• 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!

UCI blacklist.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
I have been following the New Pathways for Pro Cycling conference today on twitter.

Professor Verner Møller spoke about the case of Michael Rasmussen and how he and others had been 'blacklisted' by the UCI from returning.

Here are a selection of tweets from the NPCC:
Rasmussen's 2 year sanction, has essentially, become a de-facto multi-year ban, with the UCI's effective blocking in his return

Vinokourov has told Rasmussen that Astana expressed interest in Rasmussen, but Pat McQuaid said that Astana should not contract Rasmussen

an internal UCI email, Pat McQuaid expresses the wish to tell Rasmussen to "fuck off"... quoted verbatim there

Gianetti of Footon Servetto, also offered Rasmussen a contract, but Rumpf (UCI CEO) told Gianetti, not to sign him

Andrei Tchmill of Katusha, also wished to sign Rasmussen, but the UCI forwarded Katusha with a list of riders that they were not to sign

see: Gusev, Sinkewitz, Kashechkin, Heras, Hamilton, Landis

seems we neglected mentioning Mancebo, in the blacklist
 
Apr 26, 2010
1,035
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
The name Gusev stands out as the one guy not to have failed an official test.

I am sure his is a case of Fat Johan wanting him out the sport for some reason.
Probably because he proved his innocence in court (read: dared to talk back against the system) and now Bryunhell personally has to pay him back all the damages and all the legal expenses (since Astana officials were actively against Gusev's sacking and officially washed their hands off Gusev's case).

It's not some reason.

It's an outright hate towards the guy who hit him where it hurts the most.
________
Mercedes-Benz Ponton
 
May 20, 2010
718
1
0
Visit site
UCI and especially PMc present as a bunch of corrupt money grubbing vindictive whimps.

I include the UCI in general because if they don't stand up to Pat, and other (faceless) whimps, then they are appropriately tarred with the same brush.

Taking Ras for instance:

Ras has done his time according to the "rules". If PMc and others have changed the "rules" such that Ras has now NOT "done his time", the reasons must be made clear to Ras specifically and to all stakeholders in general.

I would be so !#$ disappointed but for the fact that this confirms my impressions of PMc and the UCI in general.

!#$ it this is just the tip of the iceberg!!! feel helpless!!!:mad:
 
Jul 15, 2010
47
0
0
Visit site
I have this strong dislike of Rasmussen, for reasons I can't really articulate.

However, if he has served his time then I see no reason why he shouldn't return alongside the growing number of ex dopers in the pro peloton.

If the UCI have other reasons for preventing him (and others) from returning then these reasons should be made public.

I am now off to the window to search for flying pigs!
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
rxgqgxnyfz said:
Probably because he proved his innocence in court (read: dared to talk back against the system) and now Bryunhell personally has to pay him back all the damages and all the legal expenses (since Astana officials were actively Gusev's sacking and officially washed their hands off Gusev's case).

It's not some reason.

It's an outright hate towards the guy who hit him where it hurts the most.

Do we know what prompted his firing? was it simply a case of Odious Fat Johan wanting to make the team look like it had strict internal procedures against doping when The Sociopath was about to return as a sick publicity stunt?

Or a fall out over money?

Does The Sociopath have something against Gusev?
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Do we know what prompted his firing? was it simply a case of Odious Fat Johan wanting to make the team look like it had strict internal procedures against doping when The Sociopath was about to return as a sick publicity stunt?

Or a fall out over money?

Does The Sociopath have something against Gusev?

NY Velocity translated a Danish newspaper article about the Gusev affair a while back. Well worth a read and shockingly eye-opening. :mad:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2010/dirty-deal
 
Feb 9, 2010
47
0
0
Visit site
Seems to me the 'usual' routes for the UCI to make decisions on teams and other possible misconduct from riders is now closed, due to the various enquiries going on right now. So looks to me like Riis has run out of options to protect his riders. Some of the key staff are now leaving (Julich), does he have a guaranteed protour licence in 2011. Has the historical system with the UCI now broken down as they're under investigation and can't risk having any transactions made between them and team directors?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
rxgqgxnyfz said:
Probably because he proved his innocence in court (read: dared to talk back against the system) and now Bryunhell personally has to pay him back all the damages and all the legal expenses (since Astana officials were actively against Gusev's sacking and officially washed their hands off Gusev's case).

It's not some reason.

