• 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!

The revenge of Rasmussen ...

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
snackattack said:
Breukinks early exit might be proven to be an expensive one
Do you mean Breukink is now providing evidence in Chicken's favor?

snackattack said:
the record shown today proves he was aware of chickens deceit already in april 2007 and according to chickens testimony all heading the branch were.
email correspondence?
 
There you have it:

http://www.nu.nl/sport/2985728/rasmussen-zegt-hij-mexico-plan-met-breukink-besprak.html

It is in Dutch but according to Rasmussen he discussed the Mexico-scenario as early as April with Breukink and the team doctors, amongst who Geert Leinders.

Now he might very well be right and if so we all know then why Breukink c.s. were let go off earlier this year. However what I find hard to stomach is that Rasmussen also declares that he lied about his whereabouts because he wanted to avoid the press. :rolleyes: Huhuh, correctemundo, like anyone will believe that. And you generally discuss that with the medical team why exactly? Or was he discussing with them how to explain/lie to all rational people out there that travelling several time zones before the GT of the year was not stupid or anything?

Rabobank may well be dirty as hell, but that doesn't make Rasmussen Mr. Squeaky Clean by any means. Now he might have been treated p!ss poorly by Rabobank and UCI, but I have no doubt that he was on the gear big time.

Regards
GJ
 
GJB123 said:
There you have it:

http://www.nu.nl/sport/2985728/rasmussen-zegt-hij-mexico-plan-met-breukink-besprak.html

It is in Dutch but according to Rasmussen he discussed the Mexico-scenario as early as April with Breukink and the team doctors, amongst who Geert Leinders.

Now he might very well be right and if so we all know then why Breukink c.s. were let go off earlier this year. However what I find hard to stomach is that Rasmussen also declares that he lied about his whereabouts because he wanted to avoid the press. :rolleyes: Huhuh, correctemundo, like anyone will believe that. And you generally discuss that with the medical team why exactly? Or was he discussing with them how to explain/lie to all rational people out there that travelling several time zones before the GT of the year was not stupid or anything?

Rabobank may well be dirty as hell, but that doesn't make Rasmussen Mr. Squeaky Clean by any means. Now he might have been treated p!ss poorly by Rabobank and UCI, but I have no doubt that he was on the gear big time.

Regards
GJ
He was caught on (dyn)epo, and Leipheimer testified under oath that he discussed using it with him, so I don't think that Rasmussen was potentially the first clean Tour winner in a long time ;)

And why would he want to avoid the press? What huge numbers of journalists were lining up to disturb mr. Rasmussen, not really the most media savvy of riders anyway?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
is doping at all an issue in this case?
i was under the impression that Rasmussen's damage claim is irrespective of whether he doped.
has he been asked about doping by Rabobank lawyers?
 
sniper said:
is doping at all an issue in this case?
i was under the impression that Rasmussen's damage claim is irrespective of whether he doped.
has he been asked about doping by Rabobank lawyers?
No, actually it is not the issue. So you're saying this thread doesn't belong in the clinic? ;)

It's about whether or not the Rabobank team management knew he had lied about his whereabouts. That's the reason he got sacked, and of course if they knew about it, they're complicit in this "crime" themselves, thus giving them no reason to sack him.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
theyoungest said:
No, actually it is not the issue. So you're saying this thread doesn't belong in the clinic? ;)

It's about whether or not the Rabobank team management knew he had lied about his whereabouts. That's the reason he got sacked, and of course if they knew about it, they're complicit in this "crime" themselves, thus giving them no reason to sack him.
thanks
good to have that straight.
 
Actually the case is about whether Rabobank had the right to dismiss him for cause ("ontslag op staande voet") if that is the correct English term for that. You can only dismiss someone for cause immediately of very shortly after you have become aware of the grounds on which you are basing the dismissal for cause. If you wait too long, the grounds clearly weren't enough grounds for dismissal for cause and normal dismissal procedures would apply in the Netherlands.That is what Rasmussen is arguing and why he is caliming loss of income.

Even if he is correct about that (and he think he is), it takes some nerve to sit in a court room and lie under oath that you went to Mexico to avoid running into journalists, since we all very well know by now why he lied about his whereabouts.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
Actually the case is about whether Rabobank had the right to dismiss him for cause ("ontslag op staande voet") if that is the correct English term for that. You can only dismiss someone for cause immediately of very shortly after you have become aware of the grounds on which you are basing the dismissal for cause. If you wait too long, the grounds clearly weren't enough grounds for dismissal for cause and normal dismissal procedures would apply in the Netherlands.That is what Rasmussen is arguing and why he is caliming loss of income.

Even if he is correct about that (and he think he is), it takes some nerve to sit in a court room and lie under oath that you went to Mexico to avoid running into journalists, since we all very well know by now why he lied about his whereabouts.

The english term is "gross misconduct"

Although in the UK it is generally only possible under employment law for matters which are criminal or behaviour endangering others , or misrepresentation - ie claiming at time of appointment you have qualifications or experience you do not or prison sentences for example.

Service contracts can specify other reasons in which immediate contract termination is the remedy - but if Rabo could easily point to such a slamdunk clause, I would guess they would have done it by now.
 
mountainrman said:
The english term is "gross misconduct"

Although in the UK it is generally only possible under employment law for matters which are criminal or behaviour endangering others , or misrepresentation - ie claiming at time of appointment you have qualifications or experience you do not or prison sentences for example.

Service contracts can specify other reasons in which immediate contract termination is the remedy - but if Rabo could easily point to such a slamdunk clause, I would guess they would have done it by now.

The point is they did point to such a clause in the contract on or around July 25 2007.

The point Rasmussen is making is that on or around 25 July 2007 it was not a new fact that came to light there and then but was already well known ad approved by Rabobank-management no less in April 2012. Under Dutch law you can dismiss for cause or gross misconduct if you like (see the definition for termination or dismissal for cause: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobloss/g/terminatedforcause.htm) at the moment you find out about it or shortly thereafter. Therefore according to Rasmussen there was no cause or misconduct (remember he claims it was approved by Rabobank-management) or even if there was it was known well in advance of 25 July 2012 and therefore there was no longer an urgent or compelling reason for immediate termination of the contract on 25 July 2012.

I think he has a point there and it will cost Rabobank a lot of money to make this go away.

Although I think the law doesn't prohibit Rasmussen from making this point, me thinks it is somewhat cynical that Rasmussen is exploiting this possibility knowing full well he is lying under oath and used PED's and knows very well that the same contract he is now using to get his due also states that using PED's is prohibited under the contract. Then again if Rabobank knew he was using PED's (neither party is claiming that by the way) it will be like the thief stealing from the bank robber (no pun intended).

Regards
GJ
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
The point is they did point to such a clause in the contract on or around July 25 2007.

The point Rasmussen is making is that on or around 25 July 2007 it was not a new fact that came to light there and then but was already well known ad approved by Rabobank-management no less in April 2012. Under Dutch law you can dismiss for cause or gross misconduct if you like (see the definition for termination or dismissal for cause: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobloss/g/terminatedforcause.htm) at the moment you find out about it or shortly thereafter. Therefore according to Rasmussen there was no cause or misconduct (remember he claims it was approved by Rabobank-management) or even if there was it was known well in advance of 25 July 2012 and therefore there was no longer an urgent or compelling reason for immediate termination of the contract on 25 July 2012.

I think he has a point there and it will cost Rabobank a lot of money to make this go away.

Although I think the law doesn't prohibit Rasmussen from making this point, me thinks it is somewhat cynical that Rasmussen is exploiting this possibility knowing full well he is lying under oath and used PED's and knows very well that the same contract he is now using to get his due also states that using PED's is prohibited under the contract. Then again if Rabobank knew he was using PED's (neither party is claiming that by the way) it will be like the thief stealing from the bank robber (no pun intended).

