Professional Cycling For the Fans - Why is Rasmussen still in the Tour?

I've seen the Versus reports of Rasmussen's indiscretions. To hear them tell it, he recently failed to inform the Danish authorities of his whereabouts while visiting relatives in Mexico. Versus makes it sound as if it were a one-time deal and some kind of inadvertent error. They portrayed it as if the Danish authorities were being unduly picky. Rasmussen obviously wants to leave the same impression.

Have you read the published reports in the press? This isn't a one-time deal. It is a FOUR-time deal. It is something Rasmussen has been consistently doing for a couple of years. They've told him that they consider testing during training to be MORE significant than testing during competition -- but he keeps doing this. He has apparently played the game out to the maximum grace periods, making it appear to be anything BUT inadvertent. Very systematic. And the rule, from the beginning, was that, if you avoid testing three or more times (as he has done) it is considered a positive test. (Just as refusing a DUI test is considered a positive test.) One has to ask -- if the limit is THREE avoidances, why didn't they act until he did it FOUR times?

On the side of the published reports is all the documentation of the history. Also on the side of the published reports is that Rasmussen is selling a story that is demonstrably false.

Given the desperate need for the Tour to portray a positive image, why is he still permitted to ride in the Tour?

I was watching the morning coverage when this first came out and was struck by Phil/Paul/Bobke's total dismissal of this. . .Bobke said several times that it was no big deal and that "if your plane is late" you get one of those notices, totally "outside of your control." I didn't know what was going on but it struck me as weird their defense of Rasmussen and knocking of Danish cycling. I was thinking, hold on, if there was nothing to this the Danish cycling org wouldn't throw the TDF leader off the squad. Must be more to it. . .but no, Bobke assures me he just probably got caught in a weather delay. . .

The funny thing is that Bobke must know about all the doping that went on/goes on. . .

"Michael Rasmussen should not have started the Tour," stated ASO President Patrice Clerc. "Why? In a period of crisis a champion has to be an example. In addition, his attitude, which we only know now, makes us believe that we should have refused his participation."

Versus is the mouthpiece of the Tour. No bad news ever comes from their mouths. Nothing is too damning for them to gloss over.

It isn't clear if it is due to 4 incidents or just 2 incidents that he was cited by both the UCI and the DCU.

He explained away one rather well at the press conference. He was supposed to file his whereabouts for April-June of that year on 15 March - note he had already provided info that was good up until the end of March.. He forgot. The UCI cited him on 24 March. He returned home from a UCI race on 1 April found the notice and provided his April-June info on 2 April. So the UCI didn't know where he was on 1 April - if that is the sum total of his error in that situation even the most jaded cycling fan can sympathize he made a small error. He can't hide a comprehensive doping plan by not having the UCI aware of his location for a single day - a day when he was most likely not scheduled to be tested.

I'm not saying he is a saint, but lets break down each instance and analyze it sanely. If there is something underhanded going on it will become obvious, but running around freaking out about some possibility of doping without a careful consideration of the facts isn't useful for anyone.

Ras has not committed a doping violation yet. Therefore, he gets to ride.

The rule is, if you miss more than 2 tests administered by a single organization, that's equivalent to a single adverse finding / failed test. IIRC Ras missed 2 by UCI and 2 by the Danish cycling org, over a period of several years. So there are no grounds to suspend him.

I might add he's obviously getting tested quite thoroughly whilst in Yellow; I'm sure they're checking for everything they can afford, including white blood cells in the shape of small kitchen sinks.

The funny thing is that Bobke must know about all the doping that went on/goes on. . .

Yeah, giving a rider the benefit of the doubt is indisputable evidence that Bobke is the doping ringleader. WADA should sign you up, you'll get to the bottom of this!!

To answer your main question, then Rasmussen haven't done anything that warrant an UCI sanction, and you have the UCI's word for that.

He has only committed two offenses, and you need three before they are considered a doping violation. UCI also forgot to inform both Rasmussen and his team about one of the warnings. The other two warnings are from AD Denmark, but since Rasmussen lives in Italy and rides on a Mexican license, it is doubtfull that they are legally valid since he doesn't live in Denmark. Rasmussen is married to a Mexican, and have been altitude training in Mexico since 1994.
One of his offenses was because his report was delayed by the postal system, not because Rasmussen was to late in sending in the report.