It's an outright hate towards the guy who hit him where it hurts the most.
he won total of five legal or sporting suits.

i have no idea how the uci justified the unofficial black list, but at least in the case of gisev it appears a rider could not have been hired if he was still involved in various legal or disciplinary proceedings.

there were several reports that tchmill had a prepared contract for gusev as far back as 2009 but was waiting for completion of his last suit.as soon as that was over he was signed midseason. kash underwent the same metamorphosis.

do ras (and the other riders mentioned in the op) still have any outstanding claims/suits on financial or any other grounds ?
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
3
0
Visit site
I am no fan of Rasmussen or any of the other guys on that 'blacklist', but goddamn the UCI is just the worst, most corrupt organisation in sport. It needs to be purged top-to-bottom for cycling to regain any sort of credibility and move forward.
 
Aug 27, 2010
970
0
0
Visit site
Jamsque said:
I am no fan of Rasmussen or any of the other guys on that 'blacklist', but goddamn the UCI is just the worst, most corrupt organisation in sport. It needs to be purged top-to-bottom for cycling to regain any sort of credibility and move forward.

QFT!

Also seems to help explaining why Rasmussen can't find a team next year, even with paid salaryfrom his personal sponsor.

Damn the Omerta and old power hungry currupt *******s.
 
Sep 9, 2009
16
0
0
Visit site
What is happening is that riders who are known to be dopers (such as Gusev) are being prevented from dodging bans due to technicalities.

Gusev won his court cases, all of them, because correct process was not followed. Yes they highlight shocking liberties taken by certain people, trampling over rules, to ensure a rider gets fired and a 2yr ban. So the injustice in that context holds up in court.

Yet Gusev was doping. There's plenty of proof. You're just not allowed to obtain it the way it was done. Blacklisting him forces him to take out the 2yrs that he deserves. People trampled over the rules to try and ensure he got the ban he deserved. If the rules worked in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to.
I think it's ridiculous how certain people seem to think they can do what they like with the rules and dictate things, but in this instance I also believe that the end product is Gusev getting a ban he deserved. The end does not justify the means, but I don't think I'd have been happy with Gusev riding without having had a "career break" either.

Remember that a few years ago "the teams" on the Pro Tour agreed not to sign riders who had doped. I never believed that was the teams who decided that...someone above decides on who gets a licence.
Liquigas sort of broke this agreement when they signed Basso. Their argument being he didn't dope, only intended to and that was all he was actually convicted of. Some PT teams therefore saw that as open day on the signings. Hence we now have Vino back on a Pro Tour team.
All the others were with Pro Conti teams at that point. Scarponi, Bertolini, Sella, Ricco, Rasmussen, Hondo, Sinkewitz etc.
I think the intent was that riders would be banned from the sport for 2 years, and potentially banned from the top tier (or top teams anyway) for another year or more. Like the Giro chief said this year when excluding Ceramica-Flaminia and Carmio-Oro, that in his eyes riders needed to go a little longer to assimilate themselves back into the peloton before he wanted them in the spotlight at his race.

Vino's return in late 2009 kicked it all off. Now it was ok for Pro Teams to sign riders who had previously been banned, if there'd been a period passed since their comeback. It's ok for Lampre to sign Ale-Jet (LPR) and Hondo (PSK-Whirlpool), and now Scarponi (Androni).
I think initially the intent was that banned riders come back at smaller teams, have at least a stepping-stone period.
I believe this explains why Sinkewitz returned with ISD-Neri.

I am not surprised that the UCI may have had an unofficial list. You could easily predict that the heading of the list of names could be "Troublemakers".

Now though it seems it can't be organised as such, and Kasechkin and Gusev are back, Ricco too, and I believe Rasmussen will be soon. Vacansoleil were interested in him but might think having 2 from the naughty list is pushing it.

Antonio Colom will be back next year, and Astarloza later in the year. Will be interesting to see what happens to them.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
ike2112 said:
What is happening is that riders who are known to be dopers (such as Gusev) are being prevented from dodging bans due to technicalities.

Gusev won his court cases, all of them, because correct process was not followed. Yes they highlight shocking liberties taken by certain people, trampling over rules, to ensure a rider gets fired and a 2yr ban. So the injustice in that context holds up in court.

Yet Gusev was doping. There's plenty of proof. You're just not allowed to obtain it the way it was done. Blacklisting him forces him to take out the 2yrs that he deserves. People trampled over the rules to try and ensure he got the ban he deserved. If the rules worked in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to.
I think it's ridiculous how certain people seem to think they can do what they like with the rules and dictate things, but in this instance I also believe that the end product is Gusev getting a ban he deserved. The end does not justify the means, but I don't think I'd have been happy with Gusev riding without having had a "career break" either.

Remember that a few years ago "the teams" on the Pro Tour agreed not to sign riders who had doped. I never believed that was the teams who decided that...someone above decides on who gets a licence.
Liquigas sort of broke this agreement when they signed Basso. Their argument being he didn't dope, only intended to and that was all he was actually convicted of. Some PT teams therefore saw that as open day on the signings. Hence we now have Vino back on a Pro Tour team.
All the others were with Pro Conti teams at that point. Scarponi, Bertolini, Sella, Ricco, Rasmussen, Hondo, Sinkewitz etc.
I think the intent was that riders would be banned from the sport for 2 years, and potentially banned from the top tier (or top teams anyway) for another year or more. Like the Giro chief said this year when excluding Ceramica-Flaminia and Carmio-Oro, that in his eyes riders needed to go a little longer to assimilate themselves back into the peloton before he wanted them in the spotlight at his race.

Vino's return in late 2009 kicked it all off. Now it was ok for Pro Teams to sign riders who had previously been banned, if there'd been a period passed since their comeback. It's ok for Lampre to sign Ale-Jet (LPR) and Hondo (PSK-Whirlpool), and now Scarponi (Androni).
I think initially the intent was that banned riders come back at smaller teams, have at least a stepping-stone period.
I believe this explains why Sinkewitz returned with ISD-Neri.

I am not surprised that the UCI may have had an unofficial list. You could easily predict that the heading of the list of names could be "Troublemakers".

Now though it seems it can't be organised as such, and Kasechkin and Gusev are back, Ricco too, and I believe Rasmussen will be soon. Vacansoleil were interested in him but might think having 2 from the naughty list is pushing it.

Antonio Colom will be back next year, and Astarloza later in the year. Will be interesting to see what happens to them.

You raise some good points - but you miss the argument that the sheer hypocrisy and unfairness of the UCI's blacklist is the problem here.

Banning Gusev and Rasmussen as "dopers" and guys like Jaksche and Sincewicz as "troublemakers" (ie guys who'll tell the truth to get / if they don't get a job) and circle the wagons around worse liars and frauds like Lance and Johan is pure dishonesty at best, corruption at worst.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
3
0
Visit site
It is indefensible for the UCI to publicly publish rules and the punishments for breaking them, but carry out their own ad-hoc unaccountable vigilante justice behind the scenes.
 
Sep 9, 2009
16
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
You raise some good points - but you miss the argument that the sheer hypocrisy and unfairness of the UCI's blacklist is the problem here.

Banning Gusev and Rasmussen as "dopers" and guys like Jaksche and Sincewicz as "troublemakers" (ie guys who'll tell the truth to get / if they don't get a job) and circle the wagons around worse liars and frauds like Lance and Johan is pure dishonesty at best, corruption at worst.

That point isn't lost on me either. It seems the fact that Sinkewitz in particular is on the list suggests that Omerta comes from the very top.

And as I said, the end does not justify the means.

But a rider who dopes should have an enforced "career break". I don't feel it's right for the UCI to have a blacklist, but I would be less happy with a known doper being able to ride thanks to having a good lawyer and some technicalities.
For them to get extended unofficial bans from the top teams, well I'm not sure about that. Personally I'd ban them from certain races rather than from joining PT teams, but nobody has the power to control that as different people/organisations control the races (as much as the UCI are trying to screw with that too).
 
Apr 26, 2010
1,035
0
0
Visit site
ike2112 said:
What is happening is that riders who are known to be dopers (such as Gusev) are being prevented from dodging bans due to technicalities.

Gusev won his court cases, all of them, because correct process was not followed. Yes they highlight shocking liberties taken by certain people, trampling over rules, to ensure a rider gets fired and a 2yr ban. So the injustice in that context holds up in court.

Yet Gusev was doping. There's plenty of proof. You're just not allowed to obtain it the way it was done. Blacklisting him forces him to take out the 2yrs that he deserves. People trampled over the rules to try and ensure he got the ban he deserved. If the rules worked in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to.
You making it look like UCI is some kind of Batman who having fed up seeing criminal elements go out free decides to take THE LAW in his own hands and bring justice to the rotten world of cycling by all means imaginable.

I'm sorry, but i'm having trouble seeing McQuaid and his ilk doing all this things FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE AND AMERICAN WAY when there are far more simple and cynical reasons to do all of these.
________
How to love
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
Andrei Tchmill of Katusha, also wished to sign Rasmussen, but the UCI forwarded Katusha with a list of riders that they were not to sign

see: Gusev, Sinkewitz, Kashechkin, Heras, Hamilton, Landis

seems we neglected mentioning Mancebo, in the blacklist

Interesting how many names on that list have connections to LA/JB or are guys who broke Omerta. Who is running the UCI anyway? :confused:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Hardly surprising and i imagine that there is money involved in these matters too. Switzerland is a refuge for these federations, IOC, UCI, FIFA etc....corruption is rife amongst them, of that i have no doubt.
 
