RownhamHill said:
Sounds an interesting book, and a good read. I'll check it out if it comes into my local library!
As I really don't know much about the case I'm hesitant to point out the obvious flaw in this argument above. But, since it's a web forum I figure expertise isn't a pree-requisite!
And the flaw in the logic is this. Even though Rasmussen might have felt it was unfair that he was meant to be tested more than all those famous Mexican cyclists. Even though maybe it is unfair that one cyclist is tested more than another. He still missed the tests. He still lied about his whereabouts. He still very clearly, and very cynically, broke the rules. And got caught doing so. Didn't he?
Now whether or not people in his team were party to that and deflected blame onto him unfairly (which I can well believe), and whether those people deserved punishment too (which I can also well believe), it doesn't really change the fact that he broke rule 1, and so can't really claim t was unfair that he was punished?
I shall use the word "warning" and "actual infraction" to discriminate the stages of process - because the words they use "written" and "recorded" do not convey the severity of the two events.
Read the book - the rules of the time were he had to have three actual infractions from a single agency: he did not - he was cleared to ride the TdF , and moreover had been given a fine by his team for the infractions, so it was clear they knew the score, and also where he was, at the time they claimed they did not know.
Indeed the first "infraction" in 2006 for the danish agency was only a "warning" although wrongfully treated as an "infraction". For most riders the "warnings" after reasonable explanation (like travelled to a race a day early) never translated to infraction, but always did for Rasmussen, despite the fact his explanations were the same being given by other riders - but in that case in violation of all process they went straight to infraction on the basis of one persons decision without discussion and no "warning" which should have triggered evaluation.
Two later "infractions" from the two different agencies referrered to the same actual period , so should have only counted as one "infraction" on clear legal principle..
There was nothing in the rulebook at all, that allowed them to exclude him from the race when already cleared to do so. Indeed the entire storm blew up because of clear breech of confidentiality by UCI regarding the rider whereabouts system, someone seemed to have planted the story on the basis of that privileged knowledge deliberately.
Only in Ramussens case did they add up (dodgy) claims of infraction from two different agencies to arrive at the magic 3 needed to execute any sanction - arguably only two had merit, and even had they been valid 3 he might reasonably have expected a 6 month sanction, rather than the 2 years executed - then extended to life by the unfair blacklisting.
It makes horrible reading and mockery of the idea that there is justice of any form.
And so on and so forth.
In short the danish federation seemed determined to "get him" by any means possible, using creative interpretation of rules. and then UCI did their best to blacklist him after that. Which is wholly in contravention of the ethos of keeping to a set of rules - which should be a two way obligation as binding on the agencies as it was on the riders. Not so. The agencies made up the rules to suit them.
The point I have made on the armstrong thread (which has earned me titles of armstrong supporter, which iscertainly not the case) is that cycling justice must be based on rules which are unambiguous and applied impartially - which means inevitably outside federation jurisdiction - so the spanish cannot featherbed contador, and also outside UCI because of conflict of interests.
It should also be confidential, with no leaks from UCI or federations until all appeals are heard to ensure fair hearing - not as they did to Bruyneel - dump the entire prosecution case without a hint of fair evaluation of evidence into the public domain for trial by media before an appeal. It is errant nonsense to leave Riis with his TDF title when admitting doping, and stripping armstrong of his example. It is even more ridiculous to use US law as the basis for removing SOL, when the rules on WADA SOL must be even handed in every jurisdiction clearly.
And so on...
I have always considered athletics and cycling "justice" to be arbitrary, more about "who likes you" than the facts of the case, and the Rasmussen case reinforced it for me at the time.
This book tells me a lot I did not know in addition to the obvious injustice suffered by Rasmussen which was based on media storm based on selective media leaking and hearsay, not the facts or the rules.
The justice system stinks and to regain any credibility needs rebuilding bottom up outside the petty fiefdoms that presently decide matters on who is "In favour" - which is how Armstrong was protected so long by UCI who had ample time and evidence to begin investigation but never did because he was " a good guy" - Rasmussen brand "bad guy" never stood a chance: the rules were bent and changed to convict him because somebody did not like him much.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram