Hi all

The following is a word-by-word copied interview done Sunday by the biggest national television channel, TV2, in Denmark. The interview lasted 25 minutes. Michael Rasmussen invited TV2 to his private home in Italy and gave his view on the matter. It was aired twice in Denmark today, they even interupted the tranmission frmo the final stage to show the interviews as well as it was aired at 8 pm primetime.

Sorry for the gramma, my english is a bit rusty. And it took a lot of time to translate.

Enjoy the reading

Regards
René
Odense, Denmark.

------

TV2: What is your opinion on the whole situation of your exclusion?

MR: It’s a surrealistic situation, don’t you think? I just had the greatest day of my cycling career and won on top of the Col d’ Aubisque in the yellow jersey, and in reality I won Tour de France that day. Only to be kicked out of the hotel hours later.

TV2: How did that happen?

MR: Well, it happened in the way that we had a meeting in the team bus, where I got the message that I was taken out of the race. Afterwards my team mates were called in and got the same message.

TV2: How did you react?

MR: Well, I was in a state of shock and of course I got very angry of the decision that had been made, because I think there was nothing that could justify this decision.

TV2: I imagine you did not get much sleep that night. What thoughts went through your mind that night?

MR: No, well first of all, journalists put aside all respect for invasion of privacy. They called me until 2 AM. On top of that, I had 100.000 thought going through my mind concerning what had happened and what went wrong and what the future would bring. I had just been robbed the Tour de France victory.

TV2: Were you alone that night? And where were you exactly?

MR: Actually I don’t really know were I was. I know that I was driven to a country house about half an hours drive from Po, and then I was picked up the next morning, taken to the airport and on a private chartered plane to Verona.

TV2: That’s the way Rabobank chose to send you out of the race. How do you feel about that?

MR: When it came to it, you must say that at least they had the dignity to take care of me in a way without bigger drama, at least from my side of it. But naturally there were a lot of chaos in the first couple of hours after I left the hotel. But I haven’t had much to do with that.

TV2: Your team mates, did you have any time to speak with them before you left, and how did they react?

MR: Yeah, of course I spoke with them and they where naturally frustrated about the situation, just as I was. They had been riding for so many days and had been working for me, and we had won the yellow jersey. They were devastated. It had huge consequences for them financially that we did not win the Tour de France this year.

TV2: What do you think about the way Rabobank handled this whole matter?

MR: Well, I think it is better if I don’t express myself about this, as the matter will have legal consequences.

TV2: Theo de Rooij says you have admitted to him that you were in Italy during the time you should have been in Mexico. Have you?

MR: As I said, I better not express myself about that as well. It comes under your previous question.

TV2: But can you relate to and do you still claim that you were only in Mexico during the time you had stated?

MR: Again, it comes under the case that will be undergoing.

TV2: You can easily prove it by showing a passport and maybe stamps and plane tickets. Have you considered doing this during the case?

MR: Well, what I am saying is that now we have to se what the case brings and we will take it from there.

TV2: Personally, what do you think of Theo de Rooij and his role in this matter? You have been quite close to him.

MR: There is no doubt that he has been under an enormous pressure, and he has been accused of many things during the Tour, and at some point his facade cracked and he made this decision.

TV2: Have you spoken to him since?

MR: No I haven’t. I think there are very few persons who have done that, and I know, even the team has had difficulties in contacting him the last few days.

TV2: But the team has not only suspended you, actually you have been fired. What do you think about that?

MR: Well, it looks like a bit of a rash action. I read it on teletext and then I contacted the team to get it confirmed and to get an official dismissal notice. Just to be absolutely certain of what had happened and on what basis.

TV2: So did you receive it?

MR: Yes I have.

TV2: But do you think it is an over reaction?

MR: Well, for breaking some internal rules, I think it is a very harsh reaction, especially when thinking about the fine given to me earlier as a consequence of the mistake I maid.

TV2: What are you intending to do as to Rabobank and all the row?

MR: Naturally, I have contacted a lawyer and I am meeting him next week. After that we will contact Rabobank’s lawyers, and then I hope we can solve this matter in peace and toleration.

TV2: So you don’t expect this to end up in the courtroom?

MR: No, I think no one will benefit from that.

TV2: Today the Tour de France ends at Champs-Élyses. What is your comment on that?

MR: I am pretty convinced its not the best rider who won Tour de France this year.

TV2: You have said winning Tour de France is your ultimate dream. Do you feel the victory has been taken from you? That the dream has not come true and has been taken from you?

