clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

~8> Sheit

[editor's note, by chris] Reposted, with new updates. Eurosport reports that he has missed four tests: two Danish Cycling tests and two attempted by the UCI. Technically, if you miss three tests administered by a single body you're non-negative.

Update [2007-7-20 15:4:26 by chris]: Well, that didn't take long... here's a thoroughly awful-sounding doping accusation against said chicken. H/t Turbojan...

Update [2007-7-20 18:24:6 by chris]: Is this strike three?

The Michael Rasmussen doping story is going to be a problem. The facts are that he is guilty by his own admission of failing to inform authorities of his whereabouts on a couple occasions, causing him to miss two tests. One excuse offered is that his wife is from Mexico, and they may have been on a family trip. The Chicken himself calls it an "administrative error." He has never tested positive, as far as we know.

The problem is, the rules are in place as a means of preventing doping, not collating files. If they can't find you, then they can't test you, and if they can't test you, then you're free to take whatever you want and not worry about being nabbed in that brief window of time when the substance is easily detected. Once the evidence is absorbed into your body you can magically reappear and submit to any tests they wish to run. Just as the Chatenay-Mabry Lab's "administrative errors" really do substantively undermine the case against Floyd Landis (n.b. I didn't say "innocent"), so too do ~8>'s "administrative errors" undermine our confidence that he's clean.

Cue Credit Ag DS Roger Legeay:

How is it possible to let a rider alone just before the Tour and not to be able to join him in June despite the UCI rules? I can take the example of the Credit Agricole team. I ask my riders this morning and some of them were controlled at home by the UCI very easily because they gave the good address and they didn't lie. That is why the tests are made and it works! ... Concerning Rasmussen, I'm sorry, but the tests are made to find riders who do not respect the rules. Theo De Rooij and Rabobank should draw conclusions and take decisions.... We have an "ethic code" to respect: when one of our riders is positive, we have to exclude him from the race and we can not hire a rider who was positive. And now in this case the team managers are also responsible.

In other words, Rabobank should stop the maillot jaune, even before he detonates himself on tomorrow's time trial. Can it be long before Prudhomme says something more than three strikes and you're out? [Prudhomme has said a third missed test = non-negative.]