They call them "reasoned" decisions...

....but sometimes you have to wonder about how "reasoned" they actually are.

Inge kindly supplied a link to the LADA (oh alright, ALAD, you know who I mean) document setting out their reasoned decision, all 42 pages of it.

In case you don't have time to go paddling through it all, here is my interpretation.

The first few pages are taken up with confirming that Frankie is a rider, participating in a UCI race, adhering to their rules: he was duly tested, the banned substance - Xipamide - was found, he requested that the B samples were tested, they were, and they also proved positive for Xipamide.

A date for the hearing was eventually set, with Frankie asking for extra time to get the reports that he needed.

The UCI asked to be present at the hearing, and this was allowed. (I have no idea if this is significant, but if the UCI had a rep there, hopefully they won't be objecting to the decision.)

By Page 6 we are getting into the "court" section - presentation of all sides of the case.

First the UCI. "He raced at one of our races, under our rules: he broke one of those rules therefore we want him punished."

Next ALAD: "We have jurisdiction to punish him, he's ours, get your hands off him." (I may be paraphrasing a little at this point.) There is a lot of legal stuff about precedent, "we've done this before, we know what we are doing."  I think the general idea was to establish that ALAD were competent to examine the case, and give a judgement at the end.

Now it's Frankie's turn:  Frankie agrees that he is indeed a cyclist, competing in a UCI race, and agrees that he should abide by all their rules.

Next there is a whole load of jargon about the fight against doping, and each anti-doping body and federation, and the UCI, recognising every other anti-doping body, federation etc and agreeing that although they can make their own decisions and dish out their own punishments, it cannot be in any way contrary to the position of the UCI.

Sigh.

We're at article 50, of 216 plus two pages. This could take some time. Get yourselves a drink, settle down, and let's see what we get.

Oh, a lot of repetition and confirmation that Frankie had a licence, and everyone who rides under licence agrees to be bound by the rules of the licence, ie don't dope. We get it! Get on with it!

Article 59, at last, the allegation: "He had a banned substance in him."

60: Frankie agrees that he did indeed have Xipamide in his system.

61: A reminder that the UCI don't have to prove that you took it in order to punish you: it's up to you to prove that you didn't.

62. It's worth repeating this one word for word:"...it is stated that riders must refrain from using any substance, food or drink which they know the composition. It should be noted that the composition indicated on a product is not always exhaustive. The product may contain prohibited substances not included in the composition."

I think they mean to say that riders must refrain from using any substance, food or drink of which they DO NOT know the composition.

63-69. Establishment of proof, Xipamide is bad, 2 year ban for first offence,  BAN HIM! BAN HIM! *leans away from the reasoned decision in fear*

70: Frankie, resolutely and calm, invokes the article that if he can prove he didn't take it to enhance performance, he can have the reduced penalty, ranging from the minimum (reprimand) to the full 2-year ban.

71. He then starts to present his arguments: firstly, he did not intentionally take Xipamide. Indeed, it is an obsolete form of doping, as it doesn't mask anything successfully, now that testing has improved.

72 His doctor confirms this is true.

73. Frank says his blood values were normal, and the expert, Paul Scott, confirms that Frankie's biological passport shows this to be true. A blood test on the day following the adverse finding gives Frankie's haemocrit level as 40%, and says this is rather low. (He was tired, remember?) Anyone doping would have had a much higher level. (I seem to remember that 50% was the magical figure that the dopers had to get below, in order not to be caught: anything above 50% was a sure sign of doping.)

74. Hair analysis by another expert shows no steroids, and no excessive testosterone.

75.  Witness statement by Maxime! No funny business, a relaxed atmosphere in their shared room, and the comment that Frankie felt tired, and had realised that he would not get good results that year. Yay for Maxime!

76. Frank argues that a diuretic is completely the wrong thing to be taking in an endurance sport in a hot month. He points out that it is normally used by athletes competing in sports with weight categories, in order for them to lose weight to get into a lower category (which gives them an advantage). There is no such weight category in cycling.

77. Frankie says therefore it was not something he took, he is willing to take a polygraph (lie detector)( and for your delight and delectation, I can tell you that I have taken a polygraph test, many years ago, when I worked in a company that was experiencing internal sabotage to the products. Every single employee, even us office workers, had to take the polygraph test to prove we weren't the ones that did it. They caught the two that did. Polygraphs work.), and that he thinks it was a contaminated supplement.

