Why was Rasmussen blacklisted?

[Magnific0]

Hypocrasy

No doubt about the lies and hypocrisy mentioned. I once worked on the Munich 6 day long ago circa 1987. I was holding a Danish rider about to start a race and he whispered to me he was doped for this event and went on to win a race that night. He is the same scum bag in charge of the Danish federation who made a big hoo haa at the time of Rasmussens exit stating how he wished to eradicate doping.
I have worked on three six days as well as the Giro and Tour and have had the benefit of first hand experience of these issues , more so than a fanboy ever will.

 

[euphrades]

The truth of the matter is that Rassmussen is not as well liked by the public like Valv, Basso, Millar, Armstrong, and etc. These guys bring the crowds.

Nothing is ever equal and completely fair.

 

[flicker]

my feelings

I think he was busted and served his suspension. However I think that there are other skeletons in his closets that any responsble sponsor would rightly want to avoid.

 

[skidmark]

The inconsistency of the treatment of people who get busted really sucks. Why is Vino back at the top and Ras isn't?

The comparison of Vino and Rasmussen is interesting. Both were high profile symbols of betrayal in the 2007 Tour. While Vino wasn't leading, he was arguably the biggest name there. But here's what has damned Rasmussen and not Vino, in my thoughts...

- Landis. If Landis hadn't been busted in 06, Ras would have kept the maillot jaune to Paris in 07, and it would be a minor scandal, but forgotten by most by 2008. However, with the disgrace of 06, letting Ras keep the jersey would have compounded the horrible optics cycling received from Landis. So, whereas Vino was a high profile doper, Rasmussen was wearing the maillot jaune. That sort of thing sticks with the public's memory.

- palmares. by the same token, a reason no one would want Ras back is because people really would only remember him for being busted while in the lead of the Tour. Other than that, his palmares consisted of a few mountaintop stages in the tour, a few KoM jerseys, a 7th placing, and a top 10 in another GT IIRC. But Vino is competitive and on the attack in so many races, so consistently, that he's less of a risk then a similarly-aged Rasmussen. Can you imagine weathering the storm of signing Rasmussen only to have him flop in everything?

- allegations. Rasmussen has been implicated in this centrifuge thing since his ban, whereas Vino, although as unrepentant as Rasmussen, has kept his head down and come back quietly.

- astana. All these other factors aside, Vino probably would still be borderline untouchable for PT-level teams if it weren't for the fact that he's Kazakhstan's biggest sports star and they have a huge team that he essentially built.

Anyway, that's all to say that yes, cycling is hypocritical, but the reasons for it are quite clear. Sponsors want to make money, which they associate with having a good image, which they associate with good optics, which Rasmussen doesn't provide. For Astana, I think Vino does provide that.

 

[Angliru]

Very well said, Skid. That about sums it up there.

 

[hfer07]

Rasmussen
*too much liability for a team to have
*UCI/WADA/Press keeps a close eye on him due to the unsolved Austrian blood doping ring
*Rasmussen is by himself and nobody is willing to support him at all (not even the Danish federation)
*age
*Palmares

 

[ravens]

Lance is not a doper: third in the TdF after three years off, plus the "Passport", a gadzillion tests AND a shattered collarbone. Just go ride your own bike and beg for solace as you seem to be a really troubled soul.

I find you in violation of the lance posting rule as proposed earlier today (by me).

"You can post as much as you want as often as you want about Lance, Pro, Con, or Indifferent makes no difference. But each post must be accompanied by a quality post to the babes on bikes thread.

I hereby demand that mods take down any lance posts not accompnaied by a "B.O 0.B." post within 17 minutes.

 

[Lifeshape]

Denied

I find you in violation of the lance posting rule as proposed earlier today (by me).

"You can post as much as you want as often as you want about Lance, Pro, Con, or Indifferent makes no difference. But each post must be accompanied by a quality post to the babes on bikes thread.

I hereby demand that mods take down any lance posts not accompnaied by a "B.O 0.B." post within 17 minutes.

