On Monday, the independent panel investigating the whole Rasmussen affair for Rabobank released their report. Not surprisingly, their version of the events leading up to the 2007 Tour and the Danish rider’s dismissal from the Rabobank team, just as he appeared to be the almost certain winner, differs on some points from the story Rasmussen told last week.
According to reports in various sources, the investigators found no credible evidence that Rasmussen’s claims of family issues were true. As CyclingNews reports:
Michael Rasmussen purposely lied about his whereabouts in the period before the Tour de France, making himself unavailable for doping controls, an independent committee announced on Monday in Utrecht, Holland. Rabobank Team Manager Theo de Rooij was right to remove the cyclist from the race, it said, but he should never have started in the first place. The 33 year-old Dane was sent home following stage 16 to the Col d’Aubisque.
The committee also rejected Rasmussen’s claim that he lied for personal reasons, saying “it does not deem this explanation to be credible.”
The sponsor Rabobank asked the independent committee to investigate “the events and facts before, during and briefly after the Tour de France ’07.”
Also, as VeloNews reports:
“The report is critical and extremely thorough,” said Piet van Schijndel, the Rabobank executive board member in charge of the firm’s cycling sponsorship. “It clearly states that the board of directors of Rabo Cycling Teams rightly decided to remove Rasmussen from the Tour de France.”
And the report finds some fault with the cycling team’s management:
The report contends that the team’s board actually knew of Rasmussen’s missed tests and his travel plans, and “made an error of judgement” by not reporting those facts to the team’s sponsor.
“It is patently obvious from the information known now that Rasmussen should not have been allowed to start in the Tour de France,” the report noted.
According to the investigators, the story behind Rasmussen’s claims of training in Mexico may date back to April. As CyclingNews notes:
In April, when there were already suspicions concerning the Danish rider, the team sent him an e-mail concerning tickets for a training period in the Pyrénées, according to Telesport.nl. He responded that he would like for that trip to be kept “quiet,” because he would say that he was in Mexico at that time. De Rooij told the rider that he would not participate in such a cover-up and that Rasmussen would have to supply the correct information to the UCI. “The responsibility for this lies completely on you,” de Rooij said in an e-mail.
The committee further found that the team’s Board of Directors and its Chairman de Rooij “did not adequately assess the importance of multiple signs concerning Rasmussen’s conduct prior to the Tour ’07,” and failed to properly notify the team’s supervisory board of the true state of affairs. In so doing, “the Executive Board endangered the reputation of both Rabo Cycling Teams and the Rabobank.”
It appears that the whole Rasmussen story is getting more and more complicated. Given some of the quotes from the report, the general sound of the findings is that the blame for the Rasmussen affair falls on a number of shoulders, including Rasmussen, members of the Rabobank cycling team staff, and the UCI.
Susan Westemeyer of CyclingNews.com has a two-part look at the report’s findings, and from what I’ve seen in looking at various English-language sites, hers is one of the most thorough reports on the situation in the Anglophone world. Rasmussen’s claim that management knew of his travel plans is not exactly refuted by the report. In fact, as the investigators relate the story, it demonstrates (at least partly) how Theo de Rooij failed to take the more decisive action that could have prevented the fiasco from occurring. From part 1 of the coverage:
On April 24, a member of the Rabobank team board of directors sent Rasmussen an e-mail concerning airline tickets for a training period in the Pyrenees from June 25 to 29. He responded a day later, “I prefer if we can keep the trip quite [sic], as I am supposed to be in Mexico at the time.” The director forwarded this e-mail to the chairman of the board of directors, Theo De Rooy, who responded, “I want to let you know that as employer I urge you to provide the controlling bodies with the correct whereabouts information! If you want to go training in Mexico, just go ahead, it is out of the question that your employer is going to cooperate in some cover up operation. The responsibility in this matter is completely yours!”
In response, Rasmussen called De Rooy to say that he wished to keep secret from the press the fact that he was training with team-mate Denis Menchov in the Pyrenees.
De Rooij’s mistake in dealing with the situation is pretty clear, in retrospect. As Rasmussen’s employer, he rightly told Rasmussen that he should not try to fool the authorities. But that wasn’t enough. De Rooij should have gone further, and told Rasmussen that such behavior would keep him off the squad sent to the Tour. It was a big failing for the team’s director, and for this and other aspects of how he managed the situation, he paid for his mistake by having to resign his position.
Further on in the first part, Westemeyer reports:
While Rasmussen asserts that the team knew exactly where he was the entire time, team director Theo De Rooy said that he assumed that Rasmussen would remain in Mexico for most of the month of June. While Rasmussen claimed that other members of the Board of Directors knew that he would not be in Mexico, those Board members deny any such knowledge. “This means that conflicting word-against-word statements are involved. The committee has been unable to determine which party is telling the truth.”
Regardless of who knew what, the deceit caused a dangerous situation when Rasmussen unexpectedly rode himself into the leader’s yellow jersey in the Alpine stages of the Tour. At the very moment when Rasmussen had the world’s attention, the Danish federation chose to bring up the missed tests. When the stakes were at their ultimate high, with Rasmussen ready to coast into a dream world of Tour de France champion, a journalist told De Rooy that Cassani had met Rasmussen in Italy in June. De Rooy confirmed this statement with Cassani and then confronted Rasmussen. “Rasmussen initially confirms Cassani’s story, but later retracts his confirmation,” the report stated.
The UCI comes in for some pretty sharp criticism by the investigators for their handling of the whereabouts program. According to Westemeyer’s reports, the UCI was rather lax in their implementation and enforcement of the program’s requirements. Two aspects of the story of missed tests, however, have not been clearly explained (at least in the media coverage, I haven’t had time to read the full report).
First, one of the missed tests in June occurred when Anti-Doping Denmark or Danish Cycling Union representatives went to test Rasmussen at his home in Italy. Now, what’s interesting about this test is who’s doing the testing. Because Rasmussen is Danish, one might expect that he holds his pro license through the DCU. Turns out, one would be wrong to do so. Rasmussen was licensed this year through Monaco, instead. Why is a different matter, one which I haven’t seen explained by the rider, himself.
So when it comes time for anti-doping tests, the Monaco authorities should be coming looking for him, or representatives for the UCI. The catch is that Monaco doesn’t have an ADA. (Speculation by some papers has been that this is precisely the reason for licensing in Monaco versus Denmark, which has an anti-doping agency.) So why were Danish authorities looking for Rasmussen? Because he might be part of the national team at the Worlds or the Olympics? Or, could it be possible that Monaco’s cycling federation contracts for anti-doping tests with other agencies?
Whatever the truth of the matter is, this is one of the murkier sides of the story. Another murky aspect to the story is the matter of the UCI’s allegation that Rasmussen missed a test on June 29th. By both Rasmussen’s and Rabobank’s chronology of events, the cyclist had informed the UCI of his whereabouts on June 27th, so they governing body should have been able to find him on the 29th. What Rabobank’s report adds to the mix, however, is the matter of the warnings Rasmussen received during the last year over missed tests and failing to file his paperwork on time.
As detailed in the first part of Westemeyer’s report, Rasmussen’s whereabouts paperwork for his Pyrenees trip was filed two days after he arrived.
On June 27, the UCI received a fax from Rasmussen saying that he would be training in the Pyrenees from June 27 to 29. Unbeknownst to the UCI, Rasmussen’s airline tickets showed him arriving in France on June 25th, the report revealed. “In view of the fact that Rasmussen actually stayed in the Pyrenees from 25 June through 29 June 2007, this once again involved submitting a change too late. Rasmussen also told the Committee that he trained in the Alps from 21 June to 24 June 2007. He failed to communicate this change to the UCI.”
