A TRIBUTE TO (and in defense of) MICHAEL RASMUSSEN - Page 2

kennf · #16 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlvernal

Anyway. The point is that Michael's punishment is in no way proportional with his offense. Even if he proves to have lied, the action taken against him is not justice. Any student of law would (hopefully) argue the same. I mean lets not get carried away here, just because hack sportsjournalists, oppurtunistic politicians and a cloud of dobbelt standards are poisoning the debate.

Indurain luckily agrees.

-mlv

If he lied, it means he was intentionally avoiding out-of-competition doping tests during the two months leading up to the Tour. If that isn't a neon flaming red flag, I don't know what is. He stated has not undergone an out of competition test in 3 years.

Ask the Chicken why he has a Monaco racing license.

helmutRoole2 · #17 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by wicklow200

Are you the Chicken?

No, but he has a chicken suit and he masturbates furiously while wearing it.

Skoorb · #18 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by helmutRoole2

No, but he has a chicken suit and he masturbates furiously while wearing it.

No....no, no no no no no

Tubbs · #19 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoorb

He's like the worst time trialist ever and just kicked too much butt in that TT. Anyway, I think Levi's insane TT is questionable, too.

Whatever the case, we don't know all the details. I maintain rabo wouldn't have cut their foot off without good reason.

Lance Armstrong circa 1995-96 wasn't that great at TT's either. I recall a certain Tour Du Pont where he got passed by Raul Alcala.

Klodifan · #20 07-30.-2007

at first i was sympathetic towards chicken. i felt he was being used as a pawn. and, in some respects, i still do. but after further contemplation, he absolutely knew he was being disingenuous about the testing protocols. he absolutely manipulated his whereabouts and the rules to just get by without being sanctioned, or so he thought. he used the system, and the system came back to bite him in the butt. as cruel as it was, during the height of his career, his punishment is a statement to all other riders, "dont evade your tests"!

he absolutely should have been barred from starting the tour. his dismissal during the tour is debatable, of course. and i really dislike the discriminatory actions against certain riders. there needs to be a standard. if i compare his exclusion to alpuerto's inclusion, then there is a problem. if i isolate chickens actions, then there is not a problem. hence the problem!

my gosh! the bottom line is he evaded three seasons of out of competition tests! he should be grateful!

mlvernal · #21 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klodifan

my gosh! the bottom line is he evaded three seasons of out of competition tests! he should be grateful!

Couldn't disagree more on that particular statement - sorry. It's really a matter of a complete lack of rule of law and rights - moral standards do not apply because they are at worst arbitrary and at best unconsistant (and not to mention often a far cry from being based on unanimous consent). In any other circumstance the actions taken against Michael would be regarded as unjustifiable. To that effect, whether or not he should have been in the tour at all is also besides the point.

It remains that Michael Rasmussen was in the tour. So as you say there has to be standards that apply to him as anyone else - standards that also work fairly towards candidates "likely" to be doped, i.e. the favorites. Rasmussen was thrown out with no tests proving him positive. The moment they find a positive test, then its a cut and dry case of disqualification. Until that point anything other than administrative sanctions are simply off the mark.

Regarding the sponsors and whether or not they applied pressure on Theo de Rooij, then I agree that it's likely that they indeed had something to say. How much we will probably never know. But at least its safe to assume that Rabobank (the sponsors) will be candid about this whole affair. Whatever their role is or has been, they will represent themselves towards the public and the press not as the bullies who (maybe prematurely) sacked Rasmussen, but as merely concerned and somewhat confused do-gooders. "We're shocked and will look into this". "Naturally we are not political". "Bla bla bla."

Again the real problem is the underlying moral standard that the sports press has been so eager to represent. A moral standard that the sponors uncritically have to follow, even though often is pure baloney. The press has waged a war on doping but in doing so they have failed to focus on other likewise important issues; the tour itself, the riders' civil rights, the (economical and/or political) motivations of the sponsors, etc.

The press and journalists have been obsessed with cleaning up the sport, but in my opinion they have dirtied it even further. As a former Danish Tour de France commentator recently put it: "Congratulations, the operation is a succes. The Patient is dead."

- mlv

Tim Lamkin · #22 07-30.-2007

Quote:

The press and journalists have been obsessed with cleaning up the sport, but in my opinion they have dirtied it even further.

Me thinks the press is not forcing the riders to dope...so not sure if that is a fair statement.

strummer_fan · #23 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlvernal

Couldn't disagree more on that particular statement - sorry. It's really a matter of a complete lack of rule of law and rights - moral standards do not apply because they are at worst arbitrary and at best unconsistant (and not to mention often a far cry from being based on unanimous consent). In any other circumstance the actions taken against Michael would be regarded as unjustifiable. To that effect, whether or not he should have been in the tour at all is also besides the point.

