ORICA-GREENEDGE ANTI-DOPING REVIEW REPORT

Transcription

1 NICKI VANCE CONSULTING ORICA-GREENEDGE ANTI-DOPING REVIEW REPORT 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Nicki Vance Anti-Doping Consultant 15 May

2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In October 2012 following the USADA investigation into Lance Armstrong and the US Postal cycling team, and the subsequent disclosures of past doping practices in the sport of cycling, Orica- GreenEDGE (OGE) determined it would implement a range of initiatives to reaffirm its firm stance against doping, including a full external expert review of its policies and procedures and a pro-active review of all riders and team members. The objectives of the Review were to: Confirm that Orica-GreenEDGE s (OGE s) anti-doping policies, protocols and recruitment procedures are world s best practice and are being implemented without exception; Recommend and oversee the implementation of any necessary enhancements. It was agreed that as part of the review process that all OGE riders, key staff members and the female riders with Orica-AIS would be interviewed. In addition OGE requested advice re the appropriate management of the handling of Matt White s (and any other team member s) doping admissions from the team s perspective. The following OGE/Orica-AIS documents were reviewed and advice for improvement of the documents provided: Rider Services Contract with Global Cycling Services Cycling Team Anti-Doping Policy Acceptance of Anti-Doping Policy Code of Conduct Cycling Team Job Descriptions for the OGE staff positions Cycling Australia 2013 National Team Agreement 2013 Rider Agreement, UCI Women s Professional Road Team Rider Services Contract with New Global Cycling Services The staff and riders were extremely cooperative in terms of the interviews and openness in responding to my questions and providing their views on past and current doping in cycling and anti-doping strategies. Face-to-face interviews were conducted between early December 2012 and the end of March 2013 with: 27 Male OGE Team riders (exception Cameron Meyer interviewed by Skype); o Daniel Teklehaimanot was unavailable during the interview time 10 Female Orica-AIS riders 21 staff of OGE The interviews generally ranged from minutes with a couple going longer when there was time and the interviewee generally wanted to discuss points in more detail. The interview records were written up and sent to the interviewee for checking facts, clarification of any information documented and giving the opportunity for additional information to be provided. 2

3 The Interview Tool included questions relating to Cycling background and career. Testing history and issues relating to testing, managing whereabouts. Anti-doping information/education provided by OGE and other organisations. View on doping in cycling and effectiveness of the current anti-doping programs. OGE s approach to doping/anti-doping. View on what OGE should do re past doping practices of riders or support staff. Own history of doping, any approaches from others, any temptations. Knowledge of other cyclists who were/are doping. Information resulting from the interviews was compiled and examined and the outcome will hopefully be of use to OGE as well as supporting more general cycling-related anti-doping strategies and programs. One limitation of the interview process was the publicised zero-tolerance of the OGE management in October The doping admissions of Matt White leading to him being suspended by OGE is highly likely to have meant that any team member with any doping practices in their past may not have been fully honest in their interview responses especially as the interviews were not conducted under oath. This is not to say that anyone necessarily had something to hide, however, if they had doped or assisted others to dope in the past they would most likely have remained silent. Nevertheless, there was no admission from any rider or support personnel about any past practices other than the already known cases of Matt White and Neil Stephens. Additional discussions were held with other key cycling people including staff from other pro-teams, former riders and cycling journalists; ASADA investigators and other National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs). The recommendations include a detailed approach as to how to handle past (and any future) doping cases from a team perspective and I would encourage OGE to not only agree to this approach but to also promote it to other relevant parties, in particular the UCI. One danger of not dealing more proactively across the board for all teams through some form of international approach perhaps including a clemency/amnesty aspect, is that doping cases from the past will continue to drip-feed as evidence is gathered or as one rider or another admits to doping and names others involved and the sport of cycling will then face the ongoing negativity of this constant association with doping, regardless of the positive work they are currently undertaking. Consistent with the advised general approach to past doping offences/admissions and the conditions already outlined it is recommended that Matt White have his position with OGE reinstated once any ASADA-imposed sanction is completed. In accordance with the general recommendations for past doping offences it is recommended that no sanction or workplace penalty be imposed on Neil Stephens. 3