78.  Frankie lists the supplements he took in the first two weeks of the tour. For your interest, they were:

- SIS Go Gel Isotonic Energy ;
- SIS Go Gel Plus Nitrates ;
- SIS Go Gel Plus Caffeine ;
- AM Sport L-Carnitine 2000mg ;
- Alpha-Liponsäure ;
- First Endurance Ultragen RS-Recovery ;
- AM Sport Aminosaüren Pulver ;
- First Endurance Optygen ;
- Deba Pharma Mineral Complex ;
- Sportpharm Bar.

Ugh. So glad, on so many levels, that I am not a professional athlete. All I need is tea and toast in the morning, a spot of lunch, and something solid for tea, with the occasional biscuit/bag of maltesers/piece of fruit to keep me going.

79: (a rather interesting point) - all these supplements were provided by the RadioLeopard medical team, and some of them were supplied by their sponsors. Suppliers and sponsors change each year: and all members of the team are provided with the same supplements. 

There was then a sentence that didn't translate properly (oh, my rusty French!) and I think it meant that riders did not necessarily take all the supplements provided by the team. But it could have been meant to suggest that riders - or in this case, Frankie - did not take supplements other than those provided by the team. I'm not sure.

80. A doctor examined samples of all 10 supplements, and did not find any Xipamide. They are fairly certain that these are the same batch as those used during the Tour, although they were collected in September.

81. The doctor had also examined two medical items provided by the team: Nexium (for heartburn) and EMLA cream (local anaesthetic cream, and I think we can all guess which part of the anatomy that would be used on).

82. Drat! Both negative for Xipamide.

83. Another expert confirmed the tiny amount found was consistent with the ingestion of a contaminated supplement within a couple of days before the test.

84. Contador! Why is the name Contador in this hearing? Oh, Frankie is referring to Conti's case, whereby it was generally agreed that he'd eaten something containing just a little of the banned substance - ah, we remember that dammned clenbuterol, don't we? Huh, bet my spell-check doesn't - but that they would not be able to prove exactly where it came from.

85. The sabotage theory was shot down in flames, as Frankie (being a team leader) would not have had to take a bottle from a spectator for anything other than spraying/cooling himself.

86. Legal bit about in the absence of proof, the most likely scenario would be the contaminated supplement, as per Contador (getting another mention), with the sabotaged bottle being less likely...

87. ...and it has been shown that there was no intent to dope, due to the tiny amount, wrong substance, etc.

88. It appeared to be clear in this case that the Xipamide was not taken to mask doping, so please please, pretty please, can we have the reduced ban option?

89. Basically, "was the athlete at fault for accidentally ingesting the banned substance - did he make every effort to avoid it."

90. We learn that Frankie has the habit of personally checking labels, even on the items supplied by the team. It is not possible to be more thorough, other than by sending everything away for analysis, which even CAS agrees is unrealistic.  Frankie accepts all food supplements given to him by the team, this demonstrates the full confidence that he has in his team. 

91.  Suggestion: as the biological passport is perfectly ok, can we please have a reprimand?
92. And as Frankie has already been in a voluntary suspension, then if it has to be a suspension, can it please be backdated?
93. There would be no reason to annul any results, especially those of the team, particularly as the team results were taken from the top 3 riders, and Frankie wasn't one of them, please, puppy eyes?
94. And while we are talking of puppy eyes, there's no need to invoke the fine of 70% of wages if a 2-year ban is given, is there? 
95. Frankie (with more puppy eyes) confirms his agreement to pay the UCI fees...

ALAD step up the bench, and waffle on about legal stuff for a while:

97: ALAD say the experts' reports, even the doctor in the lab in Cologne, agree that the amount was so small that masking of doping is unlikely, and accidental ingestion is rather more likely.

98. They agree that Frankie probably ingested it accidentally, but express disappointment that he couldn't prove exactly how.

99. OOh, they're getting stern: just because it's a small amount, don't think that you're going to get away with a lesser ban or just a reprimand.  Being "done" for specified substances, rather than banned substances, does not automatically mean a lesser punishment.  (Eh? Why not? Oh, in case they were used as masking agents, I suppose...)

100 (blimey, not even half-way through: shall we take a break? Or do you want to get it over and done with? Oh, ok, I'll carry on.) Slap on wrist for Frankie, for failing to establish exactly how he accidentally ate it.

