# Fränk Schleck given one-year doping ban



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The hammer comes down:


> *RadioShack leader suspended until July*
> 
> Fränk Schleck has been handed a one-year suspension by the The Luxembourg Anti-Doping Agency for testing positive for Xipamide during the Tour de France in 2012 according to the RTL. The ban has been retrospectively applied by the Disciplinary Board, meaning that the RadioShack rider is free to ride after July 14, 2013. He will therefore miss this year's Tour de France.


Fränk Schleck Given One-year Doping Ban | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/frank-schleck-case-299287.html


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Not impressed at all.

Will UCI appeal to CAS? (as in Contador Case)


----------



## Unkown (Jul 17, 2012)

I am a Schleck fan, but even I will admit how the hell is this not a 2 year ban? Did they ever come to the conclusion as to how it entered his body? They gotta start dropping the hammer on guys and not look back, 2 year bans are not nearly long enough imo, should be at least 4 years.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm a fan too, but, I'm sticking with the beleif that if you get caught, you get a ban for life. That will clean up this sport. People will think twice about risking everything. Will some get missed, yeah..but the weight of the pentalty will diswade more from cheating.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

YamaDan said:


> I'm a fan too, but, I'm sticking with the beleif that if you get caught, you get a ban for life. That will clean up this sport. People will think twice about risking everything. Will some get missed, yeah..but the weight of the pentalty will diswade more from cheating.


based on the general amazing successes by decreasing crime through increasing punishment?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Wasn't Franky connected with another doping doctor - Fuentes - a couple years back?
If so, perhaps this should be treated as a second doping event = Life-time ban.

While den bakker may have a point that such a punishment might have a negligble effect on doping - it would ban them for life from future involvement with cycling - which we can all agree needs to be cleaned up on multiple levels - including coaching and team management/ownership.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

den bakker said:


> based on the general amazing successes by decreasing crime through increasing punishment?


Agree. Whether doping, jaywalking, or murder, every crime is committed with the presupposition that "I won't get caught". "Is it worth X days in prison/banned/$fine" is simply not a part of the mental calculus. 

Just the same, longer bans are better because they effectively sunset the cheaters. 

Not sure how to deal with the issue of incidental exposures, though I've never really seen an incident that I've believed. Part of the risk of engaging the sport, I suppose, and don't take fan handups.


----------



## drewPjohnson (May 29, 2011)

I'm all for big bans. However, seeing how honest some of the community is what's to stop someone from sprinkling a little powder in a riders water bottle. career over. Food even gets contaminated on a large scale. While I don't believe it when Fraenk and Contador claim accidental contamination, it would really suck to have your whole career go down the drain based on something truly accidental on your part or intentional by another party. And really there is absolutely no way to confirm accidental or intentional.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

LostViking said:


> Wasn't Franky connected with another doping doctor - Fuentes - a couple years back?
> If so, perhaps this should be treated as a second doping event = Life-time ban.
> 
> While den bakker may have a point that such a punishment might have a negligble effect on doping - it would ban them for life from future involvement with cycling - which we can all agree needs to be cleaned up on multiple levels - including coaching and team management/ownership.


I fail to see how banning Vaughters and Bassons for life will clean up the sport.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> based on the general amazing successes by decreasing crime through increasing punishment?


A similiar thought, I think the punishment should be *spread out* over the team of the cyclist as well. So as an example... you're wearing the leader's jersey in the TdF, but your teammate tested positive in stage X? Guess what, your entire team loses their results. Your entire team is fined. You're all pulled from the race. You no longer won or accomplished jack because of someone else on your team getting caught. This would make people think twice about cheating behind the back of their team, and those teams that cheated together would need to be extra cautious as all it would take is one person getting caught to bring them all down.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Cableguy said:


> A similiar thought, I think the punishment should be *spread out* over the team of the cyclist as well. So as an example... you're wearing the leader's jersey in the TdF, but your teammate tested positive in stage X? Guess what, your entire team loses their results. Your entire team is fined. You're all pulled from the race. You no longer won or accomplished jack because of someone else on your team getting caught. This would make people think twice about cheating behind the back of their team, and those teams that cheated together would need to be extra cautious as all it would take is one person getting caught to bring them all down.


