The Scapegoat

[MellowJohnny]

Great response wow,

I'm still yet to finish this but its certainly interesting,

Not only the UCI but seems the Danish federation had it in for Rasmussen

One question, why is it that the Norwegian and Danish federations are linked together with the testing of athletes? - I understand it may be something as simple as the the British system as England/Wales etc, but was just interested

 

[Hugh Januss]

A former amateur mountain-bike racer alleged Thursday that Tour de France yellow-jersey holder Michael Rasmussen (Rabobank) attempted to trick him into carrying illegal doping products to Europe in 2002.

Whitney Richards, a 38-year-old one-time Colorado-based cross-country racer, told VeloNews that in March of 2002, Rasmussen asked him to transport a box containing cycling shoes. But the shoebox, according to Richards, actually contained bags of an American-made human blood substitute. None of the information Richards provided VeloNews involves allegations of current doping.

Clearly Rasmussen is nothing more than an innocent victim of runaway justice gone bad, and had no ties whatsoever to dope or doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

should I assume that if proper due process had been followed to the letter then a more just resolution would be that he would have completed the tour (probably winning it) and then subsequently been banned and had his title stripped following the investigation into his third strike?

No. If proper due process had been followed Ras would not have started the Tour, having had a whereabouts strike in the 45 days prior to a GT. Even tho UCI over-turned that rule at Annual Congress a few weeks later, in same way Delgado's probenicide was legal because it wasn't at that moment on the UCI list (but would be a few weeks later), that is the rule that was in play at the time. The UCI neglected to apply it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Its also interesting that it was prompted by the Danish branch (DCU), when his rider registration was held in Monaco.

As Moller suggest in interview, Danes had just dropped him from national team and would have been publicly embarrassed had he won Tour, esp when he wouldn't have been at Tour of Denmark, which Danish fed organised. Hence they chose to leak his wherabouts difficulties to save their own shame.

Is actually a more plausible excuse than UCI wanting to mess around with ASO.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I'm really struggling here. What is exactly controversial about the facts of what happened?

To answer that you need to step away from the issue of Rasmussen's guilt or innocence and consider the process.

Ras was trying to game the system, sending in whereabouts as later as poss (as, eg, USADA have pointed out LA did, and - I suspect - many riders do). Because the UCI had a rule saying whereabouts deets should be destroyed as soon as out of date, he was safe filing wrong data as that could never be proved after the fact. It could be proved by testers knocking on his door, but that was a risk worth taking.

At the same time, Moller argues that Danish fed and UCI didn't just game the system, they flouted their own rules. They revealed private data. They didn't follow the (poorly drafted) letter of the law. They operated a blacklist. Etc.

The point is either we have rules or we don't. The end does into justify the means. If we want athletes to follow the rules, so too must we. If our prob is that our rules are badly written, then that is what we need to resolve. Two wrongs don't make a right, not matter how annoying it is too see dopers getting away with flouting the rules.

Divorce the emotion of guilt or innocence and look only at process.

 

[Hugh Januss]

No. If proper due process had been followed Ras would not have started the Tour, having had a whereabouts strike in the 45 days prior to a GT. Even thou UCI over-turned that rule at Annual Congress a few weeks later, in same way Delgado's probenicide was legal because it wasn't at that moment on the UCI list (but would be a few weeks later), that is the rule that was in play at the time. The UCI neglected to apply it.

As Moller suggest in interview, Danes had just dropped him from national team and would have been publicly embarrassed had he won Tour, esp when he wouldn't have been at Tour of Denmark, which Danish fed organised. Hence they chose to leak his wherabouts difficulties to save their own shame.

Is actually a more plausible excuse than UCI wanting to mess around with ASO.

Wasn't this around the time of the rumors that Armstrong/Verbruggin etc. were trying to buy the Tour. Possibly an attempt to drive the price down by making the race and ASO look bad?

 

[fmk_RoI]

One question, why is it that the Norwegian and Danish federations are linked together with the testing of athletes?

Are they? I thought Moller just quoted the Norway stats as they were public domain and an example of the info that was available at the time and would have put some context on the story.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...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.

Landis was similarly outed by Pat announcing confirmation of the B sample (I think???) before Landis knew it at one point. I don't remember the details, but probably in the NY Velocity interview with Kimmage. All of this is as old as Hein running the UCI. I don't have a historic reference for earlier UCI behaviour.

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 real world it just doesn't work like that. There are sides to every political/legal battle and both of them do their best to exploit the rules in their favor. In this case the UCI has infinite powers, riders have none.

Maybe you should get involved in local politics for your neighborhood and local council? You'll get a real feel for human potential and temper your disfunctional ideals.

 

[Race Radio]

Does the book explore why the UCI ignored it's rules about missing OOC's prior to a GT?

At the time the UCI had a rule, miss an OOC test in the month prior to a Grand Tour and you are not allowed to start that Tour. Rass missed 3. The UCI did nothing until the eve of the Tour when they had the Fed say that Ras would not ride the Olympics because of missed tests......why would they do this?

Earlier in 2007 Verbuggen and Armstrong had tried to buy the Tour. The price was too high and they were unable to raise the funds to meet the ASO's price. As chaos enveloped the Tour Patrice Clerc said that it was clear that Verburggen/Armstrong could not meet their price so they set out to devalue the asset as much as possible in order to lower the price......What better way then another doping controversy?

 

[mountainrman]

H'mm. From the answer given it did sound to me as if that would be the case. And as it happened after I posted that response I went to read the book review (which I think, it turns out, I'd also read a couple of months ago, and had informed my vague recollections. . .) (Oh, and thanks for flagging it up fmk_rol, appreciate the review, very nicely put together).

Anyway the salient part about what would have been a just outcome - from the review:



So. Yeah. It does sound to me, that after Rasmussen claimed to be in Mexico in that part of June (incidentally to answer your earlier rhetorical question, I guess this shows it wasn't 'magic how it 'emerged' after all), and after someone contradicted that publicly, then for justice to be served he should have remained in the race pending and investigation, and then been banned and stripped of this title after the investigation found him guilty of a third whereabouts violation. (And yes, we know the subsequent investigation would have found him guilty and banned him because, ermm, it happened and it did.)

I'm really struggling here. What is exactly controversial about the facts of what happened? The guy was playing games with his whereabouts (aka cheating). The guy was stitched up a bit by the authorities. The guy got caught lying in a press conference (a press conference FFS!). The guy got stitched up a lot by his team. The guy finally got banned. That is my understanding - an understanding that has been clarified through posts here this morning (thanks to other posters, who actually seem to be able to have a conversation) but not changed in terms of the broad narrative of it. Is your understanding different? Do you think he wouldn't have subsequently been banned had he not been withdrawn from the race? And if so, why? (Again, these are real questions because I'm interested in an exchange of ideas)

There is an interesting conversation, in my opinion, about the level of sympathy we should have for Rasmussen given the above. Maybe I'm harsh on him. I don't know. Why not engage with the substance of the conversation, or try and clarify points (as others have done here) rather than asking a load of rhetorical questions to try and prove, well prove what exactly?

But yeah, feel free to 'bookmark' the previous post if that's what makes you happy. . .

Sport has rules, and must follow them - until the rules were change.

Missing or erroneous whereabouts information can and should lead to an infraction and there the sanction should end, until enough infractions warrant a decision on exclusion., in Ramussens case that single event led to two infractions for the same period one from the UCI, the other from Danish federation, and that should not be. And only by adding the two agencies up can you get to an excludable offence. But that is the issue, On the strength of knowing that situation he was cleared by all parties to ride - so at the time of the race nobody was arguing the infractions from two agencies should be added together, the agencies redefining the accepted rule book came later...

As for the "his wherebouts report said he was in mexico" leading to the infractions - several issues

(1) that single infraction, was an infraction, indeed the team fined him 10000 euros for it, and they were also sending him tickets to his italian address, to train in the pyrenees for a couple of days with menchov, so the idea the team did not know where he was is farcical.
(2) That infraction made 2 total each for UCI and the Danes, so in neither case was enough to push him over the limit for sanction, which was why he was permitted to race by all parties.
(3) The whereabouts information is absolutely confidential under UCI rules - so how did anybody know where he claimed to be EXCEPT by a deliberate leak in breach of UCI rules? So the fact that anyone knew outside UCI he should be in Mexico is clearly a problem: the media storm was based on a leak of privileged information.
(4) There is no mystery about his intending to got to mexico! much as it has been presentted as a "hiding hole" awaay from testers. His wife is mexican, that is where her family lived - he was entitled to mexican citizenship. In the end he did not go, but that should be limited to the sanction above. Not more.
(5) His ultimate exclusion had nothing to do with the rules, and all to do with ASO considering the "bad press" from leaked information might harm the tour,so they kicked him out regardless of rights or due process.

