Two Years for Dekker
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 4, 2010 1:28 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintDon't look for Thomas Dekker to return to cycling until July 1, 2011. The Monaco Cycling Federation handed down the standard sentence to the Dutch rider, formerly tipped for greatness, in the first case of its kind. Based on information in Dekker's biological passport, authorities retested an out of competition urine sample from 2007 and found evidence of Dynepo. Dekker seemed to indicate acceptance of the sentence, if Google Translation can be believed, and otherwise is saying the right things:
Call it indiscretion. It was the period when I injured my hip still was beaten back. I was not comfortable in my skin. But I do not look for excuses. I was wrong.
Draw your own conclusions.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You have to understand he is a victim here
Why did he get 2 years and Ricco, who was caught doping during a race (not in the middle of winter 1½ year ago), 4 months less? Why did the UCI first say it was tracking dozens of potential dopers with its biological passport program and was it only Dekker to get convicted? He’s a fraud alright but his questions are legitimate I’d say.
Anyhow, he is determined to return to the peloton. Has been training hard for months, even went on a training camp this winter.
Source
Gerrie Kneteman: If a football player falls he shouts for his mother, if a cyclist falls he yells for his bike.
Because he has been open enough to say he has used EPO
it’s hard to really call Dekker a victim. That said, I still find it bizarre that he’s the only one who has been brought to trial due to the biological passport. Your questioning of this is justifiable. And I hadn’t thought about Ricco, but I’m with you now that I have…
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
The problem is though
that, thoroughly unpleasant as he appears to be, it’s perfectly possible to make a case for Riccò being a victim too, if you so wished, especially if the rumours about his having doped from a very young age turned out to be true. I’m not sure I’d want to do that, because what it comes down to is both he & Dekker had a choice here. Yes, there are questions (though I don’t accept that doping in the winter when recovering from an injury is any better than doping in a race, if indeed that’s what Dekker did), especially around the passport in general, but, you know, if you dope…
What you say about Ricco is a point well made..
My reservations are mainly about the possible randomness of the biological passport … and I suppose Dekker might have been the only one? Maybe…
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
I thought Ricco sang like a canary to the authorities when he was caught.
Whereas Dekker didn’t say a damn thing after Rabo dumped him, which ended up putting Lotto in a bit of a PR mess the coming year.
But that was just from my memory.
It may not be totally spot on.
If that is basically how it went down, then the reason for the 6 months less sentence Ricco received was due to that.
Personally, I think they both should have gotten 2 years, and if any rider doesn’t work with the authorities to catch the asshat who provided the drugs, those years should be a bit uncomfortable.
Agree with your facts
but not so much on the editorializing about going rough on the dopers to get to the culprits. The riders are the culprits.
Not exactly understanding why Ricco is singled out for unchallenged abuse on PDC. He is no different than David Millar, except that Millar wasn’t blackballed upon his return like Ricco is now.
To the sports personality as victim concept, it’s hard to see Dekker as a victim, but seeing Ricco and his wife, growing up all their lives in the healthy sport of cycling, and then also so willing to think themselves entitled media whores, and then also doing insane trashy stuff, to some extent they really are victims. But not WADA/UCI victims. Ricco’s punishment was correct, it’s the blacklisting now, though.
I like how Mrs. Ricco cleverly posted her ‘come back to me, Ricky’ letter in the sports pages – the only reading Ricco does is his own clippings the sports pages, I’m pretty sure.
by rubesANdbabes on Mar 4, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Ugh...
Millar is so preachy and tiring, in someways I dislike him even more than Ricco, who at least seems to revel in playing the role of cycling villain.
I could be wrong about this, probably am, but it seems like Millar’s role as hysterical doping crusader has permitted him to remain in the sport well past his sell by date.
Agree to a point about the "preacher"...
…but Ricco was/is a dick. Once busted, he’s just a doping dick.
At least Miller seems to be cool.
Millar's preacher role...
has always reminded me of the convict who finds Jesus behind bars. A much less than convincing scenario.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
I'll always remember his last years at Cofidis
Especially the way he tore into Gaumont, who was fed up with the all lying and was ready to come clean about all the drug use he had personally witnesed, and instead of just keeping his mouth quiet Millar ripped him in the press, said he was destroying cycling, basically trying to perpetuate this omerta code of silence, and with the same outraged tone that he now uses when he waxes hysterical about the problem of doping in the sport. No credibility if you ask me.