Is that the system your workplace operates under?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

den bakker said:


> based on the general amazing successes by decreasing crime through increasing punishment?


What we need is more draconian punishment. What about the death penalty for doping? The executions could be part of the festivities at the start of the race next year.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> What we need is more draconian punishment. What about the death penalty for doping? The executions could be part of the festivities at the start of the race next year.


I'm all for dragging them after a car over a street littered with used syringes from drug addicts. After all, chopping a hand off is not sufficient to discourage stealing. 
I remember all the talk of how things would improve with the "new" rules (i.e. 2 years first time, permaban second). and yet, here we are.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Is that the system your workplace operates under?


The governing body of cycling is the client. Your company is the cycling team. Your company "cheats" the client in some way, for example faking documents and results. The client fires not just the person(s) who cheated, that would not make sense, no they fire your company (aka cycling team). Your entire company is penalized. Now, as far as your company is concerned yes they will aim to penalize the specific person(s) responsible... unless of course your entire company was in on it.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm not a fan of either brother and it should be two years.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Cableguy said:


> A similiar thought, I think the punishment should be *spread out* over the team of the cyclist as well. So as an example... you're wearing the leader's jersey in the TdF, but your teammate tested positive in stage X? Guess what, your entire team loses their results. Your entire team is fined. You're all pulled from the race. You no longer won or accomplished jack because of someone else on your team getting caught. This would make people think twice about cheating behind the back of their team, and those teams that cheated together would need to be extra cautious as all it would take is one person getting caught to bring them all down.


This is what is done in the olympics. in team sports, or grouped individual events like relays etc. If one of the athletes involved is caught doping (even in preliminary or qualifying rounds) their entire team's performance is thrown out.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

IOW: Andy Schleck to quit cycling for 1 year 



But really though, how come Contador gets a 2 year (although retroactive) ban for absurdly small amounts of clenbuterol that could only be traced by supposedly one lab in the world, and Frank gets 1 year over what I assume is a less exceptional testing procedure?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Ventruck said:


> But really though, how come Contador gets a 2 year (although retroactive) ban for absurdly small amounts of clenbuterol that could only be traced by supposedly one lab in the world, and Frank gets 1 year over what I assume is a less exceptional testing procedure?


Because you're comparing apples and oranges. Schleck got a 1 year ban from his national federation; Contador got no suspension from his. Contador got 2 years when the case was appealed to CAS, Schleck's case hasn't been appealed to much less ruled on by CAS. Details matter.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

PhotonFreak said:


> This is what is done in the olympics. in team sports, or grouped individual events like relays etc. If one of the athletes involved is caught doping (even in preliminary or qualifying rounds) their entire team's performance is thrown out.


That might be the answer. If one member is caught cheating then the whole team is penalized. That way you have the cyclists policing themselves.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

I think the ban should be Frank can't race with Andy for the next two years.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Has Frank raced since he got popped? I can't remember any races that he's entered? 

I think that makes his situation a bit different than Conti, who simply went on doing races as if nothing happened. 

Plus, wouldn't the same process of the national federation deciding the penalty apply to the Garmin dopers who got six month out of season bans too? Wouldn't those be appealed by the UCI or WADA to the CAS seeking two year bans?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

This case is so weird. It's a drug with no known benefits for s cyclist and it was found in a infinitesimally small amount. 

I'm not a fan of either Schlep. But I hope he takes this time to do whatever it takes to ride at top form after July and next year.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> This case is so weird. It's a drug with no known benefits for s cyclist and it was found in a infinitesimally small amount.
> 
> I'm not a fan of either Schlep. But I hope he takes this time to do whatever it takes to ride at top form after July and next year.


