O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!– Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
The road to Hell, the old saying goes, is paved with good intentions. (Except in Michigan, where the road to Hell is merely paved.)
Michael Rasmussen held a press conference today in Copenhagen, to tell his side of the sad saga of his untimely departure from the 2007 Tour, right at the moment when he was in the cat-bird seat, destined to win cycling’s most storied race. Rasmussen explained that while he lied about his whereabouts in the run-up to the Tour, his team knew where he was all the time. As CyclingNews.com (with the best English-language coverage I’ve seen to this point) reports:
“I would like to clearly state that I was not in Mexico in June. I have therefore misinformed both the UCI and the public. It is however important for me to stress that at no point did I lie to the Rabobank team,” Rasmussen said. Rasmussen insisted that his employer Rabobank knew the truth. “I have never told lies to Rabobank. They knew all the time where I was and why.”
Further down the story, they report:
Rasmussen revealed today that the team knew all along that he was in Italy, and he decried the fact that the team fired him over the issue. “It is … completely absurd that Rabobank took me out of Tour de France claiming that I had misled them. You cannot mislead people who have known the truth all along,” said Rasmussen.
“For example, Rabobank knows [where I was] because I had a meeting with Erik Breukink in Bergamo. In that period I was in Italy from June 4-19, where I was in contact with several people from the team. From [June] 20 to 23, I was in the Alps, and on the 25th. I went to the Pyrenees on a ticket paid by Rabobank in order to go cycling in the Pyrenees and in Albi. A soigneur from Rabobank was with me the whole time.”
A spokesman for the Rabobank team, however, disputes Rasmussen’s claims. As the Danish newspaper Politiken reports (original here, machine translation here — you’ll have to scroll down the page a bit to get to the story):
“Erik Breukink and Theo de Rooij didn’t know that Michael wasn’t in Mexico. I think that will be clear after [Rabobank’s] report is released on Monday. After first hearing Cassani’s statement that he saw Rasmussen in Italy, they thought that maybe something funny was going on,” said Rabobank’s new manager, Henri Van der Aat, in reaction to the Dane’s statement.
Rasmussen, however, says he has transcripts of text messages and other documentation that proves the team knew where he was during the month of June.
Politiken is also reporting that Rasmussen faces up to a two-year suspension for violating the whereabouts program. (Original here, machine translation here.)
“It is good that he finally said it”, was the first reaction from the UCI anti-doping boss Anne Gripper, when Ritzau’s Bureau contacted her with the news, while she was on the way home from holiday in Australia.
“I expect that we will now open a disciplinary case against him. We were already investigating the case and had arranged several meetings with Rasmussen and his lawyer, but for different reasons those meetings were postponed. Now a meeting probably won’t be necessary”, she said.
The UCI had already been considering what charges to bring against Rasmussen, and the most likely appear to be breaking rules related to the whereabouts program, by avoiding out-of-competition tests. Gripper told Ritzau Bureau that the first step will be to contact the cycling federation in Monaco, where Rasmussen is licensed, to begin a case against the cyclist.
According to Politiken’s article, Rasmussen did not comment on what Gripper told the Ritzau Bureau news agency. Politiken also reports (original here, machine translation here) that Anti-Doping Denmark chairman Jens Evald had this to say about today’s developments:
“I expect that UCI will puts its thinking cap on at and consider a disciplinary case against him for offence against the anti-doping-rules about having received too many warnings (about missed tests) or for having broken the code’s paragraph 2.5, which deals with cheating – or “tampering”, as it’s called in English.”
Rasmussen apparently misled the UCI’s whereabouts officials and the media due to marital problems (about which he didn’t elaborate), and he didn’t believe he would be able to address those problems if the press knew where he was. So he invented the story about being in Mexico to keep the press at bay.
The Danish cyclist still maintains that the Dutch cycling team had no reason to fire him during the Tour. However, he realizes that he has not handled the situation since then in the best manner, telling Politiken (original here, machine translation here):
“If I could turn the clock all the way back, certainly, there are many things that I would do differently.”
Finally, Rasmussen decided to take on charges of blood doping head-on, by releasing a package of “biological passport” data showing his hematocrit and hemoglobin levels from various anti-doping tests he’s given over a number of years in and out of competition. You can find that at the bottom of the CyclingNews.com article.
———-
While Michael Rasmussen may have been trying to protect his family from the prying eyes of the press at a time when he and his family needed some privacy, the end result of his actions is the mess he currently finds himself in. The data he presents certainly paints a picture of a person who wasn’t using EPO or blood doping, but the mystery around where he was as he prepared for the Tour looks bad, at least on the surface.
On Monday, we’ll get to hear Rabobank’s side of the story. Expect it to be very different than what Rasmussen said today.
Good for Michael Rasmussen for finally owning up to lying about where he was during the month of June. Not so good that he lied in the first place, and that he took so long to `fess up. Over the months to come, expect this story to continue, as the UCI’s efforts to sanction the Danish cyclist begin in earnest.
Rasmussen lied about his whereabouts…And what about his team’s complicity? Why ? or is it an other lie of Rasm?
Yes Jean C – Rasmussen lied – What you think about his Hemotocrit and Hemoglobin values?
Morgan,
I prefer to give you the opinion of Damsgaard who is running CSC program and is a real specialist. He said that it’s unnaturel to see haemoglobin to rise during TDF… and there is grounds to sanction Rasmussen! In comparaison, all CSC riders had haemoglobin which fall by 12 to 22%! Maybe Rasmussen has an abnormal body ;D, largely different of other … top riders!
—
Interesting to compare with the greater variations seen in Floyd’s case which seemed to me (and USADA) extremely suspect. Sure no doubt for Damsgard about blood doping in this case.
—
B.T. has presented Rasmus Damsgaard, who stands behind Team CSC’s anti-doping programme, the blood values Michael Rasmussen yesterday presented from the last three years, and according to the doping expert the numbers from the year’s Tour de France points to blood doping.
According to Rasmus Damsgaard it’s unnatural that a rider’s haemaglobinniveau rises under a lap race like Tour de France.
Michael Rasmussen’s haemaglobinniveau was in London at 13,3, while it 12 days had later risen to 14,2, and at the resting day it had again risen to 14,4 a little.
“The seven completing CSC-riders’ haemoglobin numbers declined by between 12 and 22 percent, and it’s completely normal.
That the opposite happens consequently that the number rises at a hard race Tour de France indicates an that one has made a blood transfusion”, Rasmus Damsgaard explains and continues on the other side the newspaper.
“We conclude that only a rise in haemoglobin ought to make up a sanction possibility.”
According to Rasmus Damsgaard there will under a large lap race like Tour de France come water into the blood track, and it’ll lead to that the haemaglobinniveau will fall.
from feltet.dk
The Danish press is stunned of Rasmussens PC, saying it left much more questions than answers. I agree completely.
Jean and Sara,
Interesting about the hemoglobin. I didn’t have much time to look thoroughly at the values last night (long work day, writing late at night …). What Damsgaard claims certainly makes Rasmussen look suspicious. Before condemning him, I’d like to hear more about how hemoglobin values are affected by other variables. For instance, do they suffer from the same effects as the hematocrit levels do, where dehydration could play a factor in the results, among other things. I’ll look at the article at feltet.dk, thanks for the tip.
…
Haven’t had a chance to look at BT, yet. But given Politiken’s coverage, I’m not surprised that BT would have lots of coverage, too. And I can imagine that the press has more questions than answers right now. That’s how I see it, too.
…
Rasmussen’s admission makes many folks naturally suspicious of whatever else he says. But if he’s telling the truth, then Rabobank does have some complicity in all of this, and they threw him overboard when things started to come out in the open. If that’s the case, firing Rasmussen was a cynical ploy to avoid further scrutiny of the team. And that leads me to wonder: If Rasmussen is telling the truth that Rabobank knew his whereabouts, what else is Rabobank trying to cover up?
…
This story is going to get a whole lot more complicated before it all gets figured out.
How does the story from, as best I recall, September of this year, to the effect that Ras had in fact sent in the required itinerary forms and UCI lost them play out here? I was under the impression at the time the UCI had issued a mea culpa, but maybe I am wrong.
–
The questions about Ras’ hemoglobin values (along with Sagry’s remarks and some other stuff) raise another question: if an athlete’s values for something are within allowable values, or are not tested for, what do we do? There were allegations about Landis hemcrit having gone as high as 49; 50 is the level which triggers an AAF.
William,
I don’t recall the UCI’s mea culpa, but Rasmussen did fax his whereabouts to the UCI (on June 26th, if I recall correctly) that he would be training in the Pyrenees in late June, covering the time period when the UCI claims he missed a test. It appears they may have misplaced his fax, but the rider complied with the regulations on that one.
…
My suspicion is that will be part of Ras’ defense against charges, should the Monaco federation bring any against Rasmussen. The question of whether hemoglobin values (vs. hematocrit values) should be used as an indication of EPO use or blood doping is an interesting one, which bears more coverage and research. But if you have a threshold value and a rider doesn’t exceed it, then there’s no case to be made. Even if one suspects doping, if the rider stays within the letter of the law then no rule has been broken. Now, if the rules need to be changed, based on some sound scientific research, that’s another matter that should be addressed.
I have no way to respond to your view on Hematocrit and Hemoglobin values Jean C — I have no creditable hard knowledge to look at these two values and claim that I know or understand them well enough to “intelligently” discuss them.
–
I appreciate you presenting Rasmus Damsgaard statements on this matter. Sara also presents it well. For me it means that I will now have to try and learn as much about this facet of the racing problem. I am willing Jean C. But have patience — I will respond when I have made the necessary self-education to discuss this intelligently — in the meantime I am certain that there are many on the site who actually can discus the values with intelligence and clarity.
–
But it seems to me that Rasmussen has been lying — the “reasons” don’t really matter. To claim “innocence” due to stress at home in this case is very much like saying: “Well officer, I shot the man because my wife snores like a bear and I live with that — so when the man started snoring I just snapped and shot him.” This is of course an over the top- way absurd example — but it can fit the point.
–
What else is becoming evident Jean C is that we now face “looking” at the testing procedure and what construes as “indicators of doping” or what Rant refers to as values. Don’t go nuts on me Jean — I am not questioning you or Rasmus Damsgaard — as I said I just am not knowledgeable enough to discuss this theme with intelligence. And as a great mythical man once said — “A man has got to know his limitations.”
Everyone,
Here’s a page I found when looking into hemoglobin tests and what they mean. While Rasmussen’s data is interesting, especially the upward trend in the last Tour, normal levels are between 12 and 18 according to this site. Even Rasmussen’s highest reading of 14.4 is closer to 12 than 18, and well within the range.
…
One thing to note is that this site says a higher number can be an indication of dehydration, as well as too many blood cells. So it looks to be not specific enough and prone to the same kinds of errors as using the hematocrit (which can also rise when a person is dehydrated) as an indicator of doping.
…
While both measures might indicate there’s something to look into, I don’t think either one, or even both taken together, could rise to the level of absolute proof.
Rant, your last point is a good one. As a lawyer, it’s my experience that once you reach a conclusion, it’s always possible to come up with evidence to support your conclusion. It’s a different process if you start from the evidence without a pre-judged conclusion.