MR: Yes, definitely. It is no secret. Since the day I was excluded and for the rest of my life, I will wake up in the morning and remember that I didn’t win the Tour the France because I was wrongfully excluded from the race.

TV2: How do you feel about having that thought? Living with it the rest of your life.

MR: I feel truly horrible. I don’t know what to say. Maybe you can compare it to having a Picasso painting stolen. I was on my way to achieve the greatest thing I am capable of, and it was taken from me.

TV2: What have you done to come to terms with all this? It must have been hard for you at the time you were kicked out. Your dream was crushed. What did you do to come to terms with your expressions and all the feelings inside?

MR: Well, I have gone back to Italy to the ones closest to me, the people I know I can trust. Those are the ones I have been in contact with and it is also those who have contacted me.

TV2: Returning to the situation where you were kicked out of the Tour de France. How do you feel about the fact that de race director Prudhomme, announces that this is the best thing that could happen to the Tour de France, only one day after you have been kicked out?

MR: No question I am having a hard time to understand this. I do not know on what basis these statements are on.

TV2: They feel you should never have been allowed to enter the Tour the France, in connection with the row about the warnings from different anti doping instances. But you have not been tested positive in any way, so there is no case. How do you see this situation?

MR: No, it is some hypocrisy. UCI has, various times, stated that there are absolutely no motives for me not entering the Tour de France this year. Therefore, I really cannot see why this is a problem at all.

TV2: And they also say themselves that they have put pressure on Rabobank to have you kicked out. How do you feel about that?

MR: It is highly reprehensible that a race director feels that he has the right to kick riders out of the competition and “choose” the winner himself. Meaning, if he wanted to, he could attack Contador, attack Evans and finally he would attack the red haired, so maybe a Frenchman could be on the podium…

TV2: Do you think it comes down to that?

MR: I am having difficulties understanding what makes him say the things he has said.

TV2: Are you going to watch the final today?

MR: No, I haven’t watched any Tour de France since I was on the podium myself.

TV2: Do you follow the race at all?

MR: Yeah, I know Contador is probably winning, isn’t he?

TV2: How about your team mates, have you spoken to them after you left the Rabobank camp?

MR: Yes, I have been in contact with several of the riders.

TV2: What are they saying to all this?

MR: Well, they hate every day they sit on their bikes right now. Menchov left the race the other day in sympathy. I think that is a huge gesture coming from such a great rider. Boogerd, he left the dinner table crying the other day and he did not feel like riding his bike again.

TV2: So the whole team is taking this hard, not only you?

MR: Yes, of course. And it is not only the riders, it is also the mechanics, soigneurs and so on, they all have the Tour de France as their main goal. And it is indeed a catastrophic decision for all.

TV2: How do you feel of having the chance of winning the Tour de France taken away from you, on pure suspicions?

MR: I am having difficulties in seeing the basis of these suspicions. I have only missed being present at a certain time, and therefore I think it was a very severe decision.

TV2: But there have been doubts about your willingness to be available to the anti-doping-authorities. You are known as a perfectionist, how come you have been careless with your reports?

MR: First of all, I received two warnings from Anti Doping Denmark, who is put into this world to control athletes who are subject to DIF (Danish Athletics Association). And I am a member of Rabobank and have a licence in Monaco, so I have absolutely nothing to do with DIF. So I definitely mean this is unimportant. They should not have a say in this matter. From a legal point of view they have nothing to say.

TV2: But they say you are a part of the Danish National Team, or at least until they kicked you out. So they should have the right to test you?

MR: I haven’t been a part of the Danish National Team since 2004, nearly 3 years ago. A lot of Danish riders should have been on this team then, and ought to be in the “pot”. I have never received any guaranties from anyone about being a part of the national team.

TV2: I have heard that you have signed a document that gives them (DCU, Danish Cycling Union) the right to test you, is that correct?

MR: No, I have absolutely not signed anything from DCU.

TV2: So you don’t understand why they have involves them selves in this?

MR: No, well I might understand why they have involves themselves, but they have not right to interfere.

TV2: How do you feel about DCU, and especially Jesper Worre (director) of DCU, who partly started all this?

MR: I don’t know, its an awkward case. It is remarkable that on 26th of June I receive notice of exclusion from the National Team, afterwards I am asked to attend to a reception at DCU’s 100 year anniversary, they day before the National Championships I Roskilde. Photos are to be taken, hands to be shaken on I don’t know how many people. And the next day, they let me start at the National Championships. 14 days later, while riding the yellow jersey, they feel like announcing that I have received warnings. It is a highly remarkable situation, which easily can be taken personal.

