Dumb TdF/Rasmussen Question

[Triskeliongirl]

I do think there should be passport stamps (my passport has them), but if not, there should be airline tickets (which if discarded I am sure the airline could corroborate were purchased, etc.). That is why it is clear he is lying.

[Mr. Bloom]

I think Rabobank's decision to hold him to a higher standard (that is, truthfulness) and not let athletics get reduced to mere medical testing will help the sport by setting a standard for folks who "push the envelope".

I'm one who believes that Integrity is Right and that in the long run, truth will always prevail. I wish everyone would hold themselves to a standard of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety!

[Delta7]

I suppose if one is in competition, one may want to keep training strategies secret. Is the UCI known for keeping the "whereabouts" information confidential?

I read he was seen riding in the Dolomites (Passo di San Pellegrino, 1910 meters). According to Tour de France for Dummies this would be considered a "beyond category" climb ... great training for le Tour perhaps?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...d=networkfront

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolomites

He said he failed no doping tests, but if he didn't show up for a random test, is it like not showing up for a "pop-quiz" in school? Did he not have a cell phone? Too bad, if he is actually the best athlete and did not dope, to lose his jersey this way.

[MM_QFC!]

I think that his own team fired him/told him to pull out and leave the TdF for lying. He told them he was in Mexico and he wasn't/can't prove it/won't prove it/whatever.

This situation came along after he had already been booted off the Danish National team for missing more than the allowable (2 per year? not sure what the UCI rules are that the rider members agree too random drug tests. Riders are supposed to notify of their whereabouts in case there's a random screen to happen and there is a limit as to how many you can be AWOL for...seems pretty straightforward and easy to understand, so it also seems as though he may've made a conscious decision to be a no-show or not comply and so shouldn't he expect some consequences?

[Duck on Wheels]

I suppose if one is in competition, one may want to keep training strategies secret. Is the UCI known for keeping the "whereabouts" information confidential?

I read he was seen riding in the Dolomites (Passo di San Pellegrino, 1910 meters). According to Tour de France for Dummies this would be considered a "beyond category" climb ... great training for le Tour perhaps?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...d=networkfront

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolomites

He said he failed no doping tests, but if he didn't show up for a random test, is it like not showing up for a "pop-quiz" in school? Did he not have a cell phone? Too bad, if he is actually the best athlete and did not dope, to lose his jersey this way.

Training secrets are not the issue here. The rule is that you report, some weeks in advance, one time and place where you can be found each day in case your name comes up for a random test. One time, one place. Doesn't mean you have to be there all day. Doesn't mean you have to say where else you are that day. So if you make it a "midnight rendezvous" you can cut this down to every other day, effectively. Which means you can still keep your whereabouts secret enough if that's important for your training edge. And you can even change your plans, as long as you report the change and give new time-and-place info. Giving the drug squad the runaround is not a good idea. Not only does it raise suspicions about your own possible drug use, it also sabotages the whole anti-drug effort, making it easier for your competition to cheat. And it reflects poorly on your sponsors who, as we saw, may decide to save their reputation by dumping you. So why do it? At best, this was a stupid, arrogant move on Rasmussens part. At worst, he was hiding a drug cheat during his training period.

[Triskeliongirl]

I read that the rule is that if you miss 3 random tests in an 18 month period, which he did, that can be taken as a positive drug test. That was the reason he was kicked off his national squad. Its not about rabobank holding him to a 'higher standard' its about him meeting the standard expected of all athletes. Add to that, it was not as simple as him not being home, i.e. being where he said he was but not locatable, but being in a different country from where he said he was, and I have very little sympathy for him. Its sport, sport has rules, and he broke the rules. It would be nice though, if the UCI would uniformally enforce these rules. It seems if it had been reported by the UCI to the tour officials in a timely manner, he (and anyone else in his position) should have simply not started.

[margo49]

I seems if it had been reported by the UCI to the tour officials in a timely manner, he (and anyone else in his position) should have simply not started.

