Date finally set for Vinokourov/Kolobnev race-fixing trial; Women’s peloton forms own union seeking fairness, opportunities and wages; Bardet’s early season races announced, Ag2r also names line-up for Australian events; Voigt to run seven marathons in seven days for charity; UCI issues clarification on anti-doping proceedings; Ovett’s six lessons from the Kittel/Haas/Brammeier mini-camp; Video: Dinosaur spectator
Date set for Vinokourov trial; Women’s peloton forms own union: Daily News Digest
Likely seeking to clear up any misunderstandings relating to the Chris Froome case, the UCI has issued a statement outlining the scenario in relation to the sort of substance the Briton had an adverse analytical finding for.
“The provisional suspension means that a rider is suspended even before a final decision is made (either by Acceptance of Consequences or by decision of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal),” it stated. “In accordance with the WADA Code, the UCI Anti-Doping Rules provide a dual regime for the imposition of a provisional suspension, which depends mainly on the nature of the substance found in the rider’s sample:
“Provisional suspension is mandatory and automatically imposed when the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a so-called “non-Specified Substance” (i.e. a prohibited substance that is not listed as a “Specified Substance” by WADA).
“If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a Specified Substance (i.e. a substance that WADA considers more likely to have been consumed for a purpose other than performance enhancement), the rider is not subject to mandatory provisional suspension. The rider can however decide to voluntarily suspend himself/herself. In both cases, the period of provisional suspension served will be deducted from the suspension eventually imposed.”
Froome was tested after stage 18 of this year’s Vuelta a Espana. That urine sample was found to contain 2,000 nanograms per millilitre of salbutamol, double the permitted maximum set by WADA. That news led to criticism from multiple world time trial champion Tony Martin, who said that it was wrong that Froome was able to ride the world time trial championships after the Vuelta. The UCI subsequently called Martin and explained the different rules regarding specified and non-specified substances to him. Thus far Froome has not voluntarily accepted a suspension, meaning that backdating any sanction will likely not be possible.
Click through to read the UCI’s full statement here: