An unhappy Frank Schleck during the Giro d'Italia (Image credit: AFP)

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.

The Disciplinary Board could have issued a maximum two-year penalty, but went with one year after noting the extremely low amount of the banned substance.

"Of course I am disappointed by the verdict that has just been announced. I think that the decision to suspend me during one year is too severe considering the fact that the Council acknowledged that I unintentionally consumed a contaminated product. Unfortunately the provisions of the UCI are such that an involuntary contamination is sufficient in order to pronounce a punishment," Schleck said in a statement.

“However I am relieved that the judges acknowledged that the present is not a case of doping and that I had no intention to enhance my performance. This is very important for me, my family, for my team and all those who support me”.

“We will now analyse the decision in detail and decide on potential further steps. However I bear a positive aspect of the decision in mind: the judges acknowledged that I am not a cheater.”

“I wish to thank all my friends and fans who kept their faith in me during this tough period.”





The WADA accredited laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry detected the presence of the diuretic Xipamide in Schleck's urine sample.

Team RadioShack Leopard released a statement, saying: "The Management of Leopard S.A. has taken note of the verdict of the CDD (Conseil de Discipline contre le Dopage) in the case of Fränk Schleck's positive test for xipamide during the 2012 Tour de France."

"Leopard S.A. is content that the anti-doping authorities have now reached a verdict, but will not make any further declarations about the case until it has studied the argumentation of the CDD more closely."



