- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Jonathan Tiernan-Locke GCN YouTube stillBio passport charges for Team Sky's Jonathan Tiernan-Locke
The UCI has asked British Cycling to open disciplinary proceedings against Team Sky's Jonathan Tiernan-Locke in connection with irregularities in his biological passport. A statement issued through his agent said that Tiernan-Locke "vehemently denies the charges brought against him and has informed the UCI that he fully intends to contest them."
This morning, the UCI issued a communiqué which read:
The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods).
Consequently and in compliance with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI has requested his National Federation to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
UKAD and WADA have been informed of the matter pursuant to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and the WADA code.
At this stage, the UCI will not comment further.
In September, Team Sky confirmed that the 28-year-old from Devon had been asked to account for differences in his blood values from samples taken in late 2012, a year in which he won the Tour of Britain, and those recorded after his move to the WorldTour team for 2013.
Team Sky says that it has suspended Tiernan-Locke from all of his duties with it while the case is ongoing and reiterated that the charges relate to the period before he joined it.
A statement from the team issued this morning says: "Team Sky notes that Jonathan Tiernan-Locke has been charged with a violation of the UCI anti-doping rules.
"We have been informed that he intends to defend himself against that charge.
"Jonathan Tiernan-Locke will not ride for Team Sky or take part in any team activities – including training camps and all team duties – until a decision is made in this disciplinary hearing process.
"We understand that the violation was highlighted by an anomaly in his Biological Passport, in a reading taken before he signed for this team.
"There are no doubts about his approach or performance in Team Sky. This is a team that trains, races and wins clean.
"At this stage, we will add no further detail until this initial disciplinary process is concluded."
Tiernan-Locke first started undergoing regular blood testing following his 2012 Tour of Britain overall victory.
He was riding for Endura Racing at the time, although in September, the clothing brand that was the team's owner and sponsor claimed that for much of the year he trained under Sky's supervision prior to his move.
Like Sky, Endura have said that differences in the rider's blood values could be down to factors such as illness or fatigue - Tiernan-Locke has struggled with both this year and has had problems adapting to the rigours of racing at WorldTour level - instead of doping.
The rider spent several years out of the sport during his early 20s as he recovered from a debilitating virus and concentrated on university, but attracted the attentopn of top-flight teams when he won early-season French races, the Tour Méditerranéen and Tour du Haut Var, in early 2012.
His late flowering prompted suspicions to be raised by French newspaper L'Equipe, which following those victories asked: “Are we in the presence of a champion or a chimera? Tiernan-Locke can only be one or the other to win five races in a row.
“He’s part of a team from the third division, a category where the riders don’t have to submit to biological monitoring, via the blood passport programme of the Union Cycliste Internationale.”
The UCI's decision to request British Cycling to open disciplinary proceedings against Tiernan-Locke will have been made by an 11-member panel of experts. The proceedings themselves will be handled by UK Anti-Doping.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 0 sec ago
Be interesting to see the demographics. All I had to do was answer 5 verbal HC questions and read a number plate !
- mattw 8 min 26 sec ago
ATE should be FOIable.
- TheBillder 16 min 28 sec ago
Given the information you share (very occasionally!) about another police force, I commend you for this balance!
- Patrick9-32 18 min 33 sec ago
Anything to take power from the tories is good. Even if its mostly symbolic power, if they have a political party affiliation next to their name I...
- Hirsute 22 min 20 sec ago
You need to clean your drive chain as you are prematurely wearing all the parts - sprockets, chain, jockey rollers, chainrings....
- chrisonabike 18 min 29 sec ago
Yes. Traffic (motor traffic) is not the lifeblood of the city....
- john_smith 26 min 44 sec ago
"So Ukraine are allowed to retaliate but not Israel" Neither of them is.
- EmmaES 45 min 17 sec ago
I'm having this same problem too. Subscribed last night but when I try to pick my team it tells me to subscribe. I know of several other people...
- David9694 4 hours 45 sec ago
Car left hanging from road after crashing through railing in Looe...
Add new comment
74 comments
It's possible they might not have any useable data, they may, as Legin puts it, just have the opinion of a bunch of people round a table, they might be working off nothing more than a hunch. If that was the case, I would expect that the UCI would have held back from saying anything and put him under watch, with extra testing in and out of competition. In other words, to do what they are supposed to do.
But they have come out now and said that he has doped and they want BC/UKADA to deal with him.
Pretty fucking big risk if they aren't nailed on don't you think? Coming so soon after Heras suing the Spanish authorities for a million Euros and Jeannie Longo suing the French ADA?
Implicating a rider who has just made the absolute move of his career to one of the sports wealthiest teams? Christ, if he isn't found guilty they will have dropped a right bollock won't they? He would be able to wipe the floor with them.
Considering they have offered him opportunities to explain this all away, I'm confident they will have done their homework and that this nailed on.
