Forum cyclisme de Velo-Club du Net

Official documents obtained by VeloNews show that the results of Cardoso’s “B” sample, performed by the Laboratoire Suisse d’Analyse du Dopage in Lausanne, Switzerland did not match that of his A sample.

“The result of the analysis of the urine sample is doubtful but inconclusive regarding the presence of recombinant EPO,” reads the test report for the B sample.

Per WADA guidelines, a negative B sample overrides the A sample, resulting in no sanction. Rather than categorize the result as negative, however, the Lausanne laboratory listed Cardoso’s result as “Atypical Finding.” That decision left the door open for cycling’s governing body to pursue a sanction against Cardoso under a section of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code

WADA documents show that testers came to Cardoso’s home on the evening of Sunday, June 18, 2017 and performed both urine and blood controls at approximately 8:15 p.m.
“I think, ‘Oh, that is OK, it is maybe 10 minutes and is pretty easy,” Cardoso said. “I open the doors. I already knew the doctors and I’m like, this is no big deal.”

Athletes in WADA out-of-competition testing pools must file whereabouts documents that provide a specific 60-minute slot every day between 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. that anchors the athlete to a specific location. Athletes must make themselves available for testing during that time.

“Athletes will receive a missed test if they are unavailable during the specified 60-minute time slot indicated on their whereabouts filing when attempted for testing,” reads a note on the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency website.

Cardoso references this 60-minute window as proof of his innocence. Cardoso’s testing window was from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Had he been doping, Cardoso said, he would not have opened the door. He would have instead simply skipped the test since the testers were well outside of his testing window.

After Cardoso’s B sample returned an inconclusive reading, the UCI still decided to pursue a suspension. In a letter to Cardoso dated August 9, 2017, the UCI explained its decision and referenced WADA code 2.2.
“Use may be established upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B sample) or from the analysis of a B sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other sample,” reads a clause in the rule.

In Cardoso’s case, the reported presence of recombinant EPO in his A sample was proof that he had used or attempted to use the drug.

AlbatorConterdo a écrit : ↑

15 nov. 2018, 17:59

Ses avocats doivent être vraiment mauvais.

Lemon-Curry a écrit : ↑

15 nov. 2018, 18:20

J'ai bien du mal à croire à son innocence, par contre cette affaire démontre encore une fois qu'on est bel et bien revenu à une lutte anti-dopage à deux vitesses.

Booze a écrit : ↑

15 nov. 2018, 22:22

Si tu serres puissant, tu n'as aucun souci à te faire.

AlbatorConterdo a écrit : ↑

15 nov. 2018, 18:24

Rappelons que c'est suite à ce contrôle inopiné que Cardoso a du laisser sa place au grand Z à quelques jours du départ du TdF 2017.
On ne sait pas tout...