BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Not, it is not possible (well, unless you start accusing him of murdering babies I suppose), and no, it is not possible. There is no reason to trust a single word that comes out of his mouth and ample reason not to.

Why isn't it possible?

Granted, I don't believe anything that Armstrong says at this point. Or, at least, I'm suspending any belief while waiting to see what else comes to light, and whether Amstrong is manipulating the truth to fit currently unknown circumstances.

But there IS always the possibility, however slim, that he may be telling the truth on some counts. A complicated lie can still contain a grain of truth. Whether there is reason to believe him wasn't the question.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by desertgal

Why isn't it possible?

Granted, I don't believe anything that Armstrong says at this point. Or, at least, I'm suspending any belief while waiting to see what else comes to light, and whether Amstrong is manipulating the truth to fit currently unknown circumstances.

But there IS always the possibility, however slim, that he may be telling the truth on some counts. A complicated lie can still contain a grain of truth. Whether there is reason to believe him wasn't the question.

The evidence strongly indicates otherwise. Read the USADA report

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Evidence?

Evidence of what?

Evidence that the other dopers didn't lie as much, or evidence that there were, in fact, "other dopers"?

Dang it. You got me. I have no direct evidence that there were other dopers who didn't lie as much, and I don't care enough to try to find any. My indirect evidence consists of the observation that at least one doper (Armstrong) got away with it long enough to win 7 consecutive titles. It therefore seems quite likely that there were other dopers in the highly competitive, cutthroat business. Probably a lot of others, some of whom, like Armstrong, probably did quite well. Except they couldn't beat Armstrong. Those would be my default assumptions, upon which I based my earlier post.

So you, uh..."win"...I suppose. Perhaps some of your friends will have a medal cast for you.

[Silly Green Monkey]

What about ones who used the same doctors and programs Armstrong did? Might they be suspect?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

What about ones who used the same doctors and programs Armstrong did? Might they be suspect?

No, they just testified against him and took suspensions as a result for ***** and giggles.

Or were you talking customers of Dr Ferrari and others outside the US Postal team? Because most of his other customers had already been found guilty. Then there's the Festina lot, Operacion Puerto...

Yes other people were doping. But few if any ruined lives like Armstrong.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Who are they going to give the 7 titles to? Other dopers?

Oh well. At least the other dopers haven't lied as much. Well, not until they have to explain why they came in second behind Armstrong so many times.

Because they weren't as good at it? If you want to claim Armstrong as the biggest liar and most skilled (In conjunction with his medical team) dope cheat in the history of pro cycling I doubt you will find much opposition.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Is it possible that this thread has moved farther into the land of Armstrong bashing than is justified by what is knowable about the situation?

There was a huge legal incentive for Armstrong to not admit to the doping. Yes, the various people pursuing Armstrong probably had enough evidence available to win a decision based on a preponderance of evidence but it was not going to be easy evidence to get at and defend. A lot of the people that might have testified against Armstrong had large incentives to rat Armstrong out and no matter what, their testimony would have been subject to attack. The physical evidence against Armstrong, while compelling, might not have been admissible against him. And even if one could prove a specific incident, extrapolating that to all seven Tour de Frances that Armstrong won would have been difficult. It is likely that if Armstrong had just kept his mouth shut from here on about this stuff that he would have been in a strong enough position legally to negotiate favorable terms in any kind of settlements, but now his legal position is weak enough that one might even imagine that the people going after him will be looking for penalties attached to any kind of settlements.
Armstrong might have come clean at this juncture because of what he said, he didn't want to continue to lie to his son, and that seems like a noble reason.
At this juncture Armstrong denies that he used drugs in his third place finish in his tour come back effort. Is it possible that he isn't lying about this?

You seem to misunderstand the timelines for this. The legal stuff was done and dusted before Armstrong confessed. He was already banned for life, had all his titles since 1998 removed (I believe he is still 1993 World Champion) and been forced out of Livestrong before he said anything.
The Sunday Times and many of his former sponsors had also started the process of suing him to recover money he falsely gained.

