"UCI Corruption // Contador cover-up attempt" (Karsten Kroon interview)

[Nilsson]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what did Kroon say about the Contador case that we didn't know already the very day it was made public?

Exactly, nothing new here...

As for the rest, I agree with Polish. Of course the UCI wasn't happy with this (peculiar and high profile) positive, wanted to buy more time and, if possible, find a solution. But there is no way they just can make something go away, they have to deal (and cooperate) with WADA in the end, which meant extra research and time but nevertheless (inevitably) trying to get a conviction. UCI is never going to contest IOC/WADA/CAS, deny their authority, adverse analytical findings and put their Olympic status at risk...

The only thing you can blame the UCI (and cyclings 'famous' omerta, which is the weakest of all) is that they are amateurs, do not have actual power and no significant influence at higher levels...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Did Karsten give any clues as to how the UCI could cover up a WADA result?
Most agree that it is impossible. Karsten have a clue?

Ugh. More nonsense.

Bauge's positive was covered up. The French Federation announced it only after he was more or less done with his penalty. So was Contador's... until it was leaked.

With the UCI in complete control of the anti-doping processing, of course there are covered up positives.

 

[Race Radio]

The reason why the Landis positive came out so quickly wasn’t because it was announced but because the lab leaked it. They did so because a lot of positive tests were going nowhere. Landis was upset because he’d seen several positives get swept under the carpet along with advance warnings on testing.

Actually the UCI leaked it, forcing landis' team to announce it publicly

 

[thehog]

Actually the UCI leaked it, forcing landis' team to announce it publicly

You sure? It was in L'Equipe before any announcements but maybe you're right that the UCI got it out there so there was no backing out by Landis.

Back to Kroon. I think what he’s saying is the UCI is full of inconsistencies. Not so much corrupt. They only benefit in covering up the Contador case was the hit to cycling in general. Once it was “out” they had to pretend they were being tough on doping and on Spain. There statement after the CAS decision was indicative of this and the subsequent dinner parties with the Spanish lead weight to the fact he felt sorry for Contador.

 

[Nilsson]

Ugh. More nonsense.

Bauge's positive was covered up. The French Federation announced it only after he was more or less done with his penalty. So was Contador's... until it was leaked.

With the UCI in complete control of the anti-doping processing, of course there are covered up positives.

The UCI isn't in control, let alone complete control. Both the Contador and Baugé case are (in different ways) examples of that. The UCI doesn't have the influence and power to sideline WADA (in a case like Contadors) and doesn't have the power and information to immediately do something in a case like Baugé's...

 

[Race Radio]

You sure? It was in L'Equipe before any announcements but maybe you're right that the UCI got it out there so there was no backing out by Landis.

Yes.

Floyd backed out of some post Tour crits that he was getting paid a ton of cash for. This made rumors fly. The media got a hold of Pat and he said that there was a positive. He did not mention Floyd by name but said it was the "worst case scenario" His team announced the positive a few days later

 

[Polish]

Ugh. More nonsense.

Bauge's positive was covered up. The French Federation announced it only after he was more or less done with his penalty. So was Contador's... until it was leaked.

With the UCI in complete control of the anti-doping processing, of course there are covered up positives.

C'mon DirtyWorks, if the UCI covered up Alberto's positive, wouldn't WADA be mad at the UCI? WADA would not could not allow a coverup c'mon.
That goes against the very mission of WADA.
Instead WADA has been complimenting the UCI and working with them.

Maybe WADA and the UCI were following rules, respecting Alberto's privacy during the process.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The UCI isn't in control, let alone complete control. Both the Contador and Baugé case are (in different ways) examples of that. The UCI doesn't have the influence and power to sideline WADA (in a case like Contadors) and doesn't have the power and information to immediately do something in a case like Baugé's...

#1 you are minimizing the role the UCI played in hiding Contador's positive.

#2 SOMEHOW the UCI had full knowledge a track world champion tests positive and said nothing. Please explain...

Meanwhile, they kick any number of dopers to the curb within days of a positive. Li FuYu? Landis?

Pretend if you like, but the facts are working against you.

 

[DirtyWorks]

C'mon DirtyWorks, if the UCI covered up Alberto's positive, wouldn't WADA be mad at the UCI? WADA would not could not allow a coverup c'mon.

The facts are working against your outlook as well. Please, stop.

