Press Release Regarding Fränk Schleck

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

racyrich
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: London, UK

by racyrich

Remind me what Basso was suspended for?
Oh yeah, preparing to blood dope. Not actually using it. So he got a step closer and actually gave the blood, but never re-used it. Where does doping start then? Many are suspended for possessing gear, not using it. Presumably if you just paid for the gear but it was still en route you're in the clear.
It seems to me intention to cheat has been adequate to damn and suspend riders up till now. Schleck's wriggling cos that was definitely intent!

User avatar
DocRay
Banned
Posts: 3468
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Location: Hamilton, Canada

by DocRay

hockinsk wrote:As CSC are not prepared to do this, they are all stinking fibbers not prepared to own up.


whoa...can you say that on the internet?
Google: Results 1 - 20 of about 88,500 English pages for _doping_, _cycling_ and _denies_. (0.33 seconds)

by Weenie


User avatar
DocRay
Banned
Posts: 3468
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Location: Hamilton, Canada

by DocRay

PezTech wrote:
The evidence is nothing more than a transaction. Even if there would have been several transactions, but no other info (script scheduling, dope call outs etc) the explanation would have been the same.

All done. Let him ride.


All done. Bring back Dr. Ferrari while your at it.



Image
Google: Results 1 - 20 of about 88,500 English pages for _doping_, _cycling_ and _denies_. (0.33 seconds)

User avatar
G man
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: North West U.K

by G man

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
G man wrote:Funny how Schleck paid exactly the same amount of money other cyclists paid Fuentes for blood doping. He obviously hadn't given Fuentes any blood at the time OP broke, so he's offering a DNA test. If his story is true, he should publish correspondance between himself and Fuentes regarding the training programme he was paying for, and should tell us who recommended Fuentes to him, and why. Fuentes claims to have helped over 100 athletes blood dope. Does anyone know how many he provided with training programmes for 7000 Euros a pop? Why would Fuentes not have documentation with Schleck's real name at his flat, if it was legitimate? How many professional sports teams let their athletes contact doctors in another country for training programmes without the team's knowledge or permission? CSC seems to be defending him to the hilt, which is no surprise, considering they have an ex doper for a DS. I know what I think of Schleck, but everyone can make up their own minds.


Why should he do this? It's none of anyones business how riders train. The fans don't own the riders!

At the end of the day, Schleck didn't do anything against any rules and no one can prove otherwise.


He has broken CSC team rules. This quote from Riis, "he has not been acting in accordance with the rules of the team". So what is the punishment for breaking team rules? For Rasmussen, breaking team rules meant the sack. I suppose it will depend what the sponsors want to do whether Schleck gets sacked or not. Can anyone enlighten me how Schleck claims to have never heard of Fuentes until May, when OP broke, when the money was transferred to the Swiss bank account in March. Who did he think he was giving the money to? He only realised after OP, that his "contact" had links with Fuentes. If I was seeking advice from "experts" for 7000 Euros, I might do a bit of research; asking them their names would be a good place to start. This is difficult for me to say... I agree with DocRay on this one!
G man

User avatar
hockinsk
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Kent: UK
Contact:

by hockinsk

DocRay wrote:
hockinsk wrote:As CSC are not prepared to do this, they are all stinking fibbers not prepared to own up.


whoa...can you say that on the internet?


Damn it, it has much more impact highlighted in red. Why didn't I think of that? : )

User avatar
CharlesM
Posts: 5771
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Phoenix Arizona

by CharlesM

DocRay wrote:
PezTech wrote:
The evidence is nothing more than a transaction. Even if there would have been several transactions, but no other info (script scheduling, dope call outs etc) the explanation would have been the same.

All done. Let him ride.


All done. Bring back Dr. Ferrari while your at it.



Image


You're being an unreasonable rectal opening...

Ferrari did have enough hard evidence against him and paid the price.


I'm not saying nothing went wrong or the payment was for anything other than doping...

But at the end of the day, the payment simply doesnt qualify as doping evidence in and of it's self.

It was never going to get past the investigation stage...

User avatar
arcspin
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:00 am
Location: SWEDEN
Contact:

by arcspin

In my book an attempt to dope is as bad as doping per se.
Intention to break the law is still braking a law.
Fränk simply didn't had time to get around and actual commit the crime.
His moral is as bad as any other doper out there, there is no justification for his behavior.
He knew he had done something wrong, otherwise he would have consulted CSC on his attempt on seeking outside "advice" and also told CSC that he had been ripped off in doing so.

I mean, come on, pay someone 7000 euro and not ask for any credential to who I'm paying too and later not "raising hell" for not getting the money back.

This stinks....

//arcspin
a climbers delight...SCOTT ADDICT Ltd
http://arcspin.wordpress.com/my-bike/

Camp Mallorca
http://www.campmallorca.se

1centaur
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:00 am

by 1centaur

In all the tea leaf reading, it's worth considering how Schleck was doing in 2005/6 and whether his progress in that period suggested he would be looking about for new and better coaching tips.

See the remarkably quickly updated wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schleck

iliveonnitro
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:18 am
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Contact:

by iliveonnitro

1centaur wrote:In all the tea leaf reading, it's worth considering how Schleck was doing in 2005/6 and whether his progress in that period suggested he would be looking about for new and better coaching tips.

