Roman Kreuziger on his way to Amstel Gold victory last year; his biological passport case has put his team, which includes Irish rider Nicolas Roche, in direct and open conflict with the UCI over its change in policy (Photo: Stefano Sirotti)
Having lost its team leader Alberto Contador to a crash in the Tour de France but bounced back in great style by winning three stages and the climbers’ jersey on the race, the Tinkoff-Saxo team of Nicolas Roche has taken the UCI to task over alleged doping by one of its riders.
Team owner Oleg Tinkoff has used Twitter to threaten the UCI with legal action over its decision to provisionally suspend Roman Kreuziger over alleged doping-related fluctuations in his biological passport blood values.
The team has also issued a public letter (see below) to the UCI and its president Brian Cookson.
Advertisement
It questions why the Kreuziger case is the first time ever the world governing body has treated suspect biological passport blood values as a positive test in an A-sample by issuing a provisional suspension from racing.
To date, when biological passport cases have arisen, teams have withdrawn riders from competition pending the outcome of the formal process. And it is not until that process is completed and the rider's guilt or innocence is established, that the question of a ban arises.
Cookson has also now suggested the UCI will examine all biological passport cases in the future with a view to treating them the same way as a positive in an A-sample and issue a provisional suspension pending the conclusion of the full process.
This is a major shift on the part of the governing body.
The UCI has criticised Tinkoff-Saxo and said its removing of Kreuziger from its Tour de France line-up only to enter him in the Tour of Poland had forced it to act much faster than normal.
The UCI cliaims that Roman Kreuziger's blood value comparisons indicate he was doped when this photograph was taken; stage 1 of the 2012 Giro d'Italia (Photo: Stefano Sirotti)
What’s the background?
The allegations against Czech rider Kreuziger arise from periods when he was not a team mate of Roche’s; dating back to before he even joined the Tinkoff–Saxo team.
The UCI has identified what it says are suspicious anomalies in his blood profile arising from an examination of his biological passport over a period of time.
The issue was first raised just before the Tour de France last year; an event Kreuziger rode for Tinkoff-Saxo and where he finished fifth overall.
He was informed on that occasion that his blood values for two different periods when riding for the Astana team – which he left at the end of 2012 to join Tinkoff-Saxo – had fluctuated.
The periods are from March to August, 2011, and from April to the Giro d'Italia of 2012.
Kreuziger has vehemently protested his innocence and has produced expert analysis that he says shows he did not dope.
Tinkoff-Saxo has studied those findings and reviewed his blood values themselves and they support their rider's adamant claims that he is innocent. They also believe he should be eligible to race as nothing has been proven against him.
In May of this year, the UCI informed Kreuziger it planned to open formal proceedings against him, though he was not suspended and was free to race.
Just before the Tour de France, which he was due to ride, he was informed the process against him had opened, though he was still not banned from competing.
Team owner and team manager; Oleg Tinkoff and Bjarne Riis. Tinkoff has taken to Twitter to castigated the UCI for what he sees as the special approach the world governing body is taking to his rider compared to others in similar situations in the past.
However, his team decided to withdraw him from the race, with his agreement; as has become the norm in these cases.
The team said at the time it was focussed on trying to win the race and did not want the adverse media interest in the story to grow. The squad also wanted to give Kreuziger time to prepare his defence.
It then emerged last week that Kreuziger was down to ride the Tour of Poland, which began yesterday. And when that fact became public, the UCI provisionally suspended him from racing.
UCI president Cookson described as “very odd” the fact the team withdrew the rider from the Tour over the case and yet entered him in the Tour of Poland.
Related News
He also said Kreuziger had submitted explanations for his blood values to the UCI, describing them as unconvincing.
He was provisionally suspended on Saturday, with Cookson saying if the team had not moved to put him back into competition, the decision to provisionally suspend him would not have been made before a formal hearing.
However, allowing Kreuziger to continue racing sent out the wrong signal to the rest of the world, Cookson said; though he added he was “not saying” Kreuziger was guilty of doping.
Speaking at the Commonwealth Games, Cookson added all biological passport cases would be examined in the future with a view to likely treating all of them as a positive dope test finding in an A sample, resulting in a provisional suspension.
Letter from Saxo Tinkoff chief executive Stefano Feltrin
To: UCI President, Mr. Brian Cookson
Re: Your interview of August 3rd on the Roman Kreuziger's case
Dear Mr. Cookson,
As Managing Director of Tinkoff Saxo I am writing to you in response to your statements in your interview of August 3rd to explain what you have described as an "inexplicable" decision by our team (i.e. the decision to put Roman Kreuziger in the line up for Tour of Poland).
I am not going to go through the history of the case - but just going straight to the point:
When the UCI informed the rider about its fluctuations in 2013 – which the rider received on the first day of the Tour de France - he was requested to provide an explanation but no provisional suspension was imposed; it was fine for him to continue racing, and he did.
In May 2014, again shortly before the start of the TdF, the UCI formally indicated it would initiate proceedings against the rider but, again, nothing was said about a possible provisional suspension pending the outcome of those proceedings.
The team did not suspend him but decided, with his agreement, not to send him to TdF to protect him and the team (which was trying to win that race) from media attention, speculation and to allow him to get his defence organized.
It should be noted that since becoming aware of the issue in 2013 the team had requested expert opinions, had reviewed Kreuziger's expert opinions, had reviewed the UCI anti doping rules applicable at the time and concluded that the rider should be eligible to continue racing, a decision, until now supported by the UCI.
On June 28th the team clearly stated: "Though he won’t be racing for now, until more information becomes available to the team it will not provisionally suspend Roman unless required by the UCI or the Czech Federation".
UCI did not react to the public statement from the team that its clear understanding was that the rider was not suspended.
More than a month after that statement both Roman and the team expected to be able to have him racing in Tour of Poland. After all, we have a contract with the rider and we pay him a salary to race.
What seems inexplicable to us is how UCI can decide that from a certain moment in time but also retroactively the interpretation of the rule, that riders will not be provisionally suspended for alleged blood passport violations, which has applied since 2011 when the blood passport was introduced, shall be revised. What changed on August 1st, 2014?
It is also hard to understand how the UCI's President in the same interview can state, on the one hand, that "I don't know the detailed history of the case as I wasn't the president then, and one of the things that I have done is separate myself from the detail of the anti-doping process" and, on the other hand, "There are very serious anomalies": obviously one of the two statements can not be true.
It is also difficult not to object to your statements below:
(i) "The WADA code is clear but a little bit ambivalent on that point", and (ii) "And I'm not saying that he [Kreuziger]'s guilty" but "In this instance that’s [to suspend the rider provisionally] what we've decided and we're going to look at all future cases to see if they should be pursued in the same way. It's not a definite once and for all though".
It seems to us that (a) a penalty to a rider shall be applied only based on very precise and verified circumstances (b) UCI and yourself have written that the provisional suspension is imposed because it is likely that the rider’s results will be affected by the asserted anti-doping rule violation - thus you believe he is guilty; and (c) we believe that justice shall be administered treating all cases in the same manner and not on a case by case basis.
This team is fully committed to the fight against doping in sport, to the use of the biological passport and to the application of strict anti-doping rules but does believe this should be conducted in a manner that respects the facts and proper process, guarantees proper defense right and do not jeopardize the team's ability to plan properly when hiring riders and select a team to participate in a race.
Kindest regards
Stefano Feltrin
Stefano Feltrin, who penned the open letter on behalf of Oleg Tinkoff's team Tinkoff-Sax0
Topics
