Boy, what a couple of days this has been. Doping accusations are swirling around professional cycling at a time when the sport and the fans should be savoring the scenery and admiring the toughness and grit of those who would be the Tour champion.
Instead, two stories — one related to doping, the other related to missed tests and allegations of doping — seem to be dominating the cycling news.
Patrik Sinkewitz
Today, it appears, German authorities are launching a criminal investigation into Patrik Sinkewitz’ alleged positive test results from an out-of-competition test conducted in early June. Apparently, an anonymous complaint was filed against the cyclist sometime in June.
Part of the upshot of the announcement of Sinkewitz’ test results is the cancellation of live coverage by the German public television networks ZDF and ARD. Gerolsteiner, Adidas and Audi are all said to be re-thinking their sponsorship commitments for the future. So is T-Mobile.
Meanwhile, Sinkewitz has requested that his B sample be analyzed. While odds are that the B sample results will match the A sample results, there’s an outside possibility that the B sample would not come back positive. Marion Jones, last summer, had a B sample that didn’t confirm an adverse finding on her A sample. So it’s always possible, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone hold their breath.
While seeing another doping case emerge is certainly frustrating, the reaction by the German public TV networks to drop coverage is over the top. The people being punished are not those who dope, but those who wish to follow the sport. In other words, the fans. And the sponsors — especially the sponsors of teams not implicated — are also hurt by this move. If Sinkewitz is guilty, he’ll be punished for his transgressions. The German fans and sponsors should not be collectively punished for the actions of one, or even a few, cyclists.
There are, of course, rules which should have prevented the leak of this story in the first place. Rules which appear to have been ignored.
Michael Rasmussen
And then there’s the another story that seems to be swirling out of control. Yesterday, the Danish Cycling Union announced that Michael Rasmussen was not going to be allowed to compete on the Danish National Team because of some problems finding him for a couple of out of competition drug tests.
Rasmussen claims he filed the necessary paperwork to inform the DCU of his whereabouts, but that it was delayed in the mail. Whatever the case, the DCU claims Rasmussen has missed two surprise tests, and that a third missed test in the next 18 months will force an automatic suspension. With those kinds of stakes, I’ll bet Rasmussen will be very, very careful to get his paperwork to the DCU on time from now on.
But new accusations are flying now. VeloNews has a story that alleges that in March 2002 Rasmussen asked Whitney Richards, a former mountain bike racer who befriended the Dane the previous year, to transport some shoes Rasmussen left in Colorado to Italy, where the Danish cyclist was living at the time. According to Richards, the box that supposedly contained a pair of shoes turned out to be filled with doping products for him. Richards and a friend, the story goes, disposed of the doping products, instead.
Rasmussen, apparently, doesn’t deny knowing who Richards is, but he won’t confirm Richards’ story. He doesn’t outright deny the story, either, which is a bit disturbing. And he didn’t say, “I don’t know what Richards said, so I can’t really comment on it.” Or if he did, the reporter left that part out.
Richards’ story certainly makes compelling reading. The real question is, is it true? Or is it even close to true? That’s harder to say. He does have someone who backs up the key parts of his story. Still, it would be good to hear Rasmussen’s side. Things aren’t always as they seem, and what Richards knows of this story may be a smaller part of a bigger story. Without the full context, it’s not a good idea to draw firm conclusions either way.
And whether Rasmussen did blood dope in the past or not, that’s not proof that he currently dopes. Erik Zabel seems to have earned a free pass by admitting he doped in the past. Zabel is racing in this year’s Tour. Meanwhile, his former teammate, Bjarne Riis, is sitting at home in Denmark, watching the Tour on TV, rather than from inside the CSC team vehicle.
Richards says he spoke out publicly because he was incensed by something Rasmussen said on Monday.