I agree that Sky suspending JTL is absolutely standard process and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, what is a bit poor is the way they have publicly distanced themselves from the guy. I say this because they know, they will know if JTL was doping last year or not... Why?because Jon was working nearly exclusively with BC and Sky from around June on-wards.
To say 'he's done nothing under our care' and 'this dates from before his time with us' is frankly lying... and leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
Also, I am very surprised that the UCI have gone for this case as the amount of data collected is very small to be able to make such bold statements as he definitely doped... actually to be really specific with the nature of the doping, or blood manipulation they believe he is supposed to have done.
Personally, whether guilty or not, I can't see how this will stand up to the due diligence of a full appeal case. They have all of 6 months data, taken during a time when the rider is known to have been in poor health.
It just seems strange to take the risk of pushing for a sanction when they could have gathered more data to make a more robust case either way.
My gut feeling is that Jon has been a pawn in a much bigger game... Poor Jon.
Yes, I think it is a case of the last part. The blood passport is only as good as the data. Look at how Armstrong was able to circumvent the process (I know this is conjecture, but you'd have to prove to me why a 38 year old rider out of the game for two years was able to get back on it against known dopers, when he is a known doper, without doping). He basically got a pass on the first passport report and then resumed his fiddling.
I suspect that they were interested to get a pre-Sky and Sky blood test to see how the process is being circumvented. Who knows if it was a specifically targeted attempt on Sky.....but it is shabby how he has been dropped. As I understand it the pre-Sky blood test came about while he was with Endura, but training with Sky, and so the claims about it not being Sky are not entirely accurate - though there was a fair amount of mud slinging from both Sky and Endura. No one wants to be associated with JTL it seems.
People seem to be arguing about him being innocent/guilty. I think the fact that it has gone so far without JTL being able to put this to bed is a fairly damning indictment on him. There have been a few cases of 'false' positives following poor collection techniques, but they usually relate to in competition tests, which are usually negative (you'd be incredibly thick to turn up to a competition 'glowing').
I think that professional sportsmen/women have pretty much abdicated the right to the innocent until proven guilty stance, because most of the time the tests don't prove anything even when they are guilty. All one can say is 'isn't it unfair that the others haven't been caught too'.
'Jon was working with Sky/BC almost exclusively from Jun onwards'
So we'll ignore the stage races he rode between Jun and Sep away with and for Endura:
Route de Sud
Tour Alsace (which he won)
Paris-Correze
Vuelta a Ciclista Leon (6th on GC)
As well as ToB
We'll also ignore the training days with Endura during that period, inc the preToB training camp in Sep...?
He was most definitely not 'almost exclusively' working with, for or under Sky or BC during that period. Or before it. He went on 2 (?) training camps with them, 1 of which was in April.
Even for the Worlds, he arrived to join the team just a couple of days before the road race.
If you were a lawyer (for example) and you were under investigation for malpractice, do you think your firm would be happy to keep you on - have you at the staff Christmas party, have you representing them in court etc?
No, you'd be on leave pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Same in almost any job. Riding a bike is a job for JTL so his employers have followed correct procedure and released an entirely factual statement - no bias, no assumption, and he's "on leave".
Nothing unfair there.
ah, the old 'debilitating illness' issue raises its head again...
Why should Sky continue to invest in a sportsman who is potentially going to get a ban from cycling?
Why should they allow someone who hasn't had any major wins for them, potentially tarnish the names of their squad that have?
In any other job, if you are accused of inappropriate behaviour or fraud, you would be suspended from work until proven innocent and potentially sacked! Cycling teams are no different.
Not saying he is guilty but why should Sky stand by him when the odds are not in his favour?
I was under the impression that they did one when he was in the 'little leagues' test when he was suffering from some sort of long standing viral condition and then when he made the big leagues he had another test and the two didn't match...which sort of tallies up?
That was my understanding as well.
However you have to think that if it was that simple we would not have gone this far and the issue would have been resolved already.
It's not looking too good for JTL methinks.
Hmprf - the UCI has given the guy ample time to build a defense and the only thing he can come up with is I deny?
This doesn't look good on his part while for once the UCI has done the proceedings in a decent way allowing for him to come up with a good explanation, that there's no scientific defense on his side doesn't follow the trend of weak excuses though, and it doesn't bode well.
Don't trust a guy because he's relatable (which is often the case when he's from your own nationality), we have seen nice guys (and not so nice guys) do doping and get away with it.
No surprise in the UCI decision - procedure.
Sky's decision to pretty much dump the rider out in the cold stinks though!
This will not help the Anti-Doping campaign further. Their stance of ZeroTolerance is bad enough and could be argued as disrupting the campaign against doping - this decision for a rider under their employment, is counter productive to the campaign against doping.
Either they support him and help him to the end, believing they employed a clean rider...
OR they admit that they employ dirty riders and only become responsible for their past when found out.
Someone at Sky needs to swallow a bravery pill and grow some balls.