It remains that Michael Rasmussen was in the tour. So as you say there has to be standards that apply to him as anyone else - standards that also work fairly towards candidates "likely" to be doped, i.e. the favorites. Rasmussen was thrown out with no tests proving him positive. The moment they find a positive test, then its a cut and dry case of disqualification. Until that point anything other than administrative sanctions are simply off the mark.

Regarding the sponsors and whether or not they applied pressure on Theo de Rooij, then I agree that it's likely that they indeed had something to say. How much we will probably never know. But at least its safe to assume that Rabobank (the sponsors) will be candid about this whole affair. Whatever their role is or has been, they will represent themselves towards the public and the press not as the bullies who (maybe prematurely) sacked Rasmussen, but as merely concerned and somewhat confused do-gooders. "We're shocked and will look into this". "Naturally we are not political". "Bla bla bla."

Again the real problem is the underlying moral standard that the sports press has been so eager to represent. A moral standard that the sponors uncritically have to follow, even though often is pure baloney. The press has waged a war on doping but in doing so they have failed to focus on other likewise important issues; the tour itself, the riders' civil rights, the (economical and/or political) motivations of the sponsors, etc.

The press and journalists have been obsessed with cleaning up the sport, but in my opinion they have dirtied it even further. As a former Danish Tour de France commentator recently put it: "Congratulations, the operation is a succes. The Patient is dead."

- mlv

In this day and age, it is very easy to show where someone was. Michael should be able to easily prove that he WAS in Mexico, and that he was NOT in Italy during June. His cell phone provider can tell you where his phone was that month. He can point to plane tickets, credit card receipts, passport stamps, etc.

He has not.

With the Victory in the Tour de France hanging in the balance, you would think he could have told Rabobank... give me 24 hours and I'll provide you with evidence that proves I was in Mexico. He could have produced any type of evidence as listed above.

He did not.

The team asked him to leave.

I feel bad for the guy, but if you are one of the top 200 cyclists in the world, you need to let the federations know where you are, so you can be tested. End of story.

sigh.

Klodifan · #24 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlvernal

Couldn't disagree more on that particular statement - sorry. It's really a matter of a complete lack of rule of law and rights - moral standards do not apply because they are at worst arbitrary and at best unconsistant (and not to mention often a far cry from being based on unanimous consent). In any other circumstance the actions taken against Michael would be regarded as unjustifiable. To that effect, whether or not he should have been in the tour at all is also besides the point.

It remains that Michael Rasmussen was in the tour. So as you say there has to be standards that apply to him as anyone else - standards that also work fairly towards candidates "likely" to be doped, i.e. the favorites. Rasmussen was thrown out with no tests proving him positive. The moment they find a positive test, then its a cut and dry case of disqualification. Until that point anything other than administrative sanctions are simply off the mark.

Regarding the sponsors and whether or not they applied pressure on Theo de Rooij, then I agree that it's likely that they indeed had something to say. How much we will probably never know. But at least its safe to assume that Rabobank (the sponsors) will be candid about this whole affair. Whatever their role is or has been, they will represent themselves towards the public and the press not as the bullies who (maybe prematurely) sacked Rasmussen, but as merely concerned and somewhat confused do-gooders. "We're shocked and will look into this". "Naturally we are not political". "Bla bla bla."

Again the real problem is the underlying moral standard that the sports press has been so eager to represent. A moral standard that the sponors uncritically have to follow, even though often is pure baloney. The press has waged a war on doping but in doing so they have failed to focus on other likewise important issues; the tour itself, the riders' civil rights, the (economical and/or political) motivations of the sponsors, etc.

The press and journalists have been obsessed with cleaning up the sport, but in my opinion they have dirtied it even further. As a former Danish Tour de France commentator recently put it: "Congratulations, the operation is a succes. The Patient is dead."

- mlv

technically, he wasnt thrown out by the tour. he was sacked by his team for lying. you cannot take morality out of this eventhough you so wish to. an employer has every right to fire employee for unbecoming conduct. chicken lied. everything else about his evasion of drug doping protocols just strenghthens rabobanks decision.

it is simple. part of his job obligation is to represent rabobank positively. he failed. he was fired. end of story.

Tubbs · #25 07-30.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klodifan

technically, he wasnt thrown out by the tour. he was sacked by his team for lying. you cannot take morality out of this eventhough you so wish to. an employer has every right to fire employee for unbecoming conduct. chicken lied. everything else about his evasion of drug doping protocols just strenghthens rabobanks decision.

it is simple. part of his job obligation is to represent rabobank positively. he failed. he was fired. end of story.

I somewhat agree with Klodifan on this. Nobody comes away looking good from all the situation. Not Rasmussen, not ASO not the UCI. Cycling just looks bad. Legally, does Rasmussen have a case against Rabo for wrongful dismissal? perhaps... but at the end of the day, if we really want to succeed in the fight against doping, everyone, including the riders must personally take on that fight.

