Log in:  

Register

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

25 Jan 2018 00:36

Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.


Yes because they were strongarmed by the UCI and ASO. Remember the infamous email McQuaid accidental sent to Rasmussen?
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 08:52

thehog wrote:
Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.


Yes because they were strongarmed by the UCI and ASO. Remember the infamous email McQuaid accidental sent to Rasmussen?
More time travel? That email was long after, in 2010
In February 2010 Rasmussen sent an e-mail to McQuaid informing him that he had the possibility of a ride with Astana - Vino had told him the team were keen to sign him - and asked McQuaid to confirm that no obstacles would be placed in the way of this happening (an earlier attempt to return with Ceramica Flamia appeared to have been blocked by the UCI). Having got no reply to that e-mail Rasmussen sent a second message eight days later, in which he insisted McQuaid answer his question. The next day Rasmussen found an e-mail from McQuaid in his inbox, apparently intended for UCI Secretary Gilliane Rappaz but accidently sent to the Dane
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 12:46

thehog wrote:
Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.


Yes because they were strongarmed by the UCI and ASO. Remember the infamous email McQuaid accidental sent to Rasmussen?


NB, as noted the UCI was pivotal in the removal of Rasmussen regardless of who fired the gun.

2010 Michael Rasmussen had a contract offer after his ban. Pat sent this to Rasmussen by accident - it was meant for a UCI secretary. '”This makes me even more want to tell him to Fxxx Off - but give me a couple of words which says the same and gets him off my back.
Thanks Pat"
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:00

thehog wrote:
thehog wrote:
Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.


Yes because they were strongarmed by the UCI and ASO. Remember the infamous email McQuaid accidental sent to Rasmussen?


NB, as noted the UCI was pivotal in the removal of Rasmussen regardless of who fired the gun.

2010 Michael Rasmussen had a contract offer after his ban. Pat sent this to Rasmussen by accident - it was meant for a UCI secretary. '”This makes me even more want to tell him to Fxxx Off - but give me a couple of words which says the same and gets him off my back.
Thanks Pat"
Let's get this straight Hoggy: in 2010, McQuaid sent an email which, through the manipulation of time in Aigle, arrived back in 2007 and was instrumental in getting Rabo to pull Rasmussen from the Tour. Have I got this right?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:21

fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:
thehog wrote:
Netserk wrote:ASO didn't eject Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him.


Yes because they were strongarmed by the UCI and ASO. Remember the infamous email McQuaid accidental sent to Rasmussen?


NB, as noted the UCI was pivotal in the removal of Rasmussen regardless of who fired the gun.

2010 Michael Rasmussen had a contract offer after his ban. Pat sent this to Rasmussen by accident - it was meant for a UCI secretary. '”This makes me even more want to tell him to Fxxx Off - but give me a couple of words which says the same and gets him off my back.
Thanks Pat"
Let's get this straight Hoggy: in 2010, McQuaid sent an email which, through the manipulation of time in Aigle, arrived back in 2007 and was instrumental in getting Rabo to pull Rasmussen from the Tour. Have I got this right?


Calm down their solider, I know you like to pretend you know everything but one who is good at discussion listens to all sides.

The email was shown and as stated to demonstrate the influence the UCI applies to a given situation. Yes Rabobank pulled Rasmussen from the 2007 Tour but only after considerable pressure from ASO and the UCI (even though the UCI was aware of the whereabouts violation at the time).

It’s not too difficult to understand the point being made unless you’re trying to derail a good thread? :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:30

thehog wrote:Calm down their solider, I know you like to pretend you know everything but one who is good at discussion listens to all sides.

The email was shown and as stated to demonstrate the influence the UCI applies to a given situation. Yes Rabobank pulled Rasmussen from the 2007 Tour but only after considerable pressure from ASO and the UCI (even though the UCI was aware of the whereabouts violation at the time).

It’s not too difficult to understand the point being made unless you’re trying to derail a good thread? :cool:
LOLZ. I take my hat off to you, Hoggy.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:37

fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:Calm down their solider, I know you like to pretend you know everything but one who is good at discussion listens to all sides.

The email was shown and as stated to demonstrate the influence the UCI applies to a given situation. Yes Rabobank pulled Rasmussen from the 2007 Tour but only after considerable pressure from ASO and the UCI (even though the UCI was aware of the whereabouts violation at the time).

It’s not too difficult to understand the point being made unless you’re trying to derail a good thread? :cool:
LOLZ. I take my hat off to you, Hoggy.


No hats required.

I take it you don’t want a discussion? up to you :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:46

thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:Calm down their solider, I know you like to pretend you know everything but one who is good at discussion listens to all sides.

The email was shown and as stated to demonstrate the influence the UCI applies to a given situation. Yes Rabobank pulled Rasmussen from the 2007 Tour but only after considerable pressure from ASO and the UCI (even though the UCI was aware of the whereabouts violation at the time).

It’s not too difficult to understand the point being made unless you’re trying to derail a good thread? :cool:
LOLZ. I take my hat off to you, Hoggy.


No hats required.

I take it you don’t want a discussion? up to you :cool:
What's to discuss? Everyone agrees pressure was applied to get Rasmussen thrown off the Tour. Someone upthread even noted that this made the Rasmussen case more relevant to the Froome situation than some realised. You don't appear to want to discuss how silly it is to claim a 2010 email sent in error supports such actions in 2007 and, TBH, I'm laughing too much at the suggestion that it does to really do such a trivial discussion justice. So, in short, what is there to say?

Unless, you have comments on the disrepute clause, the Valverde case, something relevant to Lappartient's actions?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

25 Jan 2018 13:50

fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:Calm down their solider, I know you like to pretend you know everything but one who is good at discussion listens to all sides.

The email was shown and as stated to demonstrate the influence the UCI applies to a given situation. Yes Rabobank pulled Rasmussen from the 2007 Tour but only after considerable pressure from ASO and the UCI (even though the UCI was aware of the whereabouts violation at the time).

It’s not too difficult to understand the point being made unless you’re trying to derail a good thread? :cool:
LOLZ. I take my hat off to you, Hoggy.


No hats required.

I take it you don’t want a discussion? up to you :cool:
What's to discuss? Everyone agrees pressure was applied to get Rasmussen thrown off the Tour. Someone upthread even noted that this made the Rasmussen case more relevant to the Froome situation than some realised. You don't appear to want to discuss how silly it is to claim a 2010 email sent in error supports such actions in 2007 and, TBH, I'm laughing too much at the suggestion that it does to really do such a trivial discussion justice. So, in short, what is there to say?

Unless, you have comments on the disrepute clause, the Valverde case, something relevant to Lappartient's actions?



Well that’s just silly as I never stated the email was in relation to the 2007 ejection. That’s something you made up all on your own. Not sure why? My point was clear, the UCI have large influence on who races and who doesn’t and will apply pressure if they feel necessary to ensure it occurs.

Simple. Not sure why you’re trying to show off again. You could just join in the conversation like everyone else, yes? :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

25 Jan 2018 19:53

For those interested here is the infamous email from McQuaid. I wonder if Lappartient is currently thinking the same on Froome? :cool:

Image
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

25 Jan 2018 19:58

thehog wrote:For those interested here is the infamous email from McQuaid. I wonder if Lappartient is currently thinking the same on Froome? :cool:

Image

I hope he does, he has at least taken a strong stance in the media and I must admit I really applaud that. Sky has gotten away with waaaay too much bullshit at this point..
"Es el mejor con y sin"
WORLD CHAMPION
User avatar Valv.Piti
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,538
Joined: 03 Aug 2015 00:00
Location: Dinamarca, Aalborg

