22 Jan 2009
TAS 2008/A/1612 M, Rasmussen c/ FMC
CAS 2008/A/1612 Michael Rasmussen c/ FMC
- Dutch District Court 2008 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
July 2, 2008
- Dutch Court of Appeal 2012 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
June 19, 2012
- Dutch Court of Appeal 2013 Michael Rasmussen vs RABO Wielerploegen
June 25, 2013
Michael Rasmussen, the appellant, appeals against the of the Cycling Federation of Monaco (Fédération Monégasque de Cyclisme, FMC) dated June 30, 2008. In this decision he received a period of ineligibility of two years starting from July 26, 2007.
By letter of 22 December 2006 UCI Rasmussen was informed of his inclusion in the target group of riders out of competition subject to the UCI controls for 2007 pursuant to Article 74 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules ("RAD"), herefore requiring him to provide location information within the meaning of Articles 78 to 81 RAD. Ie it does not dispute.
Rasmussen started July 7, Tour de France 2007 in London. At the end of stage 25 July 2007, he was suspended by the General Managing Director of the Rabobank in relation to localization issues discussed below and the resulting warnings.
July 26, 2007, he was dismissed with immediate effect by Rabobank.
He received 4 warnings instructions between May 8, 2007, and January 4, 2008.
- 1th warning set by the Anti-Doping Danmark (ADD) May 8, 2007 for a failed inspection by ADD home has Lazise (Italy) April 6, 2007 where he was to reside under the initial location information. He will explain some According to the ADD he left April 5, 2008 in Bilbao. Rasmussen failing to report the change of location to the UCI and has provided no explanation for this omission, he received the first warning.
- 2th warning set by the UCI June 29, 2007 for sending information later. The UCI has indeed received June 11, 2008 a letter from Mr. Rasmussen that he was in Mexico from June 4 to 12, 2008. On June 26, 2007, Mr. Rasmussen said he had the right to provide information on his movements by post, these explanations were rejected by the UCI, accordingly, notified him the 2nd warning.
- 3th warning set by the ADD July 10, 2007 for a missed test performed by the ADD in Lazise (Italy) June 21, 2007 where it should be according to the original location information required for the 2nd quarter of 2007. Rasmussen did not give any explanation within the time limit, he received the 3rd warning.
- 4th warning set by the UCI January 4, 2008 for false location information. Indeed, by fax allegedly sent from Lazise June 26, 2007 - but received by the UCI June 27, 2007, Mr. Rasmussen stated that he remained in Mexico until then and it would be in the French Pyrenees 27 and 28 June 2007; in fact, he had stayed in the French Alps June 21 to 24, 2007, and in the French Pyrenees from 25 to 29 June 2007.
The UCI has taken note of this fact after reading the report of the Committee on Vogelzang November 12, 2007 and the hearing of Rasmussen on 13 November 2007. She was then contacted for the rider's warning breach of its obligations location on November 30, 2007. December 17, 2007, Rasmussen admitted the validity of the warning; after which, the UCI sent him a warning set January 4, 2008.
By letter dated February 8, 2008, the Anti-Doping Commission of the UCI has asked the FMC ouverture disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rasmussen for violation of Articles 15.3, 15.4 and 15.5 FDR.
On 28 May 2008, the case was heard by a hearing before the Board of CME ("Commission Hearing"). The sanction is mentioned above.
Objections Michael Rasmussen
The appellant questions the first three warnings from he ADD because of incompetence. Also he disagrees with the fact that the whereabouts can't be handled in writing.
It was known that the leaders of his team (Rabobank) were aware of its places situation in spring 2007, which is also apparent from the verdict of the Court of Utrecht 2 July 2008 (employment tribunal case) in which Mr. Rasmussen succeeded on Rabobank on Rabobank conceming the unfair dismissal.
Is is proven that appellant had delivered false information which was fraudulent infomation that rendered any inoperative control.
1. The appeal is rejected.
2. The decision of the FMC is confirmed.