Chicken flies off the handles

[Dr. Maserati]

Predictably he doesn't mention that Breschel was in the exact same situation. Because Breschel rides for Riis and that would damage the chances that chicken thinks he still has of riding for Riis

While your opinion may be accurate it wasn't Breschel - it was Chris Anker Sørensen.

 

[issoisso]

While your opinion may be accurate it wasn't Breschel - it was Chris Anker Sørensen.

At the time several outlets reported the news that a large number of riders was in the same situation. Believe me when I guarantee Breschel was one of them.

I had no idea about Sorensen, though.

 

[ergmonkey]

On the highlighted sentence above - I presume the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are well versed with procedural law principles - and they rejected Rasmussen's appeal against his 2 year suspension.

Yes, CAS is familiar with jus cogens norms of procedural justice. And yes, they upheld Rasmussen's two year ban. However, this point is inapposite in attacking my original point. What CAS did not do is to hold that, in addition to a two-year ban, Rasmussen should be unofficially blacklisted for an indefinite period. CAS also did not reject the judgment Rasmussen won against Rabobank on his wrongful termination suit. CAS has also never condoned coercive UCI intervention in former dopers' present contract negotiations. In other words, intentionally or not, you're completely speaking past the issue I raised.

 

[The GCW]

Robbery

Rasmussen got robbed. And I felt robbed when Rasmussen got pulled from the Tour. That was a low point in Tour history when Rasmussen and fans got robbed.

 

[Michele]

A new spin. I actually think the possibility of his words getting twisted is pretty decent and his explanation sounds reasonable. But who knows.

I'd be interested if he really is talking to a Pro Tour team.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasmussen-responds-to-stories-in-the-media

Which could be the team interested in him?
I dont think Astana but any other team which doesnt have a GC rider lets say for a race like Giro or Vuelta.

 

[hfer07]

Rasmussen got robbed. And I felt robbed when Rasmussen got pulled from the Tour. That was a low point in Tour history when Rasmussen and fans got robbed.

you have recognize that ASO forced the pull out, due to the blow by Vino, the Codofis rider & the OP affair still breathing on AC's neck-and nevertheless the fact that Riis had recently confessed to dope for his 96 TDF title- so he was the last sacrifice to make in order to stop the landslide the 07 tour was heading to.

besides that, the 07 TDF in my opinion was one of the most exiting ones in the decade.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, CAS is familiar with jus cogens norms of procedural justice. And yes, they upheld Rasmussen's two year ban. However, this point is inapposite in attacking my original point. What CAS did not do is to hold that, in addition to a two-year ban, Rasmussen should be unofficially blacklisted for an indefinite period. CAS also did not reject the judgment Rasmussen won against Rabobank on his wrongful termination suit. CAS has also never condoned coercive UCI intervention in former dopers' present contract negotiations. In other words, intentionally or not, you're completely speaking past the issue I raised.

I actually assumed - perhaps wrongly - that you had some legal viewpoint as you mentioned "procedural irregularities" and "if you have no familiarity with procedural law principles, you might want to sit this one out".

Furthermore - Rasmussen did not win his case against Rabobank for 'wrongful termination'...
A Dutch court justice ordered that Team Rabobank had the right to fire 2007 Tour de France leader Michael Rasmussen, but that the 34 year-old Danish cyclist was entitled to €700,000 in contract fees and interest, according to Agr. Cyclingnews article July 2008.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Which could be the team interested in him?

Radioshack is perfect for him. Where else can a 30-something, past their prime rider with an ambiguous history of cheating (Chicken never tested positive, mind you) go?

 

[spanky wanderlust]

rasmussen did not get robbed. he broke the rules, got busted, appealled and lost, and then served his suspension. that part is all routine.

