (unless the SOL is in the way). If you cooperate you do less time. There was no contrition on his part that his fame and money was down to cheating nor that his involvement in the new team was only possible because of his ill-gotten wins in the past. He doesn't have to do hara-kiri for me but portraying yourself as some sort of victim is squarely on the other end of the spectrum.
Where does he position himself as the victim? He's spent 18 months telling everyone who wanted to hear that it was his own choice to dope, and his own fault. You even say it yourself, but you call it omerta.

I don't like Boogerd, nor do I consider it a great idea for him to run a team, but more because he's just a dumbas.s.

DirtyWorks said:
To the bolded, then you don't understand how the system actually works. No doping controversy is the best outcome in all situations.

The Dutch ADA did a great job. Passing the case to the Belgians where he has no legal standing is brilliant. That's the way the sports federation like it.

Thank you for posting this. It is very informative.
No legal standing? He lives in Belgium, and he was riding on a Belgian license. BTW, the Dutch ADA tell us that they've contacted their Belgian counterpart multiple times about the Boogerd case, to no avail.
 
theyoungest said:
No legal standing? He lives in Belgium, and he was riding on a Belgian license. BTW, the Dutch ADA tell us that they've contacted their Belgian counterpart multiple times about the Boogerd case, to no avail.
All good to know. Thank you for the correction. Did he talked to the Dutch ADA because of his team affiliation/team location? It's an honest question.

Do you see how the case dies the minute the Dutch ADA passes it to the Belgian ADA? The athlete does not have any power to move the case along unless he takes the issue to court on the basis of some kind of right (might not exist in a strict sense) that the arbitration actually move along. And that will be crazy expensive.

The UCI does nothing too and so it goes nowhere.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Rat him out, snitch, outing. Seems we are perpetuating Omerta too. Just look at the language we use to describe the telling of doping secrets. Smacks of school yard bullies. Are we so conditioned to that? Even in a forum where most of the participants criticize omerta still use the keep a secret language to advance our arguments.
Looks like a lot needs to change in our minds too.
Need some positive words to describe this telling of secrets.
 
Master50 said:
Rat him out, snitch, outing. Seems we are perpetuating Omerta too. Just look at the language we use to describe the telling of doping secrets. Smacks of school yard bullies. Are we so conditioned to that? Even in a forum where most of the participants criticize omerta still use the keep a secret language to advance our arguments.
Looks like a lot needs to change in our minds too.
Need some positive words to describe this telling of secrets.
While I agree with what you are saying, I don't think anyone in favor of a cleaner sport treats it like that. IMO, it's more about the athlete's position as "a rat" compared to others who stay silent regardless of their level of cleans.

The athlete isn't "a rat" at all, but even the UCI has historically treated confessions in such a manner.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY