Belgian cyclocross star Toon Aerts, who earlier this week received a two-year doping ban after testing positive for the testosterone-boosting drug Letrozole, has launched a scathing critique of the UCI’s handling of his case, including sending the governing body a “big and heartfelt middle finger”.
The 29-year-old, a leading figure on the cyclocross circuit for much of the past decade, failed an out-of-competition test for Letrozole in January 2022, a week and half before he finished sixth at the cyclocross world championships in Fayeteville, Arkansas, won by Tom Pidcock.
On Friday, after a lengthy investigation, the UCI suspended him for two years, backdated to February 2022 (meaning he will miss the coming ‘cross season), and stripped him of any results obtained between 19 January and 5 February 2022.
> Toon Aerts set to receive two-year ban for positive anti-doping test
The substance Aerts tested positive for, Letrozole, is primarily used to block oestrogen during the treatment of breast cancer, but can be used in a sporting context to help boost the production of testosterone. It is regarded by the UCI as a specified substance, meaning it does not come with an automatic provisional suspension, though Aerts decided to suspend himself while he prepared his defence.
Despite claiming that he was a victim of contamination through a food supplement, the UCI ruled that “after a thorough examination of the case, including several expert reports submitted by the Belgian rider, the Tribunal considered that Toon Aerts had failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his body.”
In a statement released last night, Aerts lambasted the governing body and its treatment of “flesh-and-blood people”.
“1.5 years I had to wait for this final verdict,” he said. “I may have typed in the word Letrozole on Google 5,000 times during this period… hoping to find the missing piece of the puzzle. But we didn’t find it. Now where on earth did it come from? I still don’t know exactly how this got into my body. But I can’t blame myself. I threw thousands of euros at it, visited several universities, had several reports written by experts… and in the meantime I just kept running, cycling, and teaching.
“Never was I invited by the UCI or given the chance to speak to anyone physically. Everything was via email or registered mail. We were always bound by tight deadlines to reply within a few days, which often included holidays. But on the other hand, we always had to wait weeks, sometimes months, before we could receive anything back.
“Waiting, waiting, waiting… I think they sometimes forget that riders are also just flesh-and-blood people.”
(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
He continued: “It has also become clear to me over the past few months that the ‘presumption of innocence’ simply doesn’t exist here. I thought this was a basic right… We tried to explain everything we knew ourselves as transparently as possible and to substantiate it scientifically. This showed with 100 percent certainty that I am not a conscious doping user. You then at least hope for common sense from the people on the other side… But there just isn’t any. The legal framework is sacred.
“I never took doping and ever even considered it. After a year and a half in a legal tug-of-war, now portrayed as a cheater. Along with my entire family and surrounds suddenly labelled losers. It hurts and it doesn’t feel right.
“Well here UCI, a bit and heartfelt middle finger! You could have made us the happiest people on earth… But who is Toon Aerts in the big circus of cycling?”
> “It’s like being wrongly put in prison for murder”: Canyon-SRAM’s Shari Bossuyt protests innocence following doping positive
Aerts concluded by referencing the case of fellow Belgian rider Shari Bossuyt, who also tested positive for Letrozole in June, and who is currently suspended by her Canyon-Sram team as the investigation into her case continues. Like Aerts, the 22-year-old claims she is a victim of contamination.
“I only hope my case rings a bell with everyone,” he wrote, “because I am holding my heart for riders and athletes who may go through exactly the same thing. My heart is bleeding for Shari who is in the same situation.”
Aerts also confirmed he will “definitely be back” racing when his suspension ends on 16 February next year.
Add new comment
43 comments
Eventful commutes today. Saw one bike on pedestrian crash (red light for cyclist) one bike on bike crash, and had a hairy moment when I had to come to a halt in the middle of the busy Embankment / Blackfriars cycle junction when I realised my shoe lace was loose and had wrapped itself around the pedal axle!
Except none of our money is going into it, TfL have just partnered with a range of bicycle manufacturers and other alternative transport providers who are offering discounts to people in the ULEZ zones; the discounts are coming out of the companies' profits, TfL are simply giving them free promotion.
RE ULEZ expansion - I am not a supporter, why? If the mayor Khan is not misleading us, then 90% of vehicles travelling in this zone already comply, therefore, the ULEZ will only have a marginal effect. Plus, in a short space of time, these older vehicles will be scrapped anyway.
Air quality in London would be better improved by widespread, proactive enforcement of the speed limits. Stopping drivers racing around urban/suburban roads at near motorway speeds will have a much more significant improvement in exhaust emissions.
Additionally, with widespread adherence to the legal speed limits, Councils could then remove much of the road humps and speed cushions they have installed, which are known to have significantly increased air pollution, in comparison with free moving traffic.
But OHHHHH! Policing the speed limit is a "WAR ON MOTORISTS". Fineing offenders is a "TAX ON MOTORISTS".
Just a thought.......
Stopping drivers racing around urban/suburban roads at near motorway speeds will have a much more significant improvement in exhaust emissions.
Councils could then remove much of the road humps and speed cushions they have installed, which are known to have significantly increased air pollution, in comparison with free moving traffic.
