• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Did Bruyneel frame Frank Schleck?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Schleck was caught out by a random test. Someone spiking his food or drink would have no way of knowing that Schleck would be tested. They would have to consistently "poison" him, thinking that he would probably win a stage. That might be a long shot with Schleck's attitude toward this Tour. Or they could rely on random testing, but with three riders randomly tested per stage, the chance of getting tested once during the Tour is about 30%.

He was either using Xipamide to flush something out of his system, or he was using a supplement, medication, or something that contains it.

The "flushing" theory seems flawed to me in some details:

If he used Xipamide to flush something out of his system, he must have known that he will be tested. Of course it is possible that he did - but normally he shouldn't know, that's the whole point of the random controls. If he did know we must ask ourselves: how did he know?

But even then it makes little to no sense because Xipamide itself is very easily detectable. So maybe it was a panic reaction when he found out he will be tested. But even then it would have to be available to him, which it wasn't.
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
Visit site
There is no way, no matter how much JB may or may not bear a grudge against any pro does he want him to get busted. There is always the risk of a another Floyd spilling his guts after a doping bust destroyed his career. The Schleck's don't strike me as the stoic... we won't rat no matter what you do to us type. If Frank and Andy throw a temper tantrum about being picked on and spill the beans that would not be good for JB, Riis or a whole lot of others.

If Floyd had never been busted would Bruyneel be in the fix he is in?
 
stainlessguy1 said:
[One thing that couldn't be more different to the Contador case was the speed and decisiveness of the announcement

+1 , The way Scheck marched down to the police dept. and turned himself in and basically volunteered to get the hell out of there , defies logic, and so not part of normal theatrics of pro cycling . :confused:[/QUOTE]

Excellent point.
This means that either Bruyneel was demoted on the protection ladder of the UCI, or he just answered Pat's call with "hang the little prikc".
Or, JB has intel coming from his team, and he made a reverse call to Pat. Make sure to be attentive to FS, don't forget to test for X. Pat would just use him as an anonimous source and make it happen.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
As for the poisoning theory Flavio Becca seems like the more probable wrongdoer to me. The relationship between him and the Schlecks is completely broken. Despite having a contract they are actively looking for new teams and trying to get the hell out of there. They appealed to the UCI over money that Becca owes them.

By poisoning Fränk, Becca sent a message and a warning.

"I own you. Such is my power that I can destroy your career and your life. Don't f*ck with me or try to screw me over. This time it's a tiny amount of some random sh*t and you'll be able to wiggle your way out of it. Next time it'll be something else and you will be done. Good luck trying to get your money then"
 
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
Visit site
henryg said:
There is no way, no matter how much JB may or may not bear a grudge against any pro does he want him to get busted. There is always the risk of a another Floyd spilling his guts after a doping bust destroyed his career. The Schleck's don't strike me as the stoic... we won't rat no matter what you do to us type. If Frank and Andy throw a temper tantrum about being picked on and spill the beans that would not be good for JB, Riis or a whole lot of others.

If Floyd had never been busted would Bruyneel be in the fix he is in?

At this point I don't think there is any thing Fränk and Andy could do or say to make Bruyneel's situation worse than it already is. In five minutes his career in cycling is over, and I wouldn't put it past him to take revenge as the last thing he does before he goes down. I still think however that UCI has more of a motive for framing Fränk. Or perhaps, as Christian suggested, Becca.

I have no doubt that illegal substances and suspicious patterns are found by the labs very often in most any rider. Few of them we ever hear of, and Fränk has been protected this far. So what changed?
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
1
0
Visit site
Christian said:
The "flushing" theory seems flawed to me in some details:

If he used Xipamide to flush something out of his system, he must have known that he will be tested. Of course it is possible that he did - but normally he shouldn't know, that's the whole point of the random controls. If he did know we must ask ourselves: how did he know?

But even then it makes little to no sense because Xipamide itself is very easily detectable. So maybe it was a panic reaction when he found out he will be tested. But even then it would have to be available to him, which it wasn't.

