Frank Schleck: Saboteur

Frank Schleck set off an atomic blast when he tested positive for the diuretic xipamide. Of course, as expected, Radio Shack proclaimed in a predictable tone of innocence that the team did not prescribe such prohibited substances to riders. Thus now that the "B" sample has confirmed the "A" sample, Frank Schleck will be fired by the team and then left to drift all alone in the wind.  Teams, as opposed to riders, teams are not held to a strict liability standard when it comes to doping offenses.  But it is a sensible supposition to conclude that a rider cannot succeed in doping without some kind of professional medical help.

Deja vu, all over again.  Frank Schleck claims to have been poisoned.  Alberto Contador claimed that he was poisoned with a clenbuterol tainted stake served during a rest day meal, a preposterous claim considering that residues consistent with blood transfusion equipment were also found in his blood.  But it is suggestive, Frank Schleck may have received a tainted blood transfusion that contained xipamide from earlier training rides, or worse he may have been using xipamide to mask other performance-enhancing drugs used in training or during the Tour de France.

Is The UCI Biological Passport Worth a Bucket of Warm Spit?

Bradley Wiggins was strongly advised by his doctors not to release his UCI biological passport data to the public. There are too many variables, human physiology is not constant, life and grand tour races are not laboratory settings where the variance of intervening variables can be measured and accounted for.  Therefore, Bradley Wiggins was advised not to release his UCI biological passport data because cynics could make a case out of random variations that might suggest performance-enhancing substance use.  As a matter of fact, a case of doping based upon random physiological variations in UCI biological passport data could be applied to every member of the peloton.  Conclusion: The UCI biological passport is not worth a bucket of warm spit: it is an expensive boondoggle, it could be erroneously applied as a substitute for a conclusive laboratory test, considered "overwhelming evidence" of performance-enhancing substance use, and considered more accurate than a failed laboratory test in determining the outcome of an arbitration award.

WADA, USADA, and Jeff Novitzky collusion against Lance Armstrong?

The Associated Press reported on February 7, 2012 that federal prosecutors requested information relevant to the then ongoing Lance Armstrong doping investigation from the World Anti Doing Agency (WADA).   It was reported that John Fahey and David Howman assured Jeff Novitzky full cooperation in providing all existing testing intelligence compiled on Lance Armstrong.  WADA also assured Jeff Novitzky that there were existing Lance Armstrong samples available for further testing upon request. In the article David Howman also mentions waiving the statutes of limitations for Lance Armstrong using the Eddy Hellebuyck precedent.  Of course, they were expecting the secret Federal Grand Jury to return a criminal indictment against Lance Armstrong.  But if a criminal complaint were not forthcoming WADA [working together with Federal Prosecutors and USADA?] developed a contingency plan; USADA could file a "non-analytical positive" civil complaint based upon the testimony of ex-U.S. Postal and Discovery channel teammates that could be arbitrated. Thus the argument presented by Lance Armstrong attorneys to U.S. District Judge Sam Spears that USADA may have acted as a "state actor" in concert with United States Federal Prosecutors may have merit.

If the Lance Armstrong submittal may be dismissed at the request of USADA and if U.S. District Judge Sam Spears agrees, then all arguments as to jurisdiction and complicity will be resolved once and for all.

Until then we wait with bated breath.