Michael Rasmussen "Chicken" missed contract with Ceramica Flaminia

[SarahDane]

Rasmussen had a contract ready with Ceramica Flaminia, but UCI adviced them not to sign him = UCI has blacklisted Rasmussen.

Rasmussen says they had big plans with him, they were going to try to helt him win the Giro next year. He still has hopes though, that SOME team out there will sign him. (I really have A LOT of respect for him now, it's very impressive how he can still keep his head high.) I believe Ceramica Flaminia are cowards. And the UCI guys a HYPOCRITS! But it's no suprise AT ALL. And what's even worse, the DCU, (danish cycle union) has played a big part of the blacklisting of Michael.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I'm FURIOUS! He needs to COME BACK!

Sorry for my not-so-perfect english.

 

[Digger]

Rasmussen had a contract ready with Ceramica Flaminia, but UCI adviced them not to sign him = UCI has blacklisted Rasmussen.

Rasmussen says they had big plans with him, they were going to try to helt him win the Giro next year. He still has hopes though, that SOME team out there will sign him. (I really have A LOT of respect for him now, it's very impressive how he can still keep his head high.) I believe Ceramica Flaminia are cowards. And the UCI guys a HYPOCRITS! But it's no suprise AT ALL. And what's even worse, the DCU, (danish cycle union) has played a big part of the blacklisting of Michael.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I'm FURIOUS! He needs to COME BACK!

Sorry for my not-so-perfect english.

I don't believe he should be let back...However I agree with the point you make about the hypocrisy...I totally agree with that.

 

[LugHugger]

I don't believe he should be let back...However I agree with the point you make about the hypocrisy...I totally agree with that.

+1 Good riddance to bad rubbish. Although The Chicken versus Il Pistolero would be worth watching again.
+1 On UCI hypocrisy

 

[raceright]

Personally I would rather see a doper not let back in. I understand the whys that result in athletes doping, the system, teams, UCI, money etc, but I'm so fed up with guys getting caught that I would rather see the back of them and bring more honest and transparent athletes get the recognition they deserve.

In this case, I kind of see his high head holding as being more denial that he did anything wrong. Pretend its not there and it will go away. Unfortunately he didn't.


www.raceright.cc
www.twitter.com/raceright

 

[SarahDane]

I THINK, after having lost the Tour de France victory, and being out for two years, you can't really be in denial anymore. He keeps a positive attitude, and he seems more friendly and open, less selfish, now, than two years ago. I know some of his best friends, and they're really nice, I can't imagine their friends not being nice.

 

[Sheltowee]

I don't believe he should be let back...However I agree with the point you make about the hypocrisy...I totally agree with that.

Look at you statement. Do you see a problem here?

 

[ExRower]

he didnt test positive before so I guess he should have a chance again.

 

[raceright]

What I mean by denial is that he hasn't made any public statement to any wrong doing. At least I haven't seen anything, maybe I am wrong?

Being nice doesn't mean you don't cheat. Can anyone say Tyler?


www.raceright.cc
www.twitter.com/raceright

 

[SarahDane]

Well, he did say he had marital problems, and admitted that he was in Italy, and NOT in Mexico. But okay, I believe he doped.

Still, this blacklisting thing.... Ricco was PROOFED a doper, AND a liar, and he is welcomed back next year, on the SAME TEAM! If Basso, Ricco, Millar, Landis, Sinkewitz, etc. are welcomed back, then Michael should AT LEAST also be welcomed back, he's not even a proofed doper! Not allowing him to race, would be almost as bad as not allowing, fx. Jens Voigt to race, because he's a bikerider, and they think he is doped. It just DOESN'T make any sense.

He did his punishment, and THAT'S IT!

 

[anubisza]

he didnt test positive before so I guess he should have a chance again.

I agree with that. And besides, riders like Basso and Millar come back and sign with ProTour teams after serving bans, and admitting to doping? How can the UCI have the power to blacklist anyone?

 

[pmcg76]

If Vino, Ricco, Sella can all come back then why not Rasmussen, I personally believe riders should be getting 4 year or life bans for a first offence but its difficult when there are riders doping who are not caught, maybe longer bans would encourage them to speak more on doping practices.

 

[elapid]

The UCI has no right to chose who they want to return to the professional peloton (e.g., Basso and Millar) and not (e.g., Heras and possibly Rasmussen). If they have completed their suspension, then they should be allowed to return to professional cycling if a team will pick them up. The UCI is made up of a bunch of hypocritical, money-grabbing cronies, so this behaviour is hardly a surprise, but they make the rules and so should play by them.

As for Rasmussen's suspension, he violated the antidoping regulations by missing four doping controls and lying about his whereabouts. This is the same as a doping offense and hence why he was suspended for two years.

 

[issoisso]

If Vino, Ricco, Sella can all come back then why not Rasmussen, I personally believe riders should be getting 4 year or life bans for a first offence but its difficult when there are riders doping who are not caught, maybe longer bans would encourage them to speak more on doping practices.

The UCI wants lifetime bans for every offence but WADA isn't letting them....yet.