4 While overall, OGE is to be commended for its anti-doping policies and procedures there are a number of recommendations made that if implemented would enhance these policies and procedures to ensure OGE achieves and maintains best practice. As a responsible World Tour Pro-Team that prides itself on being a clean team, OGE can also contribute to the development and ongoing implementation of anti-doping strategies for themselves, other pro-teams, sports and anti-doping organisation s for the betterment of cycling world-wide. It would be responsible for the OGE Management during any future recruitment discussions with riders and staff to at least have a conversation about doping and any past doping concerns including any association with riders, staff or teams with doping history no matter how well the person is known to OGE Management. The person should also be specifically asked about any doping practices from the past and whether that doping has already been dealt with by ADOs and/or a former team. To reduce the likelihood of riders having Missed Tests, OGE should continue to assist those riders who struggle to meet the requirements. For some it may be a real deterrent to more seriously consider use of a fine for a Missed Test. Overall there was a high level of confidence that if the rider ever needed to know anything in relation to anti-doping then they knew where to access this information. The Australian riders came to OGE generally having had a high level of exposure to anti-doping information. Information provided to non-australian riders varied depending on what country they were from and whether they also had an active National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO) that provided them with anti-doping information/education. Some teams the riders had been previously involved with also provided good information. As well as ensuring that the riders have ongoing access to good anti-doping information it is also important to provide some element of ethics and values discussion to encourage the maintenance of a non-doping approach no matter what new stresses the riders face. There is a large variation of views between the three OGE Team Doctors with regard to the use of supplements. With the current concerns in Australian sport with regard to supplements, it would be prudent for OGE to do a full assessment of the team s use of supplements, including reviewing the philosophy and guidelines for use as well as ensuring contractual obligations for the team doctors with regard to the distribution of supplements. Despite its poor reputation the sport of cycling has changed significantly in the last 5-6 years. The UCI is now implementing the newer anti-doping strategies and conducting a more progressive antidoping program and is certainly one of the leading IFs in this regard. There is a general feeling that cycling at the elite level is now significantly cleaner and it would seem that the important cultural change has been made in the sport although there was still some concern about doping at the lower levels of cycling where riders are not exposed to the same requirements. It would be naive to think (as acknowledged by many OGE riders and staff) that there was no ongoing doping at all levels but that cases are now the result of an individual rider s decision to dope and not facilitated by teams. An OGE staff member reflected that it would seem that cycling has really cleaned up demonstrated by the reduction in speeds and indications of more suffering of riders than before. A number of the younger riders reflected that they were glad to be competing in the current cleaner era as they are now able to ride as a pro in Europe without doping. 4

5 However the public perception of cycling at this point in time is very poor due to the significant amount of publicity surrounding the Lance Armstrong case and subsequent admissions by cyclists. It is important that the current pro-teams continue to demonstrate the changed cycling environment by ensuring no negative publicity to do with any form of doping violation (eg. Missed Tests, inadvertent doping through supplement use) but it would also be constructive to be more proactive about communicating about the new measures in sport/cycling (such as Athlete Biological Passport program; Whereabouts requirements). Once there is full confidence that OGE has dealt appropriately with the known doping cases of the past and implemented the relevant recommendations OGE should more actively promote clean riding being confident that the philosophy of the team is to ride clean, that OGE is doing what it can to recruit and maintain clean riders and any knowledge of doping will be dealt with appropriately. In this pro-active support OGE should be careful with its choice of words as there is never any absolute guarantee that individual riders may make a decision to dope. There are a number of areas in relation to the implementation of the test programs (eg rider whereabouts location requirements and data management systems) where the UCI, ASADA and other ADPs could be encouraged to improve their systems. A review of the implementation of the recommendations towards the end of 2013 in preparation of the start of the 2014 season is recommended. 5

6 2. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 4.0 Document Review: 1. Revise all documents with recommended changes as marked on documents. 2. Personalise the policies to achieve more ownership. 3. Incorporate the agreed OGE approach to past and any future doping cases in the OGE Anti- Doping Policy (as outlined in 5.2) 4. Add a clause to the Anti-Doping Policy requiring that OGE Team Medical Staff only provide permitted medications and substances (unless Emergency) to the Riders. 5. Conduct an annual workshop session explaining the various anti-doping policies and documents and highlight the key relevant clauses to the Riders and Staff. 5.2 The Past in Relation to OGE Riders and Staff Considering many aspects of this complex issue I recommend that OGE supports, implements where relevant and promotes to the UCI, Cycling Australia, ASADA, other relevant anti-doping authorities and other Pro-Teams to recognise the following approach: 1. Own Use Doping Pre-1 July 2005 Ø Clemency concept no formal sanction as Use is outside the current Statute of Limitations; Ø OGE acceptance of no sanction in regard to its contract with rider/staff. Encouragement of the following: Full admission of own doping practices; Information about others; Information about how the rider avoiding testing positive and any other information about their doping practices to assist anti-doping authorities Evidence of anti-doping support since finished riding/doping 2. Own Use Doping between 1 July December 2010 Ø Using Substantial Assistance aspect of the World Anti-Doping Code possibility of an initial sanction of 2 years reduced to 6-12 months; Ø OGE to suspend team member for same amount of sanctioned time imposed by an ADO; The following is mandatory for any reduction to be considered: Full admission of own doping practices by the 30 June 2013; Information about others; Information about how the rider avoided testing positive and any other information about their doping practices to assist anti-doping authorities; Evidence of a changed attitude; Participation in any required rehabilitation program; Assistance with anti-doping education programs. 6

7 NB. If the sanction is reduced to 6 months it cannot be in the international cycling off season and must be due to significant substantial assistance. 3. Own Use Doping Violation committed after 1 January 2011 Ø No reduction of sanction unless exceptional substantial assistance leading to the sanctioning of others and if so, only a reduction of maximum 6 months (ie 18 months minimum sanction remains); Ø OGE will cancel the contract for any anti-doping rule violation sanctioned for over 6 months. The following is mandatory for any reduction to be considered: Full admission of own doping practices; Substantial Assistance in accordance with ADO rules; Information about how the rider avoided testing positive and any other information about their doping practices to assist anti-doping authorities; Evidence of a changed attitude; Participation in any required rehabilitation program; Assistance with anti-doping education programs. 4. Past Use Cases of any Rider or Former Rider uncovered after 1 July 2013 that has not been previously admitted to anti-doping authorities Ø Starting point 4 year sanction Aggravating Circumstances Ø OGE will cancel the contract 5. Any cases of Assisting Others to Dope at any time Ø No Clemency concept; no reduction from sanction (at least 2 years depending on circumstances; may be aggravating up to 4 years) Ø OGE will cancel the contract Matt White, Sport Director 1. Consistent with the advised general approach to past doping offences/admissions and the conditions already outlined it is recommended that Matt White have his position with OGE reinstated once any ASADA-imposed sanction is completed Neil Stephens, Sport Director 1. In accordance with the general recommendations for past doping offences it is recommended that no suspension or workplace penalty be imposed on Neil Stephens. 2. Requirements for the conditions outlined as part of the general recommendation for Own Use Doping Pre-1 July 2005 be reviewed and agreed with Neil Stephens. If the above recommendations are agreed: 3. Inform members of the OGE Team about Neil Stephens s past, OGE s decision re no suspension and the difference between Neil Stephens s and Matt White s cases. 4. Make a public statement acknowledging Neil Stephen s admissions from the past and outlining OGE s decision re no sanction. 7