 

[thehog]

#1 you are minimizing the role the UCI played in hiding Contador's positive.

#2 SOMEHOW the UCI had full knowledge a track world champion tests positive and said nothing. Please explain...

Meanwhile, they kick any number of dopers to the curb within days of a positive. Li FuYu? Landis?

Pretend if you like, but the facts are working against you.

I'd also add those strange bio cases against Pelozotti etc.

How does Pella go down and Mr. Number 9 Popo stay in the bunch on Bio data?

 

[Cloxxki]

Now that we're talking corruption.

How does this whole situation look like for the Cologne lab? Seems pretty bad for business to provide such great service. Like that one batch of Veloflex tires that were light, quick and durable, pick all three. They stopped making it, of course.

If I were a preferred rider I'd tell my preferred athlete manager to take it up with my preferrred directeur sportive and express concerns about impartiality regarding the Cologne lab. Why still work with them when there are options?

How much do the Germans pay in TV rights anyway? They're not pure cyclist fans in any way. Just making the sport look bad. Look at the trouble they've given us. Ullrich, Voigt...

 

[Polish]

The facts are working against your outlook as well. Please, stop.

Ok, I will stop. But only because you said "please".
Politeness has to count for something around here you know.

 

[Caruut]

Who doés UCI like?

Money, plain and simple.

 

[Nilsson]

#1 you are minimizing the role the UCI played in hiding Contador's positive.

No I'm not. Like I said, of course they weren't happy with Contador's (peculiar and high profile) positive test and didn't want it to get public immediately. No one will contest that. But that's something else than covering it up.

The UCI doesn't have that power, they cannot make WADA go away. It's also why Contador had his B sample tested on September the eight, three weeks before it came out. If the case is going to be covered up, why even bother? Why making official documents and testing B-samples, thus creating extra evidence, if you want it to go away? The best UCI, because of the facts and the profile of the rider, could do for Contador is ask WADA for more research (and de facto more time). You can blame the UCI for hoping it was going away, because of a negative B-sample and the research that was being done for instance, and granting (him) the time to work on that without making the case public (in their hopeful thought, prematurely)...

#2 SOMEHOW the UCI had full knowledge a track world champion tests positive and said nothing. Please explain...

Baugé didn't test positive. He had three (different) WA violations. One missed test and two administrative mistakes. You can blame the French that they (apparently) didn't report to the UCI and maybe vice versa. However, if all information is available (three violations) it's the French who have to make a decision in first instance. They eventually did that (after lingering), and the UCI (on top of that) decided to take away his titles as well. I don't see the covering up here, certainly not by the UCI, only lingering (and sloppiness) from the French and an extra punishment from the UCI...

Meanwhile, they kick any number of dopers to the curb within days of a positive. Li FuYu? Landis?

Facts and profile of the athlete are different, thus cases are handled differently. Landis, as well, got some time to figure things out (but only less, due to circumstances). Fuyu Li isn't high profile, tested positive before the big clenbuterol break-out but, nevertheless, never got suspended and is still awaiting a verdict (if there ever comes one)...

 

[The Hitch]

I just realised that on German wikipedia, the info box on the right has a section for doping, right under the name and discipline, before the teams or victories section even.

Pathetic.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No I'm not. Like I said, of course they weren't happy with Contador's (peculiar and high profile) positive test and didn't want it to get public immediately. No one will contest that. But that's something else than covering it up. .

Something else? Like what? Unicorns? Fairies?

The UCI doesn't have that power, they cannot make WADA go away.

I think you may be misunderstanding me in a couple of different ways. That is partly my fault. Instead of trying to unwind it all, I just assume let it be.

Baugé didn't test positive. He had three (different) WA violations. One missed test and two administrative mistakes.

You are correct. The penalties vary so wildly I cannot keep them straight. Have all riders who missed tests been treated the same way?

Facts and profile of the athlete are different, thus cases are handled differently. .... Fuyu Li isn't high profile,..

This is getting a little crazy because you are picking your facts very carefully to make a case that doesn't reflect what actually happened. For the sake of brevity please explain the following.

Fuyu Li gets a positive for clen and vanishes from the ProTour peloton within days of the announcement. Contador gets a positive for clen and still races for months on end. Both tested positive for the same thing.

Please show me the specific rules that guide the UCI's behavior in both Contador's and Fuyu Li's circumstances. Please be specific.