See the remarkably quickly updated wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schleck


Not to demerit his accomplishments, but he sure did fall flat on his face in 2007. If his ties with Fuentes goes back to 2005, what happened in 07?

Why only one record from 2008?

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

arcspin wrote:In my book an attempt to dope is as bad as doping per se.
Intention to break the law is still braking a law.
Fränk simply didn't had time to get around and actual commit the crime.
His moral is as bad as any other doper out there, there is no justification for his behavior.
He knew he had done something wrong, otherwise he would have consulted CSC on his attempt on seeking outside "advice" and also told CSC that he had been ripped off in doing so.

I mean, come on, pay someone 7000 euro and not ask for any credential to who I'm paying too and later not "raising hell" for not getting the money back.

This stinks....

//arcspin


Aye, an "attempt to possess" could definitely be an offense. But you have to prove exactly what he was going to possess. Or that the person suppling indeed had the item the person thought they were going to possess.

For example if there was a bag labelled "EPO for Mr Schleck (or some cunning codename, let's say F.Schleck, no wait, too obvious, lets say, Frank S.) then this could be an attempt to possess. If there was an entry in Schleck's diary saying "Monday 9.00am, pick special bag of... stuff," also an attempt.

Until you actually have something to link the payment to, it just smells, no offence. So far.

racyrich
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: London, UK

by racyrich

Anyone else have a coach who refers to them by obscure pseudonyms? Your name or 'lazy f00ker' are the norm!

User avatar
arcspin
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:00 am
Location: SWEDEN
Contact:

by arcspin

Tapeworm wrote:But you have to prove exactly what he was going to possess.


Of course, you are right.
In a technical and legal sense but I'm more referring to a moral sense.

There must have been numerous times when Riis has sat down with each and everyone of the riders and asked them to recall any and I mean any thing or action in there past that in any circumstance could be interpreted as suspicious and Fränk has sat there and said...NOooo, I can't recall anything that I have done that could be labeled suspicious !?!?!

In my book he had made up his mind and paid the money in an attempt to begin a doping practice.
And that in a moral sense is as bad as doping itself.

This is professional athletes in an high stake business and they are supposed to be above average when it comes to moral. Because of their impact on their country, fans and sponsors.


I'm glad we have cycling as a sport that we actually can enjoy regardless what our "heroes" do.


Today it is the "Cinnamon roll day" in Sweden.
So today I'm going to enjoy freshly home baked cinnamon rolls and a big glass of cold milk. And I suggest you all do that today in support of our national day.
:wink::wink::wink:

//arcspin
a climbers delight...SCOTT ADDICT Ltd
http://arcspin.wordpress.com/my-bike/

Camp Mallorca
http://www.campmallorca.se

GrahamB
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:16 am
Location: Lyon, France

by GrahamB

arcspin wrote:Intention to break the law is still braking a law.


Ummm, no, it isn't. For some laws in some countries, there is a separate "attempting" law, eg for murder. However, I'm not aware of any "attempting to break the speed limit but failing because your motorscooter is too anemic" law in France (unfortunately).

Australia does have a law of that form and a rider was recently banned on the basis of buying and importing doping products. However the actual products were seized. Schleck's case is different, since we know he paid for something, but don't know what (we can well guess, but that's stretching the burden of proof a wee bit).
Graham

racyrich
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: London, UK

by racyrich

arcspin wrote:
Tapeworm wrote:But you have to prove exactly what he was going to possess.


Of course, you are right.
In a technical and legal sense but I'm more referring to a moral sense.

There must have been numerous times when Riis has sat down with each and everyone of the riders and asked them to recall any and I mean any thing or action in there past that in any circumstance could be interpreted as suspicious and Fränk has sat there and said...NOooo, I can't recall anything that I have done that could be labeled suspicious !?!?!

In my book he had made up his mind and paid the money in an attempt to begin a doping practice.
And that in a moral sense is as bad as doping itself.

This is professional athletes in an high stake business and they are supposed to be above average when it comes to moral. Because of their impact on their country, fans and sponsors.


I'm glad we have cycling as a sport that we actually can enjoy regardless what our "heroes" do.


Today it is the "Cinnamon roll day" in Sweden.
So today I'm going to enjoy freshly home baked cinnamon rolls and a big glass of cold milk. And I suggest you all do that today in support of our national day.
:wink::wink::wink:

//arcspin


Except that Riis was with Schleck when they visited Fuentes
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep27newsa

User avatar
arcspin
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:00 am
Location: SWEDEN
Contact:

by arcspin

racyrich wrote:Except that Riis was with Schleck when they visited Fuentes
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep27newsa


Of course you are right Racyrich but...
Except Riis stated the following in the same article:
Riis told the newspaper, "Frank confirmed to me that he hadn't done anything wrong. hasn't violated any anti-doping rules.

Which would indicate that Riis didn't know anything about the affair....
but then again Riis have been know to lie in the past :evil:

As I said earlier.... This stinks
a climbers delight...SCOTT ADDICT Ltd
http://arcspin.wordpress.com/my-bike/

Camp Mallorca
http://www.campmallorca.se

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post