The only reason for him to confess is to try to return to some kind of sporting/ charitable prominence, which I don't think is especially noble.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Because they weren't as good at it? If you want to claim Armstrong as the biggest liar and most skilled (In conjunction with his medical team) dope cheat in the history of pro cycling I doubt you will find much opposition.

You would agree to that? I have some doubts about your proposition. I think the most successful ones are the ones who have not been caught red-handed and forced to confess. And have at last succeeded in getting Armstrong out of their way.

That was embarrassing. The bastard won the big one 7 times in a row.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Toontown

You would agree to that? I have some doubts about your proposition. I think the most successful ones are the ones who have not been caught red-handed and forced to confess. And have at last succeeded in getting Armstrong out of their way.

That was embarrassing. The bastard won the big one 7 times in a row.

To what end? They're pretty well all retired now and they don't get any of his wins or prizemoney.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

You seem to misunderstand the timelines for this. The legal stuff was done and dusted before Armstrong confessed. He was already banned for life, had all his titles since 1998 removed (I believe he is still 1993 World Champion) and been forced out of Livestrong before he said anything.
The Sunday Times and many of his former sponsors had also started the process of suing him to recover money he falsely gained.

The only reason for him to confess is to try to return to some kind of sporting/ charitable prominence, which I don't think is especially noble.

The legal stuff associated with the potential civil trials with Armstrong as a defendant haven't started. While the USADA actions might be introduced in some way into those trials, I doubt that the USADA actions or the UCI actions would be admissible as proof of any claims against Armstrong. Armstrong use or non-use of PED's would need to be adjudicated in these potential civil trials. I suspect that any legal advice that Armstrong might have gotten with regard to public confessions was "don't do it."

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by davefoc

The legal stuff associated with the potential civil trials with Armstrong as a defendant haven't started. While the USADA actions might be introduced in some way into those trials, I doubt that the USADA actions or the UCI actions would be admissible as proof of any claims against Armstrong. Armstrong use or non-use of PED's would need to be adjudicated in these potential civil trials. I suspect that any legal advice that Armstrong might have gotten with regard to public confessions was "don't do it."

I cannot see any way how the bolded could possibly be correct. Of course they would be admissible as proof.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

To what end? They're pretty well all retired now and they don't get any of his wins or prizemoney.

I suspect it's because they hates 'merrka.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by davefoc

The legal stuff associated with the potential civil trials with Armstrong as a defendant haven't started. While the USADA actions might be introduced in some way into those trials, I doubt that the USADA actions or the UCI actions would be admissible as proof of any claims against Armstrong. Armstrong use or non-use of PED's would need to be adjudicated in these potential civil trials. I suspect that any legal advice that Armstrong might have gotten with regard to public confessions was "don't do it."

And the criminal legal stuff isn't "done and dusted" yet. The Feds decided to stop their investigations, but they always kept an eye on what USADA did and have kept open the option of renewing their investigations and may prosecute Armstrong.

As to the civil matters, methinks the USADA report constitute proof. They compiled a lengthy report on Armstrong's doping, and he decided not to challenge it when he had the chance. So at this point, the USADA report stands as unchallenged legal truth.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Yes other people were doping. But few if any ruined lives like Armstrong.

This. While many others doped, and used the same evading answers to questions ("I was never found positive on a test"), none of them, AFAIK, used the aggressive tactics Armstrong used in bullying his detractors. Armstrong went at them with a full legal team to make their lives miserable.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by ddt

...
As to the civil matters, methinks the USADA report constitute proof. They compiled a lengthy report on Armstrong's doping, and he decided not to challenge it when he had the chance. So at this point, the USADA report stands as unchallenged legal truth.

I am not a lawyer and this issue clearly gets into civil trial procedures and even to a degree semantics.

The USADA did not conduct a civil trial and while its results might be admissible I believe the judge would have instructed the jury not to see the results as proof of guilt. Accepting the USADA results as proof of guilt would essentially be doing an end around the legal system and my belief is that an American civil trial judge wouldn't allow it.