8 5.4 Recruitment Process in relation to Anti-Doping For OGE Management to: 1. Include a specific reference to the anti-doping philosophy of OGE and the team ethics and values at any future recruitment or contract discussion. 2. Specifically ask a person rider or staff of any previous anti-doping rule violation, the outcome of that violation, any use or other violation that has not been prosecuted as well as discuss any references or links to any doping concerns even unsubstantiated concerns of any team-mate (rider, staff) or team in general. 3. Specifically ask a rider of the details of any past occurrence of a Filing Failure and/or Missed Test. 4. Encourage any Rider Managers/Agents to have at least the base knowledge of riders rights and responsibilities regarding anti-doping when they are reviewing rider contracts. 5.5 Effectiveness of Whereabouts Requirements and Related Issues For OGE riders: 1. Ascertain/take more notice re what RTPs they are on and specific requirements of the relevant ADO 2. Ensure all requirements for Whereabouts are fully completed so as not to receive a Filing Failure. 3. If a rider is having any issues remembering to update Whereabouts they should set a daily alarm on their mobile phone to remind them to make any needed Whereabouts changes at a time that is least disruptive but not when it will be ignored. 4. Check any new Whereabouts locations to ensure there can be no difficulty for DCOs to locate riders, check doorbells and ensure that anyone else in the house understands the importance of opening the door no matter what the time. For OGE Management: 5. Go through these points with riders when they are first on a RTP. Some of the female riders are not yet on a RTP but likely to be put on either the ASADA or UCI RTP as they continue competing in the international scene. 6. OGE to more seriously consider use of a Missed Test fine to increase the deterrence of a Missed Test occurring. 7. Encourage UCI and other ADOs to test more often outside the hour slot to reduce the likelihood of micro-dosing. 8. Encourage UCI and other ADOs to be more forgiving of Missed Test situations when the excuse is legitimate and can be verified. 9. Encourage UCI and other ADOs to continue to improve the functionality of their Whereabouts systems and consider tools such as GPS locators as alternatives. 8

9 5.6 Provision of Anti-Doping Information 1. Assess the understanding of rights and responsibilities relating to anti-doping of newly contracted riders. This is particularly if they have not come through the more understood Australian sports scene with known anti-doping education and information. 2. For staff who have some responsibility re anti-doping strategies and procedures to be assessed as to their understanding of the rights and responsibilities of riders and teams re anti-doping. 3. When the UCI or other ADOs announce new policies or programs, OGE Management/Medical and Athlete Welfare Director (Dr Peter Barnes) to inform and explain these to all riders and staff. 4. Educate some of the riders a little more about the facts of anti-doping world-wide some think they are the only sport required to provide daily Whereabouts. 5. Ensure that any staff involved in any interaction re anti-doping (eg Masseuses who assist in Notification of the selected riders for doping control) are provided with enough information for them to develop an understanding of the rationale for the anti-doping rules. 6. Provide some elements of ethics and values discussion not just the provision of information at OGE anti-doping sessions. 7. Promote the need for ethics-based anti-doping education sessions/programs to other pro-teams (possibly through MPCC) and the UCI. 5.7 Supplement Use 1. Conduct a full review of all supplements used by OGE and any others used by OGE riders to ensure there is absolutely no question about any use of prohibited substances. 2. The three team doctors more fully discuss their varying views with regard to supplement use and clearly define the OGE approach. 3. Insert a clause in the Team Doctors contracts to add a contractual obligation for only clearly permitted supplements to be provided to OGE riders. This is particularly important given that riders are being given supplements out of their original packaging. 4. All supplements to be provided directly through OGE with sufficient supplies provided so riders don t run out and have to buy at a local pharmacy (when it may not be ok). 5. Conduct a bridging workshop for the younger or new riders when they join the OGE team to make sure they all understand exactly what they are being provided with, why they should consider using the supplements and why they should not use any not provided by OGE. 5.8 External and Internal Communication and Looking to the Future at OGE 1. Some thought be given to publicity about the current riders responsibilities in both UCI and NADO anti-doping programs. 2. Once there is full confidence that OGE has dealt with the past doping cases increase its public support for clean riding. 3. OGE staff and riders take any opportunity to be involved in UCI, NADO or other relevant antidoping committees and/or forums to be able to contribute to the ongoing anti-doping work and strategies. 4. Reassure all riders that the suggestion by former WADA head, IOC Member Dick Pound to remove cycling from the Olympics is very unlikely, and deal with any such commentary as it occurs. 5. Consider employing a psychologist to conduct regular psychological reviews with the riders. 6. Ensure support mechanisms are in place for riders who are living away from their normal support mechanisms particularly when they first come to Europe. 9