SO just for Ramussen - when the fuss had died down, they then went for a ban.
The rules were redefined as any warning becomes an infraction regardless of explanations (his being as good as the explanations of others, but his explanations did not count, unlike other riders). In one case 2006 he was given the infraction without the opportunity to explain, so was given the infraction anyway, where any and every other danish rider would have been given a warning which would not have converted. Two of the infractions he ultimately got were for the same period from two different agencies, violating a legal principle, of one sanction for one offence. Only by adding dodgy infractions up from two agencies could you ever get to the total of 3 which were used to eject him. But if that had been the interpretation of rules, they could have done that at the start, so why wait till later? the only explanation is they decided to change the rules just for him in hindsight! because he had become an embarassment.


The fact that CAS did not overturn this errant nonsense, says more about the construction of CAS and the way ambiguity in rule books can be and is used against riders, than it does about Rasmussen..

Most important of all, there was absolutely no reason or justification within cycling rules to withdraw him, so if cycling could not eject him legally, it found an illegal method to do it by undue pressure from ASO to the team, and has ejected him ever since. presumably because he had the temerity to sue the team and he won. Hardly contestable, given the team lied when they said "they did not know where he was".

He would have won the TdF within the rules as they stood, but was not allowed to finish.

I THINK - I have not read it anywhere - that one reason that Rabo are pulling out is they know that Rasmussen will take the team to the cleaners for several million. He offered to settle without publicitiy - they would not even respond to the various emails - he eventually won 600000 euro, but is rightly arguing the value of a TdF win and for unfair dismissal (he was on salary 300000 a month at the time) a derisory amount.

In the end it is hard to explain the Rasmussen events except by assuming
the danish federation were out to get him, because he did not want a Danish riders licence, and were willing to ride roughshod over any set of rules to punish him for that. Or just for being someone they did not like. Who knows why. I have been connected with enough sports organisations to know they are petty fiefdoms run for the benefit of the executive, who love to wield what power they have against any who dare argue with them. Ramussen must have argued once too often for their liking.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Wasn't this around the time of the rumors that Armstrong/Verbruggin etc. were trying to buy the Tour. Possibly an attempt to drive the price down by making the race and ASO look bad?

Far too Machiavellian. If the UCI were half as clever as people think them to be when coming up with such scenarios, they wouldn't be in the **** they're in today.

Émilien Amaury had died the previous year. The death duties due made them a target for takeover. But, as a private company, bad publicity does not impact share price. Share price is simply what someone is willing to pay for it.

(The links are not directly relevant but may be of interest.)

 

[fmk_RoI]

Does the book explore why the UCI ignored it's rules about missing OOC's prior to a GT?

Yes / no. Moller partisan toward Rasmussen so accepts McQuaid's argument that rule was unfair and about to be over-turned anyway, thus legit to disregard it.

As I point out, compare this with Delgado situation two decades earlier. Moller asks for consistency. That sets the precedent. The rule should have been followed.

However. What's not known is how many other Tour riders would have fallen if the rule *had* been applied: a lot of people were playing games with whereabouts at that time. some deliberately, some by accident.

Regardless of Moller's personal stance on Rasmussen, I would rec the book. Well worth reading.

 

[RownhamHill]

No. If proper due process had been followed Ras would not have started the Tour, having had a whereabouts strike in the 45 days prior to a GT. Even tho UCI over-turned that rule at Annual Congress a few weeks later, in same way Delgado's probenicide was legal because it wasn't at that moment on the UCI list (but would be a few weeks later), that is the rule that was in play at the time. The UCI neglected to apply it.

Thanks for clarifying - sorry I read that in the review, but failed to engage my brain properly when responding to Dear Wiggo. Kind of funny in a way, as it appears that if the rules had been properly applied by the UCI then Rasmussen would have missed the tour, but the whole chain of events that led to him being banned wouldn't have happened. Who knows then if the Mexico/Italy lie would have become public, and he might still be riding now. . . good for Ras, good for UCI. (I'm deeply into counterfactual here of course)

To answer that you need to step away from the issue of Rasmussen's guilt or innocence and consider the process.

Ras was trying to game the system, sending in whereabouts as later as poss (as, eg, USADA have pointed out LA did, and - I suspect - many riders do). Because the UCI had a rule saying whereabouts deets should be destroyed as soon as out of date, he was safe filing wrong data as that could never be proved after the fact. It could be proved by testers knocking on his door, but that was a risk worth taking.

At the same time, Moller argues that Danish fed and UCI didn't just game the system, they flouted their own rules. They revealed private data. They didn't follow the (poorly drafted) letter of the law. They operated a blacklist. Etc.

The point is either we have rules or we don't. The end does into justify the means. If we want athletes to follow the rules, so too must we. If our prob is that our rules are badly written, then that is what we need to resolve. Two wrongs don't make a right, not matter how annoying it is too see dopers getting away with flouting the rules.

Divorce the emotion of guilt or innocence and look only at process.

Yes, intellectually I think probably agree with you entirely. I guess it's just hard to always divorce emotion from this type of conversation.

But also, while I definitely agree that rules should be followed and what should have happened is he missed the tour and carried on his merry way, and that the UCI and Danish federations deserve censure for their actions, where I think I'm less certain is whether that automatically should lead to us thinking that Rasmussen should be seen as a victim, or that he deserves my sympathy.

And I think that ultimately the emotion of guilt or innocence does play a part in that reaction. I think it's entirely consistent to say that Rasmussen may have suffered an injustice, but I'm not sympathetic because ultimately the outcome - he misses the tour (kind of) and gets a ban - is consistent (emotionally at least) with what should have happened had the full facts been known to a just authority. If that makes sense.

As I say I may not be 'right' about this, but it's kind of the way I feel.

 

[RownhamHill]

Sport has rules, and must follow them - until the rules were change.

Missing or erroneous whereabouts information can and should lead to an infraction and there the sanction should end, until enough infractions warrant a decision on exclusion., in Ramussens case that single event led to two infractions for the same period one from the UCI, the other from Danish federation, and that should not be. And only by adding the two agencies up can you get to an excludable offence. But that is the issue, On the strength of knowing that situation he was cleared by all parties to ride - so at the time of the race nobody was arguing the infractions from two agencies should be added together, the agencies redefining the accepted rule book came later...

As for the "his wherebouts report said he was in mexico" leading to the infractions - several issues

(1) that single infraction, was an infraction, indeed the team fined him 10000 euros for it, and they were also sending him tickets to his italian address, to train in the pyrenees for a couple of days with menchov, so the idea the team did not know where he was is farcical.
(2) That infraction made 2 total each for UCI and the Danes, so in neither case was enough to push him over the limit for sanction, which was why he was permitted to race by all parties.
(3) The whereabouts information is absolutely confidential under UCI rules - so how did anybody know where he claimed to be EXCEPT by a deliberate leak in breach of UCI rules? So the fact that anyone knew outside UCI he should be in Mexico is clearly a problem: the media storm was based on a leak of privileged information.
(4) There is no mystery about his intending to got to mexico! much as it has been presentted as a "hiding hole" awaay from testers. His wife is mexican, that is where her family lived - he was entitled to mexican citizenship. In the end he did not go, but that should be limited to the sanction above. Not more.
(5) His ultimate exclusion had nothing to do with the rules, and all to do with ASO considering the "bad press" from leaked information might harm the tour,so they kicked him out regardless of rights or due process.

SO just for Ramussen - when the fuss had died down, they then went for a ban.
The rules were redefined as any warning becomes an infraction regardless of explanations (his being as good as the explanations of others, but his explanations did not count, unlike other riders). In one case 2006 he was given the infraction without the opportunity to explain, so was given the infraction anyway, where any and every other danish rider would have been given a warning which would not have converted. Two of the infractions he ultimately got were for the same period from two different agencies, violating a legal principle, of one sanction for one offence. Only by adding dodgy infractions up from two agencies could you ever get to the total of 3 which were used to eject him. But if that had been the interpretation of rules, they could have done that at the start, so why wait till later? the only explanation is they decided to change the rules just for him in hindsight! because he had become an embarassment.


The fact that CAS did not overturn this errant nonsense, says more about the construction of CAS and the way ambiguity in rule books can be and is used against riders, than it does about Rasmussen..

Most important of all, there was absolutely no reason or justification within cycling rules to withdraw him, so if cycling could not eject him legally, it found an illegal method to do it by undue pressure from ASO to the team, and has ejected him ever since. presumably because he had the temerity to sue the team and he won. Hardly contestable, given the team lied when they said "they did not know where he was".

He would have won the TdF within the rules as they stood, but was not allowed to finish.

I THINK - I have not read it anywhere - that one reason that Rabo are pulling out is they know that Rasmussen will take the team to the cleaners for several million. He offered to settle without publicitiy - they would not even respond to the various emails - he eventually won 600000 euro, but is rightly arguing the value of a TdF win and for unfair dismissal (he was on salary 300000 a month at the time) a derisory amount.

In the end it is hard to explain the Rasmussen events except by assuming
the danish federation were out to get him, because he did not want a Danish riders licence, and were willing to ride roughshod over any set of rules to punish him for that. Or just for being someone they did not like. Who knows why. I have been connected with enough sports organisations to know they are petty fiefdoms run for the benefit of the executive, who love to wield what power they have against any who dare argue with them. Ramussen must have argued once too often for their liking.

Wait, I'm confused now.

I think I get the point you're making in that there were two infractions with the Danes, and two infractions with the UCI before the Tour.

And that one of the infractions was shared between the two agencies. (So there were actually three actual events in total, two of which the Danes counted, and two of which the UCI counted).

And I also agree that, by the rules, he thus shouldn't have been withdrawn - and that he was done an injustice by the withdrawl. (Notwithstanding the 45 day rule the fmk-rol raised, that suggests he shouldn't have ridden in the first place).

But. Surely then during the tour when the Mexico/Italy problem came out (from Rasmussen's own mouth it seems) that became a third UCI infraction - hence the ban? So, in total four separate infractions, two of which were counted by the Danes, and three of which were counted by the UCI?

That's at least how I've understood what I read from the book review - admittedly I've not read the book itself.

So I suppose you could just about argue that the UCI should never have recorded the 'shared' infraction with the Danes (though, out of interest, who recorded that particular event as an infraction first - the Danes or the UCI?) - so they both should have had two infractions on their records after the end of the tour. But really, it seems to me we're dancing on a pin-head now. After all in justice terms, if the infractions aren't cumulative between agencies, then why shouldn't both agencies keep an independent running total of his score if the infractions are real?

 

[fmk_RoI]

I think that ultimately the emotion of guilt or innocence does play a part in that reaction. I think it's entirely consistent to say that Rasmussen may have suffered an injustice, but I'm not sympathetic because ultimately the outcome - he misses the tour (kind of) and gets a ban - is consistent (emotionally at least) with what should have happened had the full facts been known to a just authority. If that makes sense.

The end justifies the means. However, the problem here is who these extra-judiciary 'rules' *don't* apply to. *That* is what is really being argued for here - the fair and consistent application of the rules to all, no fear, no favour. Is it fair that Rasmussen's whereabouts issues go leaked when other riders suffering similar problems got a hall pass? Is it fair that Rasmussen's return was unofficially blocked when Ivan Baso was ceremonially ushered back? This is*not* about Rasmussen: it's about the rules. Either they should be followed or they shouldn't.

 

[Suedehead]

Oh, boy.
This charming man again.
He had 4 strikes. April 2006, april 2007, june 2007, june 2007. The strikes in june cannot, without serious bias, be counted as one. One was Danish testers failing to find him where he said he was, one was notifying uci of changes in whereabouts to late. He should not have started the your. The only injustice was against the tour and the riders competing not breaking the rules.

 

[fmk_RoI]

But. Surely then during the tour when the Mexico/Italy problem came out (from Rasmussen's own mouth it seems) that became a third UCI infraction - hence the ban? So, in total four separate infractions, two of which were counted by the Danes, and three of which were counted by the UCI?

You're speeding on a motorway, you can rack up enough points in one journey to lose your licence. Normally, in cycling, you can't do that.

Scenario. You get tested at race one, then at race two, then at race three. Only after race three is it revealed you'd popped a positive at race one. And then at two and three. That's not three violations. All three violations get rolled into one. You should have been suspended for the latter two, so you only get done for the one violation.

What's argued with Rasmussen is that he was punished multiple times for the same fraud - his messing with his June whereabouts. Personally, this argument doesn't wash with me. The rules are different between whereabouts errors and test failures. If you want to argue riders can game the rules when they suit them, tough titty when they misunderstand the rules when they don't suit them.

 

[RownhamHill]

The end justifies the means. However, the problem here is who these extra-judiciary 'rules' *don't* apply to. *That* is what is really being argued for here - the fair and consistent application of the rules to all, no fear, no favour. Is it fair that Rasmussen's whereabouts issues go leaked when other riders suffering similar problems got a hall pass? Is it fair that Rasmussen's return was unofficially blocked when Ivan Baso was ceremonially ushered back? This is*not* about Rasmussen: it's about the rules. Either they should be followed or they shouldn't.

Absolutely. You're right. Particularly the last bit about being blacklisted - that is why I think the UCI et al are a bunch of dogs. And definitely the rules need to be applied evenly to everyone who cheats, not just a few of them.

And yet, I just can't feel sympathetic towards someone who ultimately gets banned because they were lying through their teeth in a press conference and someone called them up on it. Emotional? No doubt, but then dem's the breaks.

It's lovely up here in my ivory tower by the way.

You're speeding on a motorway, you can rack up enough points in one journey to lose your licence. Normally, in cycling, you can't do that.

Scenario. You get tested at race one, then at race two, then at race three. Only after race three is it revealed you'd popped a positive at race one. And then at two and three. That's not three violations. All three violations get rolled into one. You should have been suspended for the latter two, so you only get done for the one violation.

What's argued with Rasmussen is that he was punished multiple times for the same fraud - his messing with his June whereabouts. Personally, this argument doesn't wash with me. The rules are different between whereabouts errors and test failures. If you want to argue riders can game the rules when they suit them, tough titty when they misunderstand the rules when they don't suit them.

Sorry I missed that nuance about the last infraction for the June whereabouts essentially maybe being the same infraction as one that was recorded before the tour. MountainMan's post now makes more sense in that context. I'd assumed they were two separate 'events' in my earlier posts, but this was purely an assumption on my part.

So conceptually, if in one go you deliberately filled in an entire three months of whereabouts info in incorrectly, and the testers then visited the wrong place every day for three months, would that be one infraction or 90?

Anyway, what I've learnt today is I will definitely read this book if I get a chance!

 

[fmk_RoI]

And yet, I just can't feel sympathetic towards someone who ultimately gets banned because they were lying through their teeth in a press conference and someone called them up on it. Emotional? No doubt, but then dem's the breaks.

You're not being asked to feel sorry for Ras. he's just an example of a ****ed up system.

So conceptually, if in one go you deliberately filled in an entire three months of whereabouts info in incorrectly, and the testers then visited the wrong place every day for three months, would that be one infraction or 90?

I think Moller suggested in our interview that missed tests were treated differently to mis-filed/incorrect info, that one would effectively stop the clock until it was fully processed.

But there doesn't appear to be a clock-stopping scenario for late/incorrect data: you could mis-file data late and - AFAIK - get stung for late filing, a missed test and then incorrect information all within a few days.

Do bear in mind that, normally, only late-filing and missed tests are in play. Rasmussen and Rabobank effectively blew the gaff themselves on incorrect data. UCI/WADA have no investigatory powers on this information.

 

[PremiereEtape]

You're not being asked to feel sorry for Ras. he's just an example of a ****ed up system.

I think thats the whole point. I never believed personally that rasmussen was racing clean, I think the problem is that the UCI and the DCU have arbitrarily applied the rules, and continue to do so.

Why does Rasmussen get ostracised out the sport, to the point where a great rider is now racing on the continental circuit or for mexican teams, whilst Alberto Contador only has to serve a 6 month de-facto ban and is welcomed back with open arms?

Its just extremely unfair. Either all get ostracised or all are rehabilitated. You can't just destroy one guys career whilst boosting the other one for the same or a greater offence. This is the classic definition of a dictatorship or abuse of power....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A former amateur mountain-bike racer alleged Thursday that Tour de France yellow-jersey holder Michael Rasmussen (Rabobank) attempted to trick him into carrying illegal doping products to Europe in 2002.