You claim that there are evidence that Rasmussen's story is "demonstrably false". To my knowledge the only untrue fact he has told was that he misremembered who he had talked to at UCI when he got a warning. Rasmussen claims that he thought he had settled that warning over the phone, which seems plausible since UCI forgot to send the warning to his team.

In short, Michael Rasmussen has done nothing that could get him legally kicked out of the tour. It would perhaps be interesting to know how many other Pro Tour riders that have more than one warning.

--
Regards

Yeah, giving a rider the benefit of the doubt is indisputable evidence that Bobke is the doping ringleader. WADA should sign you up, you'll get to the bottom of this!!

My point was that since he has been involved in cycling for the last 20 years he knows more than you or I will ever know about cycling and doping - which has been going on for his entire time in cycling. Not saying he was involved but certainly he knows riders, etc . . .

Versus is the mouthpiece of the Tour. No bad news ever comes from their mouths. Nothing is too damning for them to gloss over.

Its true that there is a voac quality to their broadcasts..... I do hope that they will treat this latest news with the attention and time it deserves.... We will see tomorrow!

To answer your main question, then Rasmussen haven't done anything that warrant an UCI sanction, and you have the UCI's word for that.

He has only committed two offenses, and you need three before they are considered a doping violation. UCI also forgot to inform both Rasmussen and his team about one of the warnings. The other two warnings are from AD Denmark, but since Rasmussen lives in Italy and rides on a Mexican license, it is doubtfull that they are legally valid since he doesn't live in Denmark. Rasmussen is married to a Mexican, and have been altitude training in Mexico since 1994.
One of his offenses was because his report was delayed by the postal system, not because Rasmussen was to late in sending in the report.

You claim that there are evidence that Rasmussen's story is "demonstrably false". To my knowledge the only untrue fact he has told was that he misremembered who he had talked to at UCI when he got a warning. Rasmussen claims that he thought he had settled that warning over the phone, which seems plausible since UCI forgot to send the warning to his team.

In short, Michael Rasmussen has done nothing that could get him legally kicked out of the tour. It would perhaps be interesting to know how many other Pro Tour riders that have more than one warning.

--
Regards

This and Bacciagalupe's post have it correct: He has two warnings from UCI, and two from ADD, but you need three from one organization. His lawyer also disputes ADD's right to test him, since he doesn't ride on a Danish license.

The timeline for his trip to Mexico, however, is a little fishy. but technically, he didn't break enough rules to warrant disqualification.

I, too, would like to know how many riders miss critical testing in June.

keep in ind he was in a race during the scheduled time. at which time he was probably tested anyhow. Until he has commited a doping violation then I don't see why we should brand him guilty. We are just as terrible as the UCI. It's silly for us to try to understand the protocol and then argue against the rider. I won't give him the benefit of the doubt, however I will give him the respect I would give any other athlete who is wlling to be tested every single day in the yellow jersey and every day by your supportive team and also by the UCI and Pro Tour. .. Certainly if he is doping and is getting away with it then .. well there is truley no hope..

We all think so why was he before riding for Mexico, who doesn't test?

But the posts above about how he is being scrutinized during Le Tour has to be right on the mark. So if he wins, then congratulations! If we error, let's not error on the side of accusation unless there is proof. However, I'll wager he tests clean.

I, too, would like to know how many riders miss critical testing in June.
Rasmussen didn't miss a doping test. He failed to inform UCI of his whereabouts (for just a few days it seems), so they wouldn't have been able to test him in case they wanted to.

When interviewed for dutch TV, Michael Boogerd claimed there are at least 30 riders in the TdF that have received UCI warnings for similar "offenses" in the past couple of months.

Boogerd is Rasmussen's team mate, so take it for what it's worth.

Rasmussen didn't miss a doping test. He failed to inform UCI of his whereabouts (for just a few days it seems), so they wouldn't have been able to test him in case they wanted to.


