|
Frank Schleck Positive
|
| Montolivo |
Posted on 20-07-2012 11:00
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1032
Joined: 16-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Isn't that guy which is in the Armstrong case as a doctor now doctor at the team at Radioshack, Pedro Celaya? If he is it's not weird Schleck tested positive.
Edit: Yes he is https://www.radioshacknissantrek.com/t...dro-celaya
Edited by Montolivo on 20-07-2012 11:01
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:22
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
No real surprise but also the B-sample was positive.
He might get banned up to 1 year now depending on his defense. Negative for him that he already said he might have been tricked. So there won`t be the same reason for money punishment only like in Kolobnev`s case. |
| |
|
|
| sutty68 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 34654
Joined: 22-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
No he won't, he will argue for about 18months and then will end up with just a six month ban like Contador  |
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:27
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
That`s why I wrote up to 1 year. This can also mean no ban at all.  |
| |
|
|
| rorzcp |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:27
|
Domestique
Posts: 704
Joined: 21-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
will the UCI go ahead and test Andy now? is it allowed? |
| |
|
|
| sutty68 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 34654
Joined: 22-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI |
| |
|
|
| rorzcp |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:34
|
Domestique
Posts: 704
Joined: 21-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse? |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 05:44
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| sutty68 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:36
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 34654
Joined: 22-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse?
I am sure they do, but i don't know how they would go about it |
| |
|
|
| rorzcp |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:38
|
Domestique
Posts: 704
Joined: 21-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
sutty68 wrote:
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse?
I am sure they do, but i don't know how they would go about it
burst down the doors, pull a gun on him and tell him to give a sample?
or is that a bit harsh? |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse?
I am sure they do, but i don't know how they would go about it
burst down the doors, pull a gun on him and tell him to give a sample?
or is that a bit harsh?
They could always do it while he's sleaping and never tell him.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| sutty68 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 34654
Joined: 22-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse?
I am sure they do, but i don't know how they would go about it
burst down the doors, pull a gun on him and tell him to give a sample?
or is that a bit harsh?
It would certainly make him piss himself  |
| |
|
|
| gmart |
Posted on 20-07-2012 16:57
|
Amateur
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I've been terribly confused by reports. At first the drug itself wasn't listed as a banned substance in some articles, and now others are saying it is a banned substance because the WADA has a blanket category for certain forms of diuretics. (edit: thanks CT for clearing that up)
I'm also seeing that the use of it is relatively harmful in some cases, but then again long term blood doping is also considered an unhealthy practice.
Guilty or not given the fact there's usually a drawn out investigation after it; I think the reporting of the positives is getting as tiresome as the idea of doping in general. Putting the "Meh" in Cycling "Meh-dia".
I'm shocked if he did, but if he ultimately he did, he just joins the ever growing list and the world turns on.
Edited by gmart on 20-07-2012 16:58
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 17:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3141
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
rorzcp wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
I shouldn't think so as Andy (as we are led to believe) hasn't done anything wrong, but you never know with the UCI
Do they have random spot checks or something they can just use as a excuse?
I am sure they do, but i don't know how they would go about it
burst down the doors, pull a gun on him and tell him to give a sample?
or is that a bit harsh?
Thats how Bruyneel gets his cycliszs to dope (and the gone is borrowed from his best Mate who is of course texan and therefore wont miss it cause he has a cabinet full of it)^^
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 17:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
B is positive.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Wilier |
Posted on 20-07-2012 19:53
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5405
Joined: 28-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
B is positive.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 20-07-2012 21:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
gmart wrote:
I've been terribly confused by reports. At first the drug itself wasn't listed as a banned substance in some articles, and now others are saying it is a banned substance because the WADA has a blanket category for certain forms of diuretics. (edit: thanks CT for clearing that up)
I'm also seeing that the use of it is relatively harmful in some cases, but then again long term blood doping is also considered an unhealthy practice.
Guilty or not given the fact there's usually a drawn out investigation after it; I think the reporting of the positives is getting as tiresome as the idea of doping in general. Putting the "Meh" in Cycling "Meh-dia".
