The UCI has suspended Androni Giocattoli -Sidermec for the month of August. The measure of the Disciplinary Commission of the UCI follows after two doping cases in a short time. Recently it came out that Fabio Taborre tested positive for FG / 4592. An EPO variant still in the development stage and not yet on sale. A month earlier teammate Davide Appollonio was caught for EPO use. The UCI rules require that a team will be suspended for 15 to 45 days if more riders test positive within one year.

This is yet another incomprehensible rule composed by the UCI. For the UCI compiles doping laws, organizes doping controls and then penalizes the offenders. This is of course an unacceptable combination which is not tolerated in the real society. But when it comes to the fight against doping nearly everything is permitted. What would happen if an entire street is put in prison because one resident of the street is a pedophile?

Then innocent people become victims of the behavior of one individual. Everyone is responsible for his own behavior; I think that’s a good principle. It is undesirable and unjust when I am held responsible for the conduct of somebody else. That is a principle that is unacceptable in a normal constitutional state. But in Thailand, where I have lived now for a few years, under the dictatorship of a military junta, it happens on a large scale. Parents of children participating in street racing have to go to jail, without mercy, for a few months.

Did the UCI  learn anything from all the misery in which doping in cycling was immersed for years and their dubious role in it? Read the following excerpt from the Commission’s ADA  Report (ADA means: Anti-Doping-Approach).

Conflicting interests

The UCI has in recent years frequently been accused by former cyclists, journalists and other parties of conflicting interests. We observe that the UCI, like the other (inter) national sports federations carries out multiple tasks and responsibilities, which could lead to conflicting objectives and interests. * For example, the promotion of sports is usually incompatible with a strict anti-doping policy. Firstly, because this policy is very expensive and there is not enough money left which is necessary for the development of the sport itself. Secondly, since doping cases do not contribute to a good image of sport.

* An example of the apparent conflict of interest concerns the warning which the UCI had issued some to riders who were suspected of EPO use, but who were not caught by the lack of a workable test. The UCI claims from having chosen for its anti-doping ambition for a warning (we keep you in the eye), in the hope that it would have a preventive effect. Critics claim that the UCI with that warning informed the doping users to avoid negative publicity that could damage the image of the sport.

Another example is the much-discussed acceptance by the UCI of two donations by Lance Armstrong at the level of $ 125,000 between 2002 and 2007 for its anti-doping policy.
To illustrate: a recent study showed that in Australian sport in various professional sports was a widespread and generous doping use. [Source: Australian Crime Commission (2013).]

One of the major conclusions from the report:
By removing the responsibility for doping controls and punishment from international sports organizations, these interests can be prevented. Ideally, the international federation is responsible for the development of the sport and its anti-doping policy, including the necessary information. The doping controls and punishment should be brought to neutral and independent organizations.


The excellent report by the independent commission ADA has done absolutely nothing. The report is at the bottom of a drawer and nobody is watching it. Everything remained the same. Nothing has changed. The UCI and other major sports such as the Athletics Federation will continue to make mistake after mistake.