...if you're testing for it. It's a very obscure diuretic, and if you look at it from that point of view it was a good plan from Frank and/or whoever suggested it to him. Whatever else he was on (that unfortunately we've missed...) gets diluted down enough to mask it, using a diuretic they may not even be testing for. Elegant solution, didn't work, but you've got to wonder how many guys are doing something very similar.
 
stainlessguy1 said:
[One thing that couldn't be more different to the Contador case was the speed and decisiveness of the announcement

I cannot stress this point enough. It's also worth mentioning that the process is so non-transparent with wild variations in AAF handling that some of the more far-fetched maybes posted in this thread are possible.

No one has mentioned that Hog's dope dealer was named and shamed in the USADA letter. There could have been a real loss of doping sophistication that lead to the AAF. Based on other UCI behavior, a positive was kind of inevitable given the way Team Tandy has disgraced the UCI.

For me, spiking samples is pretty ridiculous. To spike them to realistic values, the quantities for spiking are miniscule to microscopic.

It's also always important to remind everyone that the bias against false positives in testing is very strong. We never hear about the test results that return suspicious values either. Finally the testing abilities vary widely by lab. I don't have the link in front of me, but there was some very useful research that showed EPO testing on amateurs given detectable EPO injections mostly returned false negatives from WADA certified labs.
 
DirtyWorks said:
To spike them to realistic values, the quantities for spiking are miniscule to microscopic.
I thought of that once also. But then, what if you just diluted it in a modest drop of water? Bet it would make no difference to the sample.
Also, insiders have access to rider urine. They test themselves frequently, if they are serious about this sport at all.
Still, I am bugged with the substance. Rider stupidity, especially in light of his own actions, seem more likely. or is this substance the best way to get caught?
 
Cloxxki said:
I thought of that once also. But then, what if you just diluted it in a modest drop of water? Bet it would make no difference to the sample.

That's a huge what-if.

Cloxxki said:
Also, insiders have access to rider urine. They test themselves frequently, if they are serious about this sport at all.

If they are serious they are testing themselves for sure. But skimming an anti-doping sample is asking for trouble where there is none to make.

I'm not sure where the post went, but Andy's not doing the Vuelta.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-schleck-out-of-vuelta-a-espana

Based on comments over at Tilford's blog the other day, the Colorado event doesn't test aggressively. Nothing concrete to back those claims up though... I think he knows he would be popped if he did the Vuelta. I will be amazed if he's top-5 in anything for the rest of the year.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
That's a huge what-if.



If they are serious they are testing themselves for sure. But skimming an anti-doping sample is asking for trouble where there is none to make.

I'm not sure where the post went, but Andy's not doing the Vuelta.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-schleck-out-of-vuelta-a-espana

Based on comments over at Tilford's blog the other day, the Colorado event doesn't test aggressively. Nothing concrete to back those claims up though... I think he knows he would be popped if he did the Vuelta. I will be amazed if he's top-5 in anything for the rest of the year.

It would be very interesting in Andy gets popped too. Is he going to ToC to avoid Bruyneel and the risk of being poisoned?

I would've thought the chance to compete against Contador would be hard to refuse.
 
Jun 18, 2012
181
0
0
Visit site
HL2037 said:
He looks more like a rider desperate to get as far away from Bruyneel and team Radioshack Nissan Trek as possible.

Maybe he should have gone out for a late-night beer, like Andy and O'Grady did a couple of years ago. It worked with Bjarne anyway.

Anyway, I don't know if Frank has been framed or if he (and/or the team doc) is just an imbecile. There was no reason for him to be doping during the tour, as he had already lowered everyone's expectations to nil, so no reason for a diuretic to mask the doping.
 
May 26, 2011
45
0
0
Visit site
will10 said:
...if you're testing for it. It's a very obscure diuretic,

Exactly. To my knowledge, Xip isn't on the banned list in and of itself, but falls afoul because of what it does (diuretic). Add that that Frank was tested right after making noise about RS non-payment and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that they're not related.

Almost makes you wonder about the timing of Fabian leaving the tour.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
drfunk000 said:
All that said, it is clear that the Schelck's are not on good terms with Bruyneel. Would he burn a member of his current team - simply out of spite?

Just a mental exercise - even if far fetched.

I always wondered about Contador's clen positive....it never quite seemed right & it was after he'd left Bruyneel's team beating Lance the year before. Then again, could just be coincidence.
 
What is the motive for Bruyneel or the team? Do they need to save a few bucks because they cannot make payroll? Looks weak, hella weak.