See now, this is where I'm still confused. I noted in another thread that the Danish media said exactly this. But there are many places in the English media where they say he failed to show up for a test, or missed a test, or similar.

My Danish is not all that good, though, so I thought I was missing something.

For what it's worth, the statement by the UCI makes no note of a missed test, per se, either.

gcl8a, in English we can say he failed to show up for a test because he failed to show up at his house, where he said he would be, for one of the tests (or was it two?). The testers were waiting for him on at least one occassion (and boy do they know how to wait!) but he didn't come back. It was a failure to show up for a test.

I truly wonder if Rabobank - the bank, not the team - wants Rasmussen to win. It is bad for their image. There are about 2,500 stories about Rabobank on Google news feeds. About 1,350 of them are about missed drug tests and drug allegations. It's a terrible waste of money on Rabobank's part to pay millions of euros to get such negative publicity. They're signed up to support 'cycling' until 2014, but they have many programs, of which pro cycling is only one. I think their emphasis may change.

gcl8a, in English we can say he failed to show up for a test because he failed to show up at his house, where he said he would be, for one of the tests (or was it two?). The testers were waiting for him on at least one occassion (and boy do they know how to wait!) but he didn't come back. It was a failure to show up for a test.

I truly wonder if Rabobank - the bank, not the team - wants Rasmussen to win. It is bad for their image. There are about 2,500 stories about Rabobank on Google news feeds. About 1,350 of them are about missed drug tests and drug allegations. It's a terrible waste of money on Rabobank's part to pay millions of euros to get such negative publicity. They're signed up to support 'cycling' until 2014, but they have many programs, of which pro cycling is only one. I think their emphasis may change.

How you say in English: "Any news is good news."?

gcl8a, in English we can say he failed to show up for a test because he failed to show up at his house, where he said he would be, for one of the tests (or was it two?). The testers were waiting for him on at least one occassion (and boy do they know how to wait!) but he didn't come back. It was a failure to show up for a test.
Are you referring to the Rasmussen case or is this hypothetical? In all the reports I've read that seem somewhat informed there is no indication that there were testers waiting for Rasmussen.

during this tour he has been tested 14 times....fourteen. and none positive.


so he seems to be clean.

george

Life has taught me a few things. One of them . . . when people are clean, they don't avoid tests. They don't use loopholes in rules to avoid tests -- much less FOUR of them over two years. They don't need excuses like, "The dog ate my homework" or "I forgot." Let's face it -- it's his JOB to remember. This is pretty important stuff. There's a reason he's "forgeting."

When you're clean, you're eager to take the tests. I don't know of any alcohol-free individual who ever minded taking a breathalyzer.

IF Rasmussen is clean during the Tour (a BIG "if"), his actions shout that he wasn't clean during training.

Life has taught me a few things. One of them . . . when people are clean, they don't avoid tests. They don't use loopholes in rules to avoid tests -- much less FOUR of them over two years. They don't need excuses like, "The dog ate my homework" or "I forgot." Let's face it -- it's his JOB to remember. This is pretty important stuff. There's a reason he's "forgeting."

When you're clean, you're eager to take the tests. I don't know of any alcohol-free individual who ever minded taking a breathalyzer.

IF Rasmussen is clean during the Tour (a BIG "if"), his actions shout that he wasn't clean during training.

Its been four over four years, two over two years.

Four in two years would be over the limit.

A certain number of missed surprise tests permitted as whereabouts are not always precisley known a month in advance.

during this tour he has been tested 14 times....fourteen. and none positive.


so he seems to be clean.

george

:roflmao:

here is a question, what good would doping during training do, if you did not continue to do so through the tour? Wouldn't your body become accustomed to the external aid, resulting in a reduction of natural oxygen carriers, for example? So when you stopped doping, you would be at a major disadvantage, such as Vino's collapse in the stage following the TT.

here is a question, what good would doping during training do, if you did not continue to do so through the tour? Wouldn't your body become accustomed to the external aid, resulting in a reduction of natural oxygen carriers, for example? So when you stopped doping, you would be at a major disadvantage, such as Vino's collapse in the stage following the TT.
epo-doping lasts up to six weeks. if you don't want to get caught you simply have to avoid unannounced tests (i.e. if you don't tell them your whereabouts) and stop using epo before important races. and no, after the effects are gone, you simply return to your normal potential.

