Governing body denies failing to act on recommendations made by expert panel, claims WADA has full confidence
On August 7th the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article alleging that the International Cycling Union (UCI) was failing to act on anomalies flagged on five riders’ biological passports. The article alleged that the UCI’s panel of passport experts had identified the five riders, against whom they said there was enough evidence to open disciplinary proceedings.
Two of the panel members were quoted by the WSJ as being concerned that the UCI had failed to act; the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) expressed concerns that the UCI was not behaving impartially.
“This is false,” the UCI statement said in response to the claim that they had abandoned the cases of five riders. “First of all the experts gave such opinion for six riders only. The UCI already opened disciplinary procedures against three of them.”
The three riders in question are not named, but Franco Pellizotti (Liquigas-Doimo), Jesus Rosendo Prado (Andalucia-Cajasur) and Tadej Valjavec (AG2R-La Mondiale) were all banned on May 3rd this year on the basis of their passport data; although Valjevec was subsequently cleared by his national federation.
A third had returned a positive test and was therefore being disciplined without having to refer to his passport data, the statement further claims. Again, the UCI gives no name but may be referring to LPR rider Gabriele Bosisio, who tested positive for EPO in September last year; at the time the UCI credited the passport programme for the reason behind the target testing of the rider.
Proceedings against the other two riders are still in progress, says the UCI, largely because: “The time lapse between the discovery of an abnormal profile and the opening of a disciplinary proceedings is sometimes longer than one would like, but that is mainly because the biological passport is an avant-garde, sophisticated tool, which the UCI is the first Federation to have introduced.”
“The management of a case brought to light by the biological passport is more complex than a case discovered during a classic test,” the statement goes on. “Moreover, the respect of confidentiality rules, to which the UCI must conform under the World Anti-Doping Code, does not allow for any mystery or manoeuvre aiming to hide anything whatsoever. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been informed of the management of the two cases mentioned above.”
“WADA has confidence in the UCI and the passport system”
The UCI also reacts to the inference that WADA intends to take measures against it, and has no confidence in the passport system, which again it totally refutes.
“This is totally false,” the statement repeats. “WADA has never expressed any particular concerns on this subject and has taken no measures against the UCI. WADA has received the full collaboration of the UCI each time it has requested information on specific cases (which it has the right to do and which is part of its mission). In fact, WADA is very satisfied with the work accomplished by the UCI, pioneer of the biological passport for which WADA has publicly congratulated the UCI on several occasions.”
The UCI expresses confusion as to why the WSJ should want to launch what it refers to as an “unfair attack” when, it claims, WADA is “entirely satisfied” and “given that the blood passport represents the most advanced tool in the fight against doping”.