101. ALAD are getting stroppy: they say they have to ascertain whether the Xipamide was in common food, team supplements, team beverages, or a bottle from a teammate or spectator.

102. ALAD run through the options: common food? Not likely or everyone would have shown signs. Team supplements? Nope, they were tested. ALAD considered it most likely that it was received from another teammate or a spectator, in which case Frankie was grossly negligent. Pff! They are a bit aggressive on this, aren't they? Are they trying to suggest that a team-mate was doping and Frankie got the wrong bottle? Talk about a witch hunt, in the wake of the Lance thing, are they possibly looking at Horner??  They stated that sabotage was "highly unlikely". Drat, there go our theories about Mr Bruyneel being responsible...

103. Something about the contamination of a container used to pass on a "clean" drink: the translation is not very clear. But ALAD are not convinced about it, whatever it was.

104. CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport - they are not involved yet, but keep being quoted) say that failure to do personal research, and relying on the team, is a fault on the part of the athlete.

105. ALAD say ok, two years suspension.   Awwk!

106.  ... but ok, you can have less. But not just a reprimand. There must be a ban. And it must start from now, as you didn't sign the declaration of temporary suspension that CAS sent you. Frankie looks worried, and says nervously "Err, but I voluntarily suspended myself...."   ALAD look at each other. Ah, but CAS are taking into account Frankie's voluntary suspension. Confusion reigns.

107. Legal stuff about delays..and 108, something about Frankie losing any results he gained in the Tour. As if it mattered?? Did he get much in the first two weeks? I can't remember, off-hand, and I don't want to try to check the Radioleopard site, as it takes so long to load, due to their fancy graphics.

Anyway, now the UCI take the stand. My soul starts to make faint gasping sounds, as though to indicate that it is being drawn out of me... I firmly push it back in place, and we continue. Well, having got this far...

109. The UCI get off to a great start, in typical UCI fashion, by saying that Frankie ought to get a 2-year ban as he has failed to show how the Xipamide got into his system. And actually, all those supplements that Frankie was taking (the ones provided by the team, the ones that all riders take) well, weren't they taken to improve performance? 

It actually sounds as though the UCI are seriously saying that because Frankie took the usual supplements, he was therefore looking to improve his performance, therefore was likely to be doping.

Are these people real? Does the unlovely Pat McQuaid not realise that this is what his people are saying?

To continue:

110. In fact, the fact that he trusted his team doctors means he's an idiot and he should have checked them himself. (Uh? He said that he reads the labels, what more can he realistically do?) So, 111, it's his fault, BAN HIM! BAN HIM! 2 YEARS! 2 YEARS! They discuss start dates for his 2-year ban. Frankie is probably sobbing in the corner by now. I know I would have been. AND CANCEL HIS RESULTS! AND FINE HIM THE MAXIMUM 70% OF INCOME!   AND PAY THE FEES AS WELL, YOU DIRTY DOG!

The other committee members throw cold water over the UCI contingent, and (116) reiterate the options of shorter suspensions, remind the hearing about the ineffectiveness of the stuff, and comment that these specified (not banned) substances are cropping up more and more often in drugs/supplements, as they are becoming less effective as masking agents... they go on to burden of proof, and repeat the points about if it doesn't enhance performance... etc etc... down to 122.

123. The fight against doping needs all athletes to be aware of what they are eating, it's very hard to do this, especially (125) when the evidence has disappeared.. burden of proof is on the athlete...they need to produce evidence if they wish to get reduction of suspension...

129 The hearing say the polygraph is not necessary. Actually, in the google translation it comes out as "not relevant". Then CAS admit how hard it is for athletes to supply this proof... duty to co-operate, good faith, blah blah blah, judge will decide, ALAD has co-operated very nicely, and has come up with some amazing theoretically plausible scenarios.

Then, at 135,  we finally get some positive speaking: ALAD reject the theory of Frankie deliberately taking the stuff, as being less likely. The levels were too low, besides, the undesirable side effects mean it is not available in Europe other than on prescription. Plus it was a very small amount, it is used for weight loss in weight-categorised sports (we know all this!), it's ludicrous to suggest that Skinny Frankie needs to lose weight, it's a bad masking agent: basically 135 - 144 is a repeat of all the points already covered, with 145 being a rejection of the suggestion of sabotage.

The hearing then went on to consider the "involuntary" theory: all riders ate the same food, three other riders were tested around the same time (Popovych, Zubeldia and Monfort) with no Xipamide found: we learn about the preparation of bottles ("X" = contains sugar!) before the race, and the individual labelled bottles (150) for recovery:  Frankie confirms that he didn't take any bottles from other teams, or from spectators, on the day of the adverse finding, or on the few days previous. Sabotage was therefore eliminated.

Finally, Frankie suggested contaminated food supplements as being the most likely route.

156. An expert pointed out that Xipamide had not been found in any WADA labs between 2003-2011.

157. ...but that was considered to be irrelevant.

158. Another expert said contamination was the most likely route, and could have been up to 4 days earlier.

Once again, drearily, we go over the supplements - the fact that not all of them were available for analysis in September (My, what short shelf lives these athletic supplements must have..) but everything they tested was clean... Frankie never took anything that wasn't supplied by the team, always read the label, etc... burden of proof.. percentage of possibilities...by 165, my computer was starting to glaze over.

Luckily, at 166 the Board decided it was probably involuntary, more legal stuff, blah blah, and pointed out the huge amount of supplements available for athletes, often from the sponsors (I feel this was a dig at the UCI) , then the hydration problem, low concentration, hair analysis, no masking properties, yawn, how many times do we have to go over these things?

Ooh, a change: page 34, SANCTIONS.

176, oh no, we're off again, legalese: then burden of proof, athlete must check labels, athletes must demonstrate that they have a high degree of vigilance, then a comment from CAS about how increasing numbers of athletes are hiding behind the "I read the label, honest, guv" excuse.

Interestingly, at 179 they tell a "precedent" story, from CAS, about an athlete who read the label, the leaflet and the packaging, and who even contacted the distributor to ask if a specific substance was in it, was told "no", used it, and was caught with an adverse finding. CAS reluctantly found him not guilty, on the grounds that he could not realistically have done much more to check. Although they did have the nerve to suggest that the athlete could have the supplements tested - or that they could just "not use them" !!

Lovely, I can just imagine a DS telling his team "no more Gatorade!" or "no more gels!".

Anyway *pause to stretch arms - this must be the longest post in the history of blogging * back to the plot:

180. "Athletes should be cautious..."  Yes, we get the message.

181 Suddenly, an odd comment: "the supplement consumed by Frankie has been contaminated in isolation."

Huh?

The tone changes.  It was involuntary. The penalties are not as hard for involuntary consumption. (Frankie, sobbing in the corner, looks up in hope.) Mr Schleck clearly only took what was provided by the team. The team doctors can only do their best to check that supplements are clean, they choose supplements that are proven to be clean, they cater to their sponsors, who are firms of high reputation: Frankie's team doctor since 2010 says "he's a good boy!" and the labelling (and the internet) all indicated that the products were clean.

But, still, 192, we keep coming back to this one, it is the responsibility of the athlete as to what he puts into his body.  However, they concede that the only further steps possible are to a) never use a supplement or b) have everything tested yourself. They agree that this is just not feasible.

The Board says that although he has a clean slate, never been in trouble, exemplary member of the peloton etc, he should not get the mere reprimand, but should have a 1-year ban. From today. But as he did voluntary suspension, we'll backdate it to October.  Oh, but now we've been told that he has not only taken voluntary suspension, but he has waived his salary. Oh, all right, we'll backdate it to July, then.

The UCI did not object.

Right! The Board state, 1-year ban, backdated. But we'll cancel all his results in the Tour.

Then there is a bit of UCI rule legalese, which made my brain hurt, but basically because he did not compete thereafter, the rule about losing your results did not apply. So he gets to keep his results up to that point.

Then it goes on to fines, income, etc etc (none of our business, as Inge says) but results in him not having to pay 70% of  his income, quite possibly on the basis that he hasn't had any damned income since the Tour!

So he ends up having to pay the costs of the Hearing, and the testing, some 3500 euros.

Well. I bet we are all nearly as relieved to get to the end of that lot, as Frankie was to get out of the Hearing.

So what now for Frankie? Well, 21 days of nail biting until the expiration of the Appeal deadline, in case the UCI want to take it further - but as there was a UCI representative there, I don't imagine that there will be any further movement.

So Frankie has another 6 months of unpaid leave: he won't be around to support Andy in the Tour - wonder if he'll take Martine and Leea off to somewhere nice while the Tour is on, so they don't have to watch it? Or will he be glued to the TV?

