Frank schleck

[Cycle Chic]

I dunno, he could be cleared, allowed to ride while the UCI messes around over an appeal, win a couple of GTs riding like he's on a motorbike, then he can be banned from riding for 6 months but 'punished' by losing his wins for the previous 18 months although of course FS will still talk about himself as a two time GT winner. Comeback and ride like he's on a motorbike.

Nah, you'd have to be on drugs to believe something like that would happen to anyone.

Does the Luxembourg Prime Minister have a twitter account?

i agree...mrs murphy well funny.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I think AC ban was legit, but if Frank got no time then Alberto should get his Giro and TdF back.

Damn that would just kill little brother.

is quite amusing too!

 

[Casualfan]

Just to clear it up for someone who isn't entirely up on individuals, who is this Hans Geyer? Seen a few things about him on "contamination" and now he has brought it up for both F.Schleck and Contador. Got to admit that there do seem to be some parallels between Contador and Schelck and this Geyer bloke seems to believe they are both victims of contamination

 

[hfer07]

I think AC ban was legit, but if Frank got no time then Alberto should get his Giro and TdF back.

Damn that would just kill little brother.

+100000

Another "Teflon"

 

[LaFlorecita]

Tomorrow is D-day for frankie

I think he will get a backdated 6 month ban and then WADA and UCI will appeal

 

[ultimobici]

Tomorrow is D-day for frankie

I think he will get a backdated 6 month ban and then WADA and UCI will appeal

Ban from the date he removed himself from competition, fair enough. But 6 months? No way, should be 2 years.

 

[Pentacycle]

Ban from the date he removed himself from competition, fair enough. But 6 months? No way, should be 2 years.

That's why the UCI will appeal a six month ban, it's very probable the Luxembourg federation will only serve a short ban.

 

[LaFlorecita]

That's why the UCI will appeal a six month ban, it's very probable the Luxembourg federation will only serve a short ban.

Exactly

10

 

[Franklin]

If he could give an explanation he'd be getting a year. I'm talking about CAS of course not the local clowns.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but when AC got caught someone here explained it to me:

You are responsible for everything you ingest, included tainted supplements. It's why AC went with beef and not tainted supplements even though that's way more logical as supplements are found to contain crazy stuff. So if it's tainted supplements you still get the full ban.

So I'd think that if he gets a ban by Cas it will be the two year ban.

But we will see. Right now I'm pretty sure it's a 6 month backdated ban from his own union.

 

[ElChingon]

OP is in session so Frank is not out of the woods yet.

 

[ebandit]

prior?

luxembourg are just a small federation i can't recall earlier sanctions..............in the past have they been lenient?

without plausible explanation how can frank not be banned for 2 years?

 

[Christian]

Had to think of a Madcon song today ...

"Today's the day ...
I can't wait, I can't wait
To see ya g(l)o(w)"



This evening the sentence will be spoken ... I am otherwise occupied this night so I won't be able to weigh in right away ...

To all those who have said "short sentence -> UCI appeal" may I remind you of a small yet possibly crucial detail: the UCI was involved with this trial from the beginning, they sat in on all sessions, have all the material ... I can't help but imagine that there has been some sort of communication going on between ALAD and UCI about what each respective institution would like to do, thus finding some sort of middle ground ... would be nice in any case since it would do away with the year-long delays of the Clentadope case...

/Update: The sentence will be spoken at 18:00 CET // F. Schleck has signed a self suspension on the 4th of October, any sanction will thus be effective starting on that day (i.e. if he received a 3 month ban, he would already be free to race)

 

[rata de sentina]

Surely this has been discussed earlier in thread but xipamide is classed by WADA as a "specified substance". Therefore 2 year ban is not a given and not mandated by code.

Depending on federations reasoning and evidence presented will depend on UCI and WADA response. Sanction could range from 0-2 years.

Comparison with Contador are spurious. Clenbuterol is classed by WADA as S1 (anabolic) "prohibited substance" contrasts with xipamide as S5 (diuretics and masking agents).

Many clinic denizens would benefit from visit to wada website prior to posting.

 

[ultimobici]

Simple - ban for 2 years. This is a rider who has links to Fuentes, having admitted to paying a gynaecologist €8000 for training plans, FFS!

 

[Christian]

Simple - ban for 2 years. This is a rider who has links to Fuentes, having admitted to paying a gynaecologist €8000 for training plans, FFS!

You are absolutely right, however he has been acquitted of this and cannot be sued for it again....

 

[Ferminal]

Let him off, do the right thing!

 

[hrotha]

You are absolutely right, however he has been acquitted of this and cannot be sued for it again....

Not even if new evidence surfaces? Because yesterday Fuentes testified in court that he didn't do no training plans.

 

[RownhamHill]

Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but when AC got caught someone here explained it to me:

You are responsible for everything you ingest, included tainted supplements. It's why AC went with beef and not tainted supplements even though that's way more logical as supplements are found to contain crazy stuff. So if it's tainted supplements you still get the full ban.

So I'd think that if he gets a ban by Cas it will be the two year ban.

But we will see. Right now I'm pretty sure it's a 6 month backdated ban from his own union.

I don't think that's quite right, I think it's more you have to show (prove) that you weren't negligent in ingesting something - from whatever source. So, with supplements - because they are well-known for having potential contaminants in - if you have taken them you'd have to be able to show you'd done pretty serious due-diligence to make sure they were clean. Whereas if it's a contaminant in your diet, then the bar to clear to say you weren't at fault for falling foul of it is (or at least might be) lower.

I may be completely wrong about this though, but I think it's possible - at least conceptually - to get off after taking a tainted supplement if you can prove you weren't in anyway negligent in taking it.

 

[the asian]

If you can prove contamination you get a reduced ban.

Eg- US swimmer Jessica hardy tested positive for clenbuterol, Argued that it was contamination. Got a reduced oneyear ban.

 

[Carols]

Surely this has been discussed earlier in thread but xipamide is classed by WADA as a "specified substance". Therefore 2 year ban is not a given and not mandated by code.

Depending on federations reasoning and evidence presented will depend on UCI and WADA response. Sanction could range from 0-2 years.

Comparison with Contador are spurious. Clenbuterol is classed by WADA as S1 (anabolic) "prohibited substance" contrasts with xipamide as S5 (diuretics and masking agents).

Many clinic denizens would benefit from visit to wada website prior to posting.

That is why I used Mosquera as the example and he got 2 years.

 

[Christian]

Not even if new evidence surfaces? Because yesterday Fuentes testified in court that he didn't do no training plans.

I am not sure. I hadn't heard about this yet, I assume it could lead to a new trial but not necessarily. I am of course no legal expert, but I remember a case in Germany where new DNA evidence came up in an old case of murder, yet the person could not be put on trial again because he had been acquitted at the time

 

[Christian]

The press conference after the verdict will be live here, starting around 18:15 CET:

http://sport.rtl.lu/cyclissem/iwwersiicht/

It will probably in Luxembourgish though I assume...

 

[Caruut]

I am not sure. I hadn't heard about this yet, I assume it could lead to a new trial but not necessarily. I am of course no legal expert, but I remember a case in Germany where new DNA evidence came up in an old case of murder, yet the person could not be put on trial again because he had been acquitted at the time

It varies from country to country.

Just looking at the Wiki article on double jeopardy. According to it, the European Convention on Human Rights forbids trying someone for the same offence twice.

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

Nations may choose to enact this optional add-on to the law as well.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

Crucially, however, Spain has not signed the add-on (along with Germany, as you correctly observe, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK). So if Frank we originally tried in any one of those territories it doesn't look like he could be retried. If Fuentes' admission that he didn't sell training plans means that Frank has perjured himself that might be another matter, but I don't really know.

 

[thirteen]

Fränk Schleck suspended one year!

http://www.alad.lu/upload/SDE3GBNAWSDE/downloads/GJMMDWDODGPK/TMWYHXVIAYCT.pdf

 

[Forunculo]

12 months

No Tour de France