Regards
GJ

Rasmussen has already won that part of the case. As far as i understand from danes who follow the case closely. This is about whether Rabobank owes Rasmussen the payment for the rest of his then contract with Rabobank and the TDF victory fee. Or, as Rasmussen claims it, if Rabobank owes Rasmussen several millions the TDF victory would have brought him, like a new and hugely improved contract etc.
 
biopass said:
Rasmussen has already won that part of the case. As far as i understand from danes who follow the case closely. This is about whether Rabobank owes Rasmussen the payment for the rest of his then contract with Rabobank and the TDF victory fee. Or, as Rasmussen claims it, if Rabobank owes Rasmussen several millions the TDF victory would have brought him, like a new and hugely improved contract etc.

Actually he did win that part of the case in first instance and that court decision was appealed by Rabobank so it is still open as far as I can tell.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Cloxxki said:
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/12/22/ploegarts-was-spil-dopinggebruik-bij-de-rabo-ploeg/

This been posted?
Levi testified that Leinders ran the program. Sold him his EPO. Arranged for transfusions in Asutria. Names named. Boogerd, Mensjov, Rasmussen and Dekker on the Matschiner boost.
Levi testified such in the USADA case.

I thought I read all Levi's testimony and it didn't go into that specific detail as to who sold him the gear.

They're claiming they have access to an original affidavit - ie no redacteds.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Cloxxki said:
Wasn't Levi submitting multiple ones, on various issues?

Huh. No idea to be honest. I thought I had read all the affidavits from the USADA website, and do not recall much beyond "I stopped doping in 2006". After a while they all kinda merged into one very homogenous mess.

Was he submitting different ones? That'd explain the Leindeers reference being in an affidavit but not in the USADA one then.

Does he mention anything about saddle sores? Do they require cortisone - pretty sure you can get a TUE for cortisone cream for saddle sores. hrm hrm.
 
The Dutch site claims that Leipheimer named Leinders in his affidavit as having helped him with EPO and also having bought it from him. His affidavit says “I continued to use EPO while with Rabobank in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and was also assisted in using by the Rabobank team doctor xxxxxxxxxxx, from whom I purchased EPO.”

The Dutch site further makes the claims about Humanplasma, but does not say that these came from the Leipheimer affidavit. They are simply combining stories about Rabobank doping from various sources into one story.

Susan
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
It's so sad people cant be honest while everyone knew in 2007 something was fishy at Rabo. Look how T. Dekker now is in the autobus every day in comparison to 2007.

Good thing Rabo stopped their sponsorship.
 
Susan Westemeyer said:
The Dutch site claims that Leipheimer named Leinders in his affidavit as having helped him with EPO and also having bought it from him. His affidavit says “I continued to use EPO while with Rabobank in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and was also assisted in using by the Rabobank team doctor xxxxxxxxxxx, from whom I purchased EPO.”

The Dutch site further makes the claims about Humanplasma, but does not say that these came from the Leipheimer affidavit. They are simply combining stories about Rabobank doping from various sources into one story.

Susan
The claims about Humanplasma come from their own investigations in Vienna, and a book (?) by Matschiner. BTW the source is not a website, yes they do have a website but NRC Handelsblad is one of the leading national newspapers in the Netherlands.

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
It's so sad people cant be honest while everyone knew in 2007 something was fishy at Rabo. Look how T. Dekker now is in the autobus every day in comparison to 2007.

Good thing Rabo stopped their sponsorship.
After 2007 they have completely replaced their management structure so I don't see how it's a good thing that Rabobank quit sponsoring.
 
Matschiner's book does not name the names of the Rabobank riders. I am not even sure if he says Rabobank riders, or simply implies that is the team. The point I was trying to make is that this information was unrelated to the Leipheimer affidavit.

And I said website because that is where I saw the story.

Susan
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
theyoungest said:
After 2007 they have completely replaced their management structure so I don't see how it's a good thing that Rabobank quit sponsoring.
Replacing Theo de Rooy by Erik Breukink is completely replacing the management structure?

You can do better.

And I do think it is a good thing Rabo stopped the sponsorship of the pro-team, it is bad for buisiness to be associated with dope in sports. Numerous examples from the past prove this point.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
zy7onp.jpg