And who knows, maybe he'll bounce back into training, hit the Eneco Tour, and then win the Vuelta?

Whatever he does, we'll be with you, Frankie!

Oh, and:   *Waves to Andy*

Damn - Frankie gets a ban

News has just broken that LADA have banned Frankie for one year, backdated to the date of the offence, so he's out until the 14th July, which means that he won't be able to ride in the Tour this year.

In a way, I'm happy that LADA have given him a ban - although I do think 6 months, backdated, would have been the correct level of punishment - as this way, the UCI won't feel compelled to step in and throw their weight around, as they did in the Contador affair.

And we just know that if LADA had  dished out a small fine, the UCI would have jumped in with both feet, and it would have dragged on for ages.

Also bearing in mind the Lance thing, I rather think that all the anti-doping agencies are keen to be seen to be doing "their part" in punishing anyone connected to doping: although I do think that Frankie hadn't doped, in that sense, and I am willing to believe that it's an accidental ingestion.

As it is, *sigh* Frankie is banned, and if Andy goes to the Tour, he goes without Frankie.

What do we think about that? Would Andy rather not go to the Tour this year? Will he be back on form by then?  Will he even want to go, without Frankie, without Jakob: at least he still has Jensie this year, *huffs with relief* but if his confidence is shaken by last season's injury, perhaps he won't want to risk going to the Tour?

So many questions....

Tomorrow is the day...

...there are at least two people nervously awaiting the outcome of meetings tomorrow:  Frankie will get the decision of the Lux anti-doping (LADA) enquiry, and Mr Bruyneel is apparently not even going to bother to turn up to the first day of the enquiry into his doping past.

Perhaps he's going to take the "Lance" route, of refusing to discuss it?

That didn't work out so well for Lance...

Frankie, fingers crossed for a good outcome for you: we are all hoping for a small ban, backdated, which will allow you to get back into the season.

Just a fine would be good - but I have to say, if LADA give no penalty, or a very small penalty, it will only lead to the UCI throwing their weight around again, and going for a longer ban. Frankie, I repeat my plea, whatever LADA give you, please accept it like a man, don't appeal. Everyone who knows you, your family, your team, will believe that this was contamination or even deliberate poisoning - yes, we haven't ruled that out yet - but appealing, or trying to start an investigation as to how you ingested the stuff will only lead to another Contador situation. And he had the might of the Spanish president behind him, lots of money etc, yet he still ended up banned for two years and losing his titles.

Please, just accept it, and move on. Andy needs you!! We don't want to see you tied up in investigations for a year or more, we want to see the pair of you out there, sweating on those bikes.

What is it, with these former fans?

There is a very strange phenomenon amongst sports fans: first they love and worship someone, then when that person, for whatever reason, no longer wins, or scores, the so-called "fan" turns against them, derides them, boos them, and tries to turn everyone else against them.

We've all seen this in action - just look at how many people on the cycling forums were being really, seriously abusive to Andy and Frankie last year.  And to Contador the year before. And to Phillipe Gilbert last year, in the rather disappointing follow-up to his incredible 2011 season. Bradley Wiggins got a lot of the same stuff last year - up until he won the Tour, ha ha - and I confidently predict that he will fall for a good share of abuse this year, as he is almost by definition not going to be able to be as successful this year as he was last year.

Why do they do this?

LLB and I have discussed it at length, year after year,  and our conclusion is that most of the "trolling" and abuse comes from disappointed former fans.

You know, the ones who were shouting "Allez Andy!" the loudest in 2010 and 2011, but then suddenly changed their tune.

They spent all their time telling their friends "Oh yes, Andy Schleck, [or, insert name of sporting person] best thing since sliced bread" but as soon as Andy [or whoever] fails to perform in any way, their friends are jeering at them and saying "Pfff, got that wrong, didn't you?"

The correct response, the adult and mature response, is to laugh it off, and inform their so-called friends that every sportsman has good days and bad days, and that missing one podium is not the end of the world.

The incorrect, immature, and trollish response is to feel that [insert name of sporting person] has let them down personally, has made them look a fool in front of their friends, and therefore deserves to be abused on blogs, forums, and Twatter.

To me, people who behave like this are silly: rather stupid: and clearly not worth listening to: they change their allegiance whenever the wind changes direction, so anything they say really isn't terribly credible.

