In the complex world of professional cycling, details are often intertwined with controversy, and one of the most recent cases that has raised questions is that of
Nairo Quintana. Among the 57 cyclists who tested positive for tramadol in 2022, only two faced sanctions from the International Cycling Union, and one of them was the Colombian. This has caused his country to cry out against the UCI.
Since 2019, tramadol, although not listed as a doping substance (it will be as of January 1, 2024), is subject to penalties by the UCI. Although it is not considered a performance-enhancing substance, its use can have negative impacts on cyclists' health and safety in races. Therefore, the UCI has imposed significant sanctions to discourage its use.
Nairo Quintana's case came to attention in August 2022, when the UCI notified him of his positive for tramadol during the Tour de France on two separate occasions. The sanction included disqualification from the event, removal of UCI points and a fine. What followed, however, was an unraveling of events that amplified the consequences of the case. To date, Nairo Quintana has failed to find a new team, which has led to speculation about a possible veto against him.
Intriguingly, a document has come to light revealing that 57 samples of competing professional cyclists tested positive for tramadol in 2022 alone, the same year Quintana was sanctioned. Surprisingly, the UCI took action only against the Colombian cyclist and Mykhalo Kononenko, while the other 55 riders received no notifications or sanctions from the organization. This raises a fundamental question: Why?
Raul Banqueri, a renowned journalist, has pointed out the curious contrast in this case. "In 2016, 6.5% of anti-doping samples contained tramadol. This substance has been banned since March 1, 2019. Among the 57 positive samples in 2022, only 2 cyclists were sanctioned: Nairo Quintana and Mykhaylo Kononenko. We do not know what happened to the rest of the positive samples."
This is what they are asking in Colombia after Banqueri's information: "The discrepancy between the number of positive cases and the sanctions imposed raises legitimate questions about the fairness of the UCI's application of the rules and sanctions. Is it possible that there is a certain amount of attention focused on Nairo Quintana? The lack of clarity on this issue only fuels speculation and highlights the need for transparency in UCI decisions."