Sep 9, 2009
16
0
0
Visit site
rxgqgxnyfz said:
You making it look like UCI is some kind of Batman who having fed up seeing criminal elements go out free decides to take THE LAW in his own hands and bring justice to the rotten world of cycling by all means imaginable.

Only if Batman was the one responsible for the inadequate rules, lack of appropriate procedures and lack of accountability...in the first place.

I am not saying what the UCI is doing is right. But I didn't want Rasmussen to sign for a Pro Tour team 3 weeks after Rabobank fired him, and ride in all the big races that year. I don't want dopers getting away with it. My preference would be that the UCI rules work.

rxgqgxnyfz said:
I'm sorry, but i'm having trouble seeing McQuaid and his ilk doing all this things FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE AND AMERICAN WAY when there are far more simple and cynical reason for all it.

What is the American way? Isn't it greed? I thought that was exactly what this was all about...
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
A few more quotes from the twitter:

UCI and Denmark Anti-doping violated their own regulations, by leaking to the media, the issues in this case

2007 Anne Gripper, the UCI anti-doping officer (2007) quoted upholding said regulation of confidentiality, whereas Jsper Worre did not

Theo de Rooij Rabobank manager had fined Rasmussen 10k euro, and a written warning, the first understanding Rasmussen had he was liable

Danish tabloid media took up the pursuit of Rasmussen

Professor Muller's contention is there was lack of regulatory adherence, and Rasmussen should at worst, only have one warning/violation

Vogelzang Report makes damning finding of the UCI's handling of the Rasmussen case

Johnny Weltz DS of Garmin, admits, the Whereabouts rule, was never taken seriously by riders up to 2007

reiterating, Whereabouts sanction system, is managed arbitrarily, by the UCI, when Rasmussen can have his rights summarily abrogated

Rasmussen's 2 year sanction, has essentially, become a de-facto multi-year ban, with the UCI's effective blocking in his return

Puerto doctors admitted they cheated mancebo with placebos

And this one from an article by Martin Hardie. I haven't read the complete "I Wish I Was 21 Now", but I imagine it's in there as well.

“I am not concerned if people confess or are unrepentant,” he explains. “I for one am not interested in holding up the riders as being the evil characters in this. I refuse to use terms ‘lie,’ ‘cheats,’ etc because what is at issue is the structure of the sport, not individuals. Some riders are able to come back, others are not. There does appear to be two standards at play here. Some riders are asked to make donations to the UCI to come back after bans and they refuse and hence never come back,” he claims.
http://road.cc/content/news/24292-australian-academic-defends-floyd-landis-conference-appearance

Hopefully the videos and transcripts, when available, will get some run in the press. Also, WADA said their Independent Observer report on the UCI at the 2010 Tur de France will be out late this month or early October, and available in English on their website. (I asked, because I'd seen the 2003 version in French on their website). They found a lot wrong in 2003, and the UCI blew it off.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Visit site
Why Cyclingnews should be ashamed of itself --

Here is the problem I have w/ cyclingnews -- the one website I read everyday and the first place I check every morning...

They run an article this morning: "Landis speaks to sparse crowds". In the article, they make sure to mention that only 30 ppl were in attendance at Landis' session.

(Who cares? How many are at the other sessions? More, less? Is 30 a lot by comparison, or a little? And, how many of the 30 were journalists? If more than one, I'd say it was a success for Floyd. But I digress...)

OK, CNews. You got your Floyd-bashing in. Floyd is just some wacko who speaks to half-empty hotel conference rooms. Great. Are you now going to devote similar online "ink" to the conference session being discussed in this thread? About these allegations that the UCI and McQuaid are playing "God" by selectively giving lifetime bans to riders they don't like? And the alleged internal UCI emails that prove this?

Hello, Cyclingnews??? Anybody out there??? :mad: Perhaps the decision will be made that this topic should not see daylight outside this forum: "the ONLY place on Cyclingnews where discussion of doping-related topics can take place)".

(If I am wong on this, please somebody set me straight -- )
 
NashbarShorts said:
OK, CNews. You got your Floyd-bashing in. Floyd is just some wacko who speaks to half-empty hotel conference rooms. Great. Are you now going to devote similar online "ink" to the conference session being discussed in this thread? About these allegations that the UCI and McQuaid are playing "God" by selectively giving lifetime bans to riders they don't like? And the alleged internal UCI emails that prove this?

Hello, Cyclingnews??? Anybody out there??? :mad:

(If I am wong on this, please somebody set me straight -- )

That would require some sort of actual reporting/journalism, something CN has a lack of.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
Let's not forget the parent company in all this - after all, how can we expect UCI et al to be free of corruption when they were born out of the Olympic movement and the IOC - possibly one of the most corrupt organisations of all time