Schleck off the hook while 'bad boy' Boonen gets roasted
scottfrasernz
Posts: 53
Makes you sick, doesn't it?
Surely?
http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNe ... XT20081209
Come on WADA + UCI, get this sorted!
Surely?
http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNe ... XT20081209
Come on WADA + UCI, get this sorted!
0
Comments
-
Bur 'all' Frank did was send some money to a Spanish doctor, really just circumstantial evidence unless you or someone else has evidence to the contrary whereas 'Snowstorm' Tom was using recreational (and illegal) drugs and admitted it, therefore guilty m'ludM.Rushton0
-
As someone else has said before:
Schleck paid 7000 euros into a bank account which happens to be a gynaecologist for some training plans.
They must have been very good training plans.
But if I were Frank and I paid 7,000 euros into a bank account and found out it was a gynaecologist that was providing me the plans, the least I would have done is asked for my money back.0 -
Bit of a joke really! How on earth can they let Schleck walk away. Surely no one really believes his half arsed story?! A 7000 euro payment to a gynaecologist known to have provided a bloody dopping practice, for a training program. If it wasn't serious it would be funny0
-
Why not plenty of others were on that list Bertie, Valv. and there still around with barely a scratch to show for it why is Schleck any different? The fact is there is no proof of anything other than on ONE occasion he transferred money to him, its possible that he is telling the truth and was sucked in by the Train Regime line?Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
Come on Richard.......Now I agree that there is a lack of evidenc, and I'd suggest that this case warrants further investigation, don't you? I seem to recall that Basso professed to being innocent as did Ullrich......see a pattern here? Maybe his innocent ( but I doubt it), but to merely take his word for it is simply laughable. l Schleck SHOULD be treated the same as the others, and the other should be investigated too. 7000 euros is an awfu lot of money to shell out for a training program from a gynaecologist don't you think?
0 -
Fuentes ran a very large blood doping scheme, he is a medic by background. He's not a gynacologist - he ran his blood bank out of a gynacologist's office in Madrid - but acted as a team doctor for Kelme before setting up as an independent sports doctor offering "services" to cyclists and of course other sportsmen. You wouldn't pay him for training schemes, many riders got the plans from Cecchini and a referral from the Italian to Fuentes to get supercharged.
Sadly you can't convict Schleck for sending money and the rest of the trail has probably gone cold. But you just have to remember what he's done. He was a nobody who could not hold a place on the lowly De Nardi Italian team and fell back into the amateur ranks where his results were unremarkable*, only to sign for CSC and end up, come 2006, as a star rider. Make up your own mind, adding in the payment...
*His brother Andy was different and was managed by former pro DS Cyrille Guimard who said he'd managed Hinault, Fignon and Lemond and Andy Schleck was equally promising.0 -
All fair enough points.
BUT what (it seems) Tom's been up to has NOTHING to do with cycling. It's even further from trying to cheat at cycling.
Whereas, does ANYONE on here seriously believe Schleck wasn't 'attempting to dope' a la Basso....
He really hasn't been made to account for this at all in my view.
For example, why can't we see the training plan he paid 7,000 Euro for. Wouldn't that be a reasonable request?0 -
The dog ate his training plans.0
-
scottfrasernz wrote:For example, why can't we see the training plan he paid 7,000 Euro for. Wouldn't that be a reasonable request?
He never recieved it. Johnny found out what he was up to, clipped him around the ears and told him no. So Frank just let the money go.
Or so the story goes.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
scottfrasernz wrote:All fair enough points.
BUT what (it seems) Tom's been up to has NOTHING to do with cycling. It's even further from trying to cheat at cycling.
Whereas, does ANYONE on here seriously believe Schleck wasn't 'attempting to dope' a la Basso....
He really hasn't been made to account for this at all in my view.
For example, why can't we see the training plan he paid 7,000 Euro for. Wouldn't that be a reasonable request?
In the for what it's worth column, Tom doing "coke" is at the very least idiotic and apparently illegal. I can think of a few athletes who have been brought down by recreational drugs, if not from a legal standpoint then from a performance aspect(i.e.
they liked drugs better than sports). It happens.
As for Schleck, well, the last I had heard it is not illegal or against cycling rules
for trying to be an idiot or for even being one. I for one am glad for the systems in our
countries that say "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers" as opposed to the guilty
when someone, on this forum, says so. That being said, he doesn't have to account for
for anything to anyone(not you, not me, not them). No one should have to prove themselves innocent of rumors, innuendo, wild accusations, and the like from people who "know it all" or anyone else for that matter.
Dennis Noward0 -
SpaceJunk wrote:As someone else has said before:
Schleck paid 7000 euros into a bank account which happens to be a gynaecologist for some training plans.
They must have been very good training plans.
But if I were Frank and I paid 7,000 euros into a bank account and found out it was a gynaecologist that was providing me the plans, the least I would have done is asked for my money back.
Don't you know, it was for his (at the time) underage 16-year old girlfriend. :?0 -
Like people have said,Toms activities are hardly performance enhancing. As someone who as been to the odd party in my time, I could barely make the bed the next day never mind sprint at 70km.