I'm shocked if he did, but if he ultimately he did, he just joins the ever growing list and the world turns on.
In terms of the process, this case is somewhat similar to Contador's (and obviously even more similar to Kolobnev's who was also tested positive for a diuretica).
Illegal stuff has been found in Frank Schleck's body. Due to the rules of strict liability, that's a 2 year ban.
If Schleck can come up with a good explanation which can be proved to be true, his ban can be shortened. But the "poisoned" explanation sounds like a difficult one to prove... Would have been much easier to bribe a doctor to say that he treated Schleck's knee injury with the drug. |
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 21:38
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3141
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
gmart wrote:
I've been terribly confused by reports. At first the drug itself wasn't listed as a banned substance in some articles, and now others are saying it is a banned substance because the WADA has a blanket category for certain forms of diuretics. (edit: thanks CT for clearing that up)
I'm also seeing that the use of it is relatively harmful in some cases, but then again long term blood doping is also considered an unhealthy practice.
Guilty or not given the fact there's usually a drawn out investigation after it; I think the reporting of the positives is getting as tiresome as the idea of doping in general. Putting the "Meh" in Cycling "Meh-dia".
I'm shocked if he did, but if he ultimately he did, he just joins the ever growing list and the world turns on.
In terms of the process, this case is somewhat similar to Contador's (and obviously even more similar to Kolobnev's who was also tested positive for a diuretica).
Illegal stuff has been found in Frank Schleck's body. Due to the rules of strict liability, that's a 2 year ban.
If Schleck can come up with a good explanation which can be proved to be true, his ban can be shortened. But the "poisoned" explanation sounds like a difficult one to prove... Would have been much easier to bribe a doctor to say that he treated Schleck's knee injury with the drug.
Are you making up excuses for cyclists now which they can use if they are caught? Really Unethical...
But its true! Schleck The Older could have come up with an excuse that could have been more logic than being poisoned. Didnt contador start out by saying the same and then combined it with the meat?
|
| |
|
|
| emre99 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 21:44
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3332
Joined: 19-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Frank Schleck = 2 year ban. 
#FREELANDA #FREELIA MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
emre99's stages
Thread of the Week : Tour of California 2014
-Official PCM World Cup 2016, 10th best keirin player in the world
PCM.daily Awards : 2 Nominee 0 Award 
Daily Song Contest WINNER! With Foals - Mountain at my Gates with Greece!
1 like 1 girlfriend
''I call you the stage god. You are the stage god.'' -baseballover312, 15.07.2016
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 20-07-2012 21:45
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
My plan is working perfectly! Now everyone will think Frank Schleck is drugged and the world will be mine! Mhoa-haha-ha!
Edited by cactus-jack on 20-07-2012 21:46
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 20-07-2012 21:54
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3141
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
emre99 wrote
Frank Schleck = 2 year ban.
I think it says in the US Constitution: You are innocent unless you are proven to be guilty.
Ad the UCI code says: B-Probe Positive = 2 year ban
Frank got caught, B was positive, thus he is proven guilty and per UCI regulations deserves a 2 year ban!
To be honest: ALL TOPRIDERS (including Cance, Cav and Wiggo) are on some sort of performance enhancing products! That doesnt mean that they are all illegal substances. But you can also Dope even if the substance is not (yet) banned...
And then you always have a a group of riders that feel untouchable because the hype around their personality is to much for them. Fränk is such a person. Both Schlecks are under tremendous pressure in Luxemburg. If you cant deliver, what do you do? You take a substance. And then its up to the rider if he takes something legal, which will take some time to have an effect or something illegal in order to have a quick gain. Fränk was stupid enough to choose the quick response and he was stupid enough to assume he would get away with it. And his excuse is more than... lets say lame to be nice.
To be hnest he deserves to be banned for 2 years, just for stupidity.
And whats even worse: I cant follow luxembourgish media any more because 99.5% of luxembourgians are convinced that he is innocent. I think you can see that im hinting at the thought of being untouchable...
Edited by miggi133 on 20-07-2012 21:56
|
| |
|
