[il_hombre]

So people are appalled by this:

http://forum.cycling...ead.php?t=17683


Why?

The rules apply equally to everyone (Michael Rasmussen in 2007 ... do not let me go there) and it does not matter if you are a nice guy or a complete a-hole.

People think CAS and UCI were slow ... here's a hint: they always are.

Bottom line: rules are rules and should be kept nomatter who you are.

Again the Danish Cycling Union (DCU) should be ashamed for their preferential treatment. They said nothing in the case of A Rasmussen but they cried wolf (granted I am reaching here) in the case of M Rasmussen. DCU are complete idiots.


Just say'in,
il_hombre

[Burkni]

il_hombre, on 04 July 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

DCU are complete idiots.

So true ... at least if M Rasmussen's book is anything to go by

[il_hombre]

Burkni, on 04 July 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

So true ... at least if M Rasmussen's book is anything to go by

It is everything to go by.

A and M Rasmussen had/have no positives.

Both reached the limit in terms of whereabouts.

No difference. Except to DCU.

Good that CAS for ones seem to be objective.

The law is equal for all.

/il_hombre

[Strategy]

I'm personally sad for Rasmussen who is a good talent and appeared to be on the path to becoming a Hushovd-type rider (but with more TT prowess), but apart from that I agree with you.

I think there is a difference beween AR and MR, in that in the latter case, Michael Rasmussen's issues with whereabouts was clearly found to be deliberate. But of course, by the letter of the rules, arguing that it was accidental isn't grounds for exoneration.

They should have slapped him with a 6 or 12 months sentence, and have done with that. Although with the UCI's idiotic news + 2 years punishment, it really makes little difference, as his career is pretty much ruined either way.

[Leafcake]

il_hombre, on 04 July 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Bottom line: rules are rules and should be kept nomatter who you are.

As a rule, I disagree.
Although once one allows for bending the rules, it goes both ways. And that is the problem.

But to get to the point, the thing is, that the motivation behind the 3 missed test rule was to catch dopers. The underlining assumption is, that M.Rasmussen was doping while, A.Rasmussen not. (For the sake of the argument) if one accepts such an assumption, then A.Rasmussen's suspension is a bit like a false positive. One could go on and compare the number of riders sanctioned due to abnormal BP results, to those sanctioned due to plain carelessness of handing their whereabouts files. Would the 'false positive' percentage be as negligible as in the scientific results of a given doping test?

A.Rasmussen should have gotten his act together after the first warning, let alone the second. Very irresponsible.

[il_hombre]

Leafcake, on 05 July 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

As a rule, I disagree.
Although once one allows for bending the rules, it goes both ways. And that is the problem.

But to get to the point, the thing is, that the motivation behind the 3 missed test rule was to catch dopers. The underlining assumption is, that M.Rasmussen was doping while, A.Rasmussen not. (For the sake of the argument) if one accepts such an assumption, then A.Rasmussen's suspension is a bit like a false positive. One could go on and compare the number of riders sanctioned due to abnormal BP results, to those sanctioned due to plain carelessness of handing their whereabouts files. Would the 'false positive' percentage be as negligible as in the scientific results of a given doping test?

A.Rasmussen should have gotten his act together after the first warning, let alone the second. Very irresponsible.

Read the case again please.

You can even argue that M Rasmussen only had 2 missed tests/whereabout info missing because the first one should never have counted.

A Rasmussen on the other hand had 3 misses.

Albeit, I think we agree "... allows for bending the rules ..." and therein lies the problem on the rider and UCI side.

My point starting this thread is that the rules seem to apply more when we "suspect" something whereas an apparantly "good guy" should be let go. Then I pointed to the stupidity of the DCU ... would probably take a Dane to understand. I have zero respect for those guys and it all comes down to the tour 2007.

Nuff said. Need to move on