(rabobank and menchov did get robbed, but that is another thread altogether)

what makes his story different is that he got caught up in a p***ing war between the ASO and UCI, which have all treated his case criminally. the problem did not start when he was removed from the tour. he should never have been allowed to start. the UCI should be brought to justice for their shameful tactics here. but they won't be.

and his story is different from others in that he has done everything wrong since. if he had sat out his sentence and prepared himself for a return, with all of the necessary politics and pr, he might have fared better. as it is, it is unclear how much "blackballing" is going on.

what is clear is that ras is not doing his part. not even close. he is a maelstrom of uncontrolled toxicity. blech. what organization is going to take that on? i wouldn't. seriously, he all but threatened the life of the head of his national federation today--OUT LOUD, IN A PRESS CONFERENCE! as if jasper wolle is responsible for ras's doping. the chicken is seriously (and dangerously) delusional.

the simple facts are that he broke the rules and has done absolutely nothing since to help his case. whether he is being blackballed or not is hard to tell. but it shoud be easy to see that he has not taken any responsibility for his actions. a little repentance and honesty would go a long way towards helping his cause. he doesn't have to cry like millar or be a total douche like ricco, but just give us something to work with besides the unrepentant, paranoid, delusional psychobabble. please.

 

[ergmonkey]

I actually assumed - perhaps wrongly - that you had some legal viewpoint...
Furthermore - Rasmussen did not win his case against Rabobank for 'wrongful termination'...

Rasmussen did, in fact, sue for wrongful termination. The basis of a claim and the judgment rendered are separate questions. Moreover, Rabobank's "right" to fire Rasmussen does not negate a claim for wrongful termination. Rabobank had a legal right to not continue employing Rasmussen in the sense that personal services contracts are not specifically enforced for many reasons familiar to anyone who has studied contract law. Rather, the remedy provided to the plaintiff in such cases is monetary compensation for damages. In this sense, there was a "right" to breach the contract and wrongfully terminate employment only insofar as such breach would subject the employer to court ordered sanctions.

If you need someone to remind you of any "procedural irregularities" in this case, at least consider that the rule called for sanctions after three (3) whereabouts violations--not two. Moreover, reporting of such violations from a national federation to the UCI was irregular. This only scratches the surface, but feel free to look up more. I look forward to the next ad hominem attack/"response"...

 

[pmcg76]

rasmussen did not get robbed. he broke the rules, got busted, appealled and lost, and then served his suspension. that part is all routine.

(rabobank and menchov did get robbed, but that is another thread altogether)

what makes his story different is that he got caught up in a p***ing war between the ASO and UCI, which have all treated his case criminally. the problem did not start when he was removed from the tour. he should never have been allowed to start. the UCI should be brought to justice for their shameful tactics here. but they won't be.

and his story is different from others in that he has done everything wrong since. if he had sat out his sentence and prepared himself for a return, with all of the necessary politics and pr, he might have fared better. as it is, it is unclear how much "blackballing" is going on.

what is clear is that ras is not doing his part. not even close. he is a maelstrom of uncontrolled toxicity. blech. what organization is going to take that on? i wouldn't. seriously, he all but threatened the life of the head of his national federation today--OUT LOUD, IN A PRESS CONFERENCE! as if jasper wolle is responsible for ras's doping. the chicken is seriously (and dangerously) delusional.

the simple facts are that he broke the rules and has done absolutely nothing since to help his case. whether he is being blackballed or not is hard to tell. but it shoud be easy to see that he has not taken any responsibility for his actions. a little repentance and honesty would go a long way towards helping his cause. he doesn't have to cry like millar or be a total douche like ricco, but just give us something to work with besides the unrepentant, paranoid, delusional psychobabble. please.

I dont think Robabank got robbed by Rasmussen, they knew where he was and played ignorant. Menchov, Boogerd & other Rabobank riders have been linked to doping affairs so they aint all innocent either.

Personally I think all dopers should be treated equally when they comeback.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Rasmussen did, in fact, sue for wrongful termination. The basis of a claim and the judgment rendered are separate questions. Moreover, Rabobank's "right" to fire Rasmussen does not negate a claim for wrongful termination. Rabobank had a legal right to not continue employing Rasmussen in the sense that personal services contracts are not specifically enforced for many reasons familiar to anyone who has studied contract law. Rather, the remedy provided to the plaintiff in such cases is monetary compensation for damages. In this sense, there was a "right" to breach the contract and wrongfully terminate employment only insofar as such breach would subject the employer to court ordered sanctions.