I won’t argue that there’s a lot of evidence to lead one to question Rasmussen’s performace in the 2007 TdF. For me, the most suspicious piece of evidence is Rasmussen’s career record. Like many road cyclists, he started as a mountain biker – he was Mountain Bike World Champion in 1999. He switched over to road cycling in 2001 at the age of 26. From 2001 to 2007, his biggest win was in something called the Giro dell’Emilia, in 2002 – this is a single day race held in Italy in early October. Other than that race, I can’t find evidence that Rasmussen ever won a road tour. He won STAGES of Tours, and of course the polka dot jersey twice at the TdF, but never a road race. I can’t even find evidence (other than the Giro dell’Emilia) that he ever placed on the PODIUM of a Tour. His best result was 7th place in the 2005 TdF – a worthy accomplishment, to be sure, but not (standing by itself) an indication that he could win a major Tour.
Move forward to the 2007 TdF. Rasmussen is 33 years old. This is the age when cyclists retire – Lance Armstrong was 33 when he retired. This is not the age when you’d expect to see a rider at the peak of his abilities, and it’s PARTICULARLY not the age when you expect to see a rider take a quantum leap in ability. Yet we had Rasmussen, the guy who’d never placed on a podium in a major road race, about to win the Tour de France.
That’s suspicious.
Now, I’ve personally come to the conclusion that we’re going to need to put these kinds of suspicions aside. As we’ve seen, if you’re looking for something suspicious about a rider, any rider, you’re going to find it. So in upcoming posts, I may try to discourage the Rantheads from speculating that this athlete or that athlete may have doped.
Unfortunately, Rasmussen has subjected himself to this kind of speculation.
One fact that’s not clear to me: did Rasmussen miss any scheduled out-of-competition tests? He says he didn’t, but I thought he had.
Larry,
From what I understand, he missed some tests by Anti-Doping Denmark. Rasmussen’s side of the story is that ADD has no right to test him, as he’s licensed in Monaco (and before that, he was licensed in Mexico). As for missing UCI tests, there was the one at the end of June, but Rasmussen had faxed a whereabouts form to the UCI telling them he’d be in the Pyrenees at the time they came looking for him, so that looks more like the UCI’s mistake than his.
Sorry to sink Rasmussen’s boat but is there someone who remember the story of the Ras’ shoes ?
We mustn’t forget his great improvement on Time Trial for a people like him. Maybe the result of “hard work”?
Jean,
Yes, there are people who remember that story. Unfortunately for all of us, that story occurred a long time ago, and the evidence — if it existed — was destroyed. It boils down to Rasmussen’s word against that of a former friend of his. While Rasmussen’s credibility is strained, to say the least, I’d be cautious about saying who’s right and wrong.
…
It could be that he was trying to get doping products at the time (2001, if I recall). But whether he was using any in more recent times would have more of a bearing on his performances now. Hard to say, from the evidence so far, what the truth of the matter might be.
As it stands – the very problems we are facing is turning out to be not doping but the lack of thought being put into how doping is to be fought.
–
The closer we look at the system the more apparent it becomes that it is adhoc in nature. the governing bodies seemed to have put together a patchwork of “tests” that upon closer inspection leave everyone dissatisfied. Well, maybe not every one. More then likely people who wish to believe that todays “performances” are all the result of doping.
–
Let me reiterate that I am against doping. But let me also say that I do not wish to see “tests” that are no more then guesses. People may not like it that the Anti-doping movement is floundering because – they have not done their homework.
–
If you are going to treat “doping tests” seriously, then you have better have tests that can back up any accusations and stand up under scrutiny. Take the newest means that WADA and every one else seems to be jumping on the band wagon about – From everything I am reading – the blood passport is no better a solution then the half-baked testing they are doing now.
–
There is not a court in the land that would accept a “test” as legitimate if it could be “interpreted” to suite the contesting parties – such tests are usually disallowed – for example such as the “lie detector” tests that everyone seems to think are offering any form of solid proof as to innocence or guilt.
–
Our problems seem to arise because people who want to control “doping” are willing to apply testing that is less then certain and is susceptible to interpretation.
–
Well – you know what – if you want to control doping – then you better come up with bullet proof tests – not just mere indicators – which by the way seem to be susceptible to interpretation.