I agree that the evidence uncovered by the USADA and even perhaps records of their interviews would be admissible, but Armstrong's lawyers haven't cross examined any of those people and I am not sure the degree to which testimony against an individual gathered without the right of cross examination would have been admissible.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I am not a lawyer and this issue clearly gets into civil trial procedures and even to a degree semantics.

The USADA did not conduct a civil trial and while its results might be admissible I believe the judge would have instructed the jury not to see the results as proof of guilt. Accepting the USADA results as proof of guilt would essentially be doing an end around the legal system and my belief is that an American civil trial judge wouldn't allow it.

I agree that the evidence uncovered by the USADA and even perhaps records of their interviews would be admissible, but Armstrong's lawyers haven't cross examined any of those people and I am not sure the degree to which testimony against an individual gathered without the right of cross examination would have been admissible.

Armstrong had the right of cross examination. He chose not to exercise it.

[Peephole]

Quote:

Lance Armstrong's lawyers say the cyclist will talk more about drug use in the sport, just likely not to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that led the effort to strip him of his Tour de France titles.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...cling-18319707

Well that took him long.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by davefoc

There was a huge legal incentive for Armstrong to not admit to the doping.

Of course, just as any criminal has a huge legal incentive not to confess to their crimes.

Originally Posted by davefoc

A lot of the people that might have testified against Armstrong had large incentives to rat Armstrong out and no matter what, their testimony would have been subject to attack.

So what incentives did Emma O'Reilly or Betsy Andrieu have? Lance Armstrong tried to destroy their lives, how did that help them?

Originally Posted by davefoc

The physical evidence against Armstrong, while compelling, might not have been admissible against him. And even if one could prove a specific incident, extrapolating that to all seven Tour de Frances that Armstrong won would have been difficult. It is likely that if Armstrong had just kept his mouth shut from here on about this stuff that he would have been in a strong enough position legally to negotiate favorable terms in any kind of settlements, but now his legal position is weak enough that one might even imagine that the people going after him will be looking for penalties attached to any kind of settlements.

The USADA thought otherwise. And Armstrong never tried to dispute this.

But I'm sure Armstrong just got some bad legal advice.

Originally Posted by davefoc

Armstrong might have come clean at this juncture because of what he said, he didn't want to continue to lie to his son, and that seems like a noble reason.

But he has continued to lie. On top of that, he refused to apologize to the people whose lives he ruined.

Originally Posted by davefoc

At this juncture Armstrong denies that he used drugs in his third place finish in his tour come back effort. Is it possible that he isn't lying about this?

No, his blood tests from that period tell a different story.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Dang it. You got me. I have no direct evidence that there were other dopers who didn't lie as much, and I don't care enough to try to find any. My indirect evidence consists of the observation that at least one doper (Armstrong) got away with it long enough to win 7 consecutive titles. It therefore seems quite likely that there were other dopers in the highly competitive, cutthroat business. Probably a lot of others, some of whom, like Armstrong, probably did quite well. Except they couldn't beat Armstrong. Those would be my default assumptions, upon which I based my earlier post.

We already know about all those other cases. And you're still not making a lot of sense. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Toontown

You would agree to that? I have some doubts about your proposition. I think the most successful ones are the ones who have not been caught red-handed and forced to confess. And have at last succeeded in getting Armstrong out of their way.

And who might that be? What major competitor of Armstrong hasn't been caught?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or is it just some knee jerk defense of someone in a sport you don't really care about/seem to have a clue about?

[ddt]

In an exclusive interview with Dutch weekly Vrij Nederland, former UCI president explains UCI's "anti-doping strategy". UCI would invite suspected riders to their headquarters, show them their suspected values, and tell them also exactly how UCI's anti-doping strategy worked. He confirms Armstrong was among those riders.

Wow. Just wow. How naive can you be?

Verbruggen also confirms he was financially in bed with the co-owner of the US Postal team.

I'm anxious now how it's going to turn out with Verbruggen's defamation suit against Kimmage. That is going to backfire as hell.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Is it possible that this thread has moved farther into the land of Armstrong bashing than is justified by what is knowable about the situation?

