Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
Hyper-aggressive position for the sprint lead-out
How much air pressure pros use at the Tour de France
National theme bike for Tour's lone Japanese rider
Teams bringing multiple models of sponsor bikes
Dr Michael Ashenden
UPDATE: Response from UCI regarding Ashenden
Dr. Michael Ashenden has resigned from his position as an independent member of the UCI's panel of experts that reviews the blood passport data of professional cyclists.
The report, by BBC Mundo, quotes Ashenden as saying: "that the passport still has shortcomings and will not accept a new confidentiality clause he believes is an attempt to prevent him to express his doubts."
Last year, Ashenden told Cyclingnews that he had "noticed a significant gap between tests in some of the profiles" that he had reviewed. "It's definitely not in every single profile, but enough to have left an impression on me," he told Cyclingnews.
"What I can’t answer is why those gaps are present," Ashenden continued. "Perhaps the UCI are pursuing a targeting strategy that I'm not aware of, but leaving big gaps doesn’t make any sense to me."
The UCI issued a press release today in response to Ashenden's comments in which the organisation thanked him for his contributions to the Biological Passport Program, but sought to clarify statements regarding anti-doping processes and the relationship between external experts and the UCI they consider "misleading and incorrect".
"The UCI clarifies that there is no 'UCI panel of experts that reviews blood passport data of professional cyclists' any more," said the UCI statement. "In compliance with the World Anti-Doping Agency Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines released on January 2012 the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) coordinates all blood passport results evaluation directly with external independent experts. The UCI is not involved in any way in this part of the process."
Regarding comments about gaps in tests for some biological passport profiles, the UCI stated it had "already responded in full in August 2011 at the time the comments were made."