The only odd thing is how the team immediately denied that any medication used by the team contained Xipamide. If Schleck was on good terms with the team then that should have been left as a possibility. Schleck could have used inadvertant consumption, perhaps due to a mistake by the team doctor, as a way to avoid or minimize a ban. It also would have provided a way to save face for Schleck.
 
Apr 20, 2009
56
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
What is the motive for Bruyneel or the team? Do they need to save a few bucks because they cannot make payroll? Looks weak, hella weak.

What is the motive for Bruyneel to bench Fuglsang? Simply retribution for leaving the team. Bruyneel claims it is about 'UCI points' when in reality it is about not being paid and the fact that Jakob is leaving next year. He would rather RadioShack not get the win (by not racing Fuglsang) to punish Jakob. It says a lot about Bruyneel's character.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
What is the motive for Bruyneel or the team? Do they need to save a few bucks because they cannot make payroll? Looks weak, hella weak.

The only odd thing is how the team immediately denied that any medication used by the team contained Xipamide. If Schleck was on good terms with the team then that should have been left as a possibility. Schleck could have used inadvertant consumption, perhaps due to a mistake by the team doctor, as a way to avoid or minimize a ban. It also would have provided a way to save face for Schleck.

He's hardly saving a few bucks, half a million is being bandied about. That would cover some lawyers fees in the next few years.

Not paying Fuglsang! Why because he might not be declaring his income, like Bruyneel gives a f***!

Bruyneel is F****D with the USADA, his income potential is gonna take a huge hit. Well hopefully.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
This theory was in the news today again, due to an article in L'Equipe, which was later picked up by wort.lu. L'Equipe suggested that Bruyneel may have framed Schleck to prevent him from going to another team, and to keep Andy on the team.

Tageblatt.lu now brings a different spin on it: according to a "well-informed insider", Bruyneel framed Schleck precisely to get rid of him, after the Schlecks had made their unreceived payments public:

"Supposedly rumours were precisely spread within the team that the Schlecks earned disproportionally more than the other riders. The 'poisoning' of Fränk Schleck is said to have been a way to silence at least one of them. The brothers were in a hostile environment, which had a negative impact on their morale and performance."


http://www.tageblatt.lu/nachrichten/story/Bruyneel-ist-bei-Radioshack-Geschichte-23116660
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
UCI were the testers and we know Bruyneel has a 'relationship' with them so might have pre-agreed the day they radomnly target tested Frank.

His motives? Revenge! ****ed of with Frank. Didit to teach all the other riders on the team a lesson! Mybe Bruyneel was losing it with all the stress of USADA!
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
Visit site
Christian said:
This theory was in the news today again, due to an article in L'Equipe, which was later picked up by wort.lu. L'Equipe suggested that Bruyneel may have framed Schleck to prevent him from going to another team, and to keep Andy on the team.

Tageblatt.lu now brings a different spin on it: according to a "well-informed insider", Bruyneel framed Schleck precisely to get rid of him, after the Schlecks had made their unreceived payments public:

"Supposedly rumours were precisely spread within the team that the Schlecks earned disproportionally more than the other riders. The 'poisoning' of Fränk Schleck is said to have been a way to silence at least one of them. The brothers were in a hostile environment, which had a negative impact on their morale and performance."


http://www.tageblatt.lu/nachrichten/story/Bruyneel-ist-bei-Radioshack-Geschichte-23116660

Im just wondering who can be such an insider. In fact, only 2 persons should have known about that Celaya and Bruyneel.
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Visit site
drfunk000 said:
Even after admitting that he used doping to win the Tour de France, Floyd Landis still maintains that he did not use testosterone. Given the allegations that Armstrong had the power to cover up a positive doping test in 2001 - I think it is feasible that Armstrong / Bruyneel potentially have unfair influence on the anti-doping process. Additionally I find the long string of ex-Postal riders testing positive quite interesting.

What did Floyd admit to taking DURING the 2006 TdF? It's been a while since I closely looked at his claims. I recall that he admitted to doping during his training and races leading up to the 2006 TdF. But, what happened during the Tour? Did he admit to a blood transfusion during the Tour? Did he shed any new light on his 2006 TdF when he "came clean" in 2010?