TV2: Do you feel it is something personal, that someone has something against you?

MR: Well, the night before Thursday, it was almost 1 AM, I received a call from Jesper Worre. At that time he claimed that they were definitely not my enemy.

TV2: Do you believe that?

MR: They are definitely not my friends. One can interpret this as one like.
TV2: But I understand you have been tested by DCU, sorry ADD I mean. The day before the National Championships, is this correct?

MR: Yes, but the test was staged by UCI. One the day of the National Championships I was tested by ADD, which was staged by DCU.

TV2: And these UCI warnings, the talk has been concerning two warnings. They exist, right?

MR: Yes they definitely do and I have not tried to deny that. The first warning goes back to March 2006, at that time we were 6 Rabobank riders who forgot to send in our information. And the 5 of us only got at friendly telephone call from UCI, asking them to send in the information as soon as possible. I received a written and registered warning from UCI. A highly remarkable special treatment of a rider.

TV2: So that is the warning you feel you should not have gotten at all, and then there is a correct warning. But still, that is only two warnings and no case was opened against you. How do you feel about that? When it comes down to it, this costs you the victory in Tour de France.

MR: Well, there are a lot of small things that should never have been out in the public, because some information is confidential. So therefore, there was no case. If I had received a third warning, a case would be opened. And then UCI could sanction me. But because there were only two, there was no sensible reason to go public. There are a lot of other riders in Denmark and on the National Team with warnings that the public knows nothing about. So once again, a remarkable special treatment has been carried out.

TV2:
Doping problems is naturally on top of the agenda within the cycling sports, and we see that some riders are exposed, Vinokourov, Moreni during the Tour de France. So a lot of resources are used on this. Have you ever used doping?

MR: No I have absolutely not. And again I must confirm that since 30th June until the moment I was kicked out, I have hade 17 controls. This can only support my words.

TV2: Do you feel hounded as riders?

MR: Well, of course there is a problem and there has been a problem. The problem is fought with all means. It is getting smaller, because we have a control system that works. But naturally it is obvious to anyone that the riders are treated very different from other athletes.

TV2: But what is the control system worth if the race directors of Tour de France overrule the system? A case has not been opened.

MR: That is what makes the whole situation much more frustrating, not only for me, but for everyone. I think most lawyers or people with just a bit of education can see, that something happened here that should never have happened.

TV2: How do you think the press have handled the matter?

MR: Primarily, the press has been driven by sensation-seeking, and has not narrowed the sense of criticism. As the rider in the yellow jersey, I am an easy target, and there have been shots from both left and right.

TV2: Do you feel part of a smear campaign against yourself?

MR: From some medias, yes. Others have chosen to view the matter a bit more critical.

TV2: Why do you think some have been targeting you from the moment you got the yellow jersey?

MR: The yellow jersey has been hunted for several years now, at least 10 years, lately with Landis who was kicked out. Maybe there has been some expectation from the public that they guy wearing the yellow jersey is the one to get. As I say, at war it is always the ones in front you shoot at.

TV2: Prior the Tour de France you said that this Tour would decide if you had to work for the rest of your life or you could live from the earnings you made through your sport. Will this situation throw you into financial chaos?

MR: Not at the moment, no. And a legal case has started now, the result of that will influent my financial situation.

TV2: But it is a lot of money you are missing out on. A victory like that is truly worth a lot of money, isn’t it? Don’t you think you will be bitter about that?

MR: Yes, but besides the financial problem, there will be some tough feelings that no money in the world can replace.

TV2: Now the legal system takes over, and we have seen that this can take a while. You are 33 years old, have you seen your last race as a professional?

MR: No, I absolutely think not. And it is not my feeling that the process will take that long.

TV2: So realistically, you think there will be a team that dares to hire you after all this?

MR: Yes, I am convinced that there are a lot of people who easily can see that mistakes have happened in this case, because a rash decision has been made.

TV2: So you think you will start at the Tour de France next year?

MR: It is probably a question that will await an answer for some time. It depends on teams available for the future.

TV2: But how far are you willing to go for a new chance in the Tour de France?

MR: Well really, Tour de France is what fascinates med as a rider. And no matter how I was treated, if I get the chance, I will do it, because it’s the most prestigious race in the world as well as the most important race all season. Armstrong was also not so popular, but nevertheless he showed up seven years in a row and beat them all.

TV2: you have been riding your bike today. How can you manage it, thinking of the situation as it is at the moment?