Read what I wrote earlier - they've not "dumped him in the cold", they're simply following the procedure that most companies follow when an employee is suspected of malpractice.
He's not been found innocent or guilty. The UCI have instructed his home federation to begin disciplinary proceedings.
Neither he nor Sky have to explain anything to you, me, road.cc or anyone else other than the disciplinary commission that British Cycling pull together. "I deny it" is perfectly reasonable unless you think you're in some kind of expert position to analyse his exact explanation?
Sky are 'devil you do - devil you dont'.
They get criticised when they let dodgy doctors in and get criticised when they come down hard at the first sniff of doping.
I feel sorry for the lad - he has been plagued with bad luck and this could be the final straw.
Not that it matters what i think but im inclined to give him the benefit of doubt - hasnt he been ill quite a lot? That could play havoc with whatever witchcraft they use to test cyclists im sure.
Even in law this happens, suspects are held on remand even though they are technically innocent as they have not had a trail, this is the same, Sky have suspending him until after the trial (hearing or whatever you want to call it).
Just like normal law, the evidence presented means they are are confident of a prosecution, but as we know, not everybody is guilty and some clearly get acquitted.
So right now.... he isn't guilty, however Sky have to suspend him, my company would suspend me if I did anything which impacted my job and also... they would not exactly be defending me in court, so I don't see why Sky should.
Doesn't the MPCC require riders to be suspended in these situations?
I dont think sky have signed up to this ?
MPCC Rule 1 states: "Provisionally suspend, since the communication of the first sample, a rider who tested positive."
There's been no positive test here, though.
Also, Sky aren't an MPCC member; only around 2 in 3 WorldTour teams are, other non-members include BMC, Cannondale, Movistar, OPQS, Tinkoff-Saxo and Trek - most of what you'd call the 'big' teams, then.
Sky aren't stopping him from training, they're preventing him from going to training camps, which is a very different issue. They're far from the first team to effectively suspend a rider while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing.
crazy-legs is absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with the way Sky are handling it. He'll still be on the payroll - but he's being stood down pending British Cycling calling the disciplinary hearing, and then issuing their decision incl sanction.
Nothing wrong with that.
You don't know what Sky have said/done behind closed doors. He's probably on whatever the cycling equivalent of "gardening leave" is.
You can't have someone who's under investigation for malpractice still in the team - that goes for most jobs, not just cycling.
I say let due process run its course rather than start slagging off the rider/the team.
If he was a policeman who had killed someone, he would be on paid administrative leave.
Gardening leave is where you are paid to sit at home for the remaining time that your contract has to run.
JTL is being held at arms length.
Reading the Sky offical comment it rather sounds like they've hung him out to dry.
"...a reading taken before he signed for this team."
SKY statement..
quote "he will defend himself"
SKY have totally distanced themselves from him.
Great support SKY, brilliant
My thoughts exactly PJ McNally...
For me to remove from competition until its sorted is sensible, but to remove him from off season training camps is like putting the naughty boy in class on a separate table facing the wall. Achieves nothing but create more problems than already exist.
Unless he's admitted to the SKY chiefs he's guilty, surely the innocent until proven guilty rule should be shown by his team.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Team Sky, ffs. It's one thing not to take him to any races while he's being investigated. It's another to prevent him training. If he's cleared, how is he supposed to come back?
Sky doesn't want anyone who's ever been in the same sentence as "doping". Which is a perverse attitude for a cycling team.
I'm not what you would call a fan of them but I think Sky have this right.
Why should they pay for and assist the training someone who has doped?
This isn't just a suspicion, this has gone past that stage as it has been under investigation for several months and now the authorities feel confident enough to say that he has committed a doping violation.
It's a crying shame, but unless he has a bloody good explanation I'm afraid that being chewed up and spat out is the only route for him.
At this stage he is guilty of nothing; nice of you to jump the gun though!
Do you understand what the phrase "jumping the gun" means or have you just heard a grown up use it and decided it would be your phrase of the day?
His bio-passport showed what they tactfully called an "anomaly".
The UCI have since then spent several months analysing and studying his values.
After these studies the UCI have decided that "The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods)."
The UCI are giving him a chance to explain himself because that's the way it has to go, but they are confident enough that he has doped to start disciplinary proceedings. It's a final throw of the dice for JTL and essentially an arse covering exercise for the UCI.
If they were unsure, they would have kept looking, if they had found nothing they wouldn't have started disciplinary proceedings.
This is hardly jumping the gun.
Has he been found guilty or not? Let me help you; the answer is no! After the process has ended he may be found guilty and then people like you can start your pontificating. There have been instances in the past where riders have explained the circumstances and no punishment has ensued.
To assume he is guilty is jumping the gun. His guilt is a yes/no decision and that has yet to be made.
Yes he is. He is guilty of having irregularities in his blood sample. It is now up to him to explain why.
It's funny how often a sudden 'late flowering' of an otherwise journeyman athlete into a champion often seems to precede positive drug tests.
Pages