If you need someone to remind you of any "procedural irregularities" in this case, at least consider that the rule called for sanctions after three (3) whereabouts violations--not two. Moreover, reporting of such violations from a national federation to the UCI was irregular. This only scratches the surface, but feel free to look up more. I look forward to the next ad hominem attack/"response"...

Firstly - I did not make an 'ad hominem' attack (please, point it out) - I quoted your original post, which I assumed had some other point than your opinion.

I am not a lawyer - but Rasmusen missed 2 OOC tests by the UCI and 2 OOC tests by the Danish Federation.
Missing 3 tests in an 18 month period means you have violated the anti doping rules;

'WADA CODE 2.4'
availability for Out-of-Competition Testing, including
failure to file required whereabouts information and
missed tests which are declared based on rules which
comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any
combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures
within an eighteen-month period as determined by
Anti-Doping Organizations with jurisdiction over the
Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation

 

[spanky wanderlust]

I dont think Robabank got robbed by Rasmussen, they knew where he was and played ignorant. Menchov, Boogerd & other Rabobank riders have been linked to doping affairs so they aint all innocent either.

Personally I think all dopers should be treated equally when they comeback.

agreed. they were robbed by the uci. if ras is not allowed to start, menchov remains team leader, not domestique for what turned out to be a spectre. not that i believe menchov would have beat 'berto, but he might have done some damage to some others that ended up ahead of him. that's all i was thinking.

as for other suspected doping links, that doesn't separate them from other teams, so it's a wash.

re: treating dopers equally. team management and sponsors have to be happy with the riders. ras has not helped himself here. nor has ricco. these guys are liabilities, just waiting to blow up in the face of the sponsors. whereas, basso and vino have been model citizens in their exiles. this has nothing to do with uci regulations.

 

[blaxland]

I agree with earlier posts that Michael Rasmussen is an extremely difficult, weird guy, but I am still disappointed with Cyclingnews for not contextualizing this story better. The circumstances around the Rasmussen case are interesting, and he does have reason to believe that he's been treated much more harshly than most. Rasmussen's de facto lifetime ban from top-level racing compared to the treatment of Vino (who actually tested positive at the same time) and riders like Basso says a lot about the power dynamics of the sport.

None of this is to justify wishing death upon anyone. I just think Cyclingnews missed an opportunity to write something more provocative and meaningful.

+1 agree.....I for one can't wait to see him riding at the top again soon........just dont do any talking michael...

 

[blaxland]

+1000
Not even his own national federation backed him up, and that's the highest level of distrust someone can ever get-so which team can barely show any interest in signing a guy like him at all?

Maybe he can join Valverde/Alonso new team..............

 

[afpm90]

While your opinion may be accurate it wasn't Breschel - it was Chris Anker Sørensen.

But Sorensen only missed one test and it was last year. I think isso was saying that Breschel missed two doping tests and, as Michael Rasmussen, in 2007.

 

[Night Rider]

Rasmussen got robbed. And I felt robbed when Rasmussen got pulled from the Tour. That was a low point in Tour history when Rasmussen and fans got robbed.

Chicken robbed himself, no sympathy here.

 

[issoisso]

But Sorensen only missed one test and it was last year. I think isso was saying that Breschel missed two doping tests and, as Michael Rasmussen, in 2007.

That's what I'm saying. I don't know what the situation is with Sorensen, though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But Sorensen only missed one test and it was last year. I think isso was saying that Breschel missed two doping tests and, as Michael Rasmussen, in 2007.

First part is true - but the only CSC/Saxo rider I ever heard about missing an OOC test is Sørensen.
I have never heard anything (rumour or factual) about Breschel.

Just on the second part where you said "it was last year", the rules are "Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period'.

Of course this is what led to Rasmussens problems as he missed 2 Danish OOC tests and was twice late notifying the UCI of his intended movements.

