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: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, 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: 20,699
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: 2,110
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: 20,699
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: 2,110
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: 20,699
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: 2,110
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: 20,699
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: 2,110
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: 20,699
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: 20,699
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..
User avatar Valv.Piti
Moderator
 
Posts: 7,685
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: 2,110
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: 382
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 42x16ss, 70kmph, wansteadimp and 24 guests

Back to top