So far they've succeeded in extending the maximum ban to 4 years for a first offence and lifetime for a second offence.

 

[Skafsgaard]

First of all he didn't dope. No evidence has been found to that end. If you claim he has doped, please procure some solid facts, or STFU. I'm annoyed that some people in their armchairs can possibly know who doped and who didnt - if he didnt test positive he didnt dope, end of line.

Second, why shouldnt he be let back? Basso, Valverde and a whole other bunch who indeed has been found guilty of doping are racing - but you think Rasmussen shouldn't be allowed back in?

 

[El Imbatido]

First of all he didn't dope. No evidence has been found to that end. If you claim he has doped, please procure some solid facts, or STFU. I'm annoyed that some people in their armchairs can possibly know who doped and who didnt - if he didnt test positive he didnt dope, end of line.

IIRC i believe upon retrospective testing of his samples showed they were positive for r-epo(?). I believe it was brodeal(?) who posted that or something along those lines. Please don't shoot the messenger i'm only trying to recall what i believe was posted somewhere on this site. I am sure someone will come along and fill us in.

BTW i believe this should probably be moved to the Clinic section of the forum. The road this topic is heading down probably warrants it.

 

[UpTheRoad]

I was under the impression that a rider suspended for doping offenses must forfeit a year's salary in addition to the two years. It is also my understanding that Rasmussen has not paid the fine. I guess that until he does, the UCI will try to block his return.

 

[M Sport]

First of all he didn't dope. No evidence has been found to that end. If you claim he has doped, please procure some solid facts, or STFU.

You are arguing semantics. The facts are that a missed doping control (four to be precise) and misleading about your whereabouts are effectively the same offence as being caught red handed with EPO or steroids.

An analogy would be testing positive for a masking agent, but saying you weren't on the gear.

 

[elapid]

I was under the impression that a rider suspended for doping offenses must forfeit a year's salary in addition to the two years. It is also my understanding that Rasmussen has not paid the fine. I guess that until he does, the UCI will try to block his return.

This is correct, but the UCI is again being inconsistent. They have conveniently forgot this with some athletes, and enforce it with others. However, the fact that he has not paid this fine to date (and is appealing to the CAS) should not prevent him from signing with a professional team and it should certainly not allow the UCI to advise a professional team not to sign a rider.

 

[issoisso]

IIRC i believe upon retrospective testing of his samples showed they were positive for r-epo(?). I believe it was brodeal(?) who posted that or something along those lines. Please don't shoot the messenger i'm only trying to recall what i believe was posted somewhere on this site. I am sure someone will come along and fill us in.

BTW i believe this should probably be moved to the Clinic section of the forum. The road this topic is heading down probably warrants it.

Correct. Dynepo was found in his 2007 Tour samples.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Does anyone have a definite source for saying that the UCI pressured the team not to sign him, like a statement from the team to that effect? Or even a statement that the team was interested in signing him at all? Why would they want to sign him when they will have Ricco on the team?

Susan

 

[Bala Verde]

This is correct, but the UCI is again being inconsistent. They have conveniently forgot this with some athletes, and enforce it with others. However, the fact that he has not paid this fine to date (and is appealing to the CAS) should not prevent him from signing with a professional team and it should certainly not allow the UCI to advise a professional team not to sign a rider.

I believe, to add to your line of thinking, that Rasmussen is arguing that he wasn't caught for a doping offense, but rather for a technical - missed controls or lying about whereabouts - violation, which in the end amounted to a punishment equivalent to using doping.

As far as I know, the charter only applies to convicted dopers, and since Rasmussen hasn't been found guilty of the actual use of doping, he should not be forced to repay his salary.

Besides, I thought the whole legality of the charter that establishes the framework for renumeration after a positive, is being questioned. Untill that issue has been resolved, they can't force him to do anything...

On a racing note, if Rasmussen is welcomed back, I sincerely doubt he has the capability of winning a GT, or even end up high in any of those events, if he is 'clean'. Off the juice, he is a pretty average rider, like Virenque...

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I believe, to add to your line of thinking, that Rasmussen is arguing that he wasn't caught for a doping offense, but rather for a technical - missed controls or lying about whereabouts - violation, which in the end amounted to a punishment equivalent to using doping.

As best I remember, those "technicalities" are considered to be equal to a doping violation, so they carry the same sanctions.

Susan

 

[SarahDane]

I only have danish articles, but yes, both CERAmica Flaminia and Michael Rasmussen are quoted.

 

[Digger]

Look at you statement. Do you see a problem here?

"I don't believe he should be let back...However I agree with the point you make about the hypocrisy...I totally agree with that."

My original statement.

A non repentent guy like Rasmussen should not be let back in, in my view.

However, one thing I could understand would annoy him is when he sees guys like Basso coming back into the sport without a problem. The UCI is showing blatant hypocrisy, but then that's par for the course with this 'organisation'. I hope this is easy enough for you to now understand.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I only have danish articles, but yes, both CERAmica Flaminia and Michael Rasmussen are quoted.

Could you send me those links, please?

Susan