Tour de France rider tests positive for blood doping

[habernac]

Chicken knows the rules. Yes, it sucks, but they're all bound to it. You need to tell them where you are at all times. Period. The sponsor Rabobank insisted on removing him, no doubt with pressure from others.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

but the fact of the matter is, he's never been caught using performance enhancing drugs or doping,

Neither has Bonds, are you on the Bonds is innocent bandwagon as well?

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Neither has Bonds, are you on the Bonds is innocent bandwagon as well?

Funny you should say so, because indeed I am a fan of Bonds. Although I haven't really followed the allegations against him, all I know is, I find it hard to believe (concerning Rasmussen) that a training of any form whatsoever could assist in his overall performance at the Tour, while he's been found to be completely clean during the event itself. He's been tested 14 times already, and every test has come out clean, so indeed, in his case I see no reason other than an administrative error for his suspension, which in my opinion is a severe overreaction and will only work against the efforts of redeeming the already heavily tainted reputation of cycling. He was training in the Alps and not in Mexico... so what? Half the peleton have had the exact same warning by the UCI for not informing them of their whereabouts during their training, why was Rasmussen singled out by everyone and punished more severely than everyone else?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I kinda respect the anti-Stasi human rights methodology of "innocent until proven guilty"; epecially as his innocence has been proven on numerous occasions.

[habernac]

Rasmussen clearly stated he was in Mexico and not the Alps. Why would he say that if he had nothing to hide? In the Alps, I guarantee it's pretty damn easy for the testers to find you. In Mexico, not so much. He broke a team rule, he pays the price. He has to let them know where he is at all times. And he lied about it.

[troutman]

Sponsors may pull-out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1185...googlenews_wsj


France reacts:

http://www.tdfblog.com/doping/

Hugh Schofield, writing in The Independent, provides some reaction from French newspapers: from Aujourd'hui en France: “Cheats, Get Out!” (in French, “Tricheurs dehors!”); in La Nouvelle Republique, “It's the Tour of Shame.”

The Associated Press notes France Soir's front page obituary (at right), which said the Tour died today, “at age 104, after a long illness.”

"The Tour must be stopped.”

“This procession of cyclists has been transformed into a caravan of ridicule,” Liberation wrote. “If the organizers really want to save cycling, they should stop the competition and declare a pause of a few years, enough time to treat these athletes-turned-druggies.”

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by habernac

Rasmussen clearly stated he was in Mexico and not the Alps. Why would he say that if he had nothing to hide?

You omitted a very important fact: He could not be tracked down. In other words, hypothetically he could have said he was next door to the UCI testing center, that's totally irrelevant. He couldn't be found, that's all that matters. It doesn't matter where he was. Moreover, directly after being found he was tested, and he was clean, so that rules out any doping for at least the latter half month of his training.

Originally Posted by habernac

In the Alps, I guarantee it's pretty damn easy for the testers to find you. In Mexico, not so much.

The word 'guarantee' is scary; you can deduce it, but no way can you guarantee it.

Originally Posted by habernac

He broke a team rule, he pays the price. He has to let them know where he is at all times. And he lied about it.

I'll refer to my previous post (something I knew would happen): Almost half of the participants have recieved a warning for not declaring their whereabouts; one thing is for certain, if Rasmussen was up to no good in his AWOL, then I guarantee they all were. If the media were to dig deep in every cyclist, they'll find some little white lie and therefore everyone should be suspended.

I don't really care if it's a rule or not, because there are enough rules (ESPECIALLY with the UCI) that are ridiculous (such as this one); moreover, once the union starts using different measurements and punishments for participants guilty of the same thing, it's wrong.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

You omitted a very important fact: He could not be tracked down. In other words, hypothetically he could have said he was next door to the UCI testing center, that's totally irrelevant. He couldn't be found, that's all that matters. It doesn't matter where he was. Moreover, directly after being found he was tested, and he was clean, so that rules out any doping for at least the latter half month of his training.

Yes, it does matter where he was. Part of being a pro cyclist is letting the UCI and your team know where you are at all times. If he was in Italy, why did he tell everyone he was in Mexico? Probably because he has something to hide. Rabobank were stupid to let him start in the first place. The race has been cloaked in scandal and could not afford another one. Rasmussen's own country dropped him from their team for the World Championships this year because he missed two tests.

[habernac]

Also, take into account that it wasn't the UCI or the Tour officials that threw him out, it was his own sponsor. Were they pressured to do so? Probably. But the case must have been pretty convincing if Rabobank wanted him turfed.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by habernac

Yes, it does matter where he was. Part of being a pro cyclist is letting the UCI and your team know where you are at all times.

Trust me, I fully understand the rules, you're missing the point I'm making, which goes beyond them.