This way the next guy busted for clen can know with confidence that he'll either get the Contador treatment or the FuYu Li treatment from the UCI. Lots of people would like to see those regulations, so please be specific.

 

[GJB123]

UCI had a provisional suspension on both Contador and Li. Contador got a not-guilty verdict from his country's cycling federation and was therefore eligible to ride again pending the appeal procedure (nothing the UCI could do there) and had a team that was willing to select him for races. Li, on the other hand, is still provisionally suspended and if found not guilty by the Chinese cycling union or olympic committee (if a verdict is ever going to be passed) would be eligible to ride again if any team was willing to employ or select him. Given his stature I would hazard a guess that he would be hard pressed to find such a team.

Regards
GJ

 

[LaFlorecita]

I just realised that on German wikipedia, the info box on the right has a section for doping, right under the name and discipline, before the teams or victories section even.

Pathetic.

Surprising....

 

[Caruut]

UCI had a provisional suspension on both Contador and Li. Contador got a not-guilty verdict from his country's cycling federation and was therefore eligible to ride again pending the appeal procedure (nothing the UCI could do there) and had a team that was willing to select him for races. Li, on the other hand, is still provisionally suspended and if found not guilty by the Chinese cycling union or olympic committee (if a verdict is ever going to be passed) would be eligible to ride again if any team was willing to employ or select him. Given his stature I would hazard a guess that he would be hard pressed to find such a team.

Regards
GJ

One might say that leaving things like this in the hands of the individual federations is the UCI's way of simultaneously getting what's commercially best for it while washing its hands clean. They hand it over to someone with a shared financial interest in the outcome of the case, and so get their own way, while technically not being part of the decision process. The laughable fact is that China has a well-known problem with clen abuse amongst livestock, whereas Spain does not.

 

[Nilsson]

Something else? Like what? Unicorns? Fairies

Like I said, hoping it is going away (because of the B-sample that could be negative and because of WADA's research that could change the result) and until then keeping everything quiet. It's a preferential treatment (which, IMO, every athlete should get, by the way) and completely understandable. The case was super high profile, and very peculiar. Until today we don't exactly know what happened, maybe not even Contador...

I think you may be misunderstanding me in a couple of different ways. That is partly my fault. Instead of trying to unwind it all, I just assume let it be.

Whatever you want...

You are correct. The penalties vary so wildly I cannot keep them straight. Have all riders who missed tests been treated the same way?

No, there is no standard treatment for WA-violations and missed tests. It's really messy if you ask me, and you can blame the French for lingering the case, being sloppy and give Baugé (probably because of the Olympics) a preferential treatment. But you can't blame the UCI, because they depend on the French for information and punishment in first instance. You should in fact probably be happy the UCI decided to take away his titles as well, something the French didn't do...

This is getting a little crazy because you are picking your facts very carefully to make a case that doesn't reflect what actually happened. For the sake of brevity please explain the following.

Fuyu Li was very unlucky to test positive for clenbuterol just before the outburst, which is the most important reason his case has been put on hold. Time is very important in clenbuterol cases. After the Ovtcharov and Contador positives authorities (WADA, most importantly, included) have been looking very differently to clenbuterol cases. WADA has done research (which took a very long time, and was mainly focused on the Contador case), and the lab in Cologne has done very important research. Wilhelm Schänzer, the head of the lab, helped Ovtcharov prove his innocence, got free in first instance in Germany, WADA appealed but eventually (because of the research, Schänzer, and slowly different views on clenbuterol) withdraw their appeal before CAS. After this case WADA didn't appeal the Mexican soccer players (not even the ones that had values up to 4200 pg/ml, where the LA lab didn't even report the adverse analytical findings under 200 pg/ml, because they apparently are in favor of threshold) and of course the cases of Dutch Mountain biker Rudi Van Houts and Danish cyclist Philip Nielsen.

Li was unlucky to test positve before the 'outburst', but nevertheless, should have been able to take advantage because authorities still hadn't decided anything. Until today he never received a verdict from the Chinese, and it looks like he completely vanished. You can't blame the UCI for that...

What about Colo? Do you remember him? He tested positive for clen a couple a years ago after coming back from a race in Mexico. He got a suspension of 1 year, because he probably was innocent. Today he would walk free. Timing is everything...

Contador is a different case than Li's (and all other cases). First, of course, it's more high profile. Secondly, the facts differ. Yes the both tested positive on a small amount, but the circumstances were differently. Li (and all others) tested positve out of the blue, Contador didn't. Contador tested positive at a small amount preceded by negatives. This pointed to some form of contamination, being food, supplements or blood/plasma, which all parties had to accept, which made this case so different and difficult and made them decide to do more research. Also because they found high DEHP levels the day before, probably...

I will quote the case about what happened after confirmation of the B sample and (weeks) before leaking out the case...

As a consequence of the low concentration of clenbuterol found in Mr Contador’s A and B Samples and the fact that the samples that had been collected prior to 21 July 2010 did not contain clenbuterol, the UCI, as well as WADA, decided to conduct a series of investigations in an attempt to understand the finding obtained and, in particular, whether the finding might indicate that other anti-doping violations could have been committed than just the presence of clenbuterol.

There are no specific rules which state how you should handle a case. Authorities aren't consistent in the way they handle cases, because cases aren't consistent. Every case is different, because facts and interests differ. It's clear that both UCI and WADA thought that, in this particular case, this treatment was apparently needed. They needed more research to understand the findings, and, in particular, whether the findings might indicate something else. There was a lot at stake, and I can perfectly understand why they wanted to keep this delicate case out of the public domain and proceed discretely for the time being...

 

[Caruut]

Like I said, hoping it is going away (because of the B-sample that could be negative and because of WADA's research that could change the result) and until then keeping everything quiet. It's a preferential treatment (which, IMO, every athlete should get, by the way) and completely understandable. The case was super high profile, and very peculiar. Until today we don't exactly know what happened, maybe not even Contador...

It's only completely understandable if you accept that the UCI put their financial gain ahead of fighting doping.

No, there is no standard treatment for WA-violations and missed tests. It's really messy if you ask me, and you can blame the French for lingering the case, being sloppy and give Baugé (probably because of the Olympics) a preferential treatment. But you can't blame the UCI, because they depend on the French for information and punishment in first instance. You should in fact probably be happy the UCI decided to take away his titles as well, something the French didn't do...

3 missed tests in a year counts as a positive. Alex Rasmussen got a ban for missing 3 tests in a year due, Michael Rasmussen got one for being in Italy, when he said he was in Mexico. How does all this talk of "no standard" not make you think that they are wilfully not bothering to make a standard, so as to allow them to behave as they want? I can certainly blame the French for lingering and being sloppy - and I do. It's corrupt and unethical to do what they did, and if I can't blame people for that, what can I blame them for?

Fuyu Li was very unlucky to test positive for clenbuterol just before the outburst, which is the most important reason his case has been put on hold. Time is very important in clenbuterol cases. After the Ovtcharov and Contador positives authorities (WADA, most importantly, included) have been looking very differently to clenbuterol cases. WADA has done research (which took a very long time, and was mainly focused on the Contador case), and the lab in Cologne has done very important research. Wilhelm Schänzer, the head of the lab, helped Ovtcharov prove his innocence, got free in first instance in Germany, WADA appealed but eventually (because of the research, Schänzer, and slowly different views on clenbuterol) withdraw their appeal before CAS. After this case WADA didn't appeal the Mexican soccer players (not even the ones that had values up to 4200 pg/ml, where the LA lab didn't even report the adverse analytical findings under 200 pg/ml, because they apparently are in favor of threshold) and of course the cases of Dutch Mountain biker Rudi Van Houts and Danish cyclist Philip Nielsen.

Li was unlucky to test positve before the 'outburst', but nevertheless, should have been able to take advantage because authorities still hadn't decided anything. Until today he never received a verdict from the Chinese, and it looks like he completely vanished. You can't blame the UCI for that...

Given how involved the UCI have been in cases involving big athletes, one might expect them to at least resquest that the Chinese do something about a guy who is probably innocent, or try and appeal or absolve him themselves. But they don't, they just don't care about him.

What about Colo? Do you remember him? He tested positive for clen a couple a years ago after coming back from a race in Mexico. He got a suspension of 1 year, because he probably was innocent. Today he would walk free. Timing is everything...

Yeah. Test positive after they try to change the rules for their favoured athletes, and you're okay. Do so before their commercial interests have been put at stake, and you're just another sacrifice on Pat's behalf.

