Chicken rejected by Riis

[Bike Boy]

Not that well informed!

So, it would appear that the source for the Thor whereabouts story and the blacklist seems to be....Mr Rasmussen!

Which doesn't exactly inspire confidence...

Don't say that...

 

[IlCobraFan]

FWIW I think UCI did an Al Capone on Rasmussen, ie they nailed him for what they could prove (whereabouts) because they knew he was as dirty as hell but had no solid proof.

Exactly, you get the point. There were no proofs. Rasmussen never broke any rules. Yes, he lied for various reasons (who knows..), and you could say that it makes him suspicious but does that make him guilty? No it doesn't.

The whole case is a complete joke.

About whereabouts: Rasmussen only got 2 warnings from UCI.

 

[El Pistolero]

Exactly, you get the point. There were no proofs. Rasmussen never broke any rules. Yes, he lied for various reasons (who knows..), and you could say that it makes him suspicious but does that make him guilty? No it doesn't.

The whole case is a complete joke.

About whereabouts: Rasmussen only got 2 warnings from UCI.

He did break the rules. While I don't agree with what they've done with him(throwing him out of the Tour), but saying he didn't break any rules is just not true.

 

[IlCobraFan]

He did break the rules. While I don't agree with what they've done with him(throwing him out of the Tour), but saying he didn't break any rules is just not true.

What rules?

 

[hrotha]

Wasn't Rasmussen linked to some shady blood doping scheme while he was suspended and preparing for his comeback?

 

[El Pistolero]

What rules?

Not being honest about his whereabouts.

It actually is a legitimate reason to get fired of your team.

 

[IlCobraFan]

Not being honest about his whereabouts.

No.

Rasmussen was suspended for two years by the Monaco cycling federation for missing out-of-competition doping controls.

He only missed 2 UCI doping controls (like Breschel did years ago) = not breaking any rules.

Rasmussen was banned 2 years because of UCI and their politics.

 

[L'arriviste]

Wasn't Rasmussen linked to some shady blood doping scheme while he was suspended and preparing for his comeback?

Yes. He was linked to the Stefan Matschiner case along with Kohl and others but he was obviously outside Austrian jurisdiction when the trial happened. He is supposed to have helped finance the hardware for the task. See this thread.

 

[El Pistolero]

No.

Rasmussen was suspended for two years by the Monaco cycling federation for missing out-of-competition doping controls.

He only missed 2 UCI doping controls (like Breschel did years ago) = not breaking any rules.

Rasmussen was banned 2 years because of UCI and their politics.

That still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't honest about his whereabouts.

 

[IlCobraFan]

That still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't honest about his whereabouts.

And that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't punished due to dishonesty regarding whereabouts.

Why? There was no rule about that.



If the rules had been used correctly, Michael Rasmussen would have been the winner of Tour de France 2007.

 

[biopass]

No.

Rasmussen was suspended for two years by the Monaco cycling federation for missing out-of-competition doping controls.

He only missed 2 UCI doping controls (like Breschel did years ago) = not breaking any rules.

Rasmussen was banned 2 years because of UCI and their politics.

Your wrong.

Rasmussen was suspended for violating rule 15.3 and 15.5 in the former Anti Doping Rules, which is evading controls in a premeditated manner and preventing controls being undertaken.

So clearly, he broke the rules.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?source=SiteSearch&id=NTU0OA&MenuId=MTI1ODA&CharValList=&CharTextList=&CharFromList=&CharToList=&txtSiteSearch=Rasmussen&LangId=1

 

[Bike Boy]

Exactly, you get the point. There were no proofs. Rasmussen never broke any rules. Yes, he lied for various reasons (who knows..), and you could say that it makes him suspicious but does that make him guilty? No it doesn't.

The whole case is a complete joke.

About whereabouts: Rasmussen only got 2 warnings from UCI.

If I remember correctly the 2 warnings from UCI and 1 warning from DCU was added = 3 warnings. And the rules back then did say that warnings from different aggencies may be added.
It was a mesh of a case, UCI were very embarrassed that the flaws of the whereabout systems was exposed, so they needed to set an example.

Any way I didn't intent to suddenly discuss this case again. As I indicated in another thread It's also about power, look at Vinokourov, money is no problem, he's practically got his own team. Rasmussen is just not a person with the same kind influence

 

[IlCobraFan]

Your wrong.

Rasmussen was suspended for violating rule 15.3 and 15.5 in the former Anti Doping Rules, which is evading controls in a premeditated manner and preventing controls being undertaken.

So clearly, he broke the rules.

"So clearly, he broke the rules".

So because UCI says he broke the rules, they are right?

And no he didn't violate any rules. If you disagree, well then prove it. With no proofs it can be pretty hard though.

 

[Bike Boy]

Your wrong.

Rasmussen was suspended for violating rule 15.3 and 15.5 in the former Anti Doping Rules, which is evading controls in a premeditated manner and preventing controls being undertaken.

So clearly, he broke the rules.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?source=SiteSearch&id=NTU0OA&MenuId=MTI1ODA&CharValList=&CharTextList=&CharFromList=&CharToList=&txtSiteSearch=Rasmussen&LangId=1

But whereabouts violations wasn't santionced after that rule back then, I mean it changed with MR's case. Today the rules are very clear, back then, not so much

 

[El Pistolero]

And that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't punished due to dishonesty regarding whereabouts.

Why? There was no rule about that.