10 6.0 Feedback and Information for Other Organisations 6.1 National Anti-Doping Organisations 1. Provide copies of the interview reports of riders and staff to the relevant interested NADOs. 6.2 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) 1. Provide a copy of the Review to the UCI. Specifically encourage the UCI to: 2. Increase testing in women s cycling and at lower levels of men s cycling eg pro-continental and continental levels; 3. Be more unpredictable about its testing - in and outside the 60-minute slot and ensure that testing does take place for riders in more remote locations. 4. Establish a Missed Test system that did not create unreasonable fear of inadvertent Missed Tests in riders who are riding clean. 5. Support increasing sanctions for serious doping cases. 6. Clarify exactly what information is required to be provided in addition to the 60-minute Whereabouts slot. 7. Better implement the WADA Prohibited List no needle and Cortisone policies. 8. Increase the independence of the UCI Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF). 9. Improve its communication management and be more transparent about what it is doing re antidoping. 10. Review the delivery of doping controls at cycling events in countries around the world eg in South America to ensure compliance with appropriate sample collection standards. 11. Review the notification procedures at the end of a stage race, particularly for remote stage finishes. 12. During any DCO training or re-accreditation workshops emphasis caution re chatter during doping control sessions. 13. Seek clarification regarding the blood sample collection preparation procedures ie. what exactly can occur during the 10 minute waiting time and ask that all ADOs agree to the same process 6.3 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority 1. Discuss the detailed feedback in this section with ASADA to encourage improvements to the Whereabouts systems and policies. 2. Discuss the issues identified in relation to the doping control sessions with ASADA. As with the UCI ask ASADA to: 3. Clarify requirements regarding the blood sample collection preparation procedures ie. what exactly can occur during the 10 minute waiting time and ask that all ADOs agree to the same process. 4. Be more unpredictable about its testing - in and outside the 60-minute slot and ensure that testing does take place for riders in more remote locations. 5. Establish a Missed Test system that did not create unreasonable fear of inadvertent Missed Tests in riders who are riding clean. 6. Support increasing sanctions for serious doping cases. 10

11 7. Clarify exactly what information is required to be provided in addition to the 60-minute Whereabouts slot. 8. During any DCO training or re-accreditation workshops emphasis caution re chatter during doping control sessions. 6.4 Other Organisations Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) 1. Continue membership and participation with MPCC. 2. Share appropriate sections and recommendations of this Review with MPCC. 3. Seek support from MPCC to improve the English version documentation of their meeting minutes and outcomes. 11

12 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 USADA VS LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE It is generally accepted that the sport of cycling has undergone significant change in the last five years as anti-doping strategies have been implemented in a significant way by the cycling community with a realisation that doping was no longer somewhat acceptable. Although doping has been deemed unacceptable for many years prior to this by the general sporting community it has taken the cycling community a lot longer to move away from an environment where doping was rife throughout the elite and lower levels of the sport and for all parties the international federation UCI, key cycling countries, event owners, pro-teams and most importantly the riders to change their attitudes and behaviour. It has taken a significant investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) into the doping practices of one of the most successful riders, Lance Armstrong, for a more formal public acknowledgement by the cycling community that it was more of an exception amongst the pro-riders of the 1990s and early 2000s to not dope. The evidence presented by USADA and the subsequent acknowledgement of many of the US riders of that time of their doping practices has led to other countries, such as the Dutch, starting to uncover the doping problems within their teams and riders and for other riders from a number of countries to admit to their doping. This process of investigations, review, discovery and admissions is continuing at the time of writing this report. However, despite what has occurred during 2012 and 2013 to date it is still unclear as to how the UCI propose to deal with the past and the lack of leadership shown by this key organisation in this regard is a concern and to a degree a limiting factor in dealing constructively in a consistent fair international way with the past doping environment and practices. At this point in time it has been left to the individual NADOs, at times in conjunction with the relevant national cycling federations, to determine how to handle the evidence and admissions of past doping practices and what sanctions may be imposed for past doping practices if being addressed in accordance with the relevant anti-doping rules and/or by Team management depending on their own rules and contracts. In Australia, a former rider and key team member of OGE, Matt White was named by the USADA investigation as having doped during his time as a rider with US Postal ( ). Matt White made a public admission in October 2012 and a formal full admission to ASADA in December 2012 providing detail of his doping practices between 1998 and At the time of writing this report Matt White is waiting for the outcome of ASADA s deliberations into his case (see section for more detail). NOTE: On 3 May 2013 Matt White released a statement outlining that ASADA had informed him on 26 April 2013 that the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) had made a determination that on the basis of his admissions and co-operation the ADRVP have imposed a sanction of six months for the period October 13, 2012 to April 13, 2013 meaning he had completed his sanction and was now able to be re-employed in the sport of cycling. 12