Re: Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

26 Jan 2018 09:23

Valv.Piti wrote:I hope he does, he has at least taken a strong stance in the media and I must admit I really applaud that. Sky has gotten away with waaaay too much bullshit at this point..
I doubt if I will ever understand the thought processes that allow people to condemn McQuaid for making up the rules as he went along and then call on Lappartient to take a leaf from the same playbook. I guess one's a crook and the other's our kind of crook...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

26 Jan 2018 12:25

fmk_RoI wrote:
Valv.Piti wrote:I hope he does, he has at least taken a strong stance in the media and I must admit I really applaud that. Sky has gotten away with waaaay too much bullshit at this point..
I doubt if I will ever understand the thought processes that allow people to condemn McQuaid for making up the rules as he went along and then call on Lappartient to take a leaf from the same playbook. I guess one's a crook and the other's our kind of crook...


This is one of the things that has annoyed me through Cookson's reign. "Why has Cookson allowed this?", "Why hasn't Cookson suspended them?" etc. etc.

The whole point should be that it should never be up to an individual and whilst we're still in a situation where the leader of the UCI can, or is expected to, effectively arbritraily, make decisions without recourse to proper regulations and procedure, there's practically no chance of cycling moving forward.

Cookson mentioned things like "proper governence" on more than one occasion but still got sucked into mouthing off about various things and proved incapable of making significant inroads into the way things are done. Maybe after a few more years we'll evaluate his term differently. My take is that he had the right ideas but lacked the charisma and leadership to properly implement them.
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 434
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

07 Mar 2018 22:17

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-wants-cadf-to-investigate-team-sky/
In an interview with the BBC, Lappartient noted the report and suggested that the CADF should look into its findings.

"We have the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation, they have the power of investigation. I would like them to do this, to see if there is some violation of anti-doping rules."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/43316602
World cycling's governing body should investigate whether Team Sky broke anti-doping rules after "unacceptable" findings in an MPs' report, UCI president David Lappartient says.

The Frenchman told BBC Sport the findings of a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) select committee inquiry "could affect the global credibility of the sport".

The report said Team Sky "crossed an ethical line" by using drugs allowed under anti-doping rules for medical purposes to enhance performance.

"If you are using substances to increase your performances, I think this is exactly what is cheating," Lappartient said.


Ooh! Where's the popcorn? If the DCMS could n't find a WADA infringement how will the UCI?
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,860
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

07 Mar 2018 23:49

Maybe because UCI has other datas, pieces of informations that could be compiled with DCMS's?
User avatar poupou
Member
 
Posts: 751
Joined: 18 Jul 2009 23:27

08 Mar 2018 07:13

at time 1:44 - 2:04 in the BBC video, Lappartient looks like he's having a hard time to not break out in laughter, when asked if the UCI thinks Wiggins is telling the truth about the Sky medical history

BBC: Someone is lying ?
Lappartient: Yes.
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

08 Mar 2018 10:20

Lappartient's comments are an interesting development. Worth Comparing with Uncle Brian saying Sky's reputation should be restored! Zut alors!

And no doubt they've put the wind up Wiggo. While the Dawg might have cheered up a bit. There's a 2012 Tdf on the line after all. Merde!

But if CADF do investigate the problem is that UCI doctor Zorzoli signed off Wiggo's TUEs. The TUEs were dodgy as all hell but they were officially sanctioned. Mon dieu!

If Lappartient could take Sky down with no collateral damage he might pull the trigger. But no way will he sanction an investigation that exposes corruption at the heart of the UCI. Ca pue!
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

08 Mar 2018 10:41

here WP is on the $....the French guy is just going through the motions...saying what must be said to keep up appearances

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,121
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

08 Mar 2018 12:05

Almost certain LADS and CADF already looked at this...
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,427
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

08 Mar 2018 12:07

From Pastronef:

viewtopic.php?p=2231536#p2231536

pastronef wrote:from the Sky thread:

http://www.twitter.com/petercossins

According to @lequipe, the CADF & LADS have already investigated Wiggins' TUEs between 2011-13 and concluded there was no rule-breaking. Only clear evidence of a false declaration would change this
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,427
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Back to top