Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Rasmussen, positive?

KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
edited September 2007 in Pro race
According to l'Equipe, Rasmussen has apparently been taking Dynepo.

Once undetectable (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=EPOv2), it can now be detected and allegedly the Dane's urine samples have shown evidence he could have been taking it. But, if the labs can test for it now, sports authorities have yet to put in place the legal framework to verify this testing procedure.

So it's alleged that Rasmussen took a banned substance but since the test is not valid, he cannot be banned.

Posts

  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Interesting.

    Further proof the testing regimes just don't work. I bet those blood doping experts could look at his blood profile and know he's up to no good.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Cor blimey guvnor! Get the test ratified now you UCI monkeys! Or WADA monkeys! Or whoever it is! Not to catch Rasmussen out, but to catch anyone out if the technology exists to do so.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    This information shouldn't have been made public. No way.

    Unratified test and an athlete is named.

    Just had to say it.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,712
    I agree Iain. Whilst it confirms what many of us suspected the correct procedures should be followed in all cases. Failure to do so undermines them and that is undesireable.
  • LangerDanLangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Nowhere in any of the links above does it say what the basis of "unratified" is. It may well be that all the "science" bits are in place and the test just has to have formal approval by WADA to be added to its Bumper Book of Tests. Or it could be completely unproven sceintifically, but I'd doubt it.

    Iain - I'd be interested in what you'd consider the difference between the nature of this information and that mentioned in the DiLuca thread. In fact, as DiLuca apparently had child-like hormone levels and was thus "well negative", that information should never have been released either yet no one saw fit to comment on the fact.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    LangerDan wrote:
    Iain - I'd be interested in what you'd consider the difference between the nature of this information and that mentioned in the DiLuca thread. In fact, as DiLuca apparently had child-like hormone levels and was thus "well negative", that information should never have been released either yet no one saw fit to comment on the fact.

    You are quite right.

    I do love a gossip though.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,712
    Di Luca is also about to be sanctioned for a doping offence by CONI so his case is different, assuming that Rasmussen will not be sanctioned for this.
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    If it's a fact that he has taken the substance, if the trail from his sample to the positive test is unbroken, then surely he has been taking banned substances and blood doping?

    He's got some explaining to do. Rabobank too...
  • squiredsquired Posts: 1,216
    Of course they have stated that there have been something like 10 positives for Dynepo, but presumably the other people haven't been high profile enough to be worth naming...?
  • squired wrote:
    Of course they have stated that there have been something like 10 positives for Dynepo, but presumably the other people haven't been high profile enough to be worth naming...?

    No they just want to justify throwing Rasmussen out of the TDF. You can bet the other 9 are also high profile riders.
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    Those other names will leak out soon...
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Wasn't me!
  • drenkromdrenkrom Posts: 1,062
    The Di Luca case is different as the tests used to establish hormone levels are officially sanctioned. Also, "child-like levels" are indicative of doping, rather than being "well negative", as your body stops naturally producing a hormone that you supply it artificially.

    This Rasmussen test at least answers quaestions and nullifies the "I did nothing" argument he's been going back to. It's more solid than having one guy saying he saw him in Italy, to say the least. It's also a demonstration that someone who really wants to dope will always be ahead of the curve.
  • LangerDanLangerDan Posts: 6,132
    drenkrom wrote:
    The Di Luca case is different as the tests used to establish hormone levels are officially sanctioned. Also, "child-like levels" are indicative of doping, rather than being "well negative", as your body stops naturally producing a hormone that you supply it artificially.

    My point wasn't that DiLuca is inocence incarnate, but the fact that if we are to adopt the view that a riders name should only be released if he (or she) tests positive, then (even bizzare) negative results should not released.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • drenkromdrenkrom Posts: 1,062
    I agree, but we're talking about the LNDD/ASO/L'Équipe connection here. I remain amazed that no one they named before has sued they asses into the ground. There must be something to those results...
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    drenkrom wrote:
    I agree, but we're talking about the LNDD/ASO/L'Équipe connection here. I remain amazed that no one they named before has sued they asses into the ground. There must be something to those results...
    Errr.... do you think Rasmussen would enjoy a court case where details of any Dynepo use could be revealed?

    Leaking is wrong but ultimately, don't shoot the messenger. Remember who the cheats are and direct your fire towards them.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Kléber wrote:

    Leaking is wrong but ultimately, don't shoot the messenger. Remember who the cheats are and direct your fire towards them.

    But the lab not leaking is important I'd say. Especially in the case of the LNDD - They've taken some fairly heavy flak recently and a lot of it is justified. But I've not seen the lab director saying he'll do anything about the problem or even accepting the criticism. Perhaps he has.

    One of the labs in the UK lost it's WADA accreditation today so I know they do strip it (which I'd doubted before)

    As an aside, apparantly the LNDD get a lot more positives than the other WADA labs and perform fewer tests.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.