The Biological Passport’s Revival: Is Cycling Entering a New Era of Anti-Doping Scrutiny?
A two-year ban looms for Oier Lazkano, and with it, a renewed focus on the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) as cycling’s most potent – and controversial – weapon against doping. The case isn’t just about one rider; it signals a potential shift in how teams and the UCI approach anti-doping efforts, and a growing risk for athletes who believe they can evade detection.
The ABP: From Legal Battles to a Resurgent Force
Launched in 2008 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the ABP revolutionized anti-doping by moving beyond the hunt for specific banned substances. Instead, it creates a longitudinal profile of an athlete’s blood and steroid markers, flagging anomalies that suggest manipulation. While initially plagued by legal challenges – the Court of Arbitration for Sport ultimately upheld its validity – the ABP’s effectiveness has always hinged on consistent application and interpretation. The Lazkano case demonstrates the UCI is now actively leveraging the ABP, and the willingness to pursue cases based on its findings.
The UCI’s communication to Team Movistar, unusually detailed for a doping investigation, underscores the seriousness of the allegations. The unanimous opinion of the independent expert panel – stating it’s “highly likely” a prohibited substance or method was used – is a stark departure from past ambiguity. This level of transparency, while potentially legally risky, signals a commitment to proactively combat doping.
Teams Retreating from Due Diligence?
Historically, teams routinely vetted potential signings by scrutinizing their ABP data. However, a concerning trend is emerging: many teams are now forgoing this crucial step. A source within the sport revealed to VeloNews that multi-million dollar contracts are being signed without teams accessing riders’ biological passports. This raises a critical question: are teams becoming complacent, or are they prioritizing financial gains over ethical considerations?
The Rider’s Right to Privacy and Its Consequences
The shift is partly due to regulations requiring riders to explicitly consent to sharing their ABP data with teams. While protecting athlete privacy is important, this consent requirement creates a significant loophole. Teams are effectively operating in the dark, potentially inheriting riders with pre-existing doping issues. The Lazkano case highlights the risk of this approach; Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe swiftly terminated his contract upon the UCI’s provisional suspension, demonstrating the financial and reputational damage that can result from signing a compromised athlete.
Beyond Detection: The Evolving Landscape of Doping
The ABP isn’t foolproof. It relies on expert interpretation, and its findings are not definitive proof of doping like a positive drug test. However, it serves as a powerful investigative tool, often leading to targeted testing that *does* uncover banned substances. The UCI is increasingly using the ABP to identify riders exhibiting suspicious profiles, then focusing resources on more direct detection methods.
Furthermore, the rise of micro-dosing and sophisticated masking agents presents new challenges. Athletes are constantly seeking ways to circumvent detection, requiring anti-doping authorities to stay one step ahead. The ABP, with its ability to detect subtle physiological changes, is crucial in this ongoing arms race.
What Does This Mean for the Future of Cycling?
The Lazkano case is a watershed moment. It suggests the UCI is prepared to aggressively utilize the ABP, even if it means facing legal challenges. The reluctance of teams to conduct thorough due diligence is a worrying sign, potentially creating a more permissive environment for doping. The future of clean cycling depends on a renewed commitment from all stakeholders – the UCI, teams, and riders – to prioritize ethical conduct and invest in robust anti-doping measures.
The increasing sophistication of doping methods demands a proactive, data-driven approach. The ABP, while imperfect, remains a vital component of that strategy. Whether cycling can truly turn the corner on doping will depend on whether the sport learns from the Lazkano affair and embraces a culture of vigilance and accountability. What are your predictions for the role of the biological passport in the next five years? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