There is a lot of bad feeling between the UCI and ASO (who run the TdF and other Big Races). Hence bad communication.

[Grog]

That was the reason he was kicked off his national squad. Its not about rabobank holding him to a 'higher standard' its about him meeting the standard expected of all athletes.

These are two different things. He was kicked out of his national team and then by Rabobank, but they wouldn't have had to. You don't have to be on a national team to be in the TdF (although they are considering opening up spots for national teams on next year's tour).

[Eden]

Michael claims he hasn't been part of the Danish national team since 2004 and was a bit confused as to why they bothered to kick him off a a team he wasn't on... (he also said he didn't think the Danish Sporting Association had any jurisdiction over him since he isn't licensed or residing there)
Someone over at cycling forums posted a translation of a recent interview. Rasmussen's pretty evasive about the whole Mexico/Italy thing, just saying he can't talk about it because of the legal case, but he talks about the missed tests - says he wasn't subject to the Danish ones and that the UCI ones were an oversight and that he feels singled out since 5 of his other teammates had some of the same paperwork issues too and they only recieved a friendly verbal reminder.

[Geonz]

http://www.slate.com/id/2171291/nav/tap3/ has a pretty plausible explanation for how cycling culture could rather lend itself to doping.

[Fredwina]

I think Rabobank's decision to hold him to a higher standard (that is, truthfulness) and not let athletics get reduced to mere medical testing will help the sport by setting a standard for folks who "push the envelope".

I'm one who believes that Integrity is Right and that in the long run, truth will always prevail. I wish everyone would hold themselves to a standard of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety!

And in case you missed it. Rabobank is in the business of.....
Banking! (we , we have Rabobanks in CA)
So I could see where have having a "artful dodger" advertising(which is what the business of bike racing is about) for your establishment would be a bit galling (Actually, I thought I read that the decision came from the Board of Rabobank instead of the cycling team) And that I think is going to be trend in pro racing, that the Corps writing the check are going to keep the "sporting" folks on a tighter leash to avoid potential embarrassment. T-mobile did this, although did they get bit by Patrik "Stinkypants"

[Grog]

And in case you missed it. Rabobank is in the business of.....
Banking! (we , we have Rabobanks in CA)
So I could see where have having a "artful dodger" advertising(which is what the business of bike racing is about) for your establishment would be a bit galling (Actually, I thought I read that the decision came from the Board of Rabobank instead of the cycling team)

Interesting! Indeed, if I was the sponsor, I would be more than a little annoyed to learn through the media, halfway through the race, that one of the guys I'm pouring dollars (or Euros...) on is not reporting to controls.

I'm curious about the project to have spots reserved for national teams on the tour next year. That would certainly reduce the role of corporate boards on the sport, among interesting side effects...

[Mr. Bloom]

And in case you missed it. Rabobank is in the business of.....
Banking!

Back in the day, it was common for banks to share credit references on businesses they had relationships with.

In the US, banks would respond simply that a business' transactions had "been handled as agreed".

Northern European Banks (like Rabobank) would reply favorably that a business was "serious and reliable".

I think there is a lot of hidden meaning in that phrase...and explains to me why RaboBank dealt with missed testing (and the potential inferences that one could draw) in the way they did.

[kelownagirl]

You don't need a passport to drive to the US from Canada (and presumably vice versa) but you do need a passport to fly into the country. Next January, we will need passports to cross the border by land as well.

[smilingcat]

Hi Spazz,

I totally understand how you feel. But there is one aspect of doping you may not be aware of. Potential sabatoge by your opponent, fans of your opponent and so forth. This is why pro riders have a clear directives not to accept a fresh water bottle from a spectator (I think you get penalized time wise too) or any non-team member for that matter. The drink and food could be spiked so that you end up testing positive. You don't realize that you been given illicit drugs. So the rider could be an innocent victim.

Has something like this ever happened? I really doubt it but it could. Look at Tanya Harding in figure skating. Her goon friends went and tried to break the knee on Nancy Kerrigan (sp).

smilingcat