There was a huge legal incentive for Armstrong to not admit to the doping. Yes, the various people pursuing Armstrong probably had enough evidence available to win a decision based on a preponderance of evidence but it was not going to be easy evidence to get at and defend. A lot of the people that might have testified against Armstrong had large incentives to rat Armstrong out and no matter what, their testimony would have been subject to attack. The physical evidence against Armstrong, while compelling, might not have been admissible against him. And even if one could prove a specific incident, extrapolating that to all seven Tour de Frances that Armstrong won would have been difficult. It is likely that if Armstrong had just kept his mouth shut from here on about this stuff that he would have been in a strong enough position legally to negotiate favorable terms in any kind of settlements, but now his legal position is weak enough that one might even imagine that the people going after him will be looking for penalties attached to any kind of settlements.

Armstrong might have come clean at this juncture because of what he said, he didn't want to continue to lie to his son, and that seems like a noble reason.

At this juncture Armstrong denies that he used drugs in his third place finish in his tour come back effort. Is it possible that he isn't lying about this?

This reminds me a little of the movie Quiz Show when Van Doren is admitting to his role in the quiz show scam. Because of his charm and likeableness, some of the members of Congress get teary-eyed over his frank, open and honest admission presumably for the "noble reason" that he didn't want to continue to lie. This is in contrast to the utter contempt they held John Turtorro's character, presumably because he wasn't as smooth as Ralph Feinnes.

Another Congressmen, however, from a rougher neighbourhood to the others and Van Doren says he's sickened by Van Doren's attempts to make it all go away and that he's nothing but a liar and a cheat.

ETA: I think it is no longer actionable to say the same about Armstrong; he's a lying drugs cheat.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by ddt

In an exclusive interview with Dutch weekly Vrij Nederland, former UCI president explains UCI's "anti-doping strategy". UCI would invite suspected riders to their headquarters, show them their suspected values, and tell them also exactly how UCI's anti-doping strategy worked. He confirms Armstrong was among those riders.

Wow. Just wow. How naive can you be?

Verbruggen also confirms he was financially in bed with the co-owner of the US Postal team.

I'm anxious now how it's going to turn out with Verbruggen's defamation suit against Kimmage. That is going to backfire as hell.

I am speechless.

[Peephole]

Quote:

CN: Do you feel like you're the fall guy for an entire sport/system?

Armstrong: Actually, yes I do. But I understand why. We all make the beds we sleep in.

Leave Armstrong alone. :'(

[ddt]

Michael Rasmussen has confessed to using a whole slew of PEDs during the period of 1998 to 2010, to representatives of WADA and the Danish, Dutch and US anti-doping authorities. He was on the verge of winning the Tour in 2007 when it surfaced that he had lied to his whereabouts and Rabobank pulled him from the race. He got a two-year suspension for his doping use. (link). He is the seventh rider of Rabobank who confesses, after Levi Leipheimer, Steven de Jongh, Thomas Dekker, Danny Nelissen, Marc Lotz and Grischa Niermann.

In an interview for Dutch TV tonight, Herman Ram of the Dutch anti-doping authority additionally told that Rasmussen had given info about riders that are still in competition of today. He also intimated that it would be a question of weeks rather than months that riders had the chance to step forward voluntarily and receive leniency.

[Damien Evans]

Not a big surprise, given past events hes been involved in.

Frank Schleck was just given a year as well.
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral...ere-doping-ban

Verdict was accidental ingestion, source unknown.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Not a big surprise, given past events hes been involved in.

Not any sort of a surprise, but it's impressive, and in stark contrast to many other former dopers, that he's apparently given comprehensive details of what he did, when and how.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

I cannot see any way how the bolded could possibly be correct. Of course they would be admissible as proof.

I am not sure whether we disagree based on semantics or our disagreement is substantive.