–
Otherwise – how are we better then the dopers? Because if we try to be “slick” and outwit the dopers to get them – and our methodology is as poor as what seems to be going around – does anyone think that people will actually and sincerely take it all seriously?
JeanC keeps on suggesting that there are well educated individuals who claim that it is unnatural for people to have blood values such as what is found with Rasmussen (Armstrong, etc.). Could somebody indicate a scientific study that has been performed on elite (super elite) athletes that confirms this opinion? It seems intuitive, that blood values would diminish during a tour, but that doesn’t make it so. I guess my beef with this line of thinking that JeanC keeps espousing, are the same as Larry’s.
_
But to the point: Suspect blood values are not guilt. No matter how suspect they might be. It is not guilt. I refuse to get caught up in these “too good to be true” accusations. The very act of racing a bicycle for 225-km two days in row is beyond reality. Where does one’s incredulity begin?
_
Look at this from another perspective. A well respected endocrinologist stated that the hormone levels that LNDD reported for Floyd were physically impossible. If that is so then Floyd must be innocent. Yet you are willing to condemn Rasmussen for having blood values which are claimed to be abnormal. We can’t have it both ways. Floyd’s tests apparently resulted in hormone levels that are not consistent with testosterone doping. Rasmussen’s blood values seem suspicious and we don’t trust him anyway, so he is guilty. That’s a lame argument.
_
Larry: You are absolutely correct regarding Rasmussen’s race results. Where did this year’s TDF performance come from? But I could argue that this year’s TDF had no clear leader, no team willing to take up the responsibility to ride tempo, and his team finally “allowed” him to ride his race. He was allowed to ride in the wheels all day long until the final mountain top finishes. The field he was racing against was clearly diminished (no Vino, Landis, or Basso, etc.) and had only one other pure climber who could ride a decent TT (Contador). So, you are correct, but so what?
_
BTW, IMO he was obviously doped up to his eyeballs. I don’t know what he did that gave him his strength, but he was so much more dominant than could be reasonably expected from him. Was he merely maintaining form better due to blood doping (as JeanC suggests), or HGH? I don’t know.
_
But again, my opinion does not equal guilt.
Michael,
We are not the jury, but we are spectator and as spectator we can applause or boo the players! If we are not happy by the field or the players we can say it. We can also say stop to people who are taking as fool or idiot. I think riders are are abusing of us since a while. It’s time to say, ok tou are technicaly right with the rules but you have a behaviour too far from gentlemen.
—
Damsgaard is running a lab, we can suppose that he knows his job…and has a year of experience with the whole CSC team… Aren’t those riders super athletes? We can easily suppose that they have a similar physilogy as Rasmussen, isn’t it? Maybe Rasmussen is E.T. !
—
Morgan,
Anti-doping fight is far to be perfect because in the recent past, it was just a smoke for UCI. Wasn’t it Verbruggen who said that it was not possible to have slower races? TV and sponsors needed spectacular races?
An example: hematocrit test are done too early before starts of a stage, if it was done later, just before the start (half an hour before), it would be difficult for riders to have a transfusion after.
The “end does not justify the means!” Jean C.
–
The problem I have with today’s testing is that it seems to lack incontrovertible proof and relies on “opinion and interpretation.” Testing that is unable to stand up to close scrutiny or cannot be repeated by others may not be referred to as scientific “proof.”
–
Your arguments for your stance seem to me to be based on “popular belief” and does not hold up to the scientific process. It may be true that a million people “believe” something – but it does not necessarily make it “true.” It only makes it a million people believing something.
–
We all may wish to “stop doping” in its tracks, immediately, right now, this moment – but if we do not have ways of proving doping as having taken place then we have no real case to “prove” an accusation.
–
A proper test has to be able to be done by any qualified laboratory – not just specific laboratories designated by the governing bodies. If the test “results” come back different each time a test is done – then to me this indicates that we have no concrete tests in hand.
