Frank schleck

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
619343314.jpg
 
Jul 10, 2012
113
93
8,930
IF FS was masking doping, then how does this reflect on Andy, them being close and sharing "everything"?
 
Mar 10, 2009
4,707
47
15,530
Zinoviev Letter said:
Interesting that the reaction from sections of the peloton seems to be unusually blunt. The first two tweets in my timeline were Matt Brammeier telling Frank to go home and calling him a tosser, and another pro calling him a ***.

Which I think is incredibly stupid and more a look at me reaction than being sincere. If it was EPO yes, but this is a substance I bet those guys never even heard of.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
Frankly :) I am shocked.

How can this be? I was assured by JV that the effectiveness of doping has been reduced to where it is irrelevant. Confused.

I will lay ten to one odds that the excuse is that medication Schleck used to fix an ailment contained the diuretic, unbeknownst to him of couse. It was an unfortunate accident.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,887
87
15,580
What's this "specified substance" business that means he doesn't get automatically suspended ? Is it just a way of saying they have to wait for the B sample ? Confused...
 
Jul 23, 2009
119
0
0
Going to be tough to get that German sponsor now, they are not going to touch Andy either in all likelyhood.
 
Mar 10, 2009
4,707
47
15,530
Catwhoorg said:
Nope to the bolded.
Most drugs of any sort have 3 ways out of the body.
1) converted (usually by the liver) to something else.
2) urine
3) faces

This particular drug is about:
1/3 converted
~1/5 in the urine in its unaltered form
rest in the feces


(all those years of boring pharmacokinetics finally have a use on the internet.)

Thanks, appreciated :)
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
1
0
Arnout said:
Which I think is incredibly stupid and more a look at me reaction than being sincere. If it was EPO yes, but this is a substance I bet those guys never even heard of.

At best its immature and unprofessional.
 
Aug 18, 2010
11,435
3,594
28,180
Arnout said:
Which I think is incredibly stupid and more a look at me reaction than being sincere. If it was EPO yes, but this is a substance I bet those guys never even heard of.

Whether it's wise to comment on an "adverse analytical finding" on the part of another rider before everything is shaken out is one issue. What riders speaking out immediately and bluntly represents in terms of the culture of the peloton is another.
 

Fidolix

BANNED
Jan 16, 2012
997
0
0
Well, no surprise really, his past involvement in the puerta and money transfer, todays cooperation with JB... is just another catalyst to end up like this, but I guess we now gonna hear denial and tons of excuses on how this ended up in his urin. Another very sad day for cycling :mad:
 
Mar 10, 2009
4,707
47
15,530
webvan said:
What's this "specified substance" business that means he dosnt get automatically suspended ? Is it just a way of saying they have to wait for the B sample ? Confused...

Maybe this substance is not illegal (as of yet)? I think M Rasmussen had the same advantage, in which his kind of doping was not yet punishable but deemed to be unfair regardless.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
webvan said:
What's this "specified substance" business that means he doesn't get automatically suspended ? Is it just a way of saying they have to wait for the B sample ? Confused...

Only a masking agent
 
Feb 20, 2012
53,883
44,267
28,180
What a way to get caught, being 12th on GC, riding a meh tour and testing positive for something no one has ever heard before. Like someone said, if you test positive, do it for at least 4 brutal doping products. It's like getting a red card for a foul that didn't even hurt the opponent, i'd rather get a red card after breaking a leg:D
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Epicycle said:
Yeah I can't find any other athlete whose ever tested positive for this particular diuretic. I wonder what he was trying to mask. Is it possible he was doing something to lower his blood values, went to far and had to use a diuretic to get rid of excess fluid in his system?

It means that the banned substance gets passed quicker out of the body as it is urinated quicker out.
 
May 19, 2011
4,857
2
0
Frank and JB are old school still live in last decade, he should learn or steal something from SKY!!!!
 
May 26, 2009
3,688
7
13,485
Considering the drug I wouldn't be utterly surprised if this one is indeed a genuine misstake :eek:

It's a bit odd to be masking anabolic steroids right now. But he certainly has his past against him on this one.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,887
87
15,580
:cool:
Froome19 said:
Only a masking agent

Ok but what does the UCI need to suspend the racer ? Banned product -> immediate suspension, I don't get the subtlety here...

Is it another case where the "kangooroo" local federation needs to pronounce a suspension the UCI and/or WADA will appeal?
 
Mar 10, 2009
4,707
47
15,530
Zinoviev Letter said:
Whether it's wise to comment on an "adverse analytical finding" on the part of another rider before everything is shaken out is one issue. What riders speaking out immediately and bluntly represents in terms of the culture of the peloton is another.

Nah. I want to go to a situation in which adults agree with each other to behave in a civilized manner on a constructive basis. From what I've read about this substance in this short time, which I bet is more than Mr Brammeier did, it is not all that clear what it is about yet. Even here in the clinic people are just guessing and throwing it on the rather predictable and big "masking doping" pile, due to some of the characteristics.

It seems though, and I am happy to be corrected, that this substance is included in various medicines, which might or might not have anything to do with doping.

So then I rather have a quiet Mr Brammeier than a Mr Brammeier that likes to play the tough guy, glossing over the facts.