F Schleck tests positive for diuretic
Comments
-
Hey Contador blamed his steak and got away with it... he's back for the Vuelta.
Valverde still pretenders he's innocent and Lance Livestrong still protests his innocence to maintain his sponsership contracts.
Oh course Frank was poisoned... Tommy V sneaked up and put something in his tea.
There's too much money in sport, the days of David Millar putting his hands up and admitting his guilt are past us. Today's Dr Ferrari is now a sharp suited lawyer.'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0 -
Someone else mentioned it.
But why dope on a flat stage with a mass sprint. If he is doping on a flat stage and getting caught, he should have easily been caught on a mountain stage. Or are positive samples just pure luck!
Mostly speculation, but he was probably very 'unlucky' to be tested on a flat stage, especially considering he isn't that good anyway.Scott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
Markwb79 wrote:Someone else mentioned it.
But why dope on a flat stage with a mass sprint. If he is doping on a flat stage and getting caught, he should have easily been caught on a mountain stage. Or are positive samples just pure luck!
Mostly speculation, but he was probably very 'unlucky' to be tested on a flat stage, especially considering he isn't that good anyway.
Do dopers dope stage specifically? I don't know enough about it but I would imagine it to be part of some sort of systematic cycle based on a certain amount of time "on" and "off" the banned substance as opposed to doping for a particular day.0 -
'Something for the mountains, sir?''I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0
-
Bad boy Frank. No innocent explanation can be found from it seems. The money paid to Fuentes told us something, so I guess this is no surprise.
I see retroactive testing of 2004 Olympic samples may have brought up 5 more +s from Athens. This could get interesting as well.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/re-test ... l-findings0 -
well if he has been (and that's if) then he needs to get his money back because it ain't helped! :-)0
-
Same.Abdoujaparov wrote:Often used as a masking agent for epo micro doses which themselves are used to mask a blood transfusion.
I think his poor form is more a function of new testing discouraging very effective doping and his giro participation and injury, rather than a function of the rest of the peloton being at it too.
Loving the positive test. Feels like progress.Fatboyslim0 -
Look at his palmares. It has helped plenty.nicensleazy wrote:well if he has been (and that's if) then he needs to get his money back because it ain't helped! :-)
The Schlecks are, relatively speaking, donkeys. Without 'proper preparation' they'd be complete nobodies.0 -
I don't get the Glee on here about this. Feels like yet another kick in the Nuts to me. Not sure why I bothered doing a PTP pick today, who the f**k cares? I was the closest thing the forum had to a Schleck fan - they occupied the same place in my head that Tim Henman occupied for most British people...
Who's going to tell that kid with his stabalisers and his cardboard TT helmet that yet another one of his heros is a dirty cheat (potentially). How am I going to show my friends the wonderful tour de france and the british success and still look them in the eye when they tell me they re all just dirty dopers?
Fucks it!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
cycling5280 wrote:He's claiming he was poisoned. How pathetic is it that the Luxembourg Anti-Doping Agency will buy that lame excuse and let him off free like they did with Operation Puerto?
The Luxembourg authorities are renowned for their high standards, unimpeachable ethics and refusal to be swayed by commercial concerns. Just look at the Luxembourg Boxing Federation...
oh.0 -
Tell the kid or your friends, 'These are the bad people in cycling. We are getting rid of them.' And then ask them what they think other sports are doing to combat doping. Then you can prove that cycling is doing more.ddraver wrote:I don't get the Glee on here about this. Feels like yet another kick in the Nuts to me. Not sure why I bothered doing a PTP pick today, who the f**k cares? I was the closest thing the forum had to a Schleck fan - they occupied the same place in my head that Tim Henman occupied for most British people...
Who's going to tell that kid with his stabalisers and his cardboard TT helmet that yet another one of his heros is a dirty cheat (potentially). How am I going to show my friends the wonderful tour de france and the british success and still look them in the eye when they tell me they re all just dirty dopers?
Fucks it!
Every positive is a victory, it means one less moron in the peleton. The battle will never be won. There is no part of society or the business world that is 'clean' so why should we expect sport to be clean. As long as the authorities are doing everything they can and the cheats keep getting caught we should rejoice.0 -
ddraver wrote:I don't get the Glee on here about this. Feels like yet another kick in the Nuts to me. Not sure why I bothered doing a PTP pick today, who the f**k cares? I was the closest thing the forum had to a Schleck fan - they occupied the same place in my head that Tim Henman occupied for most British people...
Who's going to tell that kid with his stabalisers and his cardboard TT helmet that yet another one of his heros is a dirty cheat (potentially). How am I going to show my friends the wonderful tour de france and the british success and still look them in the eye when they tell me they re all just dirty dopers?
Fucks it!
Pick yourself up and dust yourself down my cycling guinea pig friend. Regardless of whether Schleck was a doper or not he wa completely devoid of personality and not worthy of your fandom.
Pick a real hero, this year as part of Rick Chasey's help Dutch cycling charity I have chosen to adopt Johnny Hoogerland who is so tough he injects himself with barbed wire.
COME ON JOHNNY!0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:ddraver wrote:I don't get the Glee on here about this. Feels like yet another kick in the Nuts to me. Not sure why I bothered doing a PTP pick today, who the f**k cares? I was the closest thing the forum had to a Schleck fan - they occupied the same place in my head that Tim Henman occupied for most British people...
Who's going to tell that kid with his stabalisers and his cardboard TT helmet that yet another one of his heros is a dirty cheat (potentially). How am I going to show my friends the wonderful tour de france and the british success and still look them in the eye when they tell me they re all just dirty dopers?
Fucks it!