Richards said that it wasn’t the stage victory or even the yellow jersey that prompted him to go public with his story. Instead, it was Rasmussen’s recent “trust me” comments during the Tour’s rest day on Monday that prompted Richards to speak out.”[Rasmussen has] won Tour stages before,” Richards said. “It’s not that. It was the press conference on Monday that got to me. Someone asked him about Bjarne Riis’ involvement with drugs and he went on about how he’s clean and then added, ‘You can trust me.’ That’s what set me off.”
Richards said he finds it offensive that a rider he knows “for sure is mixed up with doping” is leading the Tour de France when the race is fighting for its survival.
“Look at what the Tour has gone through this past year,” Richards said. “Ullrich, Basso and [Operación] Puerto last year, and the Telekom confessions this year. Riders are putting their salaries and their careers on the line to help convince people cycling is clean and this guy gets up and tells people, ‘You can trust me,’ something I know for a fact is not true. The stupidity, the arrogance, the hubris… it’s incomprehensible. Someone needs to know about this.”
Compelling reading, as I said. How true Richards’ story is is yet to be seen. The timing of the Danish Cycling Union’s announcement, along with the rumors that are swirling around Rasmussen seems a bit fishy, however. Is someone trying to psych out Michael Rasmussen so that he falters and loses the Tour?
Or is someone trying to prevent another occurrence of a Tour winner tainted by doping allegations? Or are a few people just trying for their fifteen minutes of fame?
Even Christian Prudhomme is complaining about the timing of the Rasmussen revelations casting aspersions on the Tour’s good name. A delicious bit of irony, that, given Prudhomme’s pronouncements on certain other stories over the last year.
Whatever it is that’s going on — with Sinkewitz, Rasmussen and others — the continuing doping stories certainly do seem to be giving professional cycling, and the Tour de France in particular, a black eye. And just when you think the eye is healed, along comes another doping story to smack you upside the head again.
Hi Rant,
The problem with the UCI’s pledge is that they try to paint past and present dopers with the same brush. I don’t doubt that some of the peloton may have dabbled in some doping products or may have looked into it in the past. The issue should be, ‘what are you doing now?’. And the answer should be ‘nothing’. I am referring to not doping at all for the preparation of the events this year. I question Whitney Richards’ motivation. Rasmussen has won King of the Mountain 2 times and been in the maillot jaune multiple times in the past. So why speak now? Rasmussen’s comment of ‘trust me’ should be taken in today’s context.
Rant:
One thing that bothers me about Richards story is that he had the evidence in his hands, called a friend (who happened to be a Ph.D. physiologist) to “decide what to do” and then destroys the evidence without so much as a picture. Doesn’t that sound fishy to you?
In any case, I am excited to watch the time trial today. I hope Rasmussen can keep his bike upright (remember the last time trial in 2005?) with all these distractions.
Yes, the Richards’ story swirls in the brain, but then I remember it is a story. No photographs, no police report, no positive drug test. I do want to enjoy the motion of the pedals and the beautiful boulevards.
Hey Rant – I think I have a new angle on the Rasmussen doping scandal- personally I believe that the “Rasman” – no more “chickenman” after todays ITT – is actually in close contact with the old dark gods…Really – I do think so – because Thor, God of Thunder was obviously “meddling” with the weather – I think Loki was spitting all over the roads so Klöden would go down – ask any German commentator, they’ll back me up….Okay – some of this is just my righteous indignation since Erosport barely showed any of the Rasmussen ride…but that’s between them and me.
And – Like man, you know – we can’t really be considered cool if we, like don’t at least keep sending the story of the blood bags that got flushed down the drain in “righteous indignation” – I mean – there must be a reason the Chicken has turned bullish!
Personally I want to insist that we get an actual photo of Mr. Richards and paste his picture up! – I feel ever so good that he is only considering “how much the Tour bhas gone through” – really – I think he deserves at least a photo pinup…has anyone out there something? And maybe start a PhD in physiology corner too…hey – we’re on the net – we got room…
Okay – enough spleen for today – I’m not a young man anymore – but I am really hoping that you all had the chance to see the race today – it was Epic – Not Lance Epic, not Landis Epic – but epic none the less – It ain’t over by a long shot!