If the rules had been used correctly, Michael Rasmussen would have been the winner of Tour de France 2007.

He got a warning for it, combined with other warnings for missing doping tests --> 3 strikes and you're out.

 

[Bike Boy]

To clarify things a little:

back then, UCI had specific rules for whereabout violations. 3 recorded warnings and you would get penalised. the only problem is the penalty range does (or at least did not) not expand up til 2 years.

It was only because MR admitted to lying they were able to convict him after the rules mentioned above equals a 2 year ban.
Clearly it's a question of interpretation. UCI didn't hesitate to employ the most strik interpretation possible.

 

[biopass]

But whereabouts violations wasn't santionced after that rule back then, I mean it changed with MR's case. Today the rules are very clear, back then, not so much

Rasmussen admitted he gave wrong WAI's.

Basically he admitted he didnt want to be checked prior to the Tour 2007.

I know that isnt a confession wether he doped or not, but still its a clear violation of anti doping rule 15.3.

 

[Bike Boy]

Rasmussen admitted he gave wrong WAI's.

Basically he admitted he didnt want to be checked prior to the Tour 2007.

I know that isnt a confession wether he doped or not, but still its a clear violation of anti doping rule 15.3.

But the point is the entire whereabouts system relied on the warnings.
3 recorden warnings would be a violation of the whereabout rules, not the doping rules.

The way the system was constructed it was possible to speculate in how to avoid controls (of course your team can still fire you), which MR took full advantage of. It's a necessary flexibility, otherwise a lot of innocent riders with hangovers would have a problem.

But you are right, trying to avoid controls is a violation of the doping rules. but MR. never admitted to this crime, he only admitted to lying.
Which he had to because there was no way he could proof being in Mexico.
Even if he was willing to admit, deliberately avoiding controls, it's controversial, because he had already been punished once for this crime (by recieving a warning)
So technically he was punished 2 times for the same crime.

What makes this case a mess is the confused mix of whereabout rules and doping rules. UCI tried so hard to hand over the third and cruical warning, so they could open a case. The very foundation for this case wase the violation of the whereabout rules, but suddenly when the case opened. the foundation was forgotten about and instead it became about doping rules violation.

Why bother about the last warning? they already had enough on him to open a doping case?

 

[Bike Boy]

Today the rules state explicitely that you can be charged for violating the doping rules if it can be proven that you lied about your whereabouts in order to avoid a test.
So no confusion any more, thank god.

 

[Bike Boy]

and also, today 3 recorded warnings can give 2 years

 

[Suedehead]

Punished twice for the same offence I don´t know about. Apparently MR missed two test from AntiDopingDenmark during the same period. They notified the UCI which should have put two and two together according to rule 15.4 in the old charter.
More to read in danish here: http://www.idan.dk/Nyheder/428rasmussenanalyse.aspx

 

[Bike Boy]

Rasmussen admitted he gave wrong WAI's.

Basically he admitted he didnt want to be checked prior to the Tour 2007.

I know that isnt a confession wether he doped or not, but still its a clear violation of anti doping rule 15.3.

OMG, why didn't I pick up the acronym sooner?

 

[La Pandera]

He was good in the Vuelta for several years...
He did not have great wins since his return, but a copple of podiums/top5 results. With a low level team like Miche, so no help whatsoever, that is quit some result. Maybe he can't compete at his old level, but he must be good enough to be captain of some lower pro-conti team.

but your other comments still stands I think...

...yes he was on a "lower level team" but he was competing against lower level competition so the theory of his being without able support is not one supported by the available facts. His problem is that his reputation preceeds him and as was often mentioned previously, he's past his prime at 36 years of age. Additionally the fact that someone has offered to sponsor him individually (salary wise) while he rides for whatever team is willing to take him IMO only increases the liklihood that he will pursue his own interests once the racing starts since he won't be beholden financially to whatever team were to pick him up.

I personally would like to see him back competing in the top tier events on at minimum a quality Pro Continental team, but he really hasn't done much in the past 2 years pr-wise to sell himself nor to make himself attractive enough of an option for the top teams to take the risk that he certainly is.

 

[La Pandera]

That's news to me, could you elaborate? Via PM if it's veering into Clinic territory.

Otherwise, Mambo95 has it right. If you were a team boss, why would you ever want the likes of Rasmussen on your team?

If there is a list, can anyone show more current examples? If not, it's impossible not to conclude that the blacklist conspiracy is just a way of making excuses for Rasmussen's poisonous character and utter lack of trustworthiness.

I believe such a list exists or at minimum there are certain riders that top tier teams are discouraged about adding to their rosters without the potential threat of not being invited to particular races and/or not being invited back as a Pro Tour team. Roberto Heras and Koldo Gil are two riders that come to mind that after their suspensions were met with a closed door to any of the top teams when their agents' made inquiries.

 

[La Pandera]

Exactly, you get the point. There were no proofs. Rasmussen never broke any rules. Yes, he lied for various reasons (who knows..), and you could say that it makes him suspicious but does that make him guilty? No it doesn't.

The whole case is a complete joke.

About whereabouts: Rasmussen only got 2 warnings from UCI.

If I'm not mistaken Rassmussen did break the rules. By not being available where he said he was supposed to be he was twice able to avoid being tested. To the best of my recollection according to the rules this is comparable to being caught doping likely because it is assumed that the reason that the rider is avoiding being tested is to avoid testing positive.