He came back from AWOL and claimed to have been in Mexico. He was then tested and was found clean. Once again: In what way does it matter where he was? It does not change the fact that he did what he did, and was not caught using illegal material. Maybe he did do naughty things in the Alps; that still doesn't change 2 facts: 1. He was never caught with illegal substances in his possesion or in his bloodstream. 2. He already recieved the mandatory punishment, just like every other cyclist that had done the same thing (AWOL during some period of his training) which happens to be alomst the have of the peleton.

It's a clear case of circumstantial evidence costing him his career; or as the Theo de Rooij (Rabobank team director) puts it: "A violation of internal rules" (you're not allowed to lie, mmmkaaaaaah?) which is absolutely ridiculous, because.... once again.... so many cyclists have done the exact same thing and only recieved the mandatory punishment.

So, how is that 'fair'?

Originally Posted by habernac

If he was in Italy, why did he tell everyone he was in Mexico? Probably because he has something to hide.

Probably eh... so off with his head?

Originally Posted by habernac

Rabobank were stupid to let him start in the first place. The race has been cloaked in scandal and could not afford another
one.

No they weren't, because only like 40 participants would've started the Tour if everyone with a warning was not allowed to race. Montador, the curent #1? Recieved a warning. Why is he still in the race? Or as you put it, why was he allowed to start?

Originally Posted by habernac

Rasmussen's own country dropped him from their team for the World Championships this year because he missed two tests.

I don't see the relevance of this, especially as he was only let go by the national team after he acquired the mallot jaune.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by habernac

Also, take into account that it wasn't the UCI or the Tour officials that threw him out, it was his own sponsor. Were they pressured to do so? Probably. But the case must have been pretty convincing if Rabobank wanted him turfed.

Obviously the team had no choice. L'Equipe came with the story, and teh Rabobank has already been under pressure by the UCI and the ASO (organization of the Tour) to let him go; Boogerd (team captain) and Dekker (team coach) both openly disagreed with the release, but the powers that be are French. Go figure.

[habernac]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...l07/jul26news4

“They got strong proof that he had lied to him in relation to his whereabouts; he told them he was in Mexico while in actual fact he was in Italy. He was thrown out on that basis. From that point of view, I would have to support Rabobank completely because there are more forms of cheating than just doping. Telling lies within a team framework is also cheating as well.”
Rasmussen admitted to the team that he had indeed told mistruths about where he was. Was he doing it to avoid out of competition tests, or perhaps to work with a preparatore behind his team’s back?
“That’s not something that I can verify,” said McQuaid of those possibilities. “But his behaviour certainly leads to suspicion, and a lack of credibility as a result. In this sport, particularly in these times, we can't afford that.”

[Dr GonZo]

Sigh....

I'm speaking to deaf ears...

I understand the proposition. I know the rules.

He lied.

They found out because the press and the ASO were on a duckhunt to get him kicked out.

He didn't say where he was during his AWOL.

Who has? No one. Everyone else just recieved mandatory punishment. His career is over.

Why is he being treated differently?

Why is this even a rule?

Get my drift?

If you intend to reply, please don't repeat with "how he broke the rules by not telling the truth", you've said it 4 times in a row now.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

Sigh....

I'm speaking to deaf ears...

I understand the proposition. I know the rules.

He lied.

They found out because the press and the ASO were on a duckhunt to get him kicked out.

He didn't say where he was during his AWOL.

Who has? No one. Everyone else just recieved mandatory punishment. His career is over.

Why is he being treated differently?

Why is this even a rule?

Get my drift?

If you intend to reply, please don't repeat with "how he broke the rules by not telling the truth", you've said it 4 times in a row now.

He was probably given more than the madatory punishment, because he had was on a team who didn't want to be associated with someone who would lie to them about his whereabouts, and cast an image of impropriety on himself and his team.

He received the official mandatory punishment from the sporting body, and his team/sponsor decided that they didn't want to support him anymore, so they pulled him.

He wasn't punished more than the other riders by any official body, he pissed off his sponsor and was fired, something that they were probalby were right to do for two reasons:
1) Who would want to sponsor and pay someone who intentionally lies to them?
2) There is major potential for embarassment if thier rider is found out to have been doing something wrong in the timeframe that he lied to you them about.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

He was probably given more than the madatory punishment, because he had was on a team who didn't want to be associated with someone who would lie to them about his whereabouts, and cast an image of impropriety on himself and his team.

He received the official mandatory punishment from the sporting body, and his team/sponsor decided that they didn't want to support him anymore, so they pulled him.

He wasn't punished more than the other riders by any official body, he pissed off his sponsor and was fired, something that they were probalby were right to do for two reasons:
1) Who would want to sponsor and pay someone who intentionally lies to them?
2) There is major potential for embarassment if thier rider is found out to have been doing something wrong in the timeframe that he lied to you them about.

