Thomas Dekker tells the truth

[Animal]

tbh, i found the cn interview a bit confusing.

It wasn't really an interview was it?

It sounded like a press release from his agent, verbatim.

And yes, omerta is alive and well, he's going to be "more careful" from now on.

 

[L'arriviste]

It wasn't really an interview was it?

It sounded like a press release from his agent, verbatim.

And yes, omerta is alive and well, he's going to be "more careful" from now on.

I agree. The journalist had to give everything a wider context because Dekker's responses were so egocentric.

On the one hand, it could be the natural result of what happens to a man whose whole life rides him off its wheel, or it could be the fact that he ain't naming any names beyond the vague classification of "family", "friends", "people around me" and "people from outside the sport".

This smacks of the self-censorship of our times and the omerta of all times.

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

I couldn't really understand what he's trying to say. Is he saying that he didn't dope in 2009?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Well for that you don't need a confession, since his results in 2009 were beyond bad in comparison to 2005, 2006 and 2007.
If he wasn't clean in 2009 than that would prove that doping doesn't help you at all.

 

[hrotha]

Well for that you don't need a confession, since his results in 2009 were beyond bad in comparison to 2005, 2006 and 2007.
If he wasn't clean in 2009 than that would prove that doping doesn't help you at all.

Unless in 2009 he wasn't back to being a true professional as much as he claims.

 

[theyoungest]

It seems everyone got whatever the hell they want out of this interview... if you went into this not liking Dekker chances are you still don't, and if you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt chances are you still do. Oh the usefulness of journalism

 

[Hairy Wheels]

I agree with those who say Dekker was a doper when winning. I think the heat got on him and he laid off the dope in 2008, found some new stuff in 2009 (or new ways of doing old stuff) and started to come back up in the results. Gripper saw this and retested samples from 2007. I don't think it was necessarily the passport, merely a hard look at massively fluctuating ability on the bike.

He's lying, of course he is. If he said he doped to win Romandie and Tirreno eh wouldn't get back on a big team.

Somebody mentioned Hoogerland...that guy is the biggest joke in cycling. He's in exactly the same situation as Dekker...he'd better watch out if he starts scoring some results!

 

[BroDeal]

He didn't tell the truth at all, he told the same lies as Landis and other, I didn't cheat when I was winning. Dekker is just another cheat. Cheats lie and to believe them is ridiculous. Maybe one day in the future he can redeem himself but as of now he should be dismissed.

Yet again, as if it has not been posted enough, Landis did not say he was not doping when he won. He said that he was not using the substance he tested positive for even though he was using other dope and doping techniques.

 

[flicker]

Drugs are so deeply ingrained into Thomas Dekkers DNA his interview sounds like a GW Bush interview. Tom has had the afterburners full throttle for so long, when will they be re-lit? Italy or Mexico is where I hope his career goes next.

 

[tifosa]

In the aftermath of any kind of cheating (sporting, relationship, monetary, what have you), there is the 6 Rs:

Repudiation
Revenge (sometimes)
Remorse
Reflection
Reinvention (sometimes)
Redemption

The once-cheater can turn him/herself inside out never be the person they once were. But the once-cheater's transformation and new self-acceptance has virtually nothing to do with their acceptance by social or business partners in the future.

If you've ever been cheated on, in any way, by any one, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

The cycling audience is a very tough sell. Critical. Demanding. Cynical. Jaded. Disgusted.

I ask you this: To make cycling the best for all involved, is it the audience that must change, or the cheater(s)?

Personally, I will not stand for cheating in sports. It has no place. Competition must be about innate ability.

Dekker, and the rest of the cycling cheats, have a long uphill ride. Dekker will have to continually prove his worth as a person and cyclist. He will either thrive and conquer in that environment, or he will reinvent himself as something or someone else, and ride a different path.

Sports cheats have to remember this: the audience is always watching; we are always along for the ride.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Hmm, had some (very) inside information just about an hour ago.
Still won't take the words for candy, not this time.
But we'll see, I have faith in the people he is working with, now the only Dekker himself needs to not f.ck up.

 

[theyoungest]

I agree with those who say Dekker was a doper when winning. I think the heat got on him and he laid off the dope in 2008, found some new stuff in 2009 (or new ways of doing old stuff) and started to come back up in the results. Gripper saw this and retested samples from 2007. I don't think it was necessarily the passport, merely a hard look at massively fluctuating ability on the bike.

He's lying, of course he is. If he said he doped to win Romandie and Tirreno eh wouldn't get back on a big team.

Somebody mentioned Hoogerland...that guy is the biggest joke in cycling. He's in exactly the same situation as Dekker...he'd better watch out if he starts scoring some results!

If you make stupid claims, at least make sure you're well-informed... Dekker's suspicious blood values were in 2008, not 2009.

This kind of reaction is so utterly useless.

 

[tifosa]

now the only Dekker himself needs to not f.ck up.

Interesting...

It is COMPLETELY up to Dekker. I hope he comes back with brilliant results!

 

[Hairy Wheels]

If you make stupid claims, at least make sure you're well-informed... Dekker's suspicious blood values were in 2008, not 2009.

This kind of reaction is so utterly useless.

Before you go off, you should read the post. I wasn't talking about suspicious blood results...I was saying something else entirely. I stated they looked at his performances as much, or probably more, than his blood values. If you look at Dekker's career, its painfully obvious when he doped. You don't, all of a sudden, say "I had an injury, I'd better dope". If you believe that you must be at least as stupid as you accused me as being.

Try to be a little more civil in your discourse btw, not much to ask. This is just bike racing, not US style politics.

