- Drug-filled drone crash outside S.C. prison sends police on alert
- GOP to Obama: Take your ‘golf cap off’ and get down to coal country
- Hamas cleric tells Jews: ‘We will exterminate you’
- San Diego Costco, Target shoppers shocked by plane crash in parking lot
- George W. Bush penning biography of father
- Israel vows to destroy Hamas tunnels
- Spain evacuates staff from embassy in Libya
- Peace Corps evacuates over Ebola fears; 2 volunteers isolated
- House overwhelmingly approves $16 billion cash infusion for VA overhaul
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
Frank Schleck gets 1-year doping ban, will miss Tour de France
Question of the Day
Luxembourg Anti-Doping Agency president Robert Schuler said that the RadioShack Nissan Trek leader was given a 12-month suspension backdated to last year’s Tour, where he tested positive for the diuretic Xipamide. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Schleck will miss this year’s Tour under the current suspension.
Wednesday’s decision was the biggest doping ruling in the sport since Lance Armstrong admitted earlier this month he doped on his way to seven Tour de France victories.
Schleck was facing up to a two-year suspension. He can appeal to the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Frank and brother Andy have been Luxembourg’s most popular cyclists over the past decade. Andy Schleck was awarded the 2010 Tour victory after Alberto Contador was stripped of the title because of a doping violation.
Frank won Alpine stages in the 2006 and 2009 Tours, and he also won the Amstel Gold Race one-day classic in 2006.
The International Cycling Union said the diuretic Xipamide turned up in a test conducted by the French anti-doping lab on a sample from Schleck taken on July 14, 2012.
The case at the time cast more doubt on cycling’s ability to root out drug cheats despite vigorous controls put in place by the UCI and its allies.
The diuretic is classified as a specified substance and does not require a provisional suspension. The World Anti-Doping Agency defines specified substances as those that are “more susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation.” Bans for such substances are often shorter, and athletes have a better chance of proving that they did not intend to consume it or enhance their performance.
By Ted Cruz
Israel saves its enemies; Hamas endangers its friends
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- EDITORIAL: The real Lois Lerner exposed in newly released emails
- NAPOLITANO: Is the president incompetent or lawless?
- House votes to sue President Obama over claims of presidential power
- 'Big Bang' star Mayim Bialik helps send bulletproof vests to IDF
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Star witness in Bob McDonnell corruption trial refutes 'crush' defense
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world