Mostly they can be ignored: these days I rarely bother to read the cycling forums - although at present, of course, it is all Lance, Lance, Lance, which at least takes the pressure off of Andy and Frankie! - as I find them unedifying.

(For the benefit of non-UK readers, ie slightly more than half of you lot out there, "edifying" means something that leaves you better informed, uplifted, encouraged: unedifying is something that leaves you depressed and generally worse than you were before. Therefore not worth reading.)

I don't read the internet to be depressed at the stupidity of other people: I don't need to see how aggressive people can be, I don't need to read their bad-tempered and spiteful outbursts.

So I choose not to.

Here, we admire and respect our Schlecks: we sympathise with their failures, we commiserate with their bad days, we jump and down and squee when they win, we go "ooo!" at nice pictures. Sometimes we tease them a little,  and we sometimes like to make up funny stories, or funny captions, about what they are doing.

This is what you might call ultimately edifying: here in Schleckland we are soft and fluffy, not hard-edged and spiteful.

So we really don't need silly people coming along leaving unpleasant comments.

Not because we are "not man enough to take it" but because there are plenty of forums out there that bash the Schlecks, and here in Schleckland, we prefer to praise and admire them. If anyone reading this thinks "oh dear, what a bunch of gooey little girls," then please, move on. Go on, just click on "close tab" and go away.

This includes our latest silly person, who appears to be calling himself after a footballer - mate, why on earth are you reading about cycling if you are a football fan? -  who left a comment thus:

What an odd thing to say!

OK, our "Mr Torres" is clearly not an Andy fan, so what on earth is he doing reading this blog in the first place? Ah, he must be one of those Former Fans.  And he's not exactly over-bright is he -  Frankie is not banned,  LADA won't even be issuing their conclusion until the 30th, and it is highly unlikely that they will ban him. So this comment is factually incorrect in that respect. It is also highly unlikely that Andy will never again be a competitive rider. He's been out for the best part of one season, with a major injury, and he is, after all, only 26 years old. I doubt that Mr Torres can see into the future. And I already support Team Sky, did you not read my race reports from the Tour of Britain? Did you not read about me going "ooo!" at Luke Rowe? Did you not catch the references to my home-made Sky flags? Really, Mr Torres, you are wrong in just about everything you have said.

And as for suggesting that we should change this blog... pff! Get lost, matey, we are here for a reason, and that reason is to support Our Andy. Through thin, as well as thick.

As they say:

"A true fan is not one who was there at the beginning, a true fan is one who was there until the end."

So, this comment is clearly from someone who is not an Andy fan, not on our wavelength at all, and is therefore  not of general interest to us.

So I deleted the comment.

Today, they made another comment! How sweet, they really, REALLY, want to be our friendies. And they want to give us their opinion of Our Andy.

No chance, mate, get lost!  I have your IP number - 95.122.192.159 - I know you are in Madrid, I know your service provider is rima-tde, and I know how to complain to them about you. You may be interested to know that your IP  is already on four spam blacklists. What naughty things have you been up to, Mr Torres, to be so blacklisted?


I can see from my logs that you were here at 05.59 this morning (that's my time, not your time, obviously!) and at 6.49, and again at 8.41, at 10.43 you made another comment (deleted! Ha! Ha!) then you came back at 11.30, and at 11.52, and at 13.19 - my, you really were desperate to see if we would react to you, weren't you?  - when you went right back to 2011 to read about the Leopard logo.

There, is that enough attention for you? Are you happy now? Has your IP provider been in touch with you yet?

Save your time, go away, don't come back. And leave Miss Fede's blog alone! (Yes, we know where you have been......)

Signed, The Schlecklanders.

Andy Fails To Make Friends Down Under..

Oops, bit of a disaster on the final day - it's been a bit tricky to piece together what actually happened, but it does appear that Andy had a mechanical quite early in the race, a chain problem - and we all know  how he feels about chain problems - and abandoned the race.

Personally, I would have thought more of him if he had taken a new bike and pedalled on to the end: it would have been proof that he was not in pain, and that he had finished with the whole "Andy Schleck Abandons Race Again" theme from last year.

OK he would have come in last in the GC, and possibly last on the day.  And yes, I can see that would have been a little embarrassing for a top rider such as Our Andy. And yes, I wasn't there on the day, and don't know all the ins and outs.