Diuretics have no benefit whatsoever to athletes other than being used to help eliminate certain substances prior to urine tests. Probenecid has a similar effect on sterioids, too. 

Definitely makes me wonder what he was trying to mask.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

den bakker said:


> I fail to see how banning Vaughters and Bassons for life will clean up the sport.


How about as part of a strategy? No one believes that just getting ex-dopers out of powerful positions in the sport is the only answer - but a part of it perhaps?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Because you're comparing apples and oranges. Schleck got a 1 year ban from his national federation; Contador got no suspension from his. Contador got 2 years when the case was appealed to CAS, Schleck's case hasn't been appealed to much less ruled on by CAS. Details matter.


Which brings us back to my first question - will the UCI appeal to the CAS?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Diuretics have no benefit whatsoever to athletes other than being used to help eliminate certain substances prior to urine tests. Probenecid has a similar effect on sterioids, too.
> 
> Definitely makes me wonder what he was trying to mask.


That, of course, is the rub. That substance is banned because it is used to cover-up other more "beneficial" doping.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

AdamM said:


> Has Frank raced since he got popped? I can't remember any races that he's entered?
> 
> I think that makes his situation a bit different than Conti, who simply went on doing races as if nothing happened.
> 
> Plus, wouldn't the same process of the national federation deciding the penalty apply to the Garmin dopers who got six month out of season bans too? Wouldn't those be appealed by the UCI or WADA to the CAS seeking two year bans?


Only dif is retroactive ban - if Schleck gets two years instead of the one his federation gave him - it would be retroactive plus whatever he would still have to sit out to complete two years off the bike. Conti should have stopped riding immediatly as well - would have simplified things. But that whole case was a cluster - I'd hope this one gets handeled better. As things stand, a two-year ban backdated from when Frank left the Tour would be fair.

As to life-time bans - how effective have the two-year bans been? Not very, because although painful to miss out on two years - especially in your cycling prime - you can still get back in and win races (see Valverde and Conti). I've always been for upping the ban to four years for this very reason - for many riders, four years out would truly sting. Here the idea is a deterent - it will not "fix" what ails cycling - but I think it would help. Again, here we must think it terms of a comprehensive straegy - no one part of the strategy should be seen as the "answer".

However, in light of the fact that short bans with a chance of a come-back have proven ineffective, I'm moving into the life-time ban camp. Get them out forever with a "one-strike you're out" system. Lot's of folks will get their underwear in knots over this, but I've not heard them propose a better system of sanctions.

I'm all ears....


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Beck said:


> That might be the answer. If one member is caught cheating then the whole team is penalized. That way you have the cyclists policing themselves.


They have been...as a result they have become better dopers.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

The Xipamide is just jealous of Frank's success and is looking for money.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

LostViking said:


> They have been...as a result they have become better dopers.


And I think that is the real problem. How to stop the doping when the dopers are more sophisticated than the testers. There has to be some deterrent. Maybe a minimum of 4 years for first offense and then a lifetime ban for second offense.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Yes, it's an odd case when a detectable drug is used as a masking agent but ingested in barely measurable amounts (so small they would be ineffective as a masking agent). Wait. Let me edit. Wasn't this the case when it was a barely measurable amount? 

Are there masking benefits for a diuretic like xipamide over caffeine + 8 cups of water?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

danl1 said:


> Agree. Whether doping, jaywalking, or murder, every crime is committed with the presupposition that "I won't get caught". "Is it worth X days in prison/banned/$fine" is simply not a part of the mental calculus.
> 
> Just the same, longer bans are better because they effectively sunset the cheaters.
> 
> Not sure how to deal with the issue of incidental exposures, though I've never really seen an incident that I've believed. Part of the risk of engaging the sport, I suppose, and don't take fan handups.


The last bit kinda worries me. There was a recent Cyclingnews article that kinda highlights why. Guy takes a 2 year ban, likely because he was sick as **** anyway and getting no results...why blow the money.