"Why so serious?" And nice try with the autocratic rule of a "must post." As an avid supporter of the Babes on Bike Thread, I would like to leave that line of work to the true professionals along with their quality posts. (I would hate for just anybody to hang pics and get the thread locked and discontinued).

 

[Bluebeard]

....whereas Vino, although as unrepentant as Rasmussen, has kept his head down and come back quietly....

Well, kept his head down by Vino's standards

 

[skidmark]

Oh man do I ever love that jersey. I wish it had a caption bubble though... and I wish there was a caption contest, the winner of which he HAD to put on the jersey...

 

[Angliru]

Rasmussen
*too much liability for a team to have
*UCI/WADA/Press keeps a close eye on him due to the unsolved Austrian blood doping ring
*Rasmussen is by himself and nobody is willing to support him at all (not even the Danish federation)
*age
*Palmares

Another reason for Rasmussen's difficulty in finding a top team that will take him on may be his treatment of his former teammates. I recall him in 2007 publicly criticizing Menchov'for his difficulty in getting over the Galibier with words to reporters: "...and Menchov couldn't get his @55 over the Galibier". I'm sure that was a true moment of team bonding there. If this is an example of his personality which was rumoured to be one of a loner, then it is likely all of these traits are well known within the pro ranks.

 

[md2020]

oh man do i ever love that jersey. I wish it had a caption bubble though... And i wish there was a caption contest, the winner of which he had to put on the jersey...

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

 

[burninglegs]

I am there with you. Despite all the claims that he was a doper, was anything actually proven?
His ban was based on misleading his team, missed tests, and revocation of his license in Monte Carlo.
He was great to watch in the mountains and horrible to watch in the time trials. He would have kicked **** in the mountains in the last 3 tours.

 

[Digger]

I am there with you. Despite all the claims that he was a doper, was anything actually proven?
His ban was based on misleading his team, missed tests, and revocation of his license in Monte Carlo.
He was great to watch in the mountains and horrible to watch in the time trials. He would have kicked **** in the mountains in the last 3 tours.

Main reason he didn't fail a test.

 

[Escarabajo]

I am there with you. Despite all the claims that he was a doper, was anything actually proven?
...

Somewhere in between this thread it says that he actually failed a test after all.

 

[Christian]

I just read the latest article on Rasmussen on cyclingnews and I have to say I think he was and still is judged much more severely than other riders.
In my opinion that mainly has to do with him being a person who always comes across a little grouchy and haughty and the media, as well as the public, never liked him so much. For this reason, he wasn't very good publicity for his sponsor at the time either, and therefore no sponsor wants him on their team now.
Other than that I can see no reason why he was judged so harshly on relatively small grounds, and still has such a hard time getting back into the sport.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Horrible horrible article.

So easy to kick somebody who is down. Down because he has no support from anybody. Not the UCI obviously, but not the fans or the press either. Most others have at least some fans or parts of the press on their side... Landis? Hamilton? Basso? Di Luca? Cyclingews would never have the balls to write an article with the title "Basso blames everyone but himself" Hell, even Riccò didn't manage to get something like that, and he is doing everything he can do to get negative press.... his split from Vania because she has to prove her innocence to him??? Still not sure if that is a very very strange PR move (look, I'm a "probably banned word here"!!!) or if he's serious... in both cases it would have deserved a nice little attack piece on his character. Did he get blasted for that one on cyclingnews. No.. just a neutral report. Our great cyclingnews reporters didn't have the guts to take on the Ricco fans, Rasmussen on the other hand? He's out of everything, has no fan base left more or less, never really had one, you can kick him in the teeth as much as you want. That article says a lot about cyclingnews, especially when compared to all the other articles that are published. Get some writers and editors with integrity please.

 

[Animal]

I disagree. Looks to me like he's just complaining the he got nailed, and claiming that he was winning the Tour clean. Another doper in denial.

 

[afpm90]

Horrible horrible article.