But several of the Australian papers were saying that at the end, when RadioLeopard had won the team classification and were called up on stage for the presentation, "no-one knew where Schleck was" and they implied that there was a bit of a panic, with team-mates calling Andy on his mobile, and no-one knowing what was going on, until the RadioLeopard press officer confirmed that he had returned to the hotel.

Andy,  mate, what were you doing? You could at least have hung around at the finish to cheer on the others, sign a few autographs, do a few interviews, that sort of stuff.  Disappearing back to the hotel makes him look as though he was grumpy, or injured, or upset: that sort of thing.

And at this time, with last season being what it was, I think that the Schlecks need all the friends they can get.

Earlier in the week, Andy gave a very nice interview in English (Yay! Pets Andy) in which he says how hard it has been to come back from last season, in particular from the injury, but also from the problems with Mr Bruyneel, and with Frankie's test result.  

Snippets of gossip from the interview include the fact that he didn't watch much of last year's Tour - he said that once it was clear that he would not be on the team, he took his girlfriend off to Majorca to get away from it all.

He also said that having support from his family was very, very important, and said that he had a very good girlfriend that supported him, no matter what he did.

So, still seeing TinkerJill, then!

(And a good thing too!)

There was one audio interview with Jensie, but I couldn't get it to work properly - quotes in various reports seem to indicate that Jensie has Had A Word with Andy, and has told him to pull his socks up and get on with training and racing. I'll be interested to hear that interview, I'm hoping that once I'm back home on my own PC I'll be able to get it to work.

*little laptop puffs and wheezes with the effort of having to do all this work*

And it does indeed appear that the RadioLeopard kit has gone from red - Shack colours - to orange. Anyone out there know of a likely sponsor whose house colours are black, white and orange???

Last but one...

...and one day to go.

Go, Andy!  Stick with it!

Yes, with just one more day of racing in the Tour Down Under, RadioLeopard are leading the Team classification, Jensie is getting more publicity every day - and quite right too, go Jensie! - and Andy is still going, Yay,!

Keep those pedals turning, Andy my pet, keep them turning - I don't care if you come in last, but I will be very happy indeed if you finish the race, in one piece, and hopefully without pain in the pelvis area.

I am sure that there are going to be people criticising him for not "having a go" at winning, but I for one will be more than happy just to hear that Andy finished the race safely.

*sings Eisen Andy song*

Seven minutes Forty-Eight seconds...

Not a brilliant day for Andy, but at least RadioLeopard had three guys in the final sprint.

Andy came in with the 6'19" group, along with Stuey - probably having a chat on the way, do we think?  Annoyingly, we have no TV coverage, and no video coverage either. Sigh. Never mind, we can see enough from the photos to think that the RadioLeopard kit is not much changed from last year, but it does look a bit too "orange" as opposed to "red". But this could just be the light - sometimes our coverage of Quatar has strange washed-out colours due to the bright light.


There was one clip on good old Steephill TV, showing Andy holding a kangaroo, apparently it's called "Schlecky". Chorus of "Aaaaw!" from the Schlecklanders.  We have to assume that this is a tribute, not some obscure insult...

...meanwhile here in sunny England, yesterday we nearly saw the sun:

Yes, that strange orange thing is the sun, attempting to rise and burn off the fog.

By lunchtime it was glorious:

Today, not so nice: grey cloud, fog, more snow, and LLB and I decided to be adventurous and go for a walk up to Monsal Head, but it took us so long to get through Deep Dale- here is the entrance and, as you can seen, not much of a path to follow -

... that we had to abandon that plan, change direction, and head for Sheldon for lunch.  To get there we had to go for a scramble up an incredibly steep slope: clearly marked as Public Footpath but no-one else had been up it, and the undisturbed snow gave us no clue as to where the actual path was.

This photo doesn't really show quite how steep it was, but it's pretty enough to be worth including:


So that was our exciting day in the snow for today.

It's been snowing lightly all day, and the forecast for tomorrow is more snow for us, and "lumpy" for them.

One minute, twenty nine seconds...

Yay, Tour Down Under has started today - so far in the UK we have no coverage of it (mind you, LLB and I are away  on holiday, so our viewing options are a bit restricted)  but I can tell from good old Steephill TV that Andy came in 105th today.

Now that sounds quite bad, but he is only a minute and a half down, and looking at the time gaps, he came in the fourth or fifth group home? Something like that, anyway. He was the last of the RadioLeopards to come home, oops, but he said "Today was not an easy day."

