Frank schleck

[cleanmarine]

Transfusion

 

[roundabout]

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.

Eh, no. The Schleck caught actually has a pretty broad set of results and is competitive for more than 4 weeks a year.

But lumping them together works better, I guess.

 

[MarkvW]

Frank won't do anything to hurt Andy.

That's why JB can dump him w/o fear of repercussions.

 

[SiAp1984]

First time for a long while since I've heard anything 'positive' about Frank....

Best line ever :-D

I wonder how this is about to continue... "Xipamide, the substance found in Schleck's urine, is not specifically mentioned on WADA's prohibited substance list." (from the CN-article). I always thought that a drug has to be explicitly forbidden to cause a ban of an athlete?

 

[Franklin]

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

 

[Catwhoorg]

Oh, so THAT'S what Tommy V. has been doing all this time!

Oh crap, now thats a typo to make...

 

[BroDeal]

While it is fun to beat up on Shrek, it would not surprise me if it was an accident.

This will probably end up being a muddy case like Contador's where all sides can declare victory of sorts.

It is interesting that RSNT immediately denied that any of their medications contained the substance. They could have kept their mouths shut and later discovered a medication that inadvertently contained it. They are hanging him out to dry.

 

[Forunculo]

Despite I'm no fan of Schleck and waiting more info, I think he is innocent. At least I hope.

 

[kareeem]

It is interesting that RSNT immediately denied that any of their medications contained the substance. They could have kept their mouths shut and later discovered a medication that inadvertently contained it. They are hanging him out to dry.

Andy won't like it.

 

[blackcat]

"Amigo de Brillo", its the 2006 backdated payday for you.

less amigo
less chipotle
more burrito

 

[mwbyrd]

I have to agree that this is very odd. Why take a diuretic now to gain some advantage, via masking or dropping weight before more tough mountain stages, during a sub-par Tour performance? There's the risk of getting caught and little upside to it. What would FS be trying to do, dope his way to a top ten finish after being 3rd last year? Why bother?

Also, why isn't immediately testing the B sample automatic? Do it before they go public with the test results. If the A sample is positive, you test the B just to make sure. Then announce it. It seems like that should be standard operating procedure.

Waiting to hear more about what this will mean...

Bold part: SOP? This has been proven over and over again...There isn't a SOPfor Cyclists. Cyclists get busted on 'A' sample results, no due process. Hope Solo gets busted and within a week, is cleared. Go figure.

And here's the best part from the Cyclingnews.com article, "According to UCI anti-doping rules the finding does not require a provisional suspension, but in a statement the UCI said, "the UCI is confident that his team will take the necessary steps to enable the Tour de France to continue in serenity and to ensure that their rider has the opportunity to properly prepare his defense in particular within the legal timeline, which allows four days for him to have his B sample analyzed."

Xipamide, the substance found in Schleck's urine, is not specifically mentioned on WADA's prohibited substance list."

If what's in bold is true, why do we even know about this?

 

[Dr.Sahl]

Why would any cyclist purposly take this drug with a >10% chance of muscle weakness?

I guess thats why he was so bad.....

That would be a good exuse for him.. I still think it was for masking or dropping weight

 

[thehog]

Despite I'm no fan of Schleck and waiting more info, I think he is innocent. At least I hope.

Yes he must be innocent.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I have to agree that this is very odd. Why take a diuretic now to gain some advantage, via masking or dropping weight before more tough mountain stages, during a sub-par Tour performance? There's the risk of getting caught and little upside to it. What would FS be trying to do, dope his way to a top ten finish after being 3rd last year? Why bother?

Also, why isn't immediately testing the B sample automatic? Do it before they go public with the test results. If the A sample is positive, you test the B just to make sure. Then announce it. It seems like that should be standard operating procedure.

Waiting to hear more about what this will mean...

The B sample is tested only at the specific request (and at the expense) of the athlete.

A good few who know they are guilty, will admit it and skip this step, though some will fight on regardless and hope that they get a false negative from the B sample.

 

[pastronef]

positive or not, sample A sample B etc etc...

anyway

just **** the French Police. **** them!

what are they doing there! imagine all this in other sports! it is impossible!

http://twitter.com/hendriksmj/status/225308708131979266/photo/1

 

[LaFlorecita]

I don't really care about doping, normally I would've hoped he'd be let off, but Alberto a ban = Everyone a ban. No exceptions.

 

[noddy69]

Yes he must be innocent.

He has to be, cause he just is. Between masking agents...sorry weight loss drugs innocently taken(possibly), drug taking bovines and witch hunts these poor innocent cyclists are really having a hard time of it.

 

[kareeem]

I don't really care about doping

Well that's all we need to know about you, fangirl.

 

[jordan5000]

If the UCI had any integrity at all they'd suspend almost every rider on the tour, if you suspend one doper you must suspend them all.

 

[Arnout]

I don't really care about doping, normally I would've hoped he'd be let off, but Alberto a ban = Everyone a ban. No exceptions.

Thanks for your extremely valuable contributions

 

[offbyone]

Eh, no. The Schleck caught actually has a pretty broad set of results and is competitive for more than 4 weeks a year.

But lumping them together works better, I guess.

That is the pattern I see with both of them and if Frank is doping I would be shocked if Andy isn't. Those two are pretty tight even for brothers.

 

[Forunculo]

Yes he must be innocent.

I don't see any suspicious performance from Frank this year

 

[LaFlorecita]

=
Xipamide, the substance found in Schleck's urine, is not specifically mentioned on WADA's prohibited substance list."

If what's in bold is true, why do we even know about this?

Because:

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

Well that's all we need to know about you, fangirl.

Yeah, that's me

Thanks for your extremely valuable contributions

Lol

 

[Catwhoorg]

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?

Under diuretics:

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).


Xipamide is a thiazide type diuretic. So yes its on the list, under the bold section.

 

[ghostofjoy]

interesting following this story as it develops on twitter, numerous people are expressing surprise that the UCI broke news of the test before testing the B sample, and michael creed says that use of a diuretic doesn't seem plausible or beneficial, and thinks that in all likelihood it's from a fat-burning supplement.

i'd be interested to hear about the concentration numbers they found in the urine sample, assuming it shows up in the b sample as well. something about this doesn't smell right (not that anything related to doping scandals ever does).