So easy to kick somebody who is down. Down because he has no support from anybody. Not the UCI obviously, but not the fans or the press either. Most others have at least some fans or parts of the press on their side... Landis? Hamilton? Basso? Di Luca? Cyclingews would never have the balls to write an article with the title "Basso blames everyone but himself" Hell, even Riccò didn't manage to get something like that, and he is doing everything he can do to get negative press.... his split from Vania because she has to prove her innocence to him??? Still not sure if that is a very very strange PR move (look, I'm a "probably banned word here"!!!) or if he's serious... in both cases it would have deserved a nice little attack piece on his character. Did he get blasted for that one on cyclingnews. No.. just a neutral report. Our great cyclingnews reporters didn't have the guts to take on the Ricco fans, Rasmussen on the other hand? He's out of everything, has no fan base left more or less, never really had one, you can kick him in the teeth as much as you want. That article says a lot about cyclingnews, especially when compared to all the other articles that are published. Get some writers and editors with integrity please.

“If some persons were dead and buried, I would probably be happier, but I am not going to hire a couple of Colombian gangsters to make it a reality"

This says a lot about Michael Rasmussen.

 

[fatandfast]

Rasmussen has found himself in a funny spot. Strange skill set,older pure climber, very hard to manage,coming off a 2 year lay off,not much use getting good press or sponsorship. When he sits at a table and people go over the pros and cons of including him on an major squad..it's a no brainer to let him ride for Miche

 

[CrueTrue]

Those who can really should read the original interview: http://www.weekendavisen.dk/smarticle/view/2

It says a lot about MR's person.

A short 'recap' of it (from a different forum):

CrueTrue wrote:
There's a rather interesting interview with Michael Rasmussen in one of the more serious newspapers (one of the few that I actually respect), Weekendavisen. Read it if you can

Anyway - by 'interesting', I mean due to the fact that you get to see who he really is. Let me quote this:
Q: "How do you avoid getting frustrated by everything that has happened?"
MR: "I haven't avoided it. There's certainly some people who, if they died, I'd be more happy. If they suffered a lot and then died, I'd feel better. It can be a sick thought to have and perhaps even more sick to say out loud, but it's the truth. There are some people who, if something really bad happened to them, I'd send them a card and congratulate them"

Sick. Just sick.

Other interesting points? He says that Bjarne Riis could be the guy who says "enough is enough" and brings him back to Pro Tour. He says that, with himself on Team Saxo Bank (he calls it CSC...), he'd be able to make a difference and give the victory to the team.

On another note, he also defends Pantani. He says that everyone competed on equal terms back then (in 1999). Pantani's level got above 50, his competitors' were probably a little bit lower.
I guess we can all agree to that. The difference comes when the journalist asks: "What about those who didn't take drugs back then? Is it fair and equal to those?"

MR: "They had the opportunity"
Q: "So they should just have done that (= taken the drugs)?"
MR: "The rules permitted it..."

They then go on to talk about the rules now-a-days, and MR says that he's pro the haemotocrit value limit (of 50), but he's against the whereabout system and the out-of-competition tests. Surprise, surprise...

And my last note from the interview is that MR repeats what he said back in 2007: That Hushovd, at the time, had two warnings, given by the Norwegian Anti Doping Federation.

 

[Animal]

So he's basically saying that anyone should be able to take anything, and feck the consequences? What a twunt.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Those who can really should read the original interview: http://www.weekendavisen.dk/smarticle/view/2

Apparently he gave more than one interview. The Ekstra Bladet indicates that he said those things himself to them.

Susan

 

[CrueTrue]

Apparently he gave more than one interview. The Ekstra Bladet indicates that he said those things himself to them.

Susan

Yes, I did read both interviews.

Ekstra Bladet confronted him with what he said in the Weekendavisen interview, and MR pretty much just repeated what he initially said.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Ras v. A.C. 2007

Yet if Rasmussen was doped on this day:
Rasmussen v. Contador (Youtube)
does that begs the question of A.C???

Here they match each other again and agaiin.