Johan Bruyneel questions UCI biological passport after Lazkano: “They never do this with big names”

After Oier Lazkano was provisionally suspended by the UCI over irregular values in his biological passport — a development that led Red Bull–BORA‑hansgrohe to terminate his contract — the anti‑doping system is back under the microscope. Speaking on his podcast TheMove, Johan Bruyneel shared a critical take on how the passport is being applied.

Lazkano never returned a positive dopingtest, but anomalies were found in his biological passport, consequentially, he was suspended, and his contract at Red Bull-BORA-hansgrohe terminated. Bruyneel questions if that is fair. "I support the biological passport, but it’s strange to see it being used to suspend athletes."

"Usually people were not suspended until years later," the Belgian also shares. "Four years years ago they suspended Juan José Cobo, the winner of the 2011 Vuelta, i think." The Spaniard retired a while ago, and didn't have the means to fight back. That's a pattern. "They never do this with big names, who have a lot of financial resources. And there's a reason no big big champion with a lot of money has been put in this situation. Because then it falls, it's not going to stand."

The big names are not caught. "With smaller fish, the passport is used, like with Lazkano. They really do their homework - how long and hard is this guy going to fight this? It costs a lot of money. You will lose against the panel, the experts, they are on board and you will not change their opinion. Then you have to go to the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport, ed.) ... it's going to take 3 years."

As an illustration, Bruyneel referenced the case of Chris Froome, who tested positive for elevated salbutamol during the 2017 Vuelta a España but was ultimately cleared. "Then it was Salbutamol through an inhaler. He had tested positive, but he had great lawyers. The UCI dropped the case. And it supposed to be public: the President of the UCI by mistake leaked it."

Stars like Froome have more than enough financial resources to challenge decisions, while normal domestiques - and even winners like Lazkano, do not.. That's what the biological passport was created for, Bruyneel argues. 'What I know for sure is that the UCI assessed the situation. Once they decide they push forward, they know they have - considering the circumstances - a strong case, because the guy is not going to fight it."

Bruyneel has been at odds with anti-doping agencies and the UCI for years. He sees a painful pattern at the International Cycling Federation. 'Katerina Nash, a mountainbiker, tested positive for something I do not know what. Her explanation was she got contaminated by medication for her dog," he laughs. "That was accepted by my good friend Travis Tygart (CEO of USADA). She is now vice president of the UCI."

She is not the only one that tested positive and to got a job at the UCI. "Peter Van Den Abeele was a cyclocross rider, and he tested positive in 1993," Bruyneel also reports. "Now he's UCI's No. 3. Pick and choose." Additionally, Bruyneel mentions the doping case involving Toon Aerts, who - despite contamination, like Nash - was not acquitted.

In closing, Bruyneel reiterated that he supports the passport in principle — provided it’s used for its intended purpose. " “I’m in favour of the biological passport, and it brought major change to the sport. But it needs to be used for its purpose.”