Civil courts do not serve as rubber stamps for the decisions of other agencies. That seems like a self evident point. If the USADA decided to take action against Armstrong that is their business. If Armstrong is sued by somebody looking to recover money paid to Armstrong based on an agreement that included a clause that Armstrong not take PED's it will be up to that company to prove that Armstrong was taking PED's in violation of that agreement. The existence of USADA findings and actions against Armstrong will probably be of value to a plaintiff in a court case against Armstrong, but whether Armstrong used PED's and when he used them will be adjudicated in the civil trial where the suit against him is being tried.

Confessions by Armstrong on national television to using PED's over a long period of time in all of his tour victories is powerful evidence against him that will likely preclude the need for plaintiffs to even call witnesses to establish the nature of Armstrong's use of PED's. There just seems to be no doubt that Armstrong's legal interests were not served by these confessions and I assume that his lawyers strongly counseled Armstrong against making public confessions. Not only weren't Armstrong's legal interests served by these confessions but clearly the public perception of Armstrong took a significant hit after the confessions. Regardless of the nature of the evidence against him, before the confessions a large segment of the population that gave a crap about this continued to believe that Armstrong was being unfairly targeted. After the confession a big chunk of that support seems to have dissipated.

[davefoc]

I wanted to disagree a bit with my post above. It is conceivable and perhaps likely that the contracts that Armstrong signed contained a proviso that a finding by a doping control agency against him would constitute a breech of the contract. If that was the case and it was found that a finding by the USADA was adequate to serve as a fact to prove a breech of the contract then maybe I was wrong above about the role that the USADA findings might have in a trial against Armstrong.

Still, I suspect the legal issues are a bit murky here. Armstrong did pass drug tests associated with each of his races and the impact of a much later USADA finding on his contracts isn't clear, at least to me. Part of, at least some of the plaintiffs case, might include the issue of whether Armstrong provided false testimony. While the USADA findings might be evidence that he did, his candid admission that he did looks like a much more powerful fact for the plaintiffs to me than the USADA findings.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Not a big surprise, given past events hes been involved in.

Frank Schleck was just given a year as well.
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral...ere-doping-ban

Verdict was accidental ingestion, source unknown.

Frank got a raw deal I think. So many people have been caught now the default position seems to be just throw the book at them.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Frank got a raw deal I think. So many people have been caught now the default position seems to be just throw the book at them.

He does have form though, he admitted to paying Dr Fuentes for advice.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Not any sort of a surprise, but it's impressive, and in stark contrast to many other former dopers, that he's apparently given comprehensive details of what he did, when and how.

Indeed. Not just "I doped", but he has given precise details when he doped with what, and who else did. The 64,000 dollar question here in Holland is, of course, what he said about Michael Boogerd.

Some have speculated that Rasmussen's frankness has to do with his legal dispute with Rabobank. A small background in Dutch labour law: you may only fire an employee on the spot if he has committed an egregious violation of his duties, and if you do so immediately upon learning of that violation. Rasmussen has sued Rabobank for wrongful dismissal, and was successful in first instance: he successfully argued that Rabobank knew all along that he hadn't been in Mexico but in Italy, and that the news during the Tour didn't come as a surprise to Rabobank. The case is now in the appeals court, AFAIK.

In other news: Dutch public broadcaster NOS has uncovered troubling news about the biological passport. In 2010, the budget for out-of-competition blood tests was slashed in more than half by the UCI (from CHF 8.4m in 2009 to CHF 4.1m in 2010) and likewise the number of tests was halved (from 6,731 in 2009 to 3,206 in 2010). No comment from the UCI. Article and video on the NOS website (both in Dutch - feel free to ask details that are unclear). Gerard Vroomen, owner of the Cervélo biking company and former team, had already written about his own observatin of the decrease in tests on his blog in August 2011.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by ddt

Some have speculated that Rasmussen's frankness has to do with his legal dispute with Rabobank. A small background in Dutch labour law: you may only fire an employee on the spot if he has committed an egregious violation of his duties, and if you do so immediately upon learning of that violation. Rasmussen has sued Rabobank for wrongful dismissal, and was successful in first instance: he successfully argued that Rabobank knew all along that he hadn't been in Mexico but in Italy, and that the news during the Tour didn't come as a surprise to Rabobank. The case is now in the appeals court, AFAIK.

That's interesting. It would also explain Rabobank's sudden decision to leave cycling after many years of generous support.

[lionking]

Until Armstrong goes to USADA on his knees and confesses all his doping offences, including after his comeback, he will remain a scumbag devoid of pity. He's desperate to avoid criminal charges, and keeps lying about not doping after his comeback.

Never mind. He will probably avoid jail for criminal conspiracy, but will be dragged through courts for many years, and will end up broke.

[wasapi]

Originally Posted by lionking

Until Armstrong goes to USADA on his knees and confesses all his doping offences, including after his comeback, he will remain a scumbag devoid of pity. He's desperate to avoid criminal charges, and keeps lying about not doping after his comeback.

Never mind. He will probably avoid jail for criminal conspiracy, but will be dragged through courts for many years, and will end up broke.

Does anyone know his monetary worth at this point?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

That's interesting. It would also explain Rabobank's sudden decision to leave cycling after many years of generous support.

I don't think it explains Rabobank's decision to leave men's pro cycling (they still sponsor women's cycling and amateur cycling). They can't unturn sins of the past. I think it has more to do with the tainted image of pro cycling, day-in day-out on the front pages as a result of the Armstrong doping case and all the fall-out.

The other major news issue that is day-in day-out on the front pages is the mismanagement at the banks and the obscene bonuses their CxO's received for driving the business into (near) bankruptcy. Two of the four major Dutch banks - Fortis/ABN-Amro and SNS-Reaal - have been nationalized at this point, and a third, ING, has received massive state loans. Rabobank thus far has a clean image here, and hasn't needed state support. I think they just don't want to be associated anymore with dirty cycling these days.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by ddt

I don't think it explains Rabobank's decision to leave men's pro cycling (they still sponsor women's cycling and amateur cycling). They can't unturn sins of the past. I think it has more to do with the tainted image of pro cycling, day-in day-out on the front pages as a result of the Armstrong doping case and all the fall-out.

The other major news issue that is day-in day-out on the front pages is the mismanagement at the banks and the obscene bonuses their CxO's received for driving the business into (near) bankruptcy. Two of the four major Dutch banks - Fortis/ABN-Amro and SNS-Reaal - have been nationalized at this point, and a third, ING, has received massive state loans. Rabobank thus far has a clean image here, and hasn't needed state support. I think they just don't want to be associated anymore with dirty cycling these days.

Maybe you're right. But my impression was that Rabo threw in the towel out of the blue, and even insiders were caught by surprise. Considering how dirty cycling's been throughout Rabo's time, it's hard to see it as a sudden decision on that basis. But if they became aware that Rasmussen was going to open up about the team encouraging (or at least condoning) doping by their riders, the entire team management structure would have been tainted, and it may have been a sensible PR move to put as much distance as possible between the bank and the team before the news came out.

Just my opinion, and I may be wrong, but that's how I'd have approached it in their position.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Maybe you're right. But my impression was that Rabo threw in the towel out of the blue, and even insiders were caught by surprise. Considering how dirty cycling's been throughout Rabo's time, it's hard to see it as a sudden decision on that basis. But if they became aware that Rasmussen was going to open up about the team encouraging (or at least condoning) doping by their riders, the entire team management structure would have been tainted, and it may have been a sensible PR move to put as much distance as possible between the bank and the team before the news came out.

Just my opinion, and I may be wrong, but that's how I'd have approached it in their position.

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with your assessment that they wanted to disentangle themselves from the team. I think that, when the Armstrong report broke, with Levi Leipheimer's confession in it, they realized that all dirty laundry would come out eventually and that it would then be better if that news was about an ex-Rabobank team than about a team they still sponsored.

I took your initial comment as that Rabo's decision to stop sponsoring had to do specifically with Rasmussen's lawsuit. I don't think that matters much; before Rasmussen, seven other Rabo riders have already confessed to doping while on the team. Rasmussen's confession is more detailed than the others, but it's hard to assess to what extent that helps in getting at the bottom of the doping culture within the Rabo team. Other confessors have spilled the beans on fellow riders and team management as well.