The Biological Passport’s Shifting Role: Are Teams Abdicating Anti-Doping Responsibility?
Just 15% of professional cycling teams now conduct in-depth reviews of athlete biological passports before signing contracts, a dramatic decline from nearly 80% five years ago. The recent provisional suspensions of Giovanni Carboni (Unibet Rose Rockets) and Oier Lazkano (Red Bull–Bora–Hansgrohe), both flagged for irregularities in their biological passports, aren’t isolated incidents – they’re symptoms of a growing trend: teams increasingly deferring to the UCI and ITA for anti-doping due diligence, a move that could fundamentally reshape the landscape of professional cycling.
The Carboni and Lazkano Cases: A Pattern Emerges
The Unibet Rose Rockets swiftly terminated Carboni’s contract after the UCI notified them of passport anomalies dating back to 2024, before his arrival. Similarly, Red Bull–Bora–Hansgrohe distanced themselves from Lazkano, whose irregularities spanned 2022-2024 while at Movistar. Both teams emphasized the issues predated the riders’ tenure, highlighting a desire to avoid association with potential doping violations. This reactive approach, rather than proactive investigation, is becoming the norm.
Why the Retreat from Passport Analysis?
Several factors contribute to this shift. Firstly, analyzing biological passports requires specialized expertise and significant investment. Teams, particularly those outside the WorldTour elite, may lack the resources to effectively interpret the complex data. Secondly, the UCI and Independent Technical Assistance (ITA) have increased their own monitoring efforts, leading some teams to believe their internal checks are redundant. However, relying solely on these bodies presents a critical vulnerability.
The Grey Zone of Biological Passports
The athlete biological passport (ABP) remains a complex and often contested area of anti-doping. While it provides a powerful tool for detecting long-term effects of doping, interpreting anomalies isn’t always straightforward. A positive ABP finding doesn’t automatically equate to guilt; it triggers further investigation. This ambiguity can create legal and reputational risks for teams, potentially incentivizing them to avoid proactive scrutiny. As Cycling Weekly explains, the ABP is a powerful tool, but requires careful interpretation.
The Risks of Outsourcing Due Diligence
While the UCI and ITA play a crucial role, they cannot replace the responsibility of teams to conduct their own due diligence. Waiting for a positive flag from these organizations means a team has already potentially signed a rider who has engaged in prohibited practices. This can lead to significant financial losses, reputational damage, and disruption to team strategies. Furthermore, it creates a moral hazard, potentially encouraging riders to exploit the system by doping during periods when they believe scrutiny is lower.
The 2026 Tour de France Wild Card Implications
The Unibet Rose Rockets’ situation is particularly poignant as they build towards a potential Tour de France wild card invitation in 2026. A doping scandal involving one of their riders could severely jeopardize those ambitions. This illustrates the high stakes involved and the potential consequences of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term integrity. The influx of WorldTour-level riders like Dylan Groenewegen, Wout Poels, and Victor Lafay only amplifies the pressure to maintain a clean image.
Looking Ahead: A Call for Renewed Team Responsibility
The trend of teams abdicating responsibility for biological passport analysis is deeply concerning. While collaboration with the UCI and ITA is essential, teams must recognize that they are the first line of defense against doping. Investing in internal expertise, strengthening recruitment protocols, and prioritizing ethical considerations are crucial steps. The future of professional cycling depends not only on robust anti-doping systems but also on a collective commitment to integrity from all stakeholders. The question isn’t whether the UCI and ITA can catch dopers, but whether teams will actively work to prevent them from joining their ranks in the first place.
What steps do you think cycling teams should take to proactively address the risks associated with athlete biological passports? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