The committee’s report tallied up three incidences where Rasmussen failed to correctly and timely submit his whereabouts in the month of June alone, and one in which he failed to report them at all. The report was critical of the UCI’s response to the incidents. “While this should render a total of four warnings, the UCI chose to nonetheless combine these incidences into one single recorded warning.
“The UCI consequently suffices with one recorded warning for all the violations in the period 4 June through 29 June 2007, while it is the committee’s opinion that each incident constitutes an independent offence. The fact that Rasmussen now states that he was not in Mexico at all places these considerations in a different light.”
What we don’t get from the report is whether Rasmussen is absent-minded and fails to do his paperwork on time, or whether there is something else at play.Many accounts of the Rabobank report say that the investigators found no evidence that Rasmussen was doping. Still, playing hide and seek with the authorities is no way to build a reputation as a clean athlete, either. Other than seeking privacy, there may be nothing else to it. But in this age of all cyclists working under a cloud of suspicion, the one thing not to do is behave in such a way as to bring further suspicion upon oneself.
Part 2 of Westemeyer’s story focuses on the actions of the Rabobank team and how the UCI plays a role in this sad saga. It’s a fascinating read, as I suspect the full report will be. Again, if you’re interested in reading the investigators’ findings, follow this link.
There’s more to come with the Michael Rasmussen story, as he is expected to be releasing a response to the Rabobank investigator’s report in the near future. Stay tuned.
This affair certainly is quite a tangles web. However, there are certain things coming out. Both Ras and Rabo have stated that he wished to keep his whereabouts under cover. Ras says he was having personal problems and wished to avoid public attention; the alternate suggestion is that he was doping and wanted to avoid OoC testing. However, he was tested a number of times during the Tour and always passed. Either he had some doping strategy for use during the Tour to avoid detection, or he wasn’t doping during the Tour at least.
–
Now comes the question: is it possible to use PEDs during training in order to be able to train harder and/or longer, getting in better shape than with unaided training, then stop using PEDs while still retaining enough of your improved conditioning to be of benefit during competition? Such a scheme could explain Ras’ actions: he goes to Italy and dopes, trains hard, gets in great shape, then stops doping in time for everything to clear his system. Now he’s in great shape and is able to reach the top of the GC table.
–
Of course, it is possible that Ras’ explanation is right. What we can’t say, based on current evidence, is that he was doping.
William,
The only thing I can think of would be autologous blood doping, which can’t (yet) be detected with any great certainty. Supposing he got a transfusion a week or two before the start of a major event, perhaps by the time he was tested his hematocrit and hemoglobin levels would look pretty normal. But they’re also just measured by concentration, not total volume. So he could, in effect, have an extra pint or quart in his system and the doping controls would be none the wiser.
…
Now, that said, Rasmussen may just be an odd character, who prefers to train in privacy and happens to be forgetful about sending his paperwork in on time. Certainly, there are steps that can (and I understand will) be taken to make the reporting of whereabouts easier. But someone who is forgetful would still file late.
…
But, as you said, with the evidence available, we can’t draw any firm conclusions. It’s a he-said, he-said kind of story regarding who knew what about where he was going to be training and when.
Rasmussen is probably as many top riders using a combination of EPO and blood doping.
EPO is used during training to be able to train harder as what you can normally do, recovering is much better and so. Big advantages. To avoid detection they are using micro-doses.
From what I have understand, blood must be withdrawn less than 2 months before his using. This fact seems to explain a lot of bad performance for riders during Dauphine-Libere, and mysterious recovering on TDF.
With less blood it’s difficult to train or race, during this frame riders are taking EPO, generally big doses are needed to train enough! It’s the grounds for rider to escape control a few days when they have loaded their bodies with EPO. After a short period of 2-3 days, EPO is becoming undetectable.
So if TDF wanted that no control were missed in the period just before TDF it’s only because they know that this period is used to dope.
