Talk:Michael Rasmussen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Easy to prove

It should be fairly easy to prove whether Michael Rasmussen was in Mexico or not. I assume he didn't cycle there. And his homepage spells his name Michael. Mickael would be a case of BBC dyslexia

[edit] Michael or Mickael?

I've noticed his name spelt both ways in the press - the official Tour de France website and the BBC both spell his name Mickael - if this is the way he spells his name, then perhaps the article should be under that spelling. Average Earthman 07:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

His name is spelled Michael by all Danish media (see [1], [2], [3]...) I think the misspelling is because in Danish, "Michael" is pronounced like the English "Mickael" -Fred Bradstadt 08:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only this year's tour?

Just wanted to add that he also took part in the Giro this year but had to pull out because of injury. Then again, I guess some people don't rate that as highly(!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lhu03pc (talk • contribs) 01:33, July 17, 2005.

You are correct. I've changed it from "only participate in the Tour de France" to "only focus on the Tour de France". --Maitch 16:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

As there hasn't been any traffic here since the tour, i've just gone ahead and removed the ending year of the Rabobank line, seeing as noone knows, and because he prolonged his contract recently. Poulsen 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Poulsen

[edit] All polka dot attire

http://i2-images.tv2.dk/s/55/517055-1cd17d7ceb89ab342bc09639c3dd3252.jpeg

This is probably the best picture of Michael's all-polka dot attire (including helmet and bike) from the 2005 Tour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.163.2.8 (talk) 19:44, June 23, 2006

The bike wasn't used until the last stage, though.[4] Poulsen 11:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What does that matter? I thought I remember him using it for a few stages after coming down from the Pyrenees but its really not important when or for how long he used it, the point is that he did use it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.163.2.8 (talk) 18:12, July 19, 2006

[edit] Working for his team leader

I think his work on behalf of Rabobank team leader Menchov in the 2006 Tour shows that Michael is willing to set aside his own goals (such as retaining the KOTM jersey) to help pace his team leader through the mountains. Interviews with Michael reflect this approach, and it is honorable that he is not racing only for himself. The team is also still allowing him to pursue a defense of his KOTM title, with his breakaway and stage win on Stage 16 of this year's Tour, but his #1 goal seems to be getting Menchov as high as possible in the overall classification.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.163.2.8 (talk) 18:12, July 19, 2006

[edit] Category:Doping cases in cycling

I was just wondering, is it correct that he's been added to this category? I mean, yes, of course the whole 2007 situation was about doping accusations (which, I admit, he probably is guilty of, but that's just speculation), but he was fired for lying about his whereabouts, and has never tested positive for doping. Still may be enough to add him to the category (as someone already has), but is everybody in agreement on this, or should he be removed from the category? Lilac Soul 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has not tested positive for doping. Please people, WP:BLP applies here. Be accurate. He was fired for not informing Rabobank correctly of his whereabouts and then insisting that he had been in Mexico when he had in fact been in Italy. Being in another country does not constitute doping. MartinDK 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes please be careful about this. He was withdrawn from the competition and fired because he had lied about his whereabouts. There is not a single thread of evidence that he has used any form of doping. It's possible btw. that the UCI will punish him with the same sanctions they use for doping (3rd offense will be treated like doping). However still a lot of speculation there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Rasmussen should not (yet) be in that category. Like already said above, he's not tested positive. Knurftendans 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the category is "doping cases" not "cyclists who have tested positive for doping". This case is centered around doping. The category is appropriate. --ZimZalaBim talk 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
According to UCI rules he must have recieved 3 warnings from the same federation before a doping case is initiated. That has not happened. It is not our job to redefine what a doping case is. Let's wait a bit and see how this unfolds. If a formal doping case is initiated then we can add him back to that category. Also, he did in fact test negative right before the tour began. He was tested extraordinarily because he had missed the scheduled "surprise" test. let's see what happens and then expand once we have more reliable secondary sources. MartinDK 12:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Danish newspaper Politiken a formal doping case will be initiated if UCI recieves evidence that he has lied about his whereabouts on other occasions than those he has already recieved warnings for. [5]. Once that happens he is back in the category. MartinDK 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that such an action by the UCI should not at all warrant us to mark something as a doping case. Such a categorization would be encyclopedically incorrect in my point of view regardless of what rules the UCI and the ASO have invented themselves in order to stop the flood of doping cases in their courses. The fact that the UCI is TREATING something as a doping case after a number of administrative violations is not by far the same as something being a doping case and we should be so wise to get that fact straight and not be influenced by politics and journalism. For all we know he lied about his whereabouts because he's having an affair. We need to get the facts and not rely too much on journalists and and other sources that are so engaged in this "war on doping". I'd wish some journalist would travel to Italy and do some actual journalism now instead of most of them participating in this media frenzy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that. That is what I've been trying to explain on today's mainpage talk page. Unfortunately there are people who can't tell the difference between a tabloid and Wikipedia and people who can't tell speculation from fact. Let's see how this unfolds. It may turn out to be nothing more than a dispute between Rasmussen and his boss, we really don't know why he was in Italy. We do, however, know that he tested negative right before the tour began. MartinDK 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
and 17 times negative during the tour. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed his name is being used by the entire archistructure of the media interchangeably with those who have actually failed tests in the race and cases in prior years are being dropped casually in conversation, perhaps in an attempt to create associations between Rasmussen and cases of drug abuse, while ignoring there is no evidence to make these associations. Remember they have a vested interest in demonizing Rasmussen now. Nioclas 14:59, 26 July 2007

There is no evidence for dopping, which makes this story really sad. So if Rasmussen was in Mexico, really, why does he not show his passport as proof? Unless he got there swimming, of course he must have stamps on it! It would be that easy to show the world he is innocent...!

[edit] This page is not for discussing whether or not Rasmussen actually used doping!!!

Nobody knows what happened in regards to doping (well, Rasmussen himself probably does). All that should be in the article are the cold facts. Speculation about whether this means that he probably used doping, or whatever, do not belong here. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed tests

I guess when the media can't get it right, Wikipedia can't be expected to get it right. Rasmussen has not missed ANY tests. To miss a test is to knowingly and willingly stay away from a test, that you're required to take. This is the equivalent of failing a test and carries a mandatory 2-year ban and as we all know Rasmussen has not been banned (at least not yet).--Oasiserfede 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, he missed two random tests his team issued because he declared that he was going to be in Mexico, when he really was going to Italy, making it so that he would be unreachable. The ruse fell apart after one cyclist claimed that he spotted Rasmussen in Italy. This is enough for me to include him in the category because he failed criterion 4 of Category:Doping cases in cycling, which includes times when he failed to submit to doping tests by his own team, which is a sporting body, causing it to withdraw and fire him. Jesse Viviano 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been disputed by Rasmussen who is now dealing with this through his lawyer. A doping case is initiated after 3 warnings from the same federation. He did not recieve 3 warnings from the same federation. It is not Wikipedia's job to redefine what constitutes a doping case. There are far too many stories going around, far too much gossip and other primary sources and far too few secondary reliable sources to be making such substantial edits to the article. We are not a tabloid, we are an encyclopedia with a policy against harmful edits based on primary sources. MartinDK 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Rasmussen has not failed to submit himself to mandatory drug testing (so he has not failed criterion 4). He has failed to make himself available for possible random testing. That is 2 completely different things and that is why I object to the term "missed tests" in relation to Rasmussen.--Oasiserfede 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand he has not missed any tests with the UCI, but he has missed 2 tests by anti doping denmark. What Rasmussens disputes is the relavance of this since he has not been riding on the national team for several years, which makes anti doping denmarks missed tests irrelavant.

Category:Doping cases in cycling says:

People entered in this category have either:

  1. Been suspended by a sporting body (the UCI, the IOC, or one of their national federations) for illegal performance-enhancing drug use.
  2. Publicly admitted such use.
  3. Been found to have taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs by a court of law.
  4. Been suspended by a sporting body for failure to submit to mandatory drug testing.

The first point defines "sporting body" which does not include a private cycling team, so nothing Rabobank does can qualify him for the category. In addition, I don't know how official the Rabobank reason is, but they appear to say "because he lied to us", and not "because he failed to submit to drug testing". They knew about the warnings regarding that before the Tour, and as said above it may not qualify as "mandatory" drug testing. He should definitely not be in the category now. PrimeHunter 14:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the team did

I removed the paragraph about how the rest of the team had the option to stay in the tour, etc etc. That's not relavent for an article about Rasmussen. As such, I've moved it to Rabobank (cycling). --ZimZalaBim talk 19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press Conference, November 7, 2007

http://dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=11954 Daily Peloton reported on Rasmussen press conference. He claims Rabobank knew he was in Italy, not Mexico. Other suspicious details are explained and his "biological passport" (test results) is reproduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.133.193 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)