 

[craig1985]

agreed. they were robbed by the uci. if ras is not allowed to start, menchov remains team leader, not domestique for what turned out to be a spectre. not that i believe menchov would have beat 'berto, but he might have done some damage to some others that ended up ahead of him. that's all i was thinking.

as for other suspected doping links, that doesn't separate them from other teams, so it's a wash.

re: treating dopers equally. team management and sponsors have to be happy with the riders. ras has not helped himself here. nor has ricco. these guys are liabilities, just waiting to blow up in the face of the sponsors. whereas, basso and vino have been model citizens in their exiles. this has nothing to do with uci regulations.

Telling Bruyneel that it is his team and he is in whether Hog likes it or not?

 

[Ferminal]

Telling Bruyneel that it is his team and he is in whether Hog likes it or not?

Was only the truth.

 

[ergmonkey]

I am not a lawyer - but...

WADA CODE 2.4
availability for Out-of-Competition Testing, including
failure to file required whereabouts information and
missed tests which are declared based on rules which
comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any
combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures
within an eighteen-month period as determined by
Anti-Doping Organizations with jurisdiction over the
Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation

About that much, you are certainly correct. A lawyer would not quote a statute which went into effect on January 1, 2009 when referencing conduct which occurred in 2007. As I said in an earlier post, the details matter.

In fact, all that I said in my original post was that I would have liked for Cyclingnews to have included more of the details. That being said, I was glad to see the follow-up story posted later on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

About that much, you are certainly correct. A lawyer would not quote a statute which went into effect on January 1, 2009 when referencing conduct which occurred in 2007. As I said in an earlier post, the details matter.

In fact, all that I said in my original post was that I would have liked for Cyclingnews to have included more of the details. That being said, I was glad to see the follow-up story posted later on.

You're right it is the details - Rasmussen actually violated UCI rules 15.3 - 15.5.

15.3
Evading Sample collection or, after notification as authorized under these Anti-Doping Rules,
refusing, or failing without compelling justification, to submit to Sample collection or, regarding
the Riders referred to in article 122, to check in for Sample collection.

15.4. Violation of the requirements regarding Rider availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including
failure to provide required whereabouts information and missed tests as set forth in article 86.

15.5. Tampering, or Attempting to tamper, with any part of Doping Control.
___
To get back to your point about what Cyclingnews covered - below is what CN originaly wrote, which is an accurate assesment of the Rasmussen case unfolded.

Rasmussen was removed from the 2007 Tour de France while leading the race. He was later suspended for two years for violating the whereabouts requirements, having lied as to where he was while preparing for the Tour. He returned the end of last season with a small Mexican team and this year rides for the Italian Continental team Miche Silver Cross

 

[ergmonkey]

You're right it is the details - Rasmussen actually violated UCI rules 15.3 - 15.5.

15.3
Evading Sample collection or, after notification as authorized under these Anti-Doping Rules,
refusing, or failing without compelling justification, to submit to Sample collection or, regarding
the Riders referred to in article 122, to check in for Sample collection.

15.4. Violation of the requirements regarding Rider availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including
failure to provide required whereabouts information and missed tests as set forth in article 86.

15.5. Tampering, or Attempting to tamper, with any part of Doping Control.

He violated all three sub-sections? I'd be interested to see you present a prima facie case of a violation for each sub-section individually. I would caution, though, that your conceding that you are "not a lawyer," is not a good reason to then apply specious legal reasoning; it's a reason for you to leave the game altogether.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He violated all three sub-sections? I'd be interested to see you present a prima facie case of a violation for each sub-section individually. I would caution, though, that your conceding that you are "not a lawyer," is not a good reason to then apply specious legal reasoning; it's a reason for you to leave the game altogether.

My apologies - I had no idea I was applying specious legal reasonings. If I knew what that meant I can assure you I would not do it again.

Can I still play if I can bring facts and common sense?

The CAS Panel consideredthat Michael Rasmussen violated articles 15.3 and 15.5 of the Anti-
Doping Rules of the International Cycling Federation (UCI) because:
• He did not announce his new location to the UCI which prevented the Danish Anti-
Doping Agency (ADD) from making a doping control at his domicile on 6 April 2007;
• He was too late in transmitting information relating to his new whereabouts in June 2007;
• He voluntarily transmitted erroneous whereabouts information which prevented the ADD
from making a doping control on 21 June 2007.