MR: I have been in a state of siege by papparazies the last couple of days, and this morning I saw that there was no one in front of the door, so I thought there was an opportunity to get some fresh air. And to do what I love most in the world.

TV2: Did that help you think some things through?

MR: That’s were I feel most comfortable, on my bike.

TV2: I have visited your bike shop in town. Supporting emails are pouring in. How do you feel about the support you receive from cycling people around the world?

MR: Actually, I think it is not only cycling people. Its also regular people, who easily can see, that a gigantic mistake has been made in this case.

TV2: You seem relatively serene. Have you recovered from the shock it must have been to be kicked out?

MR: I will never recover from that.

Vino and the cofidis rider were thrown out for doping. He didnt dope, still got the axe. So what if he was in the dolomites.

Wow, thanks for putting so much effort in translating this solidsteel (and the grammar is good).

I liked this exchange: TV2: You can easily prove it by showing a passport and maybe stamps and plane tickets. Have you considered doing this during the case?

MR: Well, what I am saying is that now we have to see what the case brings and we will take it from there.



Pretty much the answer you would expect from a guy who was in the wrong country at the wrong time.

And for C-heath's benefit. The "so what" is that Rasmussen told the drug testing authorities he was in Mexico. Not only that, he told them too late that he was in Mexico, depriving them of a chance to test him for drugs for 11-12 days. Then it turned out he wasn't in Mexico but had claimed to be there. He then admitted to Rabobank that he had lied to them, then told reporters he hadn't lied. So he was hiding from the drug testers for 11 days in Italy and deceiving his team, then deceiving you and me. His method used to inform the drug testers of his whereabouts was a letter - snail mail - even though he knew he would be late in informing them, and even though he had an online system available by which he could email a form. He had been warned before to tell the UCI/Danish authorities where he was. He failed and lied on so many counts that he did not deserve to start the tour. In the end the team did the right thing. Rabobank doesn't sponsor a team to have its name forever linked to drugs. The Tour must be ridden by riders who are above suspicion.

Solidsteel,

Nice job on the translation and thanks for posting it!

In your estimation, is the Danish press supporting or condemning him? How about the public?

Well from the best I can gather he mailed a letter saying he was going to Mexico. It took a considerable amount of time for the letter to arrive by snail mail. Instead of being in Mexico he was in Italy. Sounds like he was sending everybody on a wild goose chase to avoid out of competition drug test.

Rasmussen is no dummy. He could have easily updated his whereabouts. It seems he also lied to his team as to where he was.

The doping testers are suppose to be able to find you.

Richard

Vino and the cofidis rider were thrown out for doping. He didnt dope, still got the axe. So what if he was in the dolomites.

thanks for this rene

Interesting interview. The worst part is he made Boogie cry.

i think that rabobank made the right decision due to the situation, but the situation should have never occured.

Like he said, the warnings he had should have been kept confidential. who knows what other riders have been warned, or not kept the uci in the loop on their location for a few days here and there, as long as they meet the uci requirement (less than three warnings) there should be know media knowledge or penalties.

This confidentiality stuff should be one of the first things to go - there should be more transparency. Guilty until proven innocent.

Thanks OP. Interesting.

Is the rule "three strikes and you are out," like in baseball? If so, Rasmussen, regardless of actual doping or not, was illegally disqualified. I admit it looks like he was dodging the doping tests but warnings that were issued were supposed to cover those times (I believe). Also, there is no direct evidence so far to prove he deceived everyone as to his whereabouts. There is, however, mounting circumstantial evidence which is becoming very damning.

I do propose a solution; fire everyone associated with the Tour. This can happen if all the Tour sponsors demand it. Have the participating countries send new representatives, that have never held a cycling office, and create a new governing body. They guidlines would have to be hashed out and apply to every participant and sponsor so that everyone knows exactly the rules and have the same rules (no cronyism).

It was good to have the doping participants removed, however, the press should have covered the positive side of the Tour. The side that shows how non-doping competitors will gain the glory (not counting past possible infractions but currently clean competitors) nor canceling coverage.

MR: Actually I don’t really know were I was. I know that I was driven to a country house about half an hours drive from Po, and then I was picked up the next morning, taken to the airport and on a private chartered plane to Verona.

TV2: That’s the way Rabobank chose to send you out of the race. How do you feel about that?

MR: When it came to it, you must say that at least they had the dignity to take care of me in a way without bigger drama, at least from my side of it. But naturally there were a lot of chaos in the first couple of hours after I left the hotel. But I haven’t had much to do with that.


