Andy Schleck has said that there is ‘no reason to be happy’ about Alberto Contador’s two-year ban for doping at the 2010 Tour de France, even though he is set to take the race’s overall title after Contador’s name is removed from the result sheet.

“There is no reason to be happy now,” said Schleck in a statement issued by his RadioShack-Nissan team on Monday afternoon.

“First of all I feel sad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. This is just a very sad day for cycling. The only positive news is that there is a verdict after 566 days of uncertainty. Now, we can move on.”

On Monday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that Contador should be banned for two years for failing a test for clenbuterol during the 2010 Tour. The Spaniard will not be free to race again until August 5, and has had all of his results annulled since the 2010 Tour, including his 2011 Giro d’Italia win.

Schleck lost the 2010 Tour to Contador by just 39 seconds, one of the slimmest margins in the race’s long history. Schleck lost the race lead to Contador after the Luxembourger dropped his chain on the Port de Balès climb during stage 15. Contador appeared to attack Schleck at the time of the incident, causing widespread controversy and the two professionals to fall out. Contador later issued a video apology to Schleck for the incident.

“I trust that the CAS judges took all things into consideration after reading the 4,000 page file. If now I am declared overall winner of the 2010 Tour de France it will not make me happy. I battled with Contador in that race and I lost,” said Schleck.

“My goal is to win the Tour de France in a sporting way, being the best of all competitors, not in court. If I succeed this year, I will consider it as my first Tour de France victory.”

Schleck had finished in second place in the last three editions of the Tour de France – but that will now change after Contador’s suspension means he loses the 2010 Tour title to Schleck.

Schleck will contest the 2012 Tour de France for the RadioShack-Nissan team.

Related links

Contador banned for two years after clenbuterol positive

Andy Schleck: Rider profile

  • Mike

    To E. De Clercq:
    So all an athlete has to do is deny doping, thus instilling doubt, and they should be let off?

    Get real. Tainted meat? Yea that would be right, all top class cyclists eat steak, bought by there mate, from a foreigh butcher, before the queen stage of a Grand Tour.
    So why do they bother employing sports nutritionists and team chefs then, just for fun?
    Using your theory Virenque, Landis, Basso, Valverdi, Hamilton, Ricco would all still have there doped wins , and there reputation intact, as they all denied doping at the time.

  • Steve

    To E. De Clercq : and the plasticisers in his blood samples, and the “A.C.” blood on the shelf in Operation Puerto? How much doubt can you allow? WADA know he’s guilty and so do the UCI and so does he himself. Another hubristic sportsman in denial of the truth, thought he could get away with it but got caught.
    I used to think like you until I read David Millar’s book. Now I know that if it looks easy then it’s not fueled by pasta.

  • Howard Ashenden

    OK, but is has taken far to long and that can’t be good for anybody, or the sport.

  • E. De Clercq

    His win in the Giro, one of the toughest of the last years, proved that Contador didn’t need dope. He must have been tested there several times..with negative results. He failed winning the Tour because he had his head full of troubles. Wada requires a total zero tolerance, how stupid.
    In Belgium we had the case with Iljo Keisse, it was clear that his positive test (two years ago) was a result of alimentation supplements. What I mean: one can test positive without being guilty. And if there is doubt: no condemnation!

  • JD

    He’s right – who wants to win because the other guy was disqualified nearly two years later?

    It’s the Floyd Landis situation all over again. Nobody remembers the winner only the guy who doped.

  • charlie orr

    There could be a very good reason why Schleck is not too saying too much about this – still supporting his innocence in fact.