Interesting piece – It indeed seems to be a complicated situation, but ultimately it doesn’t change the fact that Rasumssen initially lied about his whereabouts. Why he did that, I have no idea. Again, I keep coming to the same issue – you don’t lie. You don’t say things that lawyers have told you to say unless you know they are true. Speculating about what Rasumssen was doing is fruitless, and at this point, I don’t believe anything he says. How will be begin his latest rationale: ‘This time, I really mean it!’ I’m not sure why anyone would be waiting for him to speak again.
This doesn’t take any of the heat off of Rabobank and the fact that they didn’t follow their own protocol with enough vigor. HOWEVER, it is very common for the ‘boss’ to give the negligent employee ‘a second chance’, or more than one second chance. If Rabobank doesn’t have a zero-tollerance policy, then this would explain their reluctance to fire him from the team for making a few past mistakes.
What boggles the mind, however, is that Rasmussen was making between 150-200 thousand Euros per year… With that kind of money, there is NO EXCUSE – a Blackberry can send an e-mail in less than 1 minute. A last minute flight trans-Europe would have cost, at most, 1000 Euros. Let’s keep this in perspective here. If you screw up too many times, you get fired. I don’t even think the issue of doping comes in at all.
I am not attacking you William — but your question. “Is it possible to use PEDs during training in order to be able to train harder and/or longer, getting in better shape than with unaided training, then stop using PEDs while still retaining enough of your improved conditioning to be of benefit during competition?” points directly to one of our problems.
–
I can only speak for myself — I have no idea.
–
Is there hard scientific data available to discuss this past the stage of mere conjecture?
–
What are the fine points of “autologous blood doping?” — I will not debate something that I have no knowledge of — Rant — you seem knowledgeable about such things — where does one go to learn about such things? Is such data available to the general public?
–
Jean C — seems also “knowledgeable” about the “world of doping” — but truthfully I cannot add or detract anything if I am ignorant.
–
It may seem that I am being a complete nincompoop with admitting to this — but I don’t see How I could even begin to address Rasmussen’s situation with any hope of non bias — if such facts are not known to me.
–
Perhaps you all will think me idiotic for admitting to such holes in my knowledge — but to me it is more important that I stay honest with you all — since I feel I have been giving my honest reactions here to this point.
–
Cycle T — makes good points — Rasmussen lied. Being in the position that he is in — it is just about the dumbest thing he could have done.
–
It seems childishly imbecilic that Rasmussen is trying to “justify” his lying by involving Rabobank — as if Rabobank knowing about his duplicity somehow makes it all right. It is infantile.
–
Now we could discuss Rasmussen’s emotional state of development by directly applying observational technique to his behavior, answering this is more possible then forging links to come to some understanding of “did he do it to be doping or is he plain emotionally retarded?” Meaning that his “emotionally development is younger then his actual age” — not that he is retarded.
–
I apologize to everyone if I seem to be anal retentive here — but I see this turning into nothing different then what Dickie P seems to favor doing — making “assumptive jumps” to fit his needs of the moment.
–
Don’t wish to be a wet rag on anybody’s enthusiasm here — but I really would like to know if any of you understand my concern?
–
The “Westemeyer Report” appears thorough and honest — it pulls no punches — should we not also be trying for at least equal thoroughness in our discussion?
Morgan – I agree with your assessment (or the way that you stated that it’s very difficult to make an assessment…) As much as I’ve gone on about how we shouldn’t see this as a case of doping, but rather a case of Rasumssen’s honesty, I do believe that one could speculate on his state of mind, even if it’s a way to try to understand the series of events. True, they will not mean much at the end of the day, but this is a nuanced situation of ‘should have’s and ‘meant to’s.
I was thinking to myself that there is no excuse for someone to miss scheduled doping control dates/places, but it occured to me that there may have been extenuating circumstances that could explain his whereabouts and desire for privacy. It may be something VERY personal, and something that would have compromised his ability to race (unknown disability, recently diagnosed condition, mental health issue.) I still believe that this could have been reported to Rabobank, but perhaps he DID have a reason… it just seems that he’s on really thin ice, and his reasoning would have to be explained if he wants to regain public support.