Well, until there is some evidence of actual doping, maybe we should just wait and see. Making an accusation of doping is serious business and you can't unring that bell.

Its been four over four years, two over two years.

Four in two years would be over the limit.

A certain number of missed surprise tests permitted as whereabouts are not always precisley known a month in advance.

Actually, it is FOUR over TWO years -- but he changed agencies after the first year so that he could start over. He's trying to trick the system by reaching his limit with one organization, then switching to another and reaching his limit with them. Maxing out the "grace periods" to remain technically innocent with each organization. And, so far, except with the Olympic Committee, the scam is working -- just read some of the replies above! You are correct that anything over two is over the limit.

Any surprise Rasmussen is feeling is purely because the authorities are "bridging" his year under one authority with his year under the other authority. With both authorities combined, it is 4 violations in 2 years -- which violates the rules of both organizations.

What good does use of banned substances do during training? The benefits of steroid use (and much testosterone) come PRIMARILY during training. The benefits of using steroids during the events themselves are rather marginal.

Remember that it took Barry Bonds quite a bit of time to "deflate" after he got off the juice.

here is a question, what good would doping during training do, if you did not continue to do so through the tour? Wouldn't your body become accustomed to the external aid, resulting in a reduction of natural oxygen carriers, for example? So when you stopped doping, you would be at a major disadvantage, such as Vino's collapse in the stage following the TT.

You can use EPO, along with autologus blood doping. Out of competition training, use EPO to boost your hematcrit. Take out and store your own blood. Use EPO to help recover from the negative effects of taking out the blood. Scrub the blood so the EPO won't be detected. (ala Dr Fuentes) Dope with your own supercharged and scrubbed blood in competition.


There's a reason in recent years that more riders have used training camps, rather than races, to prepare for big events, and its not just reconning the routes.

I'm not condoning Rasmussen's conduct, because I believe he is gaming the system. However, I thought I would offer a little insight into the testing process based on some personal observations. A friend of mine is a world-class athlete (an Olympic medalist), and is subject to random drug testing. Last year, he decided at the last-minute to visit me in California for a weekend. He was gone from his home for three days. He completely forgot to send a fax to the USADA (the US agency responsible for testing) listing his whereabouts for those three days. By chance, he was selected for out-of-competition testing on Sunday of that weekend, but it was obviously impossible for him to appear for testing several states away from where he was. He offered to be tested immediately upon returning home or to appear for testing in California, but that was against regulations. Voila, a "missed drug test."

I know another athlete who nearly got tagged with a "missed drug test" because she did not answer her door for some strange guy. At the time, she was being stalked and was afraid for her safety. She thought the guy at the door might be the stalker, and did not think he was the USADA tester. She only avoided missing the test because somebody else found out who he was and called her cell phone.

Neither of these two athletes dopes. The very idea is ridiculous. However, I think these examples demonstrate how easy it is to miss a drug test.

Actually, it is FOUR over TWO years -- but he changed agencies after the first year so that he could start over. He's trying to trick the system by reaching his limit with one organization, then switching to another and reaching his limit with them.

You seem to misunderstood this severely. There are two organizations who have issued warnings; UCI and Anti-Doping Denmark. He haven't switched "agencies" at all, and I don't understand what make think that.
One could also argue that he only have recieved one warning from UCI, since they never send the official warning about being ONE day late with his report, to neither him or his team.
As I said before, the two other warnings from ADD are doubtfull too, since Rasmussen lives in Italy and partly in Mexico and rides with an Mexican license. Why should he report to a Danish organization? He should answer to the Italian and Mexican authorities like he allready does.




Maxing out the "grace periods" to remain technically innocent with each organization. And, so far, except with the Olympic Committee, the scam is working -- just read some of the replies above! You are correct that anything over two is over the limit.