Contador is a different case than Li's (and all other cases). First, of course, it's more high profile. Secondly, the facts differ. Yes the both tested positive on a small amount, but the circumstances were differently. Li (and all others) tested positve out of the blue, Contador didn't. Contador tested positive at a small amount preceded by negatives. This pointed to some form of contamination, being food, supplements or blood/plasma, which all parties had to accept, which made this case so different and difficult and made them decide to do more research. Also because they found high DEHP levels the day before, probably...

And Fuyu Li comes from a country where cyclists avoided meat for a week because they thought clen contamination is so risky. Yet the big guy claims that while there's no history of it, he reckons Basque beef is bad, and is taken seriously.

There are no specific rules which state how you should handle a case. Authorities aren't consistent in the way they handle cases, because cases aren't consistent. Every case is different, because facts and interests differ. It's clear that both UCI and WADA thought that, in this particular case, this treatment was apparently needed. They needed more research to understand the findings, and, in particular, whether the findings might indicate something else. There was a lot at stake, and I can perfectly understand why they wanted to keep this delicate case out of the public domain and proceed discretely for the time being...

These are all excuses I would trot out to cover-up a cover-up. Don't believe everything you hear. Don't you think the inconsistencies are something that UCI/WADA want to keep? It allows them to behave as they want to on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Nilsson]

It's only completely understandable if you accept that the UCI put their financial gain ahead of fighting doping.

Silly comment. Which financial gain? At best they tried not to damage cycling unnecessary, awaiting the B sample and extra research first. I think that's perfectly understandable and even the way the should act (at all times)...

3 missed tests in a year counts as a positive. Alex Rasmussen got a ban for missing 3 tests in a year due, Michael Rasmussen got one for being in Italy, when he said he was in Mexico. How does all this talk of "no standard" not make you think that they are wilfully not bothering to make a standard, so as to allow them to behave as they want? I can certainly blame the French for lingering and being sloppy - and I do. It's corrupt and unethical to do what they did, and if I can't blame people for that, what can I blame them for?

Sounds like we more or agree on this topic. There is no standard, and that's, like I already said, messy. Although we, of course, have to keep in mind that also this cases differ from one another. An administrative mistake (and even missing a test due to that) is something else than willfully lie in your whereabouts like M. Rasmussen or try to run away from a doping control like Stefan Van Dijk...

Given how involved the UCI have been in cases involving big athletes, one might expect them to at least resquest that the Chinese do something about a guy who is probably innocent, or try and appeal or absolve him themselves. But they don't, they just don't care about him.

They could (and probably even should) have done that, but we don't know the facts. Fuyu Li could be dead, just

Yeah. Test positive after they try to change the rules for their favoured athletes, and you're okay. Do so before their commercial interests have been put at stake, and you're just another sacrifice on Pat's behalf.

Which rules did the UCI (try) change? And for Contador? The one athlete, in that period, who actually got convicted in the end. It's complete nonsense you talk here. Total ignorance from your side or even more amateurism from the UCI...

And Fuyu Li comes from a country where cyclists avoided meat for a week because they thought clen contamination is so risky. Yet the big guy claims that while there's no history of it, he reckons Basque beef is bad, and is taken seriously.

No one says Li should receive a punishment, on the contrary. That Contador has been taken 'seriously' has nothing to do with contaminated meat in particular, but with contamination (in whatever form) as a necessity. Li, Van Hout, Nielsen, the soccer players: they could actually have been using clenbuterol prior to the test for all we know. Contador is the only case where an athlete tested positive after having tested negative the previous days, and where they (coincidentally) ran a test that suggested a high level of plasticizers the day before the clen positive. The Contador case is very different from the others, because of that, and it's perfectly understandable that, before opening a case out in the open against the top athlete in cycling, they wanted to understand the findings and needed to do more research first...

 

[sniper]

It's only completely understandable if you accept that the UCI put their financial gain ahead of fighting doping.

3 missed tests in a year counts as a positive. Alex Rasmussen got a ban for missing 3 tests in a year due, Michael Rasmussen got one for being in Italy, when he said he was in Mexico. How does all this talk of "no standard" not make you think that they are wilfully not bothering to make a standard, so as to allow them to behave as they want? I can certainly blame the French for lingering and being sloppy - and I do. It's corrupt and unethical to do what they did, and if I can't blame people for that, what can I blame them for?

Given how involved the UCI have been in cases involving big athletes, one might expect them to at least resquest that the Chinese do something about a guy who is probably innocent, or try and appeal or absolve him themselves. But they don't, they just don't care about him.

Yeah. Test positive after they try to change the rules for their favoured athletes, and you're okay. Do so before their commercial interests have been put at stake, and you're just another sacrifice on Pat's behalf.

And Fuyu Li comes from a country where cyclists avoided meat for a week because they thought clen contamination is so risky. Yet the big guy claims that while there's no history of it, he reckons Basque beef is bad, and is taken seriously.

These are all excuses I would trot out to cover-up a cover-up. Don't believe everything you hear. Don't you think the inconsistencies are something that UCI/WADA want to keep? It allows them to behave as they want to on a case-by-case basis.

excellent post, excellent points, my thoughts exactly.

Just wanted to add that this recurring apologist mantra that "the UCI is still doing more for a clean sport than other sports bodies, so stop whining" isn't working either.
If soccer and tennis fans don't care about their profis and governing bodies being corrupt and cheaters, then that's their business. It doesn't mean that we as cycling fans should content ourselves with a dirty peloton.

enough cycling fans apparently do care about a clean sport, and the uci should live up to the high(?) standards that we as fans impose on the sport.

 

[Caruut]

Silly comment. Which financial gain? At best they tried not to damage cycling unnecessary, awaiting the B sample and extra research first. I think that's perfectly understandable and even the way the should act (at all times).

My point is that they only go to such lengths for one of their top guys. Why should he have extra research done before he was convicted? If it was just some domestique in the same situation, he'd be hung out to dry. That's why I think it's about financial gain - the protect their stars, the ones that bring money in, but others are left to fend for themselves, or even actively persecuted to give this "tough on doping image". That's completely wrong, in my book.

Sounds like we more or agree on this topic. There is no standard, and that's, like I already said, messy. Although we, of course, have to keep in mind that also this cases differ from one another. An administrative mistake (and even missing a test due to that) is something else than willfully lie in your whereabouts like M. Rasmussen or try to run away from a doping control like Stefan Van Dijk.

Yeah, Chicken's behaviour was obviously suspicious - Monaco racing license, saying he's in Mexico where they probably won't bother coming to find him, it's clear what was going on. There are still athletes who have behaved similarly, yet been protected. Teams going out to the Vienna lab on rest days, and the like, but they got away with it. Alex Rasmussen was just a moron - he was even tested that day at a 6-day race he was in, and then got off because the UCI handled his case terribly.

Which rules did the UCI (try) change? And for Contador? The one athlete, in that period, who actually got convicted in the end. It's complete nonsense you talk here. Total ignorance from your side or even more amateurism from the UCI.

When I say "change the rules", I mean all the extra things they did for Contador that other athletes just didn't get - more research, there was a lot of talk about setting a tolerance level for clenbuterol, which might have given Contador's lawyers a look-in. The UCI did everything they could to seem like they were being tough, while they tried to help Contador out. The extremely prolonged hearing resulting in him ending up with a 6 month ban, and 1.5 years of wiped results suited both the UCI and Contador.

No one says Li should receive a punishment, on the contrary. That Contador has been taken 'seriously' has nothing to do with contaminated meat in particular, but with contamination (in whatever form) as a necessity. Li, Van Hout, Nielsen, the soccer players: they could actually have been using clenbuterol prior to the test for all we know. Contador is the only case where an athlete tested positive after having tested negative the previous days, and where they (coincidentally) ran a test that suggested a high level of plasticizers the day before the clen positive. The Contador case is very different from the others, because of that, and it's perfectly understandable that, before opening a case out in the open against the top athlete in cycling, they wanted to understand the findings and needed to do more research first...

This bolded part is what I'm really trying to get at - that he was the top athlete was hugely influential in the handling of his case.

 

[Nilsson]

Of course the fact that he's a top athlete is very important. Even the UCI fully admits that. Both Contador and cycling had a lot to lose, so it's understandable that both UCI and WADA wanted to be sure...

Being a top athlete also works both ways. You don't think it's unfair that he's tested 20 times as much as the average cyclist, do you? You don't think its unfair that, because of that, they have more data to work with, which, as well, works both ways and, very importantly, was essential for UCI and WADA to decide to do more research to understand the findings, because of the combination of a small amount and preceding negatives, the plasticizers, the necessity of some form of contamination and the possibility of another doping violation...