bambi said:
http://www.nrc.nl/achtergrond/article874819.ece/<b>English_version</b>_the_Rasmussen_schandal
- anyone know where I can get some Nike Air Jordan's for cheap ?
Michael Rasmussen to sue Rabobank
- Thread starter cyclingheroes
- Start date
- Status
http://www.nrc.nl/achtergrond/article874819.ece/<b>English_version</b>_the_Rasmussen_schandal
- anyone know where I can get some Nike Air Jordan's for cheap ?
My problem is that this situation has some similarity to the current situation with Mayo. Chicken should not have been allowed to start TdF. Since he for whatever reason HAD started, I think he should have finished the race. The team knew the situation, and pulled off a fast "fired for lying" excuse to bow to pressure from ASO (and managed to look like the outraged good guys in the process). I am not defending the Chicken here; however, it is a question of following protocols properly (and to quote yourself italiano, two wrongs do not make a right). Take the case of Mayo - he is almost surely doped. But is it proper to ban him now after the way UCI has broken its own rules by retesting the B-sample?italiano said:
The question is why did UCI allow Chicken to start? Is it to purposefully damage ASO and TdF, or did they just not anticipate a situation by Chicken getting the yellow jersey?
You have to know that ASO requested all teams to have only clean riders and to respect the rule of no one single missing test in the last month before TDF!!!
You can see from where was coming the ASO pressure on Rabo: "you knew, you did nothing, fix it now".
You can see from where was coming the ASO pressure on Rabo: "you knew, you did nothing, fix it now".
We can see the possibility that Rabo knew about Rasmussens deception before the race now, but how would ASO have known that at the time?poulidor said:
Furthermore, whilst I have no faith that the UCI wouldn't be too concerned if ASO got hurt in a media bloodbath, I am having difficulty working out what they (UCI) should have done to stop Rasmussen from competing. Until his deception was revealed, Razz had not tripped the "three times your farked" violation. UCI could have been sued for publicly revealing the two missed tests (which were not legal grounds to suspend him).
It wasn't until the lie was revealed by Cassani that Rasmussen's story was farked. So I don't understand Prudhomme's bleating, though I do understand why he would initially suspect the UCI had something to do with it.
The TDF rule is : rider who have missed a test in the period before TDF cannot participate to TDF! It's not a UCI ban. I don't know it it was put in UCI rules but it's at least an agreement with teams!Crankyfeet said:
So Rabo should have left Rassmussen off its TDF team.
No wonder Rabo were so anxious to yank him out of the race.poulidor said:
This whole sordid mess just gets thicker and thicker.
My Dutch is bad (my languagebot that isTheDarkLord said:
)...but it seems they are saying that Rabo have sacked Bergsma...the PR guy since 2003...as a kind of sacrificial lamb...due to his less than stellar job at handling the crisis with the media during the scandal. Breukink stays on, even though he is ultimately responsible. He has the power to lay the blame on others it seems.Please correct me if I'm wrong on this CH.
- Status