He's young, living a very structured life and has the expectations of a small country that produces hard men and strong beer on his shoulders.
He's behaved like thousands of other young people do every weekend, right or wrong, we should give the guy a break, he'll come good0 -
Dennis - you're misguided - the concept of absolute liability in terms of a positive drugs test means that it is up to the athlete to prove conclusively that the drugs got there by innocent or non-intentional means. It's only because of idiots like Hamilton, Landis and their mis-guided fanboys who fuel a 'conspiracy' theory that we're going through this hoopla about them being innocent and the need to throw rocks at the establishment that tries to prosecute them - this does nothing for the anti-doping cause. Sadly, for us, Schleck was one step ahead in that whatever Fuentes prescribed was well clear of his system befor the evidence came to light - to purely ascribe this to stupidity is a bit naive IMO. But of course, Dennis you have made your judgement and who are we to question your wisdom?Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Now that you have this all figured out, please show us your proof. When was he injected(or whatever)? What was / were the drugs he was given? What are the dates involved?Monty Dog wrote:Sadly, for us, Schleck was one step ahead in that whatever Fuentes prescribed was well clear of his system befor the evidence came to light
What other names and documents do you have in your possession? Where did all this take place( the doping, etc.)?
"Sadly, for us" does not include me.
Sadly, for you, you don't have a single shred of evidence to prove much of anything.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:As for Schleck, well, the last I had heard it is not illegal or against cycling rules
for trying to be an idiot or for even being one. I for one am glad for the systems in our
countries that say "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers" as opposed to the guilty
when someone, on this forum, says so. That being said, he doesn't have to account for
for anything to anyone(not you, not me, not them). No one should have to prove themselves innocent of rumors, innuendo, wild accusations, and the like from people who "know it all" or anyone else for that matter.
Dennis, I too agree with innocence until proven guilty, and hope that no action will be taken against him unless somebody provides proof that he knowingly doped or attempted to dope.
However, Schleck is answerable to cycling fans if there is some evidence of wrongdoing, as there clearly is in this case (note that I said evidence, and not proof). Put simply, no fans = no sport. So if cyclists adopted the attitude of "I don't have to explain anything", we would soon see the end of cycling as a professional sport.0 -
"That being said, he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)."
So you don't think there should be any anti-doping rules?
Hurrah, a free for all. I bet you don't get many anarchists in Ohio, but it looks like we've got one here. What a dude.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Either come good,or end up like Marco Pantani :shock:bennyboyh wrote:Like people have said,Toms activities are hardly performance enhancing. As someone who as been to the odd party in my time, I could barely make the bed the next day never mind sprint at 70km.
He's young, living a very structured life and has the expectations of a small country that produces hard men and strong beer on his shoulders.
He's behaved like thousands of other young people do every weekend, right or wrong, we should give the guy a break, he'll come goodso many cols,so little time!0 -
johnfinch wrote:dennisn wrote:As for Schleck, well, the last I had heard it is not illegal or against cycling rules
for trying to be an idiot or for even being one. I for one am glad for the systems in our
countries that say "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers" as opposed to the guilty
when someone, on this forum, says so. That being said, he doesn't have to account for
for anything to anyone(not you, not me, not them). No one should have to prove themselves innocent of rumors, innuendo, wild accusations, and the like from people who "know it all" or anyone else for that matter.
However, Schleck is answerable to cycling fans if there is some evidence of wrongdoing, as there clearly is in this case (note that I said evidence, and not proof).
This is where you and I part company, so to speak. Show me where it says that because he rides a bicycle fairly well that he HAS to tell "cycling fans" anything about
his private life or public one for that matter. He is not answerable to you any more than you are answerable to him. If he wanted it to be your business he would have told you.
Just like if I started asking you personal questions you might tell me to "get lost" at the very least. Where you guys get the idea that these people OWE YOU explanations,
details of their lives, apologies, glimpses into their personal and business goings on, and the like is beyond me. It's none of your business just like yours is none of theirs.
Dennis Noward0 -
Oh get real Dennis will you - what a load of pompous tosh!
He's in the entertainment business, knows how it works, uses it to his advantage when it suits him just like all the rest and is more than happy to take the spoils. Pity he can't just turn it off when it suits him, eh?0 -
DaveyL wrote:"That being said, he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)."
So you don't think there should be any anti-doping rules?
Hurrah, a free for all. I bet you don't get many anarchists in Ohio, but it looks like we've got one here. What a dude.
Why would anyone who didn't want to talk about something have to tell you anything?
Don't mean for that to sound personal but you will have to explain to me why you feel
that because you're a cycling fan you have some RIGHT to know what he doesn't want to talk about. The age old question comes to mind(and we've all said it) "Who the hell do you think you are?" (Not directed at you - just posing the question in general).
Dennis Noward0 -
nick hanson wrote:bennyboyh wrote:Like people have said,Toms activities are hardly performance enhancing. As someone who as been to the odd party in my time, I could barely make the bed the next day never mind sprint at 70km.