13 3.2 HANDLING PAST DOPING CASES There has been considerable debate about the best way to handle the doping cases of the past within the sport of cycling: On one hand you could judge that regardless of the internal and external pressures if a rider doped and there is evidence of that doping, then there is no reason for the rider not to be sanctioned for 2 years the current sanction for an anti-doping rule violation. If current athletes in all sports are sanctioned for 2 years for a range of anti-doping rule violations why shouldn t a rider who either admits or has evidence presented proving his doping practices be sanctioned and most probably released from any current team contract. This is generally regarded as having zero tolerance. However a number of the doping violations occurred quite some time ago, the evidence is vague and in some cases would be outside the current 8 years Statute of Limitations acknowledged in both the World Anti-Doping Code (2009) and UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Note: It is WADA s intent for its 2015 Code Revision, as indicated in the recent draft Code Revisions to change the Statute of Limitations to ten (10) years for Presence or Use and fourteen (14) years for other anti-doping rule violations. Another view is there is no need and no benefit to continue to dig up the past and we should just accept that the past was dirty and although many of these riders are still involved in the sport primarily as Sport Directors (the term used for a mix of cycling coach/organiser/manager) they have often also changed their attitude to doping and do not support doping practices. There is some acknowledgement that there would be so many former riders with a doping past that the sport would be decimated of experience if you tried to ban all these former riders. In any case there is a belief that many of these former riders once they have admitted their doping (or even without admitting it) have become very active anti-doping proponents and their experience and increased awareness about doping may assist in being more aware of any current rider who may be tempted or vulnerable to dope and be able to prevent this happening. While the sport is seen to be much cleaner now than the past it is important to always be aware of maintaining active anti-doping strategies to not allow the sport to revert to the past bad practices. Others feel that to be really proactive in changing the culture of doping within cycling we need to encourage honesty now to lay out all the dirty washing and enable the sport to continue its path forward acknowledging the past and then working out how to accept it. Against this view is if further past doping cases are brought out this creates ongoing negativity towards the sport which for the current clean riders is unfair and unreasonable. They are the athletes providing daily whereabouts information in a fairly stressful environment (ie. with many changes to their locations and competition program) as well as providing many urine and blood samples. There is no doubt that many Pro-cycling teams have staff and older riders who would have a past doping history. For some this would be within the current 8 years Statute of Limitations, for most it is outside. Without a clearly defined harmonised approach to how ADOs, UCI and Pro-Teams will deal with any admissions then it is most likely that most riders and support staff working in teams will remain silent. 13