Good post.

He did recieve a €10,000 penalty/fine by the Rabobank team for him not telling them about his whereabouts. And that was that. Until the rumor mill started turning that he was in Italy instead of Mexico.

A few things I can't help but wonder:

1. If you're the sponsor of a player/racer, should it not be your responsibility, as a team manager/organization, to know where your racers are, or at least know how and where to contact him? As Rasmussen was subjected to a random test, just as every other cyclist, why didn't Rabobank try to find him themselves instead of stick their head in the sand and act ignorant. Personally, I think they dumped him to save their own neck; as in, they knew more than they'd like to admit.
2. Personally, to fire someone because they lied, I don't like it. He most likely did do some illegal training with Epo in Italy (which EVERYONE did, not in Italym but they all did their training, and alot were repremanded for not showing up at a random drug control test) and was justfully penalized for it. The action was joke, in my opinion, from an ethical, professional and anti-hypocritical perspective.

It sure won't surprise me if we will hear something on Contador in the upcoming weeks, I bet there's nothing Rasmussen did that he didn't do.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Dr GonZo

Good post.

He did recieve a €10,000 penalty/fine by the Rabobank team for him not telling them about his whereabouts. And that was that. Until the rumor mill started turning that he was in Italy instead of Mexico.

A few things I can't help but wonder:

1. If you're the sponsor of a player/racer, should it not be your responsibility, as a team manager/organization, to know where your racers are, or at least know how and where to contact him? As Rasmussen was subjected to a random test, just as every other cyclist, why didn't Rabobank try to find him themselves instead of stick their head in the sand and act ignorant. Personally, I think they dumped him to save their own neck; as in, they knew more than they'd like to admit.
2. Personally, to fire someone because they lied, I don't like it. He most likely did do some illegal training with Epo in Italy (which EVERYONE did, not in Italym but they all did their training, and alot were repremanded for not showing up at a random drug control test) and was justfully penalized for it. The action was joke, in my opinion, from an ethical, professional and anti-hypocritical perspective.

It sure won't surprise me if we will hear something on Contador in the upcoming weeks, I bet there's nothing Rasmussen did that he didn't do.

I think firing someone because they lied is perfectly acceptable. As you say, they should be responsible for being able to keep track of him. That's all well and good, but there has to be some cooperation on the part of the athlete.

It's one thing if he just takes off. He could potentially chalk that up to an oversight on his part "Oops, sorry , forgot about that whole I have to tell you where I'm going rule". But to intentionally lie to them, presumably so they COULD NOT track you down, is another thing entirely, it shows that you are intentionally breaking a rule.

Sponsorships are all about image:
"Hey those athletes use these products so they must be good."

So when an athlete gives the appearance that they are doing something that isn't above board, it reflects badly on the sponsor, and they have every right (and probably contractual loopholes), to dump that athlete.

The athletes job is pretty simple: Make the sponsor look good, and follow the rules. When they're is the posibility that they intentionally flouted the rules, it certainly doesn't make the sponsor look good, and is most certainly grounds for getting canned.

[Dr GonZo]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Sponsorships are all about image:
"Hey those athletes use these products so they must be good."

So when an athlete gives the appearance that they are doing something that isn't above board, it reflects badly on the sponsor, and they have every right (and probably contractual loopholes), to dump that athlete.

The athletes job is pretty simple: Make the sponsor look good, and follow the rules. When they're is the posibility that they intentionally flouted the rules, it certainly doesn't make the sponsor look good, and is most certainly grounds for getting canned.

Agreed. However, personally (and thereby agreeing with Dekker, Menchov, Boogerd (Rasmussen's teammates) and presumably a whole bunch of other people) I don't think by firing the leader of the Tour saved face at all. My opinion is, it did the exact opposite.

The only reason he was fired was because alot of people did alot of work in order to get him fired. Of all the cyclists that competed, I bet half (which also have be repremanded for being AWOL) lied about their wherebouts the past year as well.

The Rabobank showed their colors by caving into what the French media wanted, which will only spread their power on the Tour, and thus increase turmoil. Moreover, considering brand imaging, the old saying 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' is true; it would have been a historical event if for the Netherlands and for Denmark if Rabobank/Denmark would have won. Although a slight majority agreed with his sacking, a heavier majority had no interest in the Tour anymore after Rasmussen's exit here. Including myself.

And something I'll continue to repeat, it's an issue of consistency. When you dig deep enough, most cyclists wold be fired for equally 'heavy' diffractions, but the French were out to get Rasmussen fired, and the Rabobank gave in; in my eyes, that makes the Rabobank the French's b!tch.