That's different from how he described it in other another interview: "I was kicked out of the hotel like an animal," Rasmussen told the Berlingske Tidende newspaper. Country house, private chartered plane = not what I would call being treated like an animal.

Is the rule "three strikes and you are out," like in baseball? If so, Rasmussen, regardless of actual doping or not, was illegally disqualified. I admit it looks like he was dodging the doping tests but warnings that were issued were supposed to cover those times (I believe). Also, there is no direct evidence so far to prove he deceived everyone as to his whereabouts. There is, however, mounting circumstantial evidence which is becoming very damning.

.

You are wrong on a couple accounts. He is not disqualified from racing with a UCI license. Please remember - the ASO is not the UCI. The ASO holds the Tour de France. The invite teams and riders to race in the Tour. As they stated, had they known about the infractions prior to the Tour, they never would have invited Rasmussan to race and would have barred him from riding.

Technically, Rasmussan can still ride for another team, and still ride on other races. He was fired from Rabobank, which meant he could no longer ride in the Tour. Rabobank has the right to fire a rider for any reason (I imagine this is limited (and rightly so) by race and sexual orientation.).

To the OP: Thanks for the translation! The English is excellent.

Wow, thanks for putting so much effort in translating this solidsteel (and the grammar is good).

I liked this exchange: TV2: You can easily prove it by showing a passport and maybe stamps and plane tickets. Have you considered doing this during the case?

MR: Well, what I am saying is that now we have to see what the case brings and we will take it from there.

Pretty much the answer you would expect from a guy who was in the wrong country at the wrong time.


I agree completely. An innocent man would be waving his stamped passport in front of any camera he could find. Had he done that (if he had the stamps:rolleyes:) while he was still ridding, the whole situation could have been diffused.

It does however look like this case has more instances of the UCI's notoriously loose lips leaking confidential info. It would be very refreshing for the UCI to keep its own protocols, but for now at least it appears that a liar was fired from his team on proper grounds. Maybe his tests should have been kept confidential, but an honest rider wouldn't have missed those tests, and a man trying to win yellow should have anticipated such scrutiny.

This is starting to look like just one chapter in the turf war between the UCI and the ASO. If the dopers don't kill the sport on their own, the 2 organizations will.

To the OP: Thanks for the translation! The English is excellent.



I agree completely. An innocent man would be waving his stamped passport in front of any camera he could find. Had he done that (if he had the stamps:rolleyes:) while he was still ridding, the whole situation could have been diffused.

It does however look like this case has more instances of the UCI's notoriously loose lips leaking confidential info. It would be very refreshing for the UCI to keep its own protocols, but for now at least it appears that a liar was fired from his team on proper grounds. Maybe his tests should have been kept confidential, but an honest rider wouldn't have missed those tests, and a man trying to win yellow should have anticipated such scrutiny.

This is starting to look like just one chapter in the turf war between the UCI and the ASO. If the dopers don't kill the sport on their own, the 2 organizations will.



I agree completely that Rasmussan (or any one else) if innocent, would have had the evidence at that second rest day press conference. And his answers here are awful. He and Alberto Gonzalez should meet up sometime.

But as for the UCI - rather than keep this information sealed tight, this information should be open. Since the UCI does not control who goes into each race run by ASO (remember - Unibet was not allowed to race just due to the nature of the sponsorship, nothing more), it is critical that ASO knows where each rider stands in terms of doping. And while Rasmussan did not violate the 3 strikes rule, his avoidance up to the limits of the rule was a clear abuse of the system. The UCI set that rule as a favor to the riders in case mistakes were made. But when Rasmussan abused it, it was the ASO's right to essentially pressure Rabobank to fire Rasmussan.

it is critical that ASO knows where each rider stands in terms of doping.

I agree. Making the a rider's comprehensive test history open to all sanctioning bodies is a great idea, and hopefully this debacle will result in the creation of such a rule. However, since this is currently not the rule (apparently), it should be followed.

How can anyone believe the UCI when it keeps breaking so many of its own rules, regardless of what those rules are?
I believe them on this this case, but at times their credibility has been just as shoddy as Rasmussen's.

I liked his answer about not the best rider winning the race. Doping or not, he IS a better, more experienced rider than Contador, (maybe Contador was on dope too). I dont know, I thought it was suspicous on both counts, obvously, in his case, there was the least amount of evidnece to justify him being pulled from the race, compared to Vino and the other guy. I think its the fault of the dope testing. For F**ks sake! If he was on it, they should've detected it in his initial testing, or they should start dope testing for the Tour De France way sooner or something. He might have been on the stuff, but the enormous burocratic pressure on Rabobank is what got him sacked. I say, let him back in, but test the crap out of him first. :eek:

Like he said, the warnings he had should have been kept confidential. who knows what other riders have been warned, or not kept the uci in the loop on their location for a few days here and there, as long as they meet the uci requirement (less than three warnings) there should be know media knowledge or penalties.