I wouldn’t dispute for a minute the premise that doping during training helps, even if stopped well before the race; nor that that absences during the run up to the Tour are suspicious, as are weak performances in the Dauphine. But weak performance isn’t proof of anything. Absence for tests is more disturbing, and that’s where Ras’ story is problematic.
TBV
Morgan,
If you want understand a lot about doping, you can certainly find a lot of stuff here :
http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/index.php?s=
Go to >Endurance Athletics and Sports Specific Training from “Training and fitness”
My poor knowledge is from Festina Affairs which make a lot of noise in France, with many scientist explanation about doping.
Cycle T — without intent at being contentious I would like to present a little fact that has had a great amount of public exposure and comment here in Europe. Are you aware of the nickname “the chicken?” — The TV media and news services and many of the German commentators have taken particularly nasty pleasures with referring to Rasmussen by this “novel” nickname.
–
Rasmussen does not strike me as a strong ego personality — imagine the kind of anger and shame this being feels with having such a nickname stuck to him. Hearing the nickname “the chicken” in the mass media, people calling him this to his face, naturally in a “good natured way, oh yeah. This alone would make such a personality rebellious to the point of unreason.
–
Is it not a simpler logic to come to and see that Rasmussen may just very well have “lashed out” at the only “authority” figure that has real power over him, under such conditions? I think it is.
–
As you say Cycle T — “there may have been extenuating circumstances that could explain his whereabouts and desire for privacy,” He may have just about the biggest ball of rage one could imagine — he is after all a world class racer whos buttons are being pushed to the limit. I don’t wonder that he would irrationally try to “play cute” with the doping vampire authorities. Do you?
–
Still — he did lie. Did he also dope? I have no way of knowing — and before anyone jumps me for spitting into the wind — kindly show me proof other then just mere “interpretations — even by a specialist who is supposed to know.
–
The only thing certain in the Rasmussen case — as far as we know — is that he lied. Since the lie was a direct breaking of the rules, he agreed to follow — he should not have been allowed to race the Tour. But as I see it — this is not any proof of Rasmussen’s doping or not. It only points to Rabobank not following the rules either, as well as the UCI ignoring the same rules.
–
The fact is — Rasmussen WAS ALLOWED to start. The fact is — he was racing with every intention of winning. When it became obvious that Rasmussen was not going to implode and “lose” — he got yanked and tossed out on his ears.
–
How do we then find ourselves jumping to conclusions that Rasmussen was doping? Do we jump to such conclusions because our own biases say that “the chicken” cannot be a Tour champion — unless he is a doper?
–
I would insist that such rumored accusations be backed up with hard proof or his accusers should shut the hell up. Otherwise this is nothing more then public character assassination — hey wait a minute — didn’t we see that technique being attempted with Floyd Landis?
–
If ASO, the UCI and WADA have shown themselves to be playing little games of “hiding their knowledge” like some “ace in the hole” — to flip their “knowledge out when it suits them,” who the heck can feel secure enough to even get on a damned bike, or for that matter even want to? AND TALK ABOUT UNFAIR USE OF POWER – I believe these guys are prime examples of this.
–
Their excuse of course is that the RIDERS and the people behind them are super geniuses and are way ahead of them in the doping scene – – – so naturally this means that ASO, the UCI and WADA can play at cheating too.
–
There is an old saying – “Be careful how much you hate something — the possibility is good that you will become it.”
Speculation regarding what nefarious activities that Rasmussen was engaged in is tedious and unproductive. Did he miss any out of competition tests directly attributable to his inability to file the correct paperwork? As I read it, on 6/29 the UCI knew where he was and they messed-up. For the other test they sent the technicians to the wrong location regardless of where he was – nobody believed he was in Italy at the time of that first test. So who’s responsible? The justifiable complaints about his paperwork never seems to rise to the level of actively cheating, even if it is suspicious and against the rules.
Jean C — I appreciate the link. I have visited and I have to say — THESE people are definitely into using — but Jean C — there is not one bit of hard scientific proof to back up their “testimonial” interpretations of what they are doing”¦all the communications between individuals is word of mouth “self-experimental testimonial “evidence” — this isn’t science. Yes it proves that these people are treating themselves as “lab rats.”
–
Reading their “observations on cause and effect of substances are completely subjective — you cannot expect me to accept this as “knowledge.” It is all subjective Jean C. It is not scientific.
–
Do you understand my objections? If not tell me what you hear me saying and I shall try to be more clear.
It would seem that my response to Cycle T at 12:39 pm is stuck in Moderation.
Morgan,
Not sure how that happened, but it’s fixed now. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Seems to me that there are several related but different questions regarding this affair.
–
1. Who knew when about Ras’ whereabouts? If Rabo knew and did nothing, they are somewhat complicit in this matter, not that that excuses Ras. Rabo could have informed UCI where he was. That they didn’t could be interpreted as “Maybe we can get away with this.”
–
2. It seems that both Rabo and UCI knew Ras had missed tests within the time frame for the Tour, and he should not have been allowed to start, regardless of anything else. Again, Rabo might have been trying to see what they could get away with, but why UCI didn’t do anything . . . probably just a bureaucratic foul-up.
–
3. Did he or did he not lie to Rabo regarding his whereabouts? This was the stated reason why he was fired. However, it often is the case that an employer will give one reason for a firing when another is the actual reason.
–
4. Whatever the reason, was Rabo justified for firing him? I don’t know what rights, if any, a rider has in this regard. Maybe a sponsor can fire a rider because they don’t like the side he parts his hair on. Sports figures have been fired/released from teams for all sorts of reasons, some of which wouldn’t fly elsewhere.
–
5. Was Ras being secretive about his whereabouts and missing tests because he was doping? We’ll probably never know for sure, unless he were to confess. Even if he came up with the “personal reasons”, they might be hard to confirm, or they might be a convenient excuse. But if there were legitimate reasons, maybe Ras could have contacted UCI and worked some kind of deal out in order for him to maintain privacy while still complying.
–
It was a best rather disingenuous of him to think he could pull all this and get away with it, even if the reasons are innocent. Rabo seems not to have exercised sufficient control of its rider, failing to take action when apparently they had some idea of what was going on. UCI also failed to take action when they could have to have prevented the spectacle of a top rider being booted out of the TdF. At one point I sort of felt sorry for Ras, but not any more. So maybe we should stop worrying about him, as this really has very little to do with Landis.
If baseball had any balls at all, they would strip Bonds of his single year home run crown and the total home run record. That way Hank gets his real due back, and Mark McGwire (who of course never used to juice) gets the single season benny.
*
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/15wire-bonds.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
William,
Those are some good questions you ask. It seems to me the more that comes out about the Rasmussen case, the more questions there are, as the overall picture is not quite clear.
…
Rasmussen’s story, I think, gives us some insights into how the system works. Where it fails, and perhaps even some of the why. From what I’ve seen, the independent investigator’s report pulls no punches, placing blame all around. Some of the things that need to be done better, which will affect everyone in the future, have to do with the way the UCI runs their own house. Seems they need to find better ways of doing certain things.
…
To tie that into the Landis case, just a bit, think back to when the first leaks came out. Someone with information about the rider’s identity had to let the cat out of the bag. Publicly, it was the head of the UCI. But in private, L’Equipe’s sources may include someone at LNDD and someone at the UCI. From LNDD, he can get the basic info. From the UCI, he can get the rider’s identity.
…
Enforcing the rules properly falls on many shoulders — whether we’re talking about data security (leaks to the media, for instance) or the whereabouts program. The UCI, WADA, the labs, even the teams have responsibilities to make sure the rules are followed properly. The Rasmussen story is an illustration of how things can go tragically wrong. There are lessons to be learned from his story, just as there are lessons to be learned from the Landis story.
…
That said, there are plenty of other stories that need attention, too, and I’ll be turning to those next. Wish I had more time to write about all of the things going on right now, as there’s a lot of interesting stories happening right now.
Job Application: New position “opening” – INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT —
–
“Pound said he’s interested in the soon-to-be-open spot as head of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.” Velonews.
–
Talk about “farce” from his own mouth to all our ears – “”I’m available,” said Pound, who is both an accountant and attorney. “Listen, it would be the first time in 30 years that the IOC has given me a job that I actually understand.” Velonews.
–
As to the truth of such matters, I will only present Mr Pounds own words – “Listen, it would be the first time in 30 years that the IOC has given me a job that I actually understand.” Velonews.
–
This is the man that has been “running WADA.”
–
Oh yeah – just who I would like to be seeing “running” a CAS body… excuse me, I have to take my meds…No I’m not doping – every one of them has been DR – prescribed and I have “official Exemptions” for their use…
–
It seems to me that we are getting farther and farther from a sane reality folks – whatever “sane reality” might mean at this point…
Hopefully, friend DP is just flapping his yap and there’s little real chance of him getting the slot at CAS. CAS should be a neutral agency that reviews appeals from both sides, looking for the “truth” of the situation rather than a prosecutorial agency whose goal is to stamp out doping. Remember that CAS reviews other sorts of cases than those related to doping, although perhaps doping cases might be the majority; I don’t know. Anyone have any figures on this?
Who would I like to see running CAS? Well, I don’t have anyone in mind, but I think it should be someone with a good legal background, maybe even someone from the bench. HMM! Judge Hue, how’d you like to move to Switzerland?
I just saw an article (here) that suggests Mr. D may be called on to stay on board at WADA for a while longer. At least, it sounds like a number of European delegates to the convention are trying to “Draft Dick.” If that comes to pass, maybe he won’t be available to replace the current head of the CAS.
…
Of course, if Judge Hue could be persuaded to take up the post, we can be confident that justice and fair play would be the order of the day. And being in Switzerland would make for some great biking and easy access to some of those exciting mountain stages in the Tour (and other great races). That ought to be a good enticement to get him to take the job, don’t you think?
What a concept! An actual Judge Hue for CAS president…And Judge Hue – it is not bribery that Rant points to…such as the perks of centralized access to all the great cycling races in all of Europe – Really – he just happened to mention this in passing, right Rant? Like – the fact that you can get the most amazing chocolate in Switzerland – or like if you’re partial to yodeling – or really fantastic looking real blonds and human women too… I second the motion!
–
Wow – to think…an actual member of the bar, who’s not an accountant! I swear Judge Hue – I will not vote twice if you think about it….really….
HOLD IT RANT!!!
–
Does this mean that we don’t get Judge Hue’s verbal wisdom here or on TvB if he’s elected?…?…?
–
I’m thinking selfishly here folks – one one hand – Judge Hue leading CAS on the other – No Judge Hue to advise us………………..I’m beginning to have second thoughts here Rant…I’m not certain, I could be selfless enough to give up Judge Hue and share him with the rest of the world……..
–
William – it’s your fault! You suggested the great idea to Rant….have you considered that Judge Hue is very important for us right where he is? NO! you had to propose him to head the CAS body……..Thanks a lot William.
–
Judge Hue – your honor – don’t listen to such wild and inflammatory ideas as William is suggesting…What’s in Switzerland anyway – cows, chocolates, cutting edge technology. Okay – the “wimin” are very fine looking – but you wouldn’t let something like that woo you away from us.. would you…Rant – I shall blame you personally for putting ideas into judge Hue’s head….
–
ALRIGHT! – If Judge Hue wants to be CAS president….and leave us here without his wisdom and insight in fair play and justice……..I don’t have to like it – BUT you get my vote Judge.