Here is some news for you; The Danish Olympic committee has never banned Rasmussen for participating in DM and VM, and have in fact stated that he is a candidate, since there are no legal reason whatsoever from banning him. DCU, headed by Jesper Worre, a convicted doper and known to bear a grudge against Rasmussen, issued a press statement during the TdF about Rasmussen being banned from DM and VM, but DCU doesn't have any authority to do that, but they succeeded in bluffing the world press and you, and hurt Rasmussen a great deal, and who cares about the truth and corrections 3 days after?


--
Regards

Actually, I didn't get any of my information from the DCU. It came from published reports that pretty well documented Rasmussen's skirting the rules. TECHNICALLY, if you don't merge the two periods of violation under two different authorities, there is no "positive test." (That seems to have been Rasmussen's point -- he escapes on a technicality.) But if you look at the situation with any sense of integrity and realism, Rasmussen is a test dodger.

True that the Danish Olympic Committee has not banned him yet. One reason? They haven't met yet.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2007/news/story?id=2947173

Have you read the published reports in the press? This isn't a one-time deal. It is a FOUR-time deal.

I will have to agree. Why is not making yourself available (going to Mexico and not informing authorities) for doping controls not a violation? Strange rules indeed.

.... Brad

Actually, I didn't get any of my information from the DCU. It came from published reports that pretty well documented Rasmussen's skirting the rules.

There are no "published reports". The only info in this case you find in the international media is from from the danish media. And yes, the story about the UCI warnings can only come from the DCU, since they are the one who kept this confidential information.



TECHNICALLY, if you don't merge the two periods of violation under two different authorities, there is no "positive test." (That seems to have been Rasmussen's point -- he escapes on a technicality.) But if you look at the situation with any sense of integrity and realism, Rasmussen is a test dodger.

Test dodger, hardly; One UCI warning (the one they forgot to tell Rasmussen and his team about, talk about accusing other people not having their paperwork correct) was about Rasmussen being ONE day late with his paperwork, in fact he telephoned and faxed UCI the same day. We are talking hours here, how could could he ever have used that short period for anything sinister?
The second warning was because the UCI received his report about prolonging his stay in Mexico much to late. But notice the UCI spin here; they never claimed that Rasmussen didn't send the report in due time, but only says it was late, even though they could see on the postoffice stamp that it was send in good time. How could Rasmussen speculate that this particular letter would be delayed for weeks end in the postal system? In fact he couldn't, even the Italian Postal system have been known to have delivered letters on time. So if he planned on doping up with easily tested products and therefore would avoid testing he would take take an huge risk by speculating in a late delivery of his letters.
Besides, it was never that he disappeared from his residence in Mexico where UCI knew he was, just that he prolonged his stay there. It hardly smells of dodging.



True that the Danish Olympic Committee has not banned him yet. One reason? They haven't met yet.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2007/news/story?id=2947173

My point exactly; DCU managed to spin the "story" to the press so that everyone believed that it was a fact, but as your link shows, this isn't true at all.
DCU's and Jesper Worres next project is to have VM in Stuttgart cancelled.

--
Regards

Well, there's your answer. Before the Tour started, it never occured to them that he might be in yellow, so they didn't do anything. :o

Then they are idiots. The KOM winner is a champion and he was the odds on favorite for that jersey. It would be almost as stupid to think he had little chance of wearing Yellow this year since the Alps came before the first ITT.

Dang guys, should we just kill him? Geez, from the reports, sounds like a comedy of errors more than a sinister plot. I am not a Rasmussen fan by the way. I just hate to see a guy get crucified unless or until he is actually proven guilty.

one thing you have to consider is that in the race he has done nothing out of the ordinary.

1. He is the best pure climbing in the peleton. He has won both stages in the mountains. barely hangin on to contador's incredible attacks and being attacked by Disco. This is what he is good at.

2. he is not a great Time trialist. His performance this year in the time trial so far was half way decent but not great. He only did better than expected because many got caught up in hype from 2 years ago. also he was in better conditions (not as wet) and the course suited climbers a little bit more. And also the luxury of the yellow jersey and going last.