I think riders can make a few assumptions regarding the UCI:

1) nothing the UCI does/says will be held in confidence

2) UCI "leaks" will be spread in the media and sensationalized tabloid style as needed

3) warnings from the UCI can get you fired from your job

4) a fully transparent system would rob the UCI of the power to be the "spoiler"

5) I am not a fan of the UCI

they should start dope testing for the Tour De France way sooner or something. He might have been on the stuff, but the enormous burocratic pressure on Rabobank is what got him sacked. I say, let him back in, but test the crap out of him first. :eek:

LOL - gee now I wonder why they didn't "start testing way sooner or something"

Answer - you have to find the guy to do that.

If he was on it, they should've detected it in his initial testing, or they should start dope testing for the Tour De France way sooner or something. He might have been on the stuff, but the enormous burocratic pressure on Rabobank is what got him sacked. I say, let him back in, but test the crap out of him first.

Umm, seems like you're missing the point. The issue of him being removed is that he dodged the out of competition tests prior to this year's TdF. Told them some story about being in Mexico. Then they found out that a reporter saw him training in Italy. If he's innocent, then why didn't he just take those tests that he missed. Why lie about his whereabouts when he was supposed to take those tests?

I agree completely that Rasmussan (or any one else) if innocent, would have had the evidence at that second rest day press conference. And his answers here are awful. He and Alberto Gonzalez should meet up sometime.

But as for the UCI - rather than keep this information sealed tight, this information should be open. Since the UCI does not control who goes into each race run by ASO (remember - Unibet was not allowed to race just due to the nature of the sponsorship, nothing more), it is critical that ASO knows where each rider stands in terms of doping. And while Rasmussan did not violate the 3 strikes rule, his avoidance up to the limits of the rule was a clear abuse of the system. The UCI set that rule as a favor to the riders in case mistakes were made. But when Rasmussan abused it, it was the ASO's right to essentially pressure Rabobank to fire Rasmussan.

+1... A bad deal to have the yellow jersey snatched off your back like that but for one reason or another, he abused the system . Honest mistakes happen though. If he's really clean, maybe he can get everything straightened out and compete again next year.

does anyone (as a fan) really care if he was on dope or not?

Here's the key to all this: "There are a lot of other riders in Denmark and on the National Team with warnings that the public knows nothing about. So once again, a remarkable special treatment has been carried out."

Of course, there are many riders in the pro peloton with warnings, as well. I'm not saying that 38 wrongs make a right, but to single one person out is a little over the top.

Rene: kender vi hinanden? Jeg kører med LPdC, som deres 'amerikanske ambassadør'.

Vino and the cofidis rider were thrown out for doping. He didnt dope, still got the axe. So what if he was in the dolomites.

If you call in sick at work and someone sees you out riding your bike, is that a problem?

If he was on it, they should've detected it in his initial testing, or they should start dope testing for the Tour De France way sooner or something.

They test these guys all the time. It's constant. If you follow the sport with any reasonable level of detail, you'll know that they race often and are tested, then there's the "out of competition" testing which is random and the reason why they need to know the whereabouts of every rider every day. And why Rasmussen's not being where he said he was is an issue as it would be with any employer.

seems perfectly reasonable to me that with a player under serious suspicion, the "out of competition" testing would be more frequent and his not showing up would result in him not even being admitted into the race. they are obviously making an example of Rassmussen, which makes sense, but after he worked as hard as he did in the Tour? seems kind of stupid, the way they dealt with him, thats all im saying. still think hes a great pro cyclist, with or without cheating.

If you call in sick at work and someone sees you out riding your bike, is that a problem?

i always have my prescription for 'medical use of bicycle' with me.

does anyone (as a fan) really care if he was on dope or not?

Yes. I presume you've never been beaten in a race by a guy who not only admitted taking EPO but tried to sell it to you afterwards. It makes the pain of defeat feel even worse. I hate dopers.

The press in Denmark is devided. We have a couple of sensation-seeking newspapers who prints everything that can boost sales. So you really cant rely on their opinion. Other papers view it from several sides and write about the matter quite objectively.

Generally the press is critical, but sceptical towards both Rasmussen and the way he was thrown out.

The big question in Denmark at the moment is whether Rasmussen can prove that he has not been in Italy during the time he claimed to be in Mexico. Most of the public hopes he can and polls on varios sites show that around 80-90% of the public think it was wrong to kick him out.

Of course the numbers are also affected by the fact that a lot of Danes wishes to see a Dane win Tour de France. We had a big blow here in Denmark weeks ago with Bjarne Riis stating he was doped at the time he won the tour.

Also, the public is quite negative towards DCU's Jesper Worre, as he was the one to bring out the news about the warnings in the middel of the tour, allthough he had the information before the tour started. many people thinks its a publicity stunt from DCU's side, just to show the world how strict they react against doping. The problem is just that Rasmussen has not been tested positive. People are also angry that they didnt wait until after the tour to go public with the warnings.

So in general danes are angry that he was taken out of the race based on suspicions, but at the same time they know that if he really lied to his boss, its okay to exclude him. The feeling is also that we havent heard the full story yet about the reason for his exclusion.

He broke the rules & can't prove where he was, but would they have fired him if he was in, say, 6th or 10th place?

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that Rasmussen has been under suspicion for years, and is on a relatively short list of riders who receive extra monitoring and testing while out of competition.

He broke the rules & can't prove where he was, but would they have fired him if he was in, say, 6th or 10th place?

I'd think it would've been an even easier decision for the team and the sponsor to fire him if he was lower down in the GC.

The most relevant fact out of all of this is when he was tested prior to June 29th. If the time window when he was unavailable is quite short, and he was tested near that time window, then it would show he didn't have an opportunity to load up on doping. The fact that he entered a race 1 week prior to tour, IMO helps him show that he wasn't avoiding testing completely prior to TdF.

Wow, thanks for putting so much effort in translating this solidsteel (and the grammar is good).

I liked this exchange: TV2: You can easily prove it by showing a passport and maybe stamps and plane tickets. Have you considered doing this during the case?

MR: Well, what I am saying is that now we have to see what the case brings and we will take it from there.



Pretty much the answer you would expect from a guy who was in the wrong country at the wrong time.

And for C-heath's benefit. The "so what" is that Rasmussen told the drug testing authorities he was in Mexico. Not only that, he told them too late that he was in Mexico, depriving them of a chance to test him for drugs for 11-12 days. Then it turned out he wasn't in Mexico but had claimed to be there. He then admitted to Rabobank that he had lied to them, then told reporters he hadn't lied. So he was hiding from the drug testers for 11 days in Italy and deceiving his team, then deceiving you and me. His method used to inform the drug testers of his whereabouts was a letter - snail mail - even though he knew he would be late in informing them, and even though he had an online system available by which he could email a form. He had been warned before to tell the UCI/Danish authorities where he was. He failed and lied on so many counts that he did not deserve to start the tour. In the end the team did the right thing. Rabobank doesn't sponsor a team to have its name forever linked to drugs. The Tour must be ridden by riders who are above suspicion.

Well or the other possibility is pretty much the answer that a guy with legal counsel has been advised to give. At this point in time, his counsel is telling him what to answer and what not to.

He broke the rules & can't prove where he was, but would they have fired him if he was in, say, 6th or 10th place?

Probably yes - since he would have been in the KOM competition anyways.

Please keep in mind people - this is a sponsor driven sport. So if a domestique lies, chances are, it does not create such a media controversy, and thus generate such negative press for the team and its sponsors. Being a team leader has great benefits, but it also has greater responsibilities to appear clean. He failed to do this, and thus, after all of the negative press and the potential for ASO now allowing Rabobank to race in anymore ASO sponsored events (basically all the major Pro Tour races), Rabobank needed to cut off the diseased arm.

Well or the other possibility is pretty much the answer that a guy with legal counsel has been advised to give. At this point in time, his counsel is telling him what to answer and what not to.


Agreed. However, this is the case when the answer you would give does not clear you or completely explain your actions, worse yet, inadvertently would support the prosecution...in other words, seriously doubt that MR will produce solid documentation to prove he was where he said he was. That's not to say there's a legitimate, non-doping-related explanation as to why he wasn't where he stated he was (though I personally doubt there is)

Setting aside the topic of whether he was or was not in Italy at a time when he states he was in Mexico. The big question is: Why would he make a trip and fail to notify the appropriate people? Doping is just one of the answers which could be damning.

Well or the other possibility is pretty much the answer that a guy with legal counsel has been advised to give. At this point in time, his counsel is telling him what to answer and what not to.

