If the UCI won’t, WADA will

Today marks the UCI’s final chance to appeal the decision last month to absolve Alberto Contador of any wrongdoing. But if they don’t, WADA will, reckons Anthony Tan.

We've heard somewhere between little to nothing on the UCI's intentions to accept or appeal the 15 February decision by the disciplinary commission of the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) to exonerate Alberto Contador, who continues to be the overall winner of last year's Tour de France and pin on a race number, as is his wont.

But if it is the latter – that is, to appeal the decision to Switzerland's Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) – today is their final chance to do so. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has another three weeks to make their judgement call.

Upon learning of the RFEC decision, the four paragraph, 111-word press release from the UCI appeared to indicate they would mount a challenge, saying they noted the final verdict differed from the initial recommendation to ban Contador for one year, and that the boys in Aigle "reserves the right to conduct an in-depth study of the reasons behind the decision before expressing its opinion". The UCI also said they were awaiting the full dossier from the RFEC.

But if one goes by the comments made by certain top anti-doping officials of late, if I was a betting man, I'd say Contador's dossier and the evidence within will be pored over for some time yet – and if the UCI don't appeal, WADA almost certainly will.

Although unable to comment directly on "caso Contador", professor Arne Ljungqvist, vice president of WADA and chairman of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, nevertheless told the Associated Press on 25 February that claims of food contamination in sports doping cases are old hat and have never been accepted by a sports panel like CAS.

It doesn't take Einstein to deduce both the RFEC and UCI have vested interests in the outcome of such a high profile case, given it is part of both organisations' credo to promote cycling; if you've walked down their hallways or read enough of their press releases, it is part of their mantra. Remember, it was the UCI who let it be known that the concentration of clenbuterol, the weight loss and muscle-building drug Contador got himself into trouble with on the second rest day of the 2010 Tour, was four-hundred times below the minimum standards of detection required by WADA, and that further scientific investigation would be required. (Perhaps, they're too simply too busy concerning themselves with enforcing the rollout of their race radio ban, and learning of the legitimacy of this supposed renegade ProTour that appears to be championed by Johan Bruyneel and Jonathan Vaughters.)

From what Ljungqvist says, it's basically why an unbiased court of appeal is so important. "It's not the first time that a national federation excuses their own athlete," he told the AP. "That's why we have this safeguard of an appeal system."

Ljungqvist, who served as chairman of the International Athletics Federation's medical commission from 1980-2004, even dismissed a study done by the WADA-accredited lab in Cologne, Germany, that found 22 out of 28 travellers returning from China to Germany tested positive for trace amounts of clenbuterol. He says it was not a proper peer-reviewed scientific study, with the deputy director-general of China's Anti-Doping Agency also rejecting the Cologne lab's findings.

As for the tiddly-biddly amount of clenbuterol found in Contador's urine on 21 July, Ljungqvist says the strict liability rule was enforced after a Norwegian shot putter blamed his positive test results on food contamination in the early 1980s. Still, in cycling at least, there is an out-clause – Article 296 of the UCI's anti-doping regulations, which state:

"If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider's Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312."

So, although the public has not been privy to the Contador dossier, we must assume the Spaniard's defence team proved not only did he ingest the clenbuterol inadvertently, but that he also proved the source of the contamination.

It was interesting – though perhaps unsurprising – to see Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency, implicitly say he'll be relying on WADA – not the UCI – to ensure impartiality with respect to the Contador case. "WADA plays the great equaliser to ensure justice is even and in line with the facts and the rules around the world," Tygart told the AP, adding: "If our heroes need to be brought down because they cheated then that's what all athletes expect us to need to do and we need to have a strong resolve to do that sometimes."

Should the UCI or WADA appeal the RFEC's findings and the CAS upholds their ruling, setting Contador free for good, it would make for a landmark ruling on par with their decision earlier this month to ban Franco Pellizotti and Pietro Caucchioli based on evidence gathered from the riders' biological passports.

2011 has already shown itself to be a year for apocalyptic meteorological events. Will it also be a year for watershed decisions from sport's highest court of justice?