Im Mai 2011 veröffentlichte l'Equipe Listen mit den Fahrern und Teams der Tour de France 2010, eingeordnet in Skalen zwischen 0 - 10. Je höher der Rang, desto höher lag die Dopingwahrscheinlichkeit. Diese Liste sollte als Grundlage der Testauswahl während der Tour de France dienen.
Die Veröffentlichung sorgte für große Aufregung. Die UCI und die WADA kündigten Untersuchungen nach der undichten Stelle an.
Am 17.5.2011 richtete sich UCI-Präsident mit einem Offenen Brief an Fahrer und Teams und erklärte die Hintergründe dieser Listen. Wichtig sei vor allem, dass sie lediglich als Grundlage für ein effizientes Testprogramm, hier insbesondere während der Großen Rundfahrten, diene. Ein Dopingbeweis sei die Einstufung im keinem Fall.
>>> Pat McQuaid: Open letter to all riders and team members
>>> GRAND TOURS – TARGETING PRIORITY LIST
I write to you following last week’s regrettable disclosure of confidential information in the French daily newspaper l’Equipe, under the title “UCI’s secret list”.
I am fully aware of the anger and strong reactions that the publication has generated and I can tell you that I was angry as well.
I can confirm that the International Cycling Union is taking steps in order to open a judicial enquiry into the source of this leak, without further delay.
Furthermore, the UCI offered its full support to the independent investigation launched by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and I trust that we will soon discover how these events occurred and identify the individuals responsible.
In addition, management of the UCI anti-doping and legal departments are reviewing the security procedures put in place to guarantee the confidentiality of information in order to check if and where they might be improved.
With this I wanted to inform you of the steps being taken and to reassure you of the UCI's utter determination to resolve this very delicate situation.
However we cannot undo the facts and I am very sorry for those who now feel directly affected by this disclosure.
But let us also examine the core issue. Why draw up a list such as this? What does it mean to be included on the list? How should the information that the list contains be interpreted?
It is essential to understand that this is not a list that indicates degrees of suspicion of doping, but a working document that establishes an order of priority for carrying out doping tests.
This priority list is drawn up on the basis of different elements that may be useful to identify priorities when conducting a testing programme on a group of 200 riders: it is not possible to test all of them ten times, so a list of priorities has to be established based upon a number of indications and not upon coincidence or discretion. Such indications are: the raw data of the haematological profile in the blood passport (so without taking into account whichever explanation for such data), the circumstance whether the rider has been tested recently and how often, sporting considerations (results, ranking, race programme, ambition, objectives). Bringing all this information together allowed the creation of the list.
We have all recognised the value of the biological passport on many occasions. Those involved in the fight against doping have all welcomed the extraordinary possibilities that targeting offers compared with traditional controls. The global sporting community as a whole applauded this new approach, which it considered to be optimal and at the cutting edge. Some of you even pleaded that the blood passport should be used as targeting instrument only.
Once again I understand the discontent of the riders and their entourage about the leak, which I also consider as completely unacceptable, but I frankly find it difficult to share their surprise and indignation at the content of the document where it is also taking into account the data of the blood passport. Team managers – you will be well aware of the programme to which you have largely contributed the financing. Riders – you are the only individuals able to access, at any time, all the analysis results of your profile, as recorded in your biological passport.
I have introduced these issues into the discussion because I am increasingly convinced that the basis for the success of an innovative programme such as the biological passport is the individual responsibility of each rider and the collective responsibility of each team.
So riders and teams must not be indignant at the blood passport being used to the maximum of its possibilities, bearing in mind that at the stage of the priority list the passport data are no evidence of whatever (which is the reason why the document is confidential).
Our objective has never been to create lists of suspects, but rather to provide ourselves with the most effective tool possible to optimise our resources - which are not unlimited - as well as to ensure the effectiveness of our approach. The battle against doping has, for a long time, been a priority for the UCI, even to the extent that it could sometimes be considered to be over emphasised in our sport. Yet it must be admitted that the reality of the situation does not allow us to act otherwise.
I make no apologies for the fact that UCI will continue to take every measure possible to protect clean athletes. Our objective, shared by many of you, is a doping free cycling, one where the values of ethics and fair play are cherished.
I hope that these explanations will assist you to reach an objective judgment of a situation that is undeniably disagreeable. Please find attached further information on the subject.
Please accept my kindest regards.
On the Thursday morning before the start of a Grand Tour, all participants are subject to a blood test. These tests are conducted by the UCI and the samples then analysed by an anti-doping laboratory approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
The laboratory loads the results of the analyses into the ADAMS system. The UCI then sends the results, which are anonymous, to the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) which is responsible for managing all haematological passports of active athletes under the UCI anti-doping programme. Every analysis result sent by the UCI is associated to the unique code (BP_ID) allocated to the rider in question. The BP_ID is provided by the ADAMS system and known only by the relevant anti-doping organisations. The APMU works using complete anonymity, solely on the basis of the BP_IDs of the riders concerned.
After receiving the latest blood analysis results, the APMU updates the haematological profile of each rider tested. After the evaluation of the 198 profiles, updated before the start of the Tour, the APMU establishes the order of priority for testing riders using BP_IDs. This work is conducted on the Friday morning and the list is sent to the UCI in the early afternoon. This list does not represent an index of suspicion but is rather a list of the priority for targeting the controls to be conducted during the event.
Several elements are taken into account by APMU when conducting the evaluation of profiles. An anomaly in a profile is just one criteria among others when drawing up the list. For example, the lack of haematological data for a rider during races and more specifically during a Grand Tour may increase the priority index.
It is important to bear in mind that the targeting priority list is a working document. It is in no way intended to establish an index of suspicion. The UCI has a great deal of very accurate information at its disposal, information gathered since the introduction of the biological passport in 2008. The priority list, drawn up in just a few hours by the APMU for controls to be conducted at Grand Tours, does not in any way replace the evaluations produced by independent experts who have assessed the haematological profiles sent to them by the APMU every week since 2008. It is solely these latter evaluations that are used by the UCI if it opens proceedings for a potential breach of the anti-doping rules.
It is important to note that the priority list considers the unprocessed blood values without them having been evaluated by the biological passport experts. These experts do not intervene in drawing up the priority list.
But let us return to the targeting process, a procedure that has been in place since 2009. Once the APMU has drawn up the targeting priority list using BP_IDs, it sends it to the UCI. The UCI cross matches BP_IDs with the riders’ names. This is a task that only the UCI can carry out. The UCI Anti-Doping Service can then plan and prepare the controls for the first part of the event. As soon as blood tests are conducted during the event under the scope of the biological passport, the same procedure is repeated and the APMU provides a new targeting priority list in accordance with the tests conducted and the evolution of profiles during the race. A rider with a high priority index at the start of the event may well have a low priority index at the end of the race.
Finally, we would simply like to point out that independent observers appointed by WADA, upon the invitation of the UCI, observed all aspects of the anti-doping programme of the 2010 Tour de France. This mission involved providing the independent observers with all useful information, including confidential information, and consequently the priority list. This transparency, which is inherent in the nature of an independent observation mission and necessary for verifying the seriousness of the anti-doping programme, was clearly protected by the obligation of confidentiality incumbent on the observers.