What did I learn today?
I learned that Klöden is afraid and/or hyper sensitive that a helicopter will fall on him, rain, slick curvy roads, etc..That a good technical ride in the rain can put a lot of time on people who are afraid of falling, “help me, I can’t get up!”, The Astanas will not fold under pressure. The best American riders are Russian today – so I lied – there was some more spleen…
Luc,
Agreed. The UCI pledge really should be a “from this point forward” kind of deal. Sinkewitz apparently signed the pledge after the infamous test of June 8th. So does that mean he won’t have to pay a year’s salary? It should. Regardless of the truth of what happened there, it predates his agreement with the UCI. A good lawyer ought to be able to get him out of that jam. And like you, I question Richards’ motivation. He’s had ample opportunity to put this story out in public for some time, but when he’s told the media before this week, he’s always requested anonymity for himself and the alleged perpetrator. Only Walsh published the story up to now. Not exactly a paragon of journalist virtue, he. But now? Why now? His story about Rasmussen’s comments at the press conference doesn’t quite wash for me.
Steve,
Without any evidence it’s the classic he said/he said kind of story. Who do you believe? Who’s telling the truth? Since he didn’t file a police report or take pictures of the evidence, and he doesn’t name the person who delivered the box to him, I’m not sure that the story can stand on its own. But it’s an excellent illustration of how you can smear a pro cyclist’s reputation with a story. If it’s true, Rasmussen should admit it and move forward. If not, he should explore legal options for going after Whitney Richards.
Mc,
I’m with you. I just want to enjoy watching the scenery and the athleticism of the Tour.
Morgan,
Haven’t watched it yet, but we did record it on the DVR. Live with Phil and Paul. Beats the replay with the others, though I do like hearing Bob Roll’s take on things. Al Trautwig, on the other hand, I can do without. It certainly sounds like an epic stage. Can’t wait to see it!
– Rant
Re: Sinkewitz
There is one interesting note that is now mentioned concerning the Sinkewitz “case”. It would seem that the “testing” room which was being used by the “leech squad” to do Sinkewitz was “open to the public” – while this may seem as mere hair splitting, am I wrong in assuming that such tests are to be done under “controlled conditions”? And since Sinkewitz is getting his “B” sample done – isn’t it about time that in EVERY CASE, the “B” sample is done by another lab…or perhaps the UCI and WADA people in reality can’t be sure that their test results will produce the same numbers – lab to lab? As we have come to learn through Floyd – this may just be a very real possibility – that is if the labs even know WHAT they are testing for! Not to mention the “option” it gives the ASO people to find a non-negative to anybody they don’t fancy winning their race…
Re: Rasmussen
Your observation that Rasmussen did not deny the reporters statements does in no way indicate “guilt” Rant. The Rasman strikes me as a fairly intelligent person – he used the only logical response, that is that he was familiar with the name. And if we have learned anything to now, it is far, far better to make no statement then to run your mouth off to a room full of the press, in the belief that the said press is constituted of “fair minded good people” who can read “I’m a good guy-you can trust me” stamped on your forehead.
That’s my take on it – or do we follow the French way and have the accused prove his innocence? Leaving everybody open to any body’s accusations at their time and discretion?
Morgan,
I haven’t had the time to write up the whole Sinkewitz testing fiasco. The room being open to the public is more than a little disturbing. It raises issues of chain of custody, and contamination, just to name a couple. B samples should be done elsewhere, to avoid any systemic problems in the original lab, at the very least. I have this sinking feeling that Sinkewitz is going to get hosed.
Regarding Rasmussen, I don’t think he’s guilty. He needs to respond more than he has, but he also has a race to compete in. So if he decides to put off responding to Richards’ accusations until later, that’s fine by me. At some point, the Rasman is going to have to confront the issue head-on. Richards’ story is certainly a good illustration of just how easy it is to slime someone’s reputation. No proof, no evidence, just allegations. Is it any wonder that the sport seems to be turning into a circus?
– Rant
{ 1 trackback }