He also said "It’s early in the season so I’m still finding my way in the peloton, but perhaps I will find that I have the legs on tomorrow’s climb.”

Fingers crossed for tomorrow, then!

Meanwhile, in Sunny England:

This is what we encountered on Sunday, at a place called Lathkill Dale: the sign on the way in says "Beware, Mines".

Not the sort that go "Boom!" when you tread on them, but very old lead mines, also known as "holes in the ground".

When walking in this area in the summer, people are advised to keep an eye open for disused mines, ie holes in the ground.

Bit difficult to see them under all this snow!

Yesterday, we bravely ventured up the fields behind the holiday cottage, where no-one had been before, being very careful at the top, where we remembered that there were mines (we've been to this same area several times, so we know it quite well) and using walking poles as useful hole-in-the-ground detectors.

The stile (arrangement for getting over dry stone walls) was completely invisible, but we knew where it ought to be, so we scrambled over the wall in the right place, dropping down the other side into thigh-deep snow drifts.

 Here is the view looking back - you see those two wooden posts? They are five feet tall, and the wall between is just over four feet tall. Those huge holes in the snow are from our legs.

The snow has drifted up to the top of the wall!

But never mind, we said to each other, we are safe now, we are in the lane, which has walls on each side, and there are bound to have been lots of people walking along it, not like the fields that we have just waded up.

Ah.

Our mistake.

This is the lane, four feet deep in snow, you can see on the left that the snow has actually drifted up to and over the wall.... and no-one has been along here today.

Did we turn tail and flee?

Did we rush back to our nice warm holiday cottage?

No, we did not, for we are brave Schlecklanders - well, I am a brave Schlecklander, and LLB is always game for a laugh -  so we started along the lane.

In some places it was only a foot or more deep, but some of the drifts were well over thigh-height for me, so it was quite an adventure! And then we came across these strange beasts:

.
Yes, they are reindeer. In England.

Presumably the farmer keeps them for some special reason - I have no idea.

I share this with you so that you know why I don't have much info on what Andy's up to  - although I would say, if you have missed it, it's worth checking the newly-renamed RadioLeopard site,  they have galleries of photos from the training/team building sessions, and some of those are quite nice.  As I only have my little laptop up here, I can't cut-and-paste photos in quite the normal way, so you will have to go and look at them for yourselves.

So, fingers crossed for a good day for Andy tomorrow, in the Tour Down Under, and no more snow for us!









Today, we woke up to find that the snow had stopped, and the sun was trying to shine.

Right! That's that over and done with...

...so Armstrong has confessed.

He doped.

He lied.

He cheated.

He bullied people.

And I was wrong when I said that his Oprah appearance was just going to be a "fluff" programme where he turned on the charisma and made it sound as though he was not such a bad guy after all.

Right, moving on:

Hello, Schlecklanders! Greeting from England: see that white blob just beyond the low wall? That's my car.

It's been snowing for a couple of hours, and it's forecast to go on for two days solid, stop for a day, then another several days of it.  We're not set up for it, you know! We don't have a chance to get used to it, we're not like those tough folk in Canada or Sweden (for example) - most years, we barely see any snow at all. And tomorrow LLB and I have a 175 mile journey right up the middle of the country. Lovely!

Meanwhile, what of Schleckland?

Well, it hasn't felt right, to be writing about Our Andy while Frankie is still waiting with the Doom of Damocles hanging over his head. It felt particularly wrong to be thinking of writing any humorous at this time. And of course we haven't had much input, as there's not much going on - apart from team-jumping, sponsor-abandonment, and prep for the Tour Down Under.

Ahh, the Tour Down Under.  On the BBC news today, squeezed right down the bottom under screaming headlines of "Snow paralyses UK!"  "schools close due to snow!" (most school children in the UK can WALK to their schools, huh, when I was at school we didn't get a day off just because of snow, we were expected to get there and get on with it, grumble grumble) "Someone Killed Due To Snow" etc etc, there was a tiny mention that Sydney is having the scorchingest day ever.

Wonder how early Andy and the others are going to go out there to acclimatise? Mondorf - pause while I check the traffic cameras - looks pretty much like England at the moment, so let's hope they've already gone out there.

I thought I remembered a mention that Andy was planning to go to Australia a couple of weeks early, anyone know if he did?