In Sporten.dk today, Rasmus Damsgaard, who was responsible for the internal testing of Lance Armstrong in 2009, does not agree with the conclusions of the USADA report that Lance Armstrong doped after his comeback to the sport.
Damsgaard (left) and Armstrong (photo courtesy Sporten.dk)
Over at the Veloclinic, Doc has a few things to say about this…
expert analysis: damsgaard’s armstrong clean claim
allright kids
it’s honestly just time to start letting go
uv the Armstrong myth
so Damsgaard now disputes
USADA ash n parrisoto
n states
They (USADA) do such a good Reasoned Decision, and then it’s so weary and bad when it comes to that test. They didn’t have to do that part of the Reasoned Decision. It is not impossible, that a transfusion has happened. But one has to know when the test was done,and I believe I know a little more about that on a certain point than Robin Parisotto does. And that point was done on the top of Mont Ventoux – 15 minutes after the stage in 40 C degrees. After six hours of cycling – That’s not a reliable test. That test on Mont Ventoux was done by two French testers. They tested him there, by the very fact, that it’s the worst, most bad and miserable test, that shows the highest figures.”
Interviewer: When Michael Rasmussen revealed his blood values for 2007 and 2008, you said ‘Doping!’
Yes, and I regret that. And I have also published that regret. To pronounce on a case, you have to know every point on the curve.”
Interviewer: Do you sit back with the feeling that you didn’t catch Armstrong, but you should have?
No, I don’t. In principle the Reasoned Decision ends in 2005. Partially 2007. But hereafter UCI has made the worlds best anti doping program with the biological passport. It is reasonable and intelligent. UCI has done everything; to make the passports as good as they are, because they have included the world’s best experts from 2008.”
Interviewer: So you are not convinced that Lance Armstrong was doped in 2009?
No, because we haven’t seen tendencies that way. In 2007 there was something going on, and in 2008 there was CERA. So no, I feel that UCI and cycling has been the cleanest sport in thelast five years. They can document, what they have done with anti doping. No other sport can do the same. And yes cycling has positive tests, but you get that when you are testing. They haven’t discovered organized doping on the teams in that period either.”
so because one data point is disputable the the rest should be ignored ?
ridiculous.
n so
the video
an explainer
and illustration
uv why
the bloody forest still trumps
the trees
(Editor’s note: Please note that the climb was Ventoux rather than Alpe d’Huez as stated in the video. Doc apologizes for this gaffe.)
* * * * *
veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.
1 Comment
I completely agree with your argument.
Do you have the bloodpassdata for 2009 for Andy, Contador, Klöden and Wiggins?