14 One other factor that needs addressing is the omerta practice within elite cycling. This is the practice of keeping quiet about your own and any other team mate or competitors doping practices, and the bullying of anyone to break this omerta practice. While this Review did not go into a detailed investigation about this concept it is important that part of the ongoing development of a positive ethics and values base for the new cycling environment is to discourage this practice and encourage the disclosure of any current doping practices. This will be influenced by appropriate ethics and values education and acceptance rather than abhorrence of any disclosure of another rider s doping practices. One danger of not dealing more pro-actively across the board for all teams through some form of international approach perhaps including a clemency/amnesty aspect, is that doping cases from the past will continue to drip-feed as evidence is gathered or as one rider admits to doping and names others involved and the sport of cycling will then face the ongoing negativity of this constant association with doping. WORKPLACE CONTRACTS As well as discussing the way that the UCI and anti-doping community should handle any cases of past doping practices in accordance with any WADA-compliant anti-doping policies there is also the question of workplace contracts. All pro-riders and staff are bound by contracts that as well as having an element of anti-doping requirements generally also have Code of Conduct requirements. It is really up to the employer (the Pro-team) to determine its workplace requirements in regard to past and/or current doping violations. Some pro-cycling teams have a policy of zero tolerance which means that any doping of any kind regardless of when it occurred is not tolerated within the team; others have reflected that they can accept declared doping from the past (generally meaning pre-2008) but any more recent or current doping is not tolerated; other teams will just reflect any current anti-doping sanctions and allow a person to return to the team once any imposed sanction is fulfilled (unless the contract has finished). 3.3 THE CURRENT STATUS OF CYCLING AND DOPING Despite its poor reputation the sport of cycling has changed significantly in the last 5-6 years. The UCI is now implementing the newer anti-doping strategies and conducting a more progressive antidoping program and is certainly one of the leading IFs in this regard. There is a general feeling that cycling at the elite level is now significantly cleaner and it would seem that the important cultural change has been made in the sport although there was still some concern about doping at the lower levels of cycling where riders are not exposed to the same requirements. It would be naive to think (as acknowledged by many OGE riders and staff) that there was no ongoing doping but that cases are now the result of an individual rider s decision to dope and not facilitated by teams. An OGE staff member reflected that it would seem that cycling has really cleaned up demonstrated by the reduction in speeds and indications of more suffering of riders than before. With the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 2000; the subsequent requirement for all Olympic sports to develop and implement anti-doping policies in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code (created in 2003); a number of government s customs legislation making the possession and/or trafficking of prohibited substances illegal together with the efforts of many National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) from nations with elite cyclists, and the more recent efforts of the UCI and the Professional Cycling Teams themselves to implement a range of strategies 14

15 including the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) program and the Athlete Whereabouts system the current riders are seen to be competing in a far cleaner environment than in the past. In this regard it would seem that the important cultural change has been made in the sport. A number of the younger riders reflected that they were glad to be competing in the current cleaner era. One rider reflected that 10 years ago he would not have been able to ride as a pro in Europe but as the situation has changed and is now cleaner he now has the opportunity to ride as a pro. This sentiment was supported by a number of riders. Shayne Bannan, OGE General Manager expressed the view that it would be good to not have to spend so much money on this negative issue and be able to put more resources into nutrition, training and good recovery techniques. He acknowledges that cycling did have a significant problem with doping in the past but he believes that it is now just a small minority that dope and spoil it for the majority. He believes that cycling has been put in the situation where too much money is being spent on antidoping. Pro teams must contribute 180,000Euro/per annum to UCI for anti-doping programs. He realises that in the current climate it is essential for now but hopes that this will change. There was still the view amongst many of the riders, particularly the older riders, that there is probably still a small percentage of top level riders doping. This is most likely being done with the assistance of personal (not team) doctors and most likely using new, possibly undetected substances. This was not seen to be any different to other sports that also face this level of doping. However the public perception of cycling at this point in time is very poor due to the significant amount of publicity surrounding the Lance Armstrong case and subsequent admissions by cyclists. It is important that the current pro-teams continue to demonstrate the changed cycling environment by ensuring no negative publicity to do with doping (eg. Missed Tests, inadvertent doping through supplement use) but it also may be useful to be more proactive about communicating about the new measures in sport/cycling (such as Athlete Biological Passport program; Whereabouts requirements) that the current riders are now involved. One specific factor that impacts on the staff who drive the team vehicles, particularly the trucks, is that trucks are pulled over by police and customs authorities to check for drugs/doping substances due to Customs seizures in the past. This does cause stress primarily as it causes delays and potential for being late, rather than any concern that the staff/drivers have re possibly carrying banned substances as there is great confidence that there is no doping in the OGE team therefore no prohibited drugs been carried. The relevant staff did generally feel that the number of checks have lessened and authorities have reduced their focus on team vehicles in the last year. UCI AND ITS HANDLING OF ANTI- DOPING It was not within the Objectives of this Review to specifically examine the role of the UCI and its handling of the doping issue, however for the sport of cycling to really move forward from the past it is vital that the UCI shows some leadership and determines what it plans to do about past doping practices, as without this and an agreed (or even imposed) approach the various NADOs, sometimes with their respective National Cycling Federations, are determining their own outcomes. I also believe that the UCI must acknowledge that they were also complicit in the past negative destructive environment within cycling, otherwise how can they expect riders to also be honest about their past or respect the UCI as the sport moves forward. 15