Your right. Better to not reveal absolute difinitive proof of innocence in public. Trust me, if this guy had the proof of his wherabouts, he would have presented it.

I am impressed, I sent in my translation to Cyclingnews yesterday night and today they brought a huge article about the interview. It is the top story on the site!

All quotes from Rasmussen are printed exactly as I translated it. I am proud :):):)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/200...asmussen_post07

I agree completely that Rasmussan (or any one else) if innocent, would have had the evidence at that second rest day press conference. And his answers here are awful. He and Alberto Gonzalez should meet up sometime.


Maybe that would work if he spoke to a pr guy. But if he spoke with his lawyer, he wouldn't be waving the evidence in the air.

One point Ras made that I curious about is how many other riders in the peloton had the same number of warnings for the same thing this season.

One point Ras made that I curious about is how many other riders in the peloton had the same number of warnings for the same thing this season.


But the problem with Rasmussan (and his defenders) is they are still concerned with the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of the rule. If Rasmussan had missed a test 6 months ago, and it was because his wife say had to be rushed to the hospital, I do not think anyone would care.

The problem with Rasmussan was not the quantity of the infractions, but the quality of the infractions. His infractions with the Dutch were right before the Tour, he was deliberately trying to evade them, and has not offered any good reason as to his whereabouts.

Some of you people on this board amaze me. You guys cannot see the forest for the trees in this situation.

But the problem with Rasmussan (and his defenders) is they are still concerned with the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of the rule. If Rasmussan had missed a test 6 months ago, and it was because his wife say had to be rushed to the hospital, I do not think anyone would care.

The problem with Rasmussan was not the quantity of the infractions, but the quality of the infractions. His infractions with the Dutch were right before the Tour, he was deliberately trying to evade them, and has not offered any good reason as to his whereabouts.

Some of you people on this board amaze me. You guys cannot see the forest for the trees in this situation.

The point I'm trying to make is that the rules are supposed to be applied equally. No one can possibly know if Ras's infractions were of a "quality" more or less egregious than other riders because as McQ mentioned in an interview last week the first 2 warnings are supposed to be confidential, the Danes went public with them in circumvention of the UCI policy. Half the peloton could be in the same boat. As far as I can tell Ras was sacked for lying to his employer (which is perfectly ok in many jurisdictions but I can't speak for the EU).

The point I'm trying to make is that the rules are supposed to be applied equally. No one can possibly know if Ras's infractions were of a "quality" more or less egregious than other riders because as McQ mentioned in an interview last week the first 2 warnings are supposed to be confidential, the Danes went public with them in circumvention of the UCI policy. Half the peloton could be in the same boat. As far as I can tell Ras was sacked for lying to his employer (which is perfectly ok in many jurisdictions but I can't speak for the EU).

Actually,

they were applied equally by the organizations that apply those rules. The ASO are under no such requirements, and therefore, had every right to press Rabobank to release Rasmussan.

Rasmussan.

Rasmussen.

Just sayin'.

Oh no, Boogie Woogie is crying.

thanks solidsteel. !!! im gonna go against the grain and,support rasmussen. i just am not gonna remove my race leader if i dont have a positive result in hand. im not gonna go on suspicion. i couldnt do it.

The point I'm trying to make is that the rules are supposed to be applied equally. No one can possibly know if Ras's infractions were of a "quality" more or less egregious than other riders because as McQ mentioned in an interview last week the first 2 warnings are supposed to be confidential, the Danes went public with them in circumvention of the UCI policy. Half the peloton could be in the same boat. As far as I can tell Ras was sacked for lying to his employer (which is perfectly ok in many jurisdictions but I can't speak for the EU).

When I was a kid, I used to watch some pro wrestling. Chief J. Strongbow was my favorite.

He always seemed to wrestle a guy that would bring a chunk of salt into the ring and rub it into the Chief's eyes while he had Chief in a headlock - in full view of the referee. The ref, apparently by rule, would begin a "three count." When he got to "two," the bad guy would stop rubbing the salt in Chief's eyes, but he would not throw it away. Instead, he would rub it in some more, always stopping at "two" because there didn't seem to be any penalty unless the ref counted to three.

The whole charade was totally moronic, but it was professional wrestling,not competition, so it was all good fun. Part of the show. The Chief always went on the warpath and put his opponent in the sleeper hold anyway, so you could forgive the idiocy of "three count."

Perhaps the doping testers didn't watch enough wrestling as children and don't realize what happens when you let someone get away with something until "three."