F Schleck tests positive for diuretic
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:dougzz wrote:What is it with the Bertie fan club meaning you have to get on Andy Schleck the whole time.
It's lazy and it's easy. They do make the latter very easy...
Ignore my comment regarding Fuentes then. :roll:
There were no training plans in 2006. The man himself says so. Frank paid for something... He's no desperado looking for a contract, that's just what you want him to be. He's a serial doper.0 -
ddraver wrote:Franks been caught doping once...
Yeah, that makes it ok. It was just once. he just wanted a contract, bless him.
Contador has been caught doping once also. Your posts on him are a little hypocritical too.0 -
ddraver wrote:Franks been caught doping once...
Got to say LL, all your posts about Sean Yates are looking a bit hypocritical at the moment...
How so?0 -
ddraver wrote:except they re not - I have no issue accepting that Frank doped, Andy is, as yet, unknown....
Except you just tried to make excuses for Frank and refuse to accept the link with Fuentes?
You blast anyone and everyone who dares to get any enjoyment out of Contador. You make endless beef jokes and make sure you have your say on him at every available opportunity. Yet when it comes to Frank, I havnt heard any vitriol? No 'poison' jokes? Just a resignation that he's old and was looking for a contract...which we both know is horsesh*t because at the time there was talk of him and Andy starting a new team anyways...
Your not willing to accept the Fuentes links, but you are quick to link Bertie to Fuentes and those bloodbags...0 -
could be wrong on this but wasn't their dad a fairly talented cyclist ?
Wonder if part of the problem could be that in their Dads era we know there was doping and so with cycling changing little over the years in that respect he wouldn't have any problem with his sons following the same path. Don't forget Merckx introduced LA to Ferrari and he also "trained" Axel0 -
ddraver wrote:Franks been caught doping once...
Sending money to Fuentes in 2006 for a training programme.. Haha, come on. Get real. It's twice. Twice.ddraver wrote:except they re not - I have no issue accepting that Frank doped, Andy is, as yet, unknown....
'Unknown'.. I could live that I guess. Still think it's incredibly naive to dismiss the queue of hints that Andy obviously knew and know about Frank doping.
And knowing about his brother doping I can imagine what he'd do as well.0 -
They really are separate people you know, saying stuff like "They live together24/7 and has always done so." undermines the proper points you make about Frank. The problem with saying someone doped because they beat x or y effectively means you believe all cyclists dope, given some of Andy's results, this method means every one dopes. Riding under a moody DS, again name riders that haven't, given cycling's history that's almost impossible for a rider of Frank's age.ThomThom wrote:Just stating the obvious. It is easy, yes. But Frank and Andy have made it easy all by themselves.
They live together24/7 and has always done so.
Frank's been caught doping twice.
Rode under a SD that sent his riders to Fuentes.
Andy beating top dopers in his Giro debut as 21 year old.
Saying Andy didn't know about Frank doping is incredibly naive.
I think it's fair to say Frank's been done twice, the money to Fuentes and the +ive last TdF, but, and I'm happy to listen to counter claim, there is nothing linked to Andy other than all the usual circumstantial suspicion.
Edit: DD - Don't you think saying Frank has been done once is like believing Basso never doped, just thought about it
0 -
"The problem with saying someone doped because they beat x or y effectively means you believe all cyclists dope"
The last 7-8 months has pretty much given me the idea of every rider in top-5 in - especially GT's - in 2007 were doping. I think that's quite a fair and backed opinion to be honest with you.0 -
ddraver wrote:No, it's once - this is reality - it's once.
Unknown is all we have to love with, like it or not. Everything else is just made up...
That's like believing in Basso when he says he only intended doping and was clean as snow when he was just as good in the mountains as the one and only, Mr. Lance.
Edit; Doug edited his and beat me to it.
Pretty weak answer to that btw, DD.0 -
What's real?0
-
Indulge me, why? The top 5 at 2007 GTs includes Evans and Sastre twice each, my general sense is not too many would agree they've doped.ThomThom wrote:"The problem with saying someone doped because they beat x or y effectively means you believe all cyclists dope"
The last 7-8 months has pretty much given me the idea of every rider in top-5 in - especially GT's - in 2007 were doping. I think that's quite a fair and backed opinion to be honest with you.0 -
That might be true. I might be in a minority there. What I never understand is why exactly they are considered clean in all the dirty years while beating a whole lot of dirty riders while being on dodgy teams.
Because Sastre is hailed clean by his fans?0 -
Good points LL.
Lets face it though, Frank isn't going to win the Tour on a diuretic. People seem to put stuff like this and clen equal with EPO etc. I'm still considering that he was spiked by Johan, algthough I'm not sure if that small amount is possible. The Schlecks have never been very clean in my eyes though.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Jeez I can't wait for Het Volk."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Good points LL.
Lets face it though, Frank isn't going to win the Tour on a diuretic. People seem to put stuff like this and clen equal with EPO etc. I'm still considering that he was spiked by Johan, algthough I'm not sure if that small amount is possible. The Schlecks have never been very clean in my eyes though.
Clen is performance-enhancing
vs
Diuretics on banned list because they CAN be used as masking agents0 -
GP Richmond, using diuretics to mask a performance enhancing drug was common place - and I bet it still goes on in todays society!1-2-3-4 Tell me what you're looking for0
-
RichN95 wrote:Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.
So, you either go for:
1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery0 -
I have no idea how or why. And I wouldn't bet on him being clean. But the idea of using an easily detected banned drug as a masking agent is stupid - you're not masking your cheating at all, you're drawing attention to it.Richmond Racer wrote:
So, you either go for:RichN95 wrote:Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.
1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery
It's like trying to creep up on someone and covering up the sound of your footsteps by playing a trumpet.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
I have no idea how or why. And I wouldn't bet on him being clean. But the idea of using an easily detected banned drug as a masking agent is stupid - you're not masking your cheating at all, you're drawing attention to it.Richmond Racer wrote:
So, you either go for:RichN95 wrote:Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.
1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery
It's like trying to creep up on someone and covering up the sound of your footsteps by playing a trumpet.
I thought the idea was that overall, the masking agent reduced the glow time?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I have no idea how or why. And I wouldn't bet on him being clean. But the idea of using an easily detected banned drug as a masking agent is stupid - you're not masking your cheating at all, you're drawing attention to it.Richmond Racer wrote:
So, you either go for:RichN95 wrote:Why would he use it as a masking agent (and in the middle of the Tour) when drug itself is banned and easily detected. It's like robbing a bank to provide an alibi for robbing a different bank.
1. unintentional ingestion
2. Bruyneel skullduggery
It's like trying to creep up on someone and covering up the sound of your footsteps by playing a trumpet.
Maybe he's just not very bright?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I thought the idea was that overall, the masking agent reduced the glow time?
Boom tish!Maybe he's just not very bright?0
