On Monday, the UCI did something very unusual. They issued a press release on the issue of ketones, finally weighing in on the supplement that has been causing consternation and conversation in cycling for at least five years, once touted as a performance 'wonder drink' and now slightly more doubted.
As the sport's governing body, which literally writes the rules about everything to do with cycling, it's not unusual for the UCI to weigh in on what riders and teams are allowed to do. But what was unusual about Monday's statement was the content of it.
Initial research into ketone supplements – which add to the levels of naturally-occurring ketones in the body – showed they could significantly aid performance and recovery, and even boost EPO response in the body. With these kinds of claims, many were concerned that the product might cross the line into being too performance-enhancing.
Now, since ketones first came to prominence, with many riders adopting their use, the consensus has changed. The efficacy of the product has been questioned in later studies, and some of the teams that used ketones subsequently stopped, finding – of their own accord – that the benefit wasn't worth it.
Weirdly, it's on this basis that the UCI has recommended against their use. Not because they think ketones are akin to doping, or because they have been seen to have any harmful effects, but because they just don't think they work. Which isn't usually something that the UCI would weigh in on – again, as a colleague pointed out to me, they've never come out and said multivitamins aren't worth taking, or weighed in on how effective nasal strips are.
Grey areas don't help the fight against doping
The MPCC (Mouvement Pour un Cyclisme Crédible), an independent body that teams and riders sign up to and they set stricter rules on anti-doping, aiming to make the sport more credible and eliminate the grey areas when it comes to performance enhancement.
They routinely 'ban' things that the UCI or WADA don't, allowing teams to subscribe to a supposedly more credible ethos. They have been talking about ketones for years, and in 2024, they officially added the product to the list of things their members are not to use.
For the MPCC, this is about clearly defining the line between fair and unfair performance enhancers. They don't want grey areas or room for interpretation; they want clear rules that are the same for everyone so the sport is fair and credible.
At the time of making their decision on ketones, they criticised the UCI for still not taking a stance on the product and leaving a potential grey area.
"We cannot accept such long delays, given the public health issues at stake and the credibility of our sport," the MPCC said.
"The managers and referring doctors of the MPCC member teams are seeing their positions, those guided by caution, weakened by an endless wait for clarification and a clear position. Either the UCI is certain that the use of ketones is acceptable and must make this known in a clear and precise communication. Or it is not and must state loud and clear that the institution does not recommend their use, or even that it prohibits it."
The UCI had said at the time that they were going to announce the results of an "impact assessment of ketones on health and performance" at the end of 2025.
Many assumed this meant they would carry out their own research or at least a thorough, evidence-based assessment, because surely reading some studies does not take a year. But, reading only what they put in their press release, it doesn't really seem like they did much more than look into existing research.
Whatever they did, the UCI did come to a conclusion about ketones, and – perhaps because they'd promised to do it, or because of the pressure on them – they published that conclusion. And in many ways, they did what the MPCC asked for and recommended against their use.
But in reality, this does exactly what the MPCC works against: it created a grey area. Non-MPCC teams and riders are still completely free to use ketones, according to WADA, but they're not recommended by the UCI. The UCI may think that by coming out against them on grounds of a lack of efficacy makes it okay – they aren't suggesting that they're akin to using doping products – but the nuance is likely to be forgotten easily. People won't remember that, but they'll remember that the UCI is against ketones.
Instead, the issue of ketones being seen as a doping-adjacent, morally murky product is only going to continue. Teams that aren't part of the MPCC are likely to continue making their own decisions on the product, as they do with everything from what a rider has for breakfast to what medicines they take, so a UCI statement isn't going to actually change anything materially, but it does darken the perception of the products.
The statement opens up teams that do keep using ketones to more criticism and skepticism. They'll be seen as doing something that the governing body sees as bad, which adds to the belief among many that cycling is always pushing the limit with doping, and often going over it. It turns something that is currently perfectly legal into a questionable behaviour.
If the UCI thinks a product should be banned, they should say that. If they don't think it gives an unfair advantage, they could say that too. A middle-of-the-road, vague position helps no one and changes nothing.
Grey areas are the reason why cycling got into such a dark place with doping, as nefarious figures have always tried to exploit those blurred boundaries as much as possible, whilst those who want to follow the rules do, and get beaten by performance-enhanced athletes.
If the UCI is serious about wiping out doping – which it obviously should be – these grey areas need to be eliminated as much as possible. Rules should be rules, in one direction or another, not recommendations.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.