Long story short. He caught Hep A. Went to speak with an alternative medicine specialist who suggested HGH. That all, suggested it. The Dr. got caught for some other stuff, mentioned the rider, the rider got a ban. Not for using, not for paying for, just for listening to a Dr. who suggested it. 

Forget about the fact that any lifetime penalty in a system that uses far less than beyond a reasonable doubt as it's standard is iffy. Your analogy is actually pretty off as it ignores profit motive. You may find some white collar guy or some street thug who thinks they are smarter than the cops or who just lives for the moment but many crimes with a legitimate profit motive have the suspect thinking "X profit with the potential of Y years in jail...yes or no?"

In a system that WADA themselves says catches only 2% of cheats and where this much money is involved a life time ban right out of the gate wouldn't change a damn thing. First WADA themselves said they barely catch anyone. Second, remember there is a BIG difference between a feel good rule and an effective rule. You could easily end up with the cycling equivalent of a drug cartel. "Okay we can go to jail for life if we get caught? Get as much as you can as fast as you can and if one person saw what happened kill everyone else in the room too and their families just to stay safe." Not saying cyclists would start killing people, just that the arms race would accelerate faster than it is already. Purely punitive systems are now pretty much proven to NOT act as a deterant.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Not for using, not for paying for, just for listening to a Dr. who suggested it..


Agreed, totally nuts. The Austrailian Federation needs to take another look at this.
What if I read an Amgen ad for EPO - am I doping?
Come on guys, get real! 



badge118 said:


> Purely punitive systems are now pretty much proven to NOT act as a deterant.


Would you propose counseling?


----------



## hernandres (Feb 22, 2013)

Good!


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

The other Schlepp sister is serving a virtual one year ban for being a dope.


----------



## zsmith28 (Jul 29, 2009)

Was bummed to see this. Will miss seeing Frank along side Andy this year.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

LostViking said:


> Agreed, totally nuts. The Austrailian Federation needs to take another look at this.
> What if I read an Amgen ad for EPO - am I doping?
> Come on guys, get real!
> 
> ...


I would propose counseling as part of a larger program. People need to get jammed for what they do wrong but the entire system needs to be adjusted. Purely punitive systems are easy for people to sell because they are cheaper and easier than the things that actually work. 

Of course there are people that just need to go away but these people are largely in the Minority. In 15 years of being a LEO I have seen one thing that works at preventing people raised in crime filled communities from becoming criminals or turning their lives around. Something showed them there was a light at the end of the tunnel. 

That is where the TRC plan I talked about in another thread comes in. You let the riders come forward without much threat of penalty with the agreement they will tell the truth and the whole truth AND that this can be used against them if they get caught in the future. If they are found to have lied, even if only through omission, they are also screwed. 

You need to get the organizers on board so they do not have some of the completely insane courses we have seen in the past. You need to spend more money on education and testing at the grass roots level. Hell a couple years ago at interbike I spoke with JV about how I know as FACT Dr's in my area that have had parents talk to them. Not about the danger of PEDs but what PEDs they can get for their High School aged children. By the time people are pros they are often already part of the doping culture.

Just saying "once you get a pro contract we'll test ya and if you pop hot you are cast into the wilderness" has proven to be a colossal failure. There is an old saying..."performing the exact same action over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." I think the anti-doping regime has reached that point.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2013)

Cableguy said:


> A similiar thought, I think the punishment should be *spread out* over the team of the cyclist as well. So as an example... you're wearing the leader's jersey in the TdF, but your teammate tested positive in stage X? Guess what, your entire team loses their results. Your entire team is fined. You're all pulled from the race. You no longer won or accomplished jack because of someone else on your team getting caught. This would make people think twice about cheating behind the back of their team, and those teams that cheated together would need to be extra cautious as all it would take is one person getting caught to bring them all down.



I agree because now you develop a system of peer pressure to race clean.


----------