3. He has not won a sprint or even contested, he has not done anything outside of the mountains that has been spectacular. I really don't think there is any reason to believe doping based on his performances. if he was not in yellow he would be in Polka dot because that is his turf. always has been and always will.

4. Nobody expected him to be a contender. the element of surprise is a great one to have. Everyone thought when he got yellow that they would let his team do the work and then take it away from him after the second rest day. Sorry guys.

5. the media and those new to cycling saw a sloppy time trial from 2005. One very bad incident of a great MOUNTAIN biker in his 3rd yr in the pro peleton who just so happens to be in the top ten of the greatest ROAD race on the planet. A tremendous amount of pressure in a event that he does not excel at. And also very bad luck of multiple mechanical problems.

6. His team is very strong. Was last year and the year before as well. Boogerd has always been strong in the mountains and if you watch previous TDF you will see him in the mountains and often in the front pulling the peleton up the steepest climbs at an incredible pace. Menchov as Super domestique and dekker is a young talent for the future. Dekker also won a huge bike race this year.

Just my opinion.

during this tour he has been tested 14 times....fourteen. and none positive.


so he seems to be clean.

george


David Millar never tested postive, the whole time he admitted he was on EPO, and he admitted the test is really easy to beat.

one thing you have to consider is that in the race he has done nothing out of the ordinary.

2. he is not a great Time trialist. His performance this year in the time trial so far was half way decent but not great. He only did better than expected because many got caught up in hype from 2 years ago. also he was in better conditions (not as wet) and the course suited climbers a little bit more. And also the luxury of the yellow jersey and going last.

Not to forget that another pure climber like Contador actually beat him at the TT with more than half a minute. Contador also won a mountain stage in front of Rasmussen, so if Rasmussens performance is "extra-terrestial" how about Contadors?

I didn't expect Rasmussen to do well in the TT, not because I didn't think he could do well, but because I believed in his decoy on how he hardly knew what a TT-bike was, and that he hadn't trained on such a beast at all.

But there was no reason why he shouldn't be a half decent TT'er if he tried to; he almost always trains alone up against the wind, just like the long solo breakways he has performed in TdF the last couple of years. He knows his body quite well (hence he raced without computer or HRM the last couple of years) and know how much he can give and not crack before the end. He is fast too on the flat stretches, if he wasn't he would never be able to gain time from the peleton.

I know, there are more to being a good TT'er than this, but Rasmussen definitely has some potential good TT-qualities that should be obvious to anyone following him the last couple of years.

--
Regards

bump...good call to the OP.

I apologize to those who I have been in conflict with in defending Rasmussen

the turd has hit the fan. they should cancel the tour this year. If I were alberto Contador I don't think I would want this years jersey. not after all this.

To answer your main question, then Rasmussen haven't done anything that warrant an UCI sanction, and you have the UCI's word for that.

He has only committed two offenses, and you need three before they are considered a doping violation. UCI also forgot to inform both Rasmussen and his team about one of the warnings. The other two warnings are from AD Denmark, but since Rasmussen lives in Italy and rides on a Mexican license, it is doubtfull that they are legally valid since he doesn't live in Denmark. Rasmussen is married to a Mexican, and have been altitude training in Mexico since 1994.
One of his offenses was because his report was delayed by the postal system, not because Rasmussen was to late in sending in the report.

You claim that there are evidence that Rasmussen's story is "demonstrably false". To my knowledge the only untrue fact he has told was that he misremembered who he had talked to at UCI when he got a warning. Rasmussen claims that he thought he had settled that warning over the phone, which seems plausible since UCI forgot to send the warning to his team.

In short, Michael Rasmussen has done nothing that could get him legally kicked out of the tour. It would perhaps be interesting to know how many other Pro Tour riders that have more than one warning.

--
Regards

I appreciate your participation in the conversation, Mrs. Rasmussen. It appears that your boy has been caught with many stories that are "demonstrably false." I guess he never imagined that people would check up on him.

Is there anyone with less intellectual capacity than a ProTour rider?

One hesitates to say, "I told you so."

I appreciate your participation in the conversation, Mrs. Rasmussen. It appears that your boy has been caught with many stories that are "demonstrably false." I guess he never imagined that people would check up on him.