Millar's stance could help him stay in the sport
But he’s also a very solid rider. You don’t win a GT TT, even at the end of the Vuelta, without being one. Plus, he’s quite valuable as a workhorse on lower mountain stages and in a leadout train a few kms out.
by Douglas Ansel on Mar 5, 2010 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
And he very nearly nabbed a great stagewin in Barcelona
Ok, so nearly doesn’t count but he is clearly a very useful rider and I would’t agree with the “well past his sell by date” description.
I'd go farther than that... and say he's one of the few 'characters' Garmin has...
Without him they’d be even more bland…
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
I find them painfully 'meh'...
nothing awful at all, but aside from Millar and Zabriskie (and that is really only in the US), they are beige. The idea of ‘evil’ Garmin is sadly impossible. They’re ‘nice’, ‘hard working’ and aside from new ‘Bad Boy’ Hunter, second is about their lot. they don’t even lose heroically… except Millar in Barcelona. In other words, it’s the whole ‘damned with faint praise thing’.
And later I’ll duck… I realise how popular they are here. Aside from them being an American team with an anti-drug stance, I can’t work out why…
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
they have a sort of geeky charm, in my opinion
plus – the american team thing counts for a lot here. Finally we seem to know a lot about them – interviews, articles, etc
Agreed
He’s a solid rider, but you could also say the same about many ex-riders who found themselves drummed out of the sport because they committed the same mistake Millar made, perhaps they just weren’t as clever in using the media to express their sorrow.
A few points
-Dekker isn’t sanctioned as a result of irregular bloodvalues but due to a normal ooc test so he has little to do with the bloodpassport discussion except the official version is that he was targeted for re-testing as a result of the passport analysis.
- Dekker could possibly have gotten the same reduction as Ricco if he had helped implicate his suppliers or given useful info. W can’t really know from the outside if he has been unfairly treated compared to Ricco.
- According to Rasmus Damsgaard and Victor Conte (of Balco infamy) some of the most effective doping is the use of EPO, testosterone and other peds that enable you to up your trainingvolume with improved recovery during the off-season. Therefore the timing of the positive test is of little or no significance.
Sorry for the confusion
The first two questions in the post were translations from Dekker’s response in the newspaper article I linked to.
IMO those questions about whether everybody is being treated equally deserve an answer. But Dekker deserved those two year all by himself.
Gerrie Kneteman: If a football player falls he shouts for his mother, if a cyclist falls he yells for his bike.
I agree the equal treatment needs scrutiny and discussion
but I don’t think it needs to be discussed in the context of one individual’s attempt to paint himself as an injured party in an attempt to facilitate his speedy return to racing and public acceptance.
Obviously the process is badly flawed. Personally , in an ideal world I think sanctioning should be lifted out of the hands of national federations and even out of the hands of sport-specific bodies like the UCI. Suspicion will always be that they go hard on scapegoats and protect high-profile riders in an effort to protect the sport’s image. Ideally a cyclist should be judged by the same court as a skier, a footballer, a weightlifter or a track and field-athlete.
True
But the fact that the scrutiny and discussion does not happen gives dopers the ammunition for injured party painting.
Gerrie Kneteman: If a football player falls he shouts for his mother, if a cyclist falls he yells for his bike.
This is always the case though. The “equal treatment” argument by the riders. I myself don’t know where the line is drawn. It comes down to statues, and the moral vs sporting debate. I hate to mention his name again, but this is one degree closer to the Valverde case.
It’s almost a spectrum
Riis - Zabel - Landis/Hamilton - Ricco - Dekker - Basso - Valverde.
These are just example names, and disagree if you will, but we’ve got the admitting on the one end Riis and Zabel, who face little to no punishment, but certainly doped in competition to win. Then the certain cheats who were caught in competition but deny deny deny. Then those who were caught in competition who “sing” – Ricco. Then those who were a whole slew of out of competition from Dekker, who admits it, and was positive 1.5 years ago, Basso who “admits it”, kinda … from 2 years ago and never tested positive…to Valverde, who has never tested positive and has his Blood in a bag with EPO from 6-8 years ago.
I contend that these cannot all be treated equally, because they are not equal. The national federations only mess it up. What if Basso or Valverde never did put that blood in their veins? What if? What if that blood was taken by some doctor during a training camp “test” with the threat of one’s job?
OR
What if the whole list is the same? They all cheated in competition with the intention to win and just got caught at different ‘stages’. Who knows?
OR worse…
What if they are cycling giants, who have a detailed and convincing ‘history’, complete with legal testimonies, associates, doctors etc. and they are protected by the sport and corporations, and will never actually ‘test positive’
It’s certainly not a working system.
Basso.
Basso admitted he “intended” to dope. He never admitted he did “put that blood in his veins”, nor was he sanctioned for doing so.
I think we may have been round this block before, but I’ll ask again anyway. What’s your solution?
I think a differentiation is a start
1. between a positive test in a competition period vs involvement at any level.
We have numerous laws for planning criminal activity in which the severity of punishment is lesser than when the criminal activity is enacted.
2. I also believe there needs to be a moratorium/amnesty on suspensions for offenses pre- bio-pass w/ the agreement that the biological passport is a mandatory requisite for competition.
3. Increase the punishment/responsibility of the team/management
4. Salary caps
5. Independantly assigned doctors (or doctors’ aids) who work with the doctors of pro teams.
Those five actions should be a start…but really they may just be sticks in the river, not diverting the ‘cultural’ flow of the sport.
What a problem like this really needs is a principled approach to anti-doping. Where we can achieve a consensus based definition of what “clean cycling” is… from that definition we can say what “unclean cycling” is … and put that as today’s reality. Then you put “clean cycling” in the indeterminate future and ask what steps need to be taken over time to get to that ‘vision’.
This way you build a collaborative consensus based approach, that has a shared vision, amongst all the federations, unions, riders, teams etc. But that’s a whole hell of a lot of work, time and money. Maybe rider fines pay for this ‘union’ from doping violations. Who knows?
I respect Dekker more than Ricco.....
But he real needs to cut out the BS about only resorting to PED’s once during his career. Such a statement is no more believable than Ivan Basso’s “intent to dope” excuse a few years ago.
Again, mistakes were made, and I hope he gets another chance to ride on a top division team after his suspension has expired, but please knock it off with the BS, at the very least have the common sense to say “no comment” when asked about any other possible doping transgressions from the past.
they loooooooooooooooove the injury excuse,
it’s all the rage. I prefer the list of classic excuses someone posted up here before. Cmon guys – a little creativity is nice, we’re not going to believe you anyway.
Dekker was injured in 07/08?
I remember his last race in 2007 was the Tour of Lombardia where he rode a very solid race, even had a chance to sprint for 3rd place. I guess he injured himself over the holiday season?? Those Christmas tree ornaments should be outlawed once and for all, lol. j/k :)
He had hip problems
Appearing and disappearing throughout the whole season.
Gerrie Kneteman: If a football player falls he shouts for his mother, if a cyclist falls he yells for his bike.
In general, his seasons were ver up-and-down.
The pattern was consistent with injury flare-ups, but also consistent with undetected doping. My feeling is that he got the full ban because the pattern looked so suspicious that people were waiting to catch him, so when they did, they came down on him hard. Same thing when people fall and injure themselves microscopically and invisibly the day after a new doping test is brought into play. People make a point of looking double at their blood values, or they see if there’s an old sample to re-test.
Ricco's a no talent ass clown, lol
Pretty much all there is to say. :)
He is looking to make excuses
or else he wouldn’t have brought up his hip injury and what not. We dont need athletes to make statements when they get caught doping, apologies and excuses usually only hurt their cause unless by some crazy twist of events, they’re truly remorseful. Dekker needs to go away for awhile, take his suspension, and we’ll see what he’s got in two years time.
bah deckker
"Racing bikes is for the kids, the rest of us just want to feel like kids on our bikes" - Flying Dog
Just because I can't let it go
I know the Sporza piece is short internet article and not comprehensive but sometimes I wonder why the heck people just get to say the stupidest things without any sort of follow-up question.
Dekker says he is surprised and disappointed with the 2 year ban and wasn’t counting on it. Why the hell not? Has he read the WADA code that sanctions are based on? There is no ambiguity. Unless there are some specific circumstances that 100% clearly do not apply in Dekker’s case, 2 years is the penalty. Why he would expect anything else is beyond me?
Too lazy to translate it myself
Thomas Dekker
“Ricco has tested positive during the Tour on the latest epovariant Cera. I tested positive for EPO at an out-of-competition control in winter, but never used dope during a game. It was only eighteen years later I found positive in rechecking. I really do not understand what the basis for the maximum punishment.
Exactly my point
What is he blabbering about “maximum punishment”? It’s not the maximum punshment it’s the only punishment! There is no sliding scale . Unless you get a reduction for giving info so others can be brought to justice or he can prove it somehow got into his system under extenuating circumstances, two years is what everyone gets.
Dekker has admitted to taking it deliberately and not named names. So why is the nincompoop thinking he will get less than two years? Because he is pretty? Has good teeth? Is generally likeable?
i think it's a sort of
indirect, underhanded – probably not thought out – way of saying ricco shouldn’t get the reduction for having named names. Or that he, dekker, just – 2 years!!!!! Wahhhhh!!!!! It’s not fair! (fucking nihilist)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