Whitney Richards, a 38-year-old one-time Colorado-based cross-country racer, told VeloNews that in March of 2002, Rasmussen asked him to transport a box containing cycling shoes. But the shoebox, according to Richards, actually contained bags of an American-made human blood substitute. None of the information Richards provided VeloNews involves allegations of current doping.

Clearly Rasmussen is nothing more than an innocent victim of runaway justice gone bad, and had no ties whatsoever to dope or doping.

Not sure of the specifics - but even a blood substitute would need to be kept cold, I would have thought? eg: 4C is the figure touted for keeping blood samples viable for testing.

If we can clarify where the shoebox was handed over, and when it was meant to be delivered, it would help verify this story.

Any more details?

 

[mountainrman]

I think thats the whole point. I never believed personally that rasmussen was racing clean, I think the problem is that the UCI and the DCU have arbitrarily applied the rules, and continue to do so.

Why does Rasmussen get ostracised out the sport, to the point where a great rider is now racing on the continental circuit or for mexican teams, whilst Alberto Contador only has to serve a 6 month de-facto ban and is welcomed back with open arms?

Its just extremely unfair. Either all get ostracised or all are rehabilitated. You can't just destroy one guys career whilst boosting the other one for the same or a greater offence. This is the classic definition of a dictatorship or abuse of power....

Bravo! - that is my issue summarized.

And the only way I see to solve it, is to take the sanction power out of national jurisdiction, leaving your country federation as prosecutor not judge, then being judged by a new sanctioning body outside UCI, that also allows a defence before sentence, all confidential until final judgement
so that being "liked" or "disliked" by your federation or UCI no longer matters, which it clearly does right now.

Willl report again when I have read the other half too.

 

[mountainrman]

Not sure of the specifics - but even a blood substitute would need to be kept cold, I would have thought? eg: 4C is the figure touted for keeping blood samples viable for testing.

If we can clarify where the shoebox was handed over, and when it was meant to be delivered, it would help verify this story.

Any more details?

There are no more details, and that is the problem - also that the reason for revealing the story by the one who did it just does not ring true at all. It was an unsubstantiated allegation.

Several of the rasmussen stories just do not hold up when investigated. There appears little verifiable substance to the austrian centrifuge story either, in fact the "motive" for him to get involved just does not stack up at all. He was a year into a two year ban. There was no purpose in blood doping at all for him then when he was alleged to be involved in that. The only loose connection was with someone using one of his houses. It was also a crime to do that in austria, yet the police did not find anything as far as I am aware.

It is certainly fair to say that the press had it in for Rasmussen, and would report any dirt they could find without the normal "2 source" verification , which is the backbone of ethical journalism.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The end justifies the means. However, the problem here is who these extra-judiciary 'rules' *don't* apply to. *That* is what is really being argued for here - the fair and consistent application of the rules to all, no fear, no favour. Is it fair that Rasmussen's whereabouts issues go leaked when other riders suffering similar problems got a hall pass? Is it fair that Rasmussen's return was unofficially blocked when Ivan Baso was ceremonially ushered back? This is*not* about Rasmussen: it's about the rules. Either they should be followed or they shouldn't.

This supports my belief that the system should start with the rider - and ensure the rules and regs are applied consistently.

Some sort of external body that can whack the heck out of non-complying rule enforcing body.

Not sure there's any precedent, however, that can be used as a template.

 

[RownhamHill]

You're not being asked to feel sorry for Ras. he's just an example of a ****ed up system.

I think that's the whole point. I never believed personally that rasmussen was racing clean, I think the problem is that the UCI and the DCU have arbitrarily applied the rules, and continue to do so.

Its just extremely unfair. Either all get ostracised or all are rehabilitated. You can't just destroy one guys career whilst boosting the other one for the same or a greater offence. This is the classic definition of a dictatorship or abuse of power....

Bravo! - that is my issue summarized.

OK, I think it turns out I'm in complete agreement with you all then!

Apologies, it appeared to me yesterday, especially in some of the language being used (for example the word used for the book title 'scapegoat', has a set of particular cultural values associated with it) that Rasmussen was being painted as some sort of wronged hero - hence me arguing against something that you don't seem to have suggested in the first place!

Thank you for taking the time to explain your povs in more detail, was an interesting discussion.