Frank schleck

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
According to cyclingnews.com the drug is not banned on WADA's list, though the Italian dailes say it is a "sostanza proibita" (prohibited substance). Where? On the UCI's list, Mars? Venus?

Anyone know?
 
RSNT statement:

Our team attaches great value to transparency. Because of this, we can announce the following as a response to the adverse analytical finding of xipamide in Fränk Schleck's urine sample of July 14 during the Tour de France.

After being informed by the UCI about the presence of xipamide in the urine sample of Fränk Schleck on July 14, the team has decided to immediately withdraw Fränk Schleck from the Tour de France.

Even though an abnormal A sample does not require these measures, Mr. Schleck and the team believe this is the right thing to do, to ensure the Tour de France can go on in calm and that Fränk Schleck can prepare his defense in accordance with the legal timing to do so.

On the subject of xipamide the team can declare the following: it is not a product that is present in any of the medicine that the team uses and the reason for the presence of xipamide in the urine sample of Mr. Schleck is unclear to the team. Therefore, the team is not able to explain the adverse findings at this point.

However, the team is fully determined to collaborate with the anti-doping agencies in order to resolve the matter.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Arnout said:
I know there is no way to win these arguments, based on a clear right/wrong. There can be many reasons though, maybe Schleck went to a normal doctor asking for treatment after his fall, because there was water in or near his wound. If that's the case, I don't see any reason to ban him. I know you do, but I don't, as I don't care about the strict legal consequences of actions, but about the intention.

Unfortunately that is what gets people off, excuses on intention. I stand by my view that riders know what they are taking and so any medication should be screened first. Its not difficult.Logic applied would tell you there is a reason it wasnt declared when he took what he did and it wouldnt be a misunderstanding.
But thats just my opinion.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
rhubroma said:
According to cyclingnews.com the drug is not banned on WADA's list, though the Italian dailes say it is a "sostanza proibita" (prohibited substance). Where? On the UCI's list, Mars? Venus?

Anyone know?

Diuretics include:
Acetazolamide, amiloride, bumetanide, canrenone, chlorthalidone,
etacrynic acid, furosemide, indapamide, metolazone, spironolactone,
thiazides (e.g. bendroflumethiazide, chlorothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide),
triamterene; and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar
biological effect(s)
(except drospirenone, pamabrom and topical dorzolamide and
brinzolamide, which are not prohibited).

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf
 
Sep 18, 2010
375
0
0
Just yesterday, Jens was on ITV saying this is a clean tour... ouch!

But, seriously, being caught being both crap and cheating...
 
noddy69 said:
Unfortunately that is what gets people off, excuses on intention. I stand by my view that riders know what they are taking and so any medication should be screened first. Its not difficult.Logic applied would tell you there is a reason it wasnt declared when he took what he did and it wouldnt be a misunderstanding.
But thats just my opinion.

I know about the excuses. Like I said, I understand the purpose of a list and of rules. Ultimately I'm not interested in them, though.
 
On the subject of xipamide the team can declare the following: it is not a product that is present in any of the medicine that the team uses and the reason for the presence of xipamide in the urine sample of Mr. Schleck is unclear to the team. Therefore, the team is not able to explain the adverse findings at this point.
CYA...i.e. FS is alone now...
 
Well that explains why the Schlecks seem to annually go from having horrible no form to perfect form with very little time in between.
But really, why bother if he, according to himself, wasn't even planning on contesting the tour? What a dumbass. Both Schlecks should get lost.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
thehog said:
They got sloppy without the Hog at the Tour.
:D

totally my thoughts.
that's why all teams need well organized doping structures.
once the structure falters, accidents happen.