Pick yourself up and dust yourself down my cycling guinea pig friend. Regardless of whether Schleck was a doper or not he wa completely devoid of personality and not worthy of your fandom.
Pick a real hero, this year as part of Rick Chasey's help Dutch cycling charity I have chosen to adopt Johnny Hoogerland who is so tough he injects himself with barbed wire.
COME ON JOHNNY!
Before someone gets there before me, don't think too hard about Johnny's erm, clean credentials.0 -
-
-
FleshTuxedo wrote:christ, how sh*t would he have been without the drugs?
I suggest you look at CQ for his early career
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ri ... riderid=75
Before he switched to CSC, Jalabert, Riis and Fuentes.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Also, is there an age tipping point, where it make sense to deny it, whatever?
Say you're 25. You get busted, admit to it. 2 years later you're riding, 3 and you're up to a more usual speed.
If you're 32, like Frank is that all changes a bit right?0 -
I'm actually taking heart from the fact that it's increasingly team leaders / contenders getting caught (Contador, Frank). If everyone was doing it, you would statistically expect far more lower profile riders to test positive. Also, the high profile riders would be likely to have more sophisticated doping programs, further decreasing their chances of getting caught compared with the others. So hopefully it's now the case that it's so difficult to get away with doping that it's something only desperate major contenders would try, backed up by some very high tech and expensive pharmacological advice. Still, the fact that they are getting caught is good because it shows that even with this level of sophistication you ultimately can't beat the system.Scrumple wrote:That's the bit that I can't get my head around - if your "superstar" names of the tour are willing to take the risk then either it is liekly they can (and are) getting away with it.... OR the whole shebang is just doomed is it is so much part of the culture still.0 -
Can't say it surprises me particularly, but there's something odd about this. Leaving aside all the internal machinations at RSNT, what actually happened with this test? Shouldn't the rider be informed of the positive and have the right to request a test on his B sample before the UCI goes announcing a drugs bust to the world, not to mention pretty much demanding his withdrawal despite its own rules? Compare and contrast this with the time taken to reveal Contador's positive, and that was only when the story had leaked to the German press.
However anti-doping they are, I'd prefer it if the pros held off with the scorn until the B sample results are in. There's a reason why two samples are used, and turning someone into a pariah (even if it's Frank) before the second test results.
The ideal statement, IMO, would be "If he's been doping he's an idiot and deserves everything he gets. But let's wait until it's confirmed before getting the pitchforks out."N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
Fed up that another one is caught but also pleased that another one is caught.
I am not defending hi at all (the Fuentes link is enough for me) but something does not seem right here. RSNT hang him out to dry (its not in any of our medicines), happens just at the time the Hog is in it up to his neck, it is a specified substance rather than an outright banned substance, he wasn't really expected to do anything after the Giro. He has history but does that make it more likely he doped, or, easier to set him up ?
However, what amazes me is that, with all the supposed precautions they take with regard to strict liability you still see riders taking drinks, both canned and bottles, from the crowd :roll: Not only that but on rest days they go and have coffees etc - if they really are living by strict liability why go into a public place you've probably never visited before and by an off the shelf coffee, or, do they ask to see the ingredients and test it first. Just seems total contradiction to me.0 -
robert-sb wrote:However, what amazes me is that, with all the supposed precautions they take with regard to strict liability you still see riders taking drinks, both canned and bottles, from the crowd :roll: Not only that but on rest days they go and have coffees etc - if they really are living by strict liability why go into a public place you've probably never visited before and by an off the shelf coffee, or, do they ask to see the ingredients and test it first. Just seems total contradiction to me.
I guess the reality is that, if someone wants to spike your coffee, then if you don't drink the coffee they'll find another way. Completely excluding risk is impossible (in all areas of life, not just doping for athletes) and there comes a point where people say 'it's not worth taking that particular measure'.
The alternative view is that, if you're already doping, it's easier to claim you were poisoned if you regularly take drinks from people at the side of the road. But that would be a very cynical way to look at it.0 -
RonB wrote:Same as Kolobnev last year then? (penalty not necc. circumstances)
but surely with Kolobnev at least he showed he actually had a condition for 15 years - he/the team should have just have received a separate penalty for being dumb... if you really have a medical condition you should get a TUE for medication.
I can't see how a prescribed diaretic can be linked to a medical condition, personally. Also, I would assume Whackshack also have their own personal chefs, so this poisoning play is just making me shake my head. I am now disliking the Schleck's more than before (to me since I started following cycling a few years back they have come across as a pair petulant children)0 -
Timoid. wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:christ, how sh*t would he have been without the drugs?
I suggest you look at CQ for his early career
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ri ... riderid=75
Before he switched to CSC, Jalabert, Riis and Fuentes.
Yes, but then he was only 22 when he made the move having been at tiny teams before. Hardly a surprise his ranking suddenly improved really!0 -
I quite like the conspiracy theory. That said, if it has happened I suspect it would be more that some doping was going on and the levels were tampered with to ensure detection. The thing that makes it most unlikely is that the last thing JB needs at the moment is a rider testing positive. Maybe the USADA spiked Frank to help support the impression of JB as a doping DS
0 -
Pross wrote:I quite like the conspiracy theory. That said, if it has happened I suspect it would be more that some doping was going on and the levels were tampered with to ensure detection. The thing that makes it most unlikely is that the last thing JB needs at the moment is a rider testing positive. Maybe the USADA spiked Frank to help support the impression of JB as a doping DS
Wouldn't you spike with a properly banned substance?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
You'd have thought so, wouldn't you?Jez mon wrote:Wouldn't you spike with a properly banned substance?
Be interesting to hear what sort of quantity was detected in his system as well.0 -
Nah, too obvious then (plus you don't want him to actually win something!).0