He's young, living a very structured life and has the expectations of a small country that produces hard men and strong beer on his shoulders.
He's behaved like thousands of other young people do every weekend, right or wrong, we should give the guy a break, he'll come good
Either come good,or end up like Marco Pantani :shock:
I'll second both of those.
Dennis Noward0 -
Coyote wrote:Oh get real Dennis will you - what a load of pompous tosh!
He's in the entertainment business, knows how it works, uses it to his advantage when it suits him just like all the rest and is more than happy to take the spoils. Pity he can't just turn it off when it suits him, eh?
How is it that because he's famous he owes you anything? You certainly don't owe him anything. Do you? If you were famous what would you OWE people? If anything?
Dennis Noward0 -
derby wrote:
He doesn't need a shred of proof because these people already have it:dennisn wrote:you don't have a single shred of evidence to prove much of anything.
Dennis Noward
Hate to say it, but you've lost me with that post. Then again I'm old and don't keep up with
some things. :? :? :?
dennis noward0 -
dennisn wrote:DaveyL wrote:"That being said, he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)."
So you don't think there should be any anti-doping rules?
Hurrah, a free for all. I bet you don't get many anarchists in Ohio, but it looks like we've got one here. What a dude.
Why would anyone who didn't want to talk about something have to tell you anything?
Don't mean for that to sound personal but you will have to explain to me why you feel
that because you're a cycling fan you have some RIGHT to know what he doesn't want to talk about. The age old question comes to mind(and we've all said it) "Who the hell do you think you are?" (Not directed at you - just posing the question in general).
Dennis Noward
You obviously don't care. So that's the "me" taken care of. I'm a nobody, and Frank owes me nothing, so that's the "you" taken care of (in my case). That just leaves the "them". Now, does "them" include the anti-doping authorities and the UCI?
Over to you, Den.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I never said he owes ME anything...personally I couldn't give a toss what he does or doesn't do in his private or public life but lots of others obviously do. The point I am clearly making is that he has chosen to make a living in the public eye and that clearly has it's upside and downside - fact - whether you like it or not..0
-
Coyote wrote:I never said he owes ME anything...personally I couldn't give a toss what he does or doesn't do in his private or public life but lots of others obviously do. The point I am clearly making is that he has chosen to make a living in the public eye and that clearly has it's upside and downside - fact - whether you like it or not..
I couldn't agree more. Being in the public's eye can be hard to take. You have to be very careful about what you say and do if you want to keep up some sort of image to please
whomever it is you want to please for whatever reasons. You're right on about "lots
of others obviously do"(care?). Just like rock stars and movie stars, sports stars have their fair share of obsessed(for lack of a better word)fans who "just have to know".
Dennis Noward0 -
DaveyL wrote:dennisn wrote:DaveyL wrote:"That being said, he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)."
So you don't think there should be any anti-doping rules?
Hurrah, a free for all. I bet you don't get many anarchists in Ohio, but it looks like we've got one here. What a dude.
Why would anyone who didn't want to talk about something have to tell you anything?
Don't mean for that to sound personal but you will have to explain to me why you feel
that because you're a cycling fan you have some RIGHT to know what he doesn't want to talk about. The age old question comes to mind(and we've all said it) "Who the hell do you think you are?" (Not directed at you - just posing the question in general).
Dennis Noward
You obviously don't care. So that's the "me" taken care of. I'm a nobody, and Frank owes me nothing, so that's the "you" taken care of (in my case). That just leaves the "them". Now, does "them" include the anti-doping authorities and the UCI?
Over to you, Den.
Not sure what you're asking but isn't the burden of proof with the accuser? They(anti doping / UCI) must prove you doped. Not the other way around, although it may seem that way what with all the people that have been "caught" trying to appeal the rulings. It's a
right most of us have if we are "caught". To me an appeal is not so much about proving you're
not guilty, it's about proving that there was a mistake made and you were falsely accused.(OK, not guilty).
Dennis Noward0 -
"he doesn't have to account for anything to anyone (not you, not me, not them)". Do you mean, in general, or just in this specific case? From your other posts, I guess you mean that he doesn't have to account to me and you for anything in general, but I am assuming for "them" he only doesn't have to account for his actions in the Fuentes case. Because if he didn't have to account to "them" in general, you'd be saying he can take what likes, do what he likes, and not be accountable to anyone.
That's not what you're saying, is it?
Sorry if this is confusing. If it is, it's because I'm trying to follow your "logic".Le Blaireau (1)0 -
It does get serious in here doesn't it. As a person who has partaken in party materials in the past and has mixed in circle with regular users of both Toms chosen pharmaceuticals,there are plenty of people out there who party hard and hold down successful jobs and quite fluidly move on from the phase that it generally.
Comparisons with Pantani (RIP), a manic depressive with a history of bipolar like behaviour are hardly fair on a young lad who,for all we know, might have had few sessions in the off season.
I've spent the last 10 years working in Intensive Care and seen countless more people through the doors due to drink than recreational drugs. ALL things can be abused and taken to excess but I do hope given the hardline stances that seem to be present there are no boozy Xmas parties in the ivory towers of this forum0