Is there anyone with less intellectual capacity than a ProTour rider?

One hesitates to say, "I told you so."

There were never any stories from Rasmussen that were "demonstrably false", except that he misremembered who he had talked to at UCI. You made several mistakes, like the one about changing agencies, and I corrected that.
Don't think that I am or were a Rasmussen fan, I am a Team CSC follower, not a Rabobank tifosi ;-). Sure, Cassinis recognition of Rasmussen, and his own admission that he had lied to the Rabobank management changed his status. But I have no problem with booting a rider when there is actual substance in the allegations, like in this case, or when riders are linked to the Puerto case, but one, perhaps two UCI warnings hardly constitute anything.

Don't think that I didn't believe that Rasmussen doped, of course he did, just like the rest of the top 20 (besides all the minor dopers that never amounts to anything but watercarriers). It is just that one can't use his TT-performance to say that he doped. Take fx Discovery's Contador a pure climber like Rasmussen, he came in as nr. 47-48 in the 2005 TdF TT, and got 7'th in the 2007 Tdf TT, while Rasmussen only got 11'th. Who is the doper or who is clean? They either both dope or are both clean, take a guess.

No, the way one could see that Rasmussen was a doper, was how he performed in the mountains, and anybody hanging in there with him are arguably doping too, that means Contador, Leipheimer, Cadel, Soler etc. Please don't think that they don't dope; they do.
Being dropped in the last km. and lose a few minutes hardly shows normal human performance.
Same with Lance and Basso; only the other dopers could follow them in the mountains, like Jan Ullrich or Rasmussen.
Oh another minor detail; Rasmussen has a tattoo around his right arm. People found it ugly, but my first thought when I saw it was how several dopers said they got tattoos on their arm so one couldn't see the bruises from the injections.

So what about Sastre, is he clean and white like an angel (remember I am a CSC fan)? No, I just think that there are limits to what extend he can dope, even off-season, because of team CSC's strict doping programme. So I don't think he does blood doping, but of course he uses recovery drugs, like a little IV insulin to help recover between mountain stages.
I also found it suspicious that Floyd Landis old room mate, Zabriskie, suddenly ceased to get any results after CSC started their new strict doping control.

Face it, this years TdF will be won by a doper too.

--
Regards

I, too, would like to know how many riders miss critical testing in June.

So when does l'Equipe release the names of everyone else who got warnings?

There were never any stories from Rasmussen that were "demonstrably false", except that he misremembered who he had talked to at UCI. You made several mistakes, like the one about changing agencies, and I corrected that.
--
Regards

Haven't you read or heard any media these last 12 hours? :eek: :eek:

Don't think that I didn't believe that Rasmussen doped, of course he did, just like the rest of the top 20
Yeah, and #21 is clean? :rolleyes:

Putting a number on this is crazy. No one knows how many are cheating. No one!

This must be the first time ever a rider has been thrown out of the tour de france for using doping, without being testet positive, and without any evidence of him using doping.
He has had the tour og his life, and has been to good. Some people cant handle that, so they start diggin up dirt on the rider. Yes he has had four warnings, but from two sepperate assosiations, you need 3 warnings from the same assosiation to get banned, so they couldn't get rid of him. Then they somehow digged up an american former moutain bike rider, who says that he smuggled drugs to rasmussen in his house in italy, but again no evidence. Now a former italian rider claims to have seen him train in italy while he was supposed to be in mexico, but again no evidence, it is his word against rasmussen's.
But in the end they got what they wanted, the rabobank manager snapped lost his balls and fired him.
This is a sad day.

Btw Contador is involved in operation puerta but is still in the race why is that?

Now a former italian rider claims to have seen him train in italy while he was supposed to be in mexico, but again no evidence, it is his word against rasmussen's.
Except that Rasmussen admitted to lying about his whereabouts. He broke several team and UCI rules and his team fired him (no doubt under strong pressure from the sponsors, UCI and ASO)

Well, until there is some evidence of actual doping, maybe we should just wait and see. Making an accusation of doping is serious business and you can't unring that bell.

Well, I do believe it is time to ring the bell.