Michael Rasmussen "Chicken" missed contract with Ceramica Flaminia

[caveatum]

That would be as awesome as watching McGuire and Bonds go at it in a home run derby.

Yes, its an entertainment business. I'd love to see Rasmussen on a time-trial bike again.

 

[SteveMedcroft]

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

+1 - this thread is filled with an awful lot of assuming that the original post is based on fact.

 

[Bagster]

+1 - this thread is filled with an awful lot of assuming that the original post is based on fact.

Team comments:

"We had been speaking with Michael Rasmussen since May, and we were ready to enter an agreement, but UCI wasn't too keen on it," team director Giuseppe Petito told the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet.

"We asked Alain Rumpf [UCI ProTour manager] if there could be problems if we signed a contract with Rasmussen, and he emphasized the Austrian matter. The contract is therefore no longer a possibility," said Petito.

Sounds like UCI interference to me. Hypocritical tossers.

 

[richwagmn]

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.

He served his penalty, I don't see why he can't come back. If it's going to be a lifetime ban, they just do it. Don't say two years and mean lifetime.

 

[Anonymous]

Team comments:

"We had been speaking with Michael Rasmussen since May, and we were ready to enter an agreement, but UCI wasn't too keen on it," team director Giuseppe Petito told the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet.

"We asked Alain Rumpf [UCI ProTour manager] if there could be problems if we signed a contract with Rasmussen, and he emphasized the Austrian matter. The contract is therefore no longer a possibility," said Petito.

Sounds like UCI interference to me. Hypocritical tossers.

Sounds to me like the UCI is looking at information not available to the team and saying, "you are wasting your money because he is going down again" to me.

 

[SteveMedcroft]

Sounds like the team was doing it's due diligence before making a major investment in a rider and came up with information that led it to pass. In the quotes above, the team spokesperson admits they were the ones doing the asking. Should the UCI 'not' disclose to one of its business partners (the team) what potential risks they have in taking on a rider when asked? It's easy to make the UCI a scapegoat.

 

[Bagster]

Sounds to me like the UCI is looking at information not available to the team and saying, "you are wasting your money because he is going down again" to me.

But can he go down again if any alleged offense occurred before his suspension.

It seems more that he has ****ed them off with his legal challenges and so they are going to make him suffer for it. Hey if he is guilty of some subsequent offence I have no sympathy for him, I just think that there shouldn't be one approach to him and another to every other doper or alleged doper who has done his time under the UCI's own rules.

 

[Bagster]

Sounds like the team was doing it's due diligence before making a major investment in a rider and came up with information that led it to pass. In the quotes above, the team spokesperson admits they were the ones doing the asking. Should the UCI 'not' disclose to one of its business partners (the team) what potential risks they have in taking on a rider when asked? It's easy to make the UCI a scapegoat.

If that is the true case then its fine, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the judicial impartiality of the UCI. I guess we will see down the track regarding any future actions against Ras. It seems strange though that the UCI would not oppose his return to racing if they had something pending.

 

[SarahDane]

+1 - this thread is filled with an awful lot of assuming that the original post is based on fact.

It is based on fact. XD Plenty of links in here to show it.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Sounds like the team was doing it's due diligence before making a major investment in a rider and came up with information that led it to pass. In the quotes above, the team spokesperson admits they were the ones doing the asking. Should the UCI 'not' disclose to one of its business partners (the team) what potential risks they have in taking on a rider when asked? It's easy to make the UCI a scapegoat.

The team comments make it sound like that, and it's pretty specific (Austrian ring).

I do not know if UCI should disclose this sort of info. I guess the whole judge and party system is not too great. A lot of teams recently have had the "good surprise" to discover that their new riders were suspended just before or after signing them. Maybe the people from Ceramica were more sound in their prospection, but UCI is definitely a tad sketchy as far as consistency goes.

 

[SarahDane]

WOw, I'm very proud now, that my first thread EVER, has 1967 and 60 replies.

For the con-Rasmussen people, do you think Basso and Millar shouldn't have been allowed either? ;-)

 

[usedtobefast]

he did his time. let him race. the backroom crud is more of the same as far as
the UCI goes.