–
Does this mean that every doper gets away with doping – yes it does. It does not matter Jean C if you or I like this or not – if M Saugy makes the statement that over 80% of all the peloton is doped – as an official doing testing it is HIS responsibility to give “proof” – it does not make his statement true – merely because he runs a lab and is considered an “authority” and he states this in the media. It only makes M Saugy sprouting his own personal beliefs.
–
A test may not be considered an American test or a European test – rather a test is scientific proof of an event.
–
A test is not “legitimate” merely because WADA or the UCI or anybody desiring it to show substance abuse, state that it is so. When such is the case – then – whether one likes it or not, one has to accept that it is not “proof” – but merely opinion.
–
If the LNDD lab gets one result and the GHENT lab gets another – then sending the sample back to LNDD for more testing – does not make their results true – rather it points out that the “accredited labs” are not competent to be doing their work, or that the “testing procedures” being applied are seriously flawed and therefore not valid or reliable in a court of law.
–
Science is not merely a “popularity of belief” concept. The atomic scale is the same in England as well as in Botswana. There is no “subjective” interpretation allowed in science – when such interpretation is accepted as true – scientific fact then may as well be thrown out the window.
Michael, BRAVO about your declaration that you “refuse to get caught up in these ‘too good to be true’ allegations.” And you’re right, of course, about Rasmussen. Of course it’s possible that he just rode clean and hard, in a field that was not as strong and where there was no boss of the peloton, so we could expect the unexpected.
…
Unfortunately, it’s also true that Rasmussen may have doped.
…
What are we supposed to do about this? We now have a situation where cycling consists of (1) a small minority of convicted dopers, who may or may not REALLY be dopers, and (2) a large majority of riders who have never failed a drug test, who ALSO may or may not be dopers. No one’s riding above suspicion. We may think that rider x from Spain is probably doping, and rider y on a “clean” team like CSC is probably not doping, but no one rides above suspicion. Can you name one rider who would NOT be suspected of doping if he wore the yellow jersey?
…
One thing we have not discussed here (and Rant, this would be a good topic for a later post) is that there’s now a third category of rider: the ones who are treated like convicted dopers, but who have never been convicted of doping. You can identify these riders because they might be suspected of doping, and because they can’t get a decent team to sign them, notwithstanding their obvious talent.
…
Who’s on this third list? Obviously, Basso and Rasmussen. I won’t discuss them. Daniel DiLuca, the reigning Giro champ, can’t find a position after receiving a short 3-month ban because he was associated with a suspicious Italian doctor. I’d put him on the list.
…
I’d argue that Contador and Leipheimer are also on this list, because they rode for Team Discovery (an allegedly “dirty” team), and because they took slots on Team Astana. My opinion is that these guys took the Astana offer because they did not receive any other offers. Riding for Astana is, again in my opinion, career suicide, because Astana will not receive an invitation to ride in the major Tours in 2008. In other words, Contador will not be allowed to defend his maillot jaune. You read it here first!
…
Who else is on this list? Possible Valverde. Up until now, the Spanish authorities have stood up for Valverde, notwithstanding his alleged connection with Opertion Puerto. Possibly Bettini, because he refused to sign the pledge.
…
This “third list” exists because, it appears, the UCI no longer controls who’s going to race in the Tour de France, and possibly in the other major tours. If you want to run a major cycling team, you MUST participate in those tours, and if participation in those tours means pleasing a group like the ASO (the organization that runs the Tour de France), then you have to do everything you think you need to do to make the ASO happy. If the ASO publicly announces that you have to field a “clean” team to ride in the Tour, and if the ASO whispers to you privately that they think rider John Doe is a dirty cyclist, then you’re not going to hire John Doe, no matter how talented you think he might be.
…
This is scary, scary stuff, stuff that smacks of McCarthyism and the blacklists that were part of the “red scare” in the U.S. in the 1950s.
…
I’ll post more about this at another time.