• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lappartient is worse for cycling than Cookson?

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Netserk said:
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
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Netserk said:
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"
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
thehog said:
Netserk said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
thehog said:
Netserk said:
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:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
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:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

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

hrk8zc.jpg
 
Valv.Piti said:
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 *** 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...
 
fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
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 *** 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.
 
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?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
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!
 
So. Let's see.

McQuaid publicly called on the Disciplinary Committee to ban Tom Boonen. That was 2009. The Disciplinary Committee decided they could do nothing.

McQuaid publicly called on the Licence Commission to strip Katusha of its licence. That was 2013. CAS ruled that McQuaid and the Licence Commission had no right to refuse Katusha's licence.

Cookson publicly called on the Licence Commission to strip Astana of its licence. That was 2015. The Licence Commission said no.

Lappartient publicly calls on the CADF to find some rule that Sky and Wiggins must have broken, somewhere, anywhere, just something.

Question: how serious do you think McQuaid, Cookson and Lappartient really were in the public calls they made of their various independent bodies and how much do you think such public calls are just a PR façade, meant to put the masses at ease?
 
Also in the latest Froome int:
Asked if he felt this was a case of political posturing on Lappartient’s part, Froome simply responded: “You’d have to ask him that.”
Froome should get like Wiggins on this, start talking about malice and dropping hints as to who it was told the media about the confidential case in the first place.
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
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.

Lappartient dressed as James Bond & laughing at the Brits! :cool:

Supposedly Lappartient is meant to have the new motor fraud strategy relaeased in March. Perhaps he’s already trialling it on the Dawgs bike with extra attention/testing? Not sure Lappartient has the authority over the CADF to order additional target drug tests but he can on motor fraud.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
hfer07 said:
well... So Lappartient just showed his true colours, by playing along with SKY on the "complexity" of Froome's case bvllsh!t :mad:

Same ****, different UCI president

Nah, Lappartien is just f****ng stuck in this case. The rules the UCI itself put in place are a just the worse type of legal pot pourri, they must have been advised by a super expensive law firm at the time that put in place something that allows maximal leeway for super expensive lawyers to trot their stuff, with endless consultations, checks and an overall secrecy. This system allegedly put in place to prevent cronysm and cheating is so complex that it moves at a glacial pace BUT god forbid someone tries to rush it, they would put the whole case in jeopardy on procedural technicalities.

I think Lappartient is just pulling his hair off in bunches because he just can't do squat, sees the image of his sport tarnished, the impotence of his organisation underlined and is basically dependent on RCS or ASO saying "*** it I don't want Froome/Sky in my races" for something to happen.

The man has been gifted a massive bucket of hot diahreaa sitting in the middle of his office and he is not allowed to move it or cover it, just must watch it fester and become a hotspot for every possible subspecie of dung fly...

This is basically a nightmare for him.
 
veji11 said:
hfer07 said:
well... So Lappartient just showed his true colours, by playing along with SKY on the "complexity" of Froome's case bvllsh!t :mad:

Same ****, different UCI president

Nah, Lappartien is just f****ng stuck in this case. The rules the UCI itself put in place are a just the worse type of legal pot pourri, they must have been advised by a super expensive law firm at the time that put in place something that allows maximal leeway for super expensive lawyers to trot their stuff, with endless consultations, checks and an overall secrecy. This system allegedly put in place to prevent cronysm and cheating is so complex that it moves at a glacial pace BUT god forbid someone tries to rush it, they would put the whole case in jeopardy on procedural technicalities.

I think Lappartient is just pulling his hair off in bunches because he just can't do squat, sees the image of his sport tarnished, the impotence of his organisation underlined and is basically dependent on RCS or ASO saying "**** it I don't want Froome/Sky in my races" for something to happen.

The man has been gifted a massive bucket of hot diahreaa sitting in the middle of his office and he is not allowed to move it or cover it, just must watch it fester and become a hotspot for every possible subspecie of dung fly...

This is basically a nightmare for him.

The rules that Cookson put in place :cool:
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Exactly. The only thing worse than a rotten system is a presumably serious and clean system so complicated that it allows rotten people with money and lawyers to, you know, breeze through unscathed...