Let's say Rasmussen is clean, then I'm sorry but his behaviour is just irresponsible. He has just basically shown the dopers a weakness in the fight against doping that they can exploit. Had he been a different kind of professional... let's say a banker or some sort of businessman, that would be grounds for dismissal.

From a different perspective, the ASO and UCI really need to end their pissing match and work together. This ProTour spat is starting to negatively affect those who are trying to clean up the sport. So yes, they too are behaving irresponsibly.

mlvernal · #26 07-31.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

I somewhat agree with Klodifan on this. Nobody comes away looking good from all the situation. Not Rasmussen, not ASO not the UCI. Cycling just looks bad. Legally, does Rasmussen have a case against Rabo for wrongful dismissal? perhaps... but at the end of the day, if we really want to succeed in the fight against doping, everyone, including the riders must personally take on that fight.

It's a matter of proportions. He was days from fulfilling his lifelong dream. The punishment of getting thrown out (yes I know he was sacked by the team) of the Tour, is in no way proportional with the offense.

It's pure and simple discrimination. Any other rider with lower ranking or out of the group of favorites would not have been fired and everybody would (hopefully) understand. It's wrongful and unjust to overreact just because Rasmussen is deemed a likely candidate.

But they overreact because the war on doping means that every rider out there is being handled and looked upon as were he a politician or representative of the public - thus as if they have a special moral obligation to the public. And we that critize them for not being perfect and living up to their responsiblity feel soooo much better about ourselves when we can point our fingers at them. Arguing again that they have that special moral obligation. Humbug.

Well let me burst that balloon. They are NOT representatives of either one of us. And nor should they be. Even without doping they still engage themselves in a sport that is so brutal and extreme, that only a very small handful of the rest of us could follow in their footsteps. Please do not apply your moral standards. Be ethical, sure. Be be so within a non-discriminatory and rights based perspective.

Come on! Every man, woman and child have at some point bent the rules a little. So let's put it into perspective - Rasmussen MAYBE lied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Lamkin

Me thinks the press is not forcing the riders to dope...so not sure if that is a fair statement.

Geez Louis. That was not the statement. The statement is, that when trying to clean the sport you have to watch out that you're not destroying what you're trying to save. Blaming the riders and doctors solely is a huge mistake and it's quite unbelievable that the amateur press covering the tour haven't been willing to see the problem in it's larger perspective.

The easiest and most narrow minded way to look at this is, that it's the rider's who carry the responsibility. And that leads to ill-advised actions as say, what happened to Michael Rasmussen.

(As such this whole ordeal is a quite the allegory for the current war on terror. But that, as they say, is a another story.)

Thanks again everyone for reading and sharing your opinions!!

-mlv

Tim Lamkin · #27 07-31.-2007

Quote:

The easiest and most narrow minded way to look at this is, that it's the rider's who carry the responsibility.

I don't give a dam who is pushing the riders....doctors, mangers, banks, of even DH to take drugs IT IS the riders responsibility NOT to take the drugs or blood or anything, who the hell do you think is the last one in line to say NO.

You need to get a grip and understand the rider is the guy turning the cranks, saying no means loosing his job then so be it....stand up and have some balls to clean up this sport.

Who are you protecting?

mlvernal · #28 07-31.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Lamkin

You need to get a grip and understand the rider is the guy turning the cranks, saying no means loosing his job then so be it....stand up and have some balls to clean up this sport.

Who are you protecting?

I'll give you this: The frase you quote me for is admittedly (out of context and) lacking nuances.

The rider's DO have a responsibility and yes to a certain extent it begins and ends with them. But I'm pointing to the fact that they also need protection in this war on doping. As do the sport itself.

We have to be careful never to act prematurely on grounds of suspicion and circumstancial evidence only. In doing so we loose sight of the rider's rights as individuals. And that leads to drastic and certainly very unfair measures. And that ruins the sport. Administrative punishment would be fair and called for. But also sufficient. As you say: End of story.

So to answer your question again clearly: I'm protecting the rights of the rider's of the Tour. Call me a devil's advocate. But as far as your line of arguments, I would (with no disrespect) say the same about you.

"This isn't Nam. We have rules!"

-mlv

Tim Lamkin · #29 07-31.-2007

Excuse me...what do you mean by this

Quote:

"This isn't Nam. We have rules!"

mlvernal · #30 07-31.-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Lamkin

Excuse me...what do you mean by this

It's a reference to the Coen brothers comedy The Big Lebowski, where Walt looses his temper (again) over a game of bowling and shouts out that very frase.

Please do not take it too seriously. I just ment to stress that while fighting doping, be aware that rules and rights must remain intact, fair, balanced and equal to all.

Best
mlv

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode