Luxembourg rider facing possible disciplinary action after July 14 control finds diuretic

Fränk Schleck (Radioshack-Nissan) appeared at a disciplinary hearing in front of the Luxembourg cycling federation today to discuss the topic of his positive test turned in after a doping control on July 14 during the Tour de France. Schleck was found to have had Xipamide, a diuretic, in his system.



Schleck’s B sample also returned the Xipamide, meaning he would face the hearing.



Though it is thought to mask other substances, the detected diuretic does not carry as harsh a punishment as other products. As was the case with Katusha’s Alexander Kolobnev in the 2011 Tour, Radioshack-Nissan was encouraged to withdraw Schleck from the Tour de France, which it did so immediately.



Schleck’s discussions with the review board went to 17:00 local time, and a decision on the fate of the former Tour de France podium finisher is expected to be drawn in the next few weeks, according to Wort.lu.



The Luxembourg rider maintains his innocence, saying in a statement in July that the diuretic went into his system without his knowledge.



“At the moment we are analysing, minute by minute, what exactly I have been doing, eating, drinking on the days before the control and on the 14th of July itself, whom I met, what materials I came in contact with, what nutritional supplements I took,” Schleck’s statement read.



“The medical world states that this product, when performing in extreme conditions such as in a cycling tour, is very dangerous; it can even cause death.



“Therefore I really need to find the cause that clarifies how this product ended up in my system.



“Since I didn't take anything, I assume it must have been given to me by someone, or it could have happened through an accidental contamination, or it could be caused by something that is not yet known to me since we are still undertaking a number of analyses.”



Schleck could face a punishment with severity ranging from a warning to a two-year ban. Which it is will depend on whether the board acting on the case determines if the diuretic was in his system intentionally.