 

[santacruz]

That interview is such a load of whiney BS from a little baby... He wants people to think better of him but he doesn't really say ANYTHING substantial about doping.. "oh please forgive me I messed up BUT my big victories were done clean!" dude if you can win tirreno and whatnot clean you wouldn't start doping and screw yourself.

 

[Hairy Wheels]

Better watch "theyoungest" will snap on you. You see, people like him believe pro riders who state that they doped when they were going badly, but were clean when they were crushing.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Guess that pretty much answers the question "why do they dope?"

The kid is 25, hasn't worked in a year, but is busy pimping out his dream home, complete w/ irrigation. Rough life.

 

[ergmonkey]

The one thing fans never seem to pay enough attention to when comparing doping "confessions", in my opinion, is the rider's potential work environment. I don't give Millar much more credit for his "confession" than I give Basso for the simple reason that David Millar played the reformed anti-doping crusader only because that is what GB cycling required of him. Simple as that. The Italians, on the other hand, never required that of Basso, nor do I think they wanted it from Basso.

As for the pathetic "I was clean for my best performances" line, Millar was even worse, you may recall. "Millar Time" boldly asserted that, although he was doped with EPO for his Worlds TT win, he only doped because he was under so much pressure to win and (since he won by such a big margin) he would have won without doping, too.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

But Hairy Wheels you clearly are wrong in this case

They started doing retests from 2007 and 2008 with Dekker because his blood values of 2009 where much lower than those of previous years. In other words, he was riding clean in 2009 and therefore his tests of 2007 and 2008 were re-examined.

And in 2008, his results where not bad, as opposed to what you believe, he rode his best classics season of his career in 2008, he was 3rd behind Contador and Soler in Castilla y Leon and 3rd in Vuelta a Pais Vasco behind Contador and Evans. Those where, quite really, the most impressive results in his career against that kind of opposition. And he rounded it off with 5th Amstel (in a lead group with Valverde, Cunego, F.Schleck and Rebellin), 5th Fleche Wallone and 6th Liege.

Yup, that was 2008. And you say he laid off the dope in that year? My god
If you compare that with his 2009 classic year results, it's clear in which year he used dope.

But hey, you probably just went blindly with the article saying his 2008 results weren't good.

 

[BroDeal]

The most interesting question about the Dekker case is why was he singled out for retrospective testing. There are dozens upon dozens of riders that the UCI could have retro tested and obtained the same result, including a bunch of 2008 Giro participants. Did he p!ss somebody off?

 

[theyoungest]

Better watch "theyoungest" will snap on you. You see, people like him believe pro riders who state that they doped when they were going badly, but were clean when they were crushing.

Talk about civil discourse. This is what we call an ad hominem...

 

[Animal]

No. It's simply stating what your belief system is.

This is an ad hominen: You are a Juan-coeur.

 

[Hairy Wheels]

Talk about civil discourse. This is what we call an ad hominem...

No, better go back to school. I made fun of your beliefs in relation to the argument, not you personally.

 

[Hairy Wheels]

But Hairy Wheels you clearly are wrong in this case

They started doing retests from 2007 and 2008 with Dekker because his blood values of 2009 where much lower than those of previous years. In other words, he was riding clean in 2009 and therefore his tests of 2007 and 2008 were re-examined.

And in 2008, his results where not bad, as opposed to what you believe, he rode his best classics season of his career in 2008, he was 3rd behind Contador and Soler in Castilla y Leon and 3rd in Vuelta a Pais Vasco behind Contador and Evans. Those where, quite really, the most impressive results in his career against that kind of opposition. And he rounded it off with 5th Amstel (in a lead group with Valverde, Cunego, F.Schleck and Rebellin), 5th Fleche Wallone and 6th Liege.

Yup, that was 2008. And you say he laid off the dope in that year? My god
If you compare that with his 2009 classic year results, it's clear in which year he used dope.

But hey, you probably just went blindly with the article saying his 2008 results weren't good.

"In 2008 that was all different. I lost my seriousness and my focus.”

Yeah, why would I go with the article when the article quotes the rider on their own personal feelings on their results? Why would I do that?

Doping doesn't just work in the spring btw...you can do it all year if you're keen. Perhaps he laid off the dope AFTER the classics season? Maybe those who know more than us said, "wow...Dekker has blown since April..." or something to that effect.

But then, I don't really know and either do you. Fun to debate I suppose. I do know this...his story is lame. It's the same old same old. I didn't dope to win the big races...come on.

It soundsl like Dekker (and you) would have me believe that he was NOT doped to win Romandie but doped to get 5th in a classic? That sounds odd, even if you believe the crap about "not living seriously".

 

[Cloxxki]

Odd that they picked him for some re-testing indeed. Unless the speaks another real truth, being an amateur at doping. Being good at getting rusults relative to his actual fitness, yet bad at the masking bit. If you go to some shady folks known in the sport as shady for your EPO, chances are, you're getting your money's worth, not more. Like the priceless Bruyneel treatment ;-)

I want to believe the kids speaks all truths, even if I detest that he won't expose anyone. He seems to even make an effort to not incriminate Rabobank, knowning he has enough enemies already, and they may have their files better in order than he does.

He always seemed to be a true talent. If he won some, why not clean? Talents don't surface on a level playing field where everyone takes the same amount of doping. He wasn't even that easy to catch!
Stupid on his part, if he indeed won some good races clean, to let it then slip away to the point of "needing" dope.

Anyway, his increased level of openness seems mostly a positive thing. He wants to ride, he wants to be a contender. And he doens't want to run out of money
He'll be under fierce scrutiny now of course, and let that be a stimulation for him to stay clean and be the better rider. He does have time.