Are these statements based on evidence? They seem a bit iffy to me.
Yes.
A study published about 10 years ago concluded there is a significant increase in air pollution caused by road humps and speed cushions.
Many newspapers then ran the headline "Councils to rip out speed ramps.." following publication.
A few years ago, at my instigation, my local Police and Council commissioned a speed survey in my road (30mph residential suburban road in London). I received the data from that survey.
The Headline finding of that data is as follows:
[Note: ACPO guidelines suggest motorists exceeding 35mph in a 30mph limit should receive a FPN]
If two speed cameras were erected in my road, one for each direction of traffic flow, then according to the data, these cameras would generate a total of £1/4 million in speeding fines........
Not in one year....
not in one month.....
nor in one week, but in
a single day!!!!!!!
The speed detectors recorded 2,500 vehicles exceeding the ACPO guidelines on average every day.
Some of those vehicles exceeded 60mph
dozens per day exceeded 50mph.
But the stretch of road surveyed was only a few hundred metres long.
So these vehicles were accelerating up to 40-50-60mph then braking to a stand still by the end of the road.
That is a lot of excessive exhaust emmissions
Does that answer your question?
Isn't it odd: a relatively minor subsidy for a bicycle is criticised, but a much larger one to buy another car is praised.
We live in strange times, and they aren't getting any better.
"The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters."
Regarding tHE laWER who cannot be named.. can we all just refer to him as 'ankles' from now on pleeeeease? Y'know.. because he's lower than a cnut.
Dear Householder
as you know, Big Cycle has won allthe arguments and the planned programme of private motor vehicle removal from homes is now underway.
For collection purposes have been grouped as follows:
Phase 1 - Stuipid Unnecessary Vehicles over 3.0l that never go off road and whose average trip is less than 15 miles.
Phase 2 - medium-sized cars that are moderately twatty due to modifications or usage pattern
(etc)
as you own a Category 1 vehicle, a home visit has been booked for 20 September between 10:04 and 11:04.
Please ensure the vehicle and keys are present at the property and that the V5 document is available. The collection crew will be in uniform and will present authorised credentials.
there have been reports of vigilante cyclists attempting to make unauthorised collections so call this number if there is any doubt about a caller's identity.
when the vehicle has been collected you may cancel its insurance and VED - the collection crew will leave you with the real ent section of the V5 so you can confirm that you are no longer the registered keeper.
You are eligible for a 30% discount at your local cycle store on a replacement e bike or cargo bike on production of this letter. A discount code for on line purchases is set out below.
thank you for helping the environment,
Big Cycle
Didn't expect to discover my genre of erotic literature on this site
I'll tuck it inside your copy of Cycling Plus if it helps. There's a pair of socks free with next month's edition.
Don't threaten me with a good time!
“Khan is contributing 10 percent of the cost of a Brompton to anybody who lives in the extended ULEZ zone,” wrote one Londoner
Hahaha. Am I allowed to use this quote to stereotype ALL Londoners?
Wait 'til Londoners find out about Cycle to Work. Where actual money is removed from the public purse to pay for bikes that may cost even more and give the purchaser an even larger discount.
"the shouty few who think it’s all a big conspiracy to change their way of life?"
To be fair to them, that's exactly what it is. People need to be driving less, and driving less-dirty vehicles when they do, and disincentivising socially-negative behaviour is one of the bog-standard jobs of government.
We tax cigarettes heavily and restrict where they can be used, because they kill people. This isn't vastly different, we're just not as far along the path of making (ICE, privately-owned) cars as socially-unacceptable yet.
"How dare they force me to switch to a horseless carriage", says an irate equestrian a hundred years ago, when the London County Council started removing water troughs, in a blatant CONSPIRACY to rid the streets of horse dung. "That won’t help Arthur and Ethel much with their weekly shop", agreed a hansom cab driver.
The omission lies in not acknowledging that along with "change!" may come an improvement in their way of life [1] [2] [3].
However sometimes there is a kind of "tragedy of the commons" - because people can drive we all have to bear the costs. The motor car is possibly worse than cigarettes in that respect - more harmful to bystanders than users.
Yep, and from my dimly-remembered economics studies the tragedy of the commons was an example of negative externalities: a way of eliminating those was to put a price on them and make those causing them pay it. You'd think the loudly-rightwing types who decry ULEZ would be in favour of some standard market economics being applied to a problem.
Conspiracy suggests some level of secrecy, the reality is that the government plan to get you out of your car is published on the DfT website.
I don't feel that 'I'm not going to lie' adds much value to speech or writing.
I'm not gonna lie, you are probably right for written text. It definitely serves a purpose in speech though where it conveys that you either regret what you are going to say (giving an answer someone doesn't want to hear) or it is something that is usually out of character. For instance, when you agree with someone on an online forum when you are usually a curmudgeon you might say "I am not gonna lie, you are probably right..."
It's an expression that annoys me because I am 100 years old, and people have started (over-) using it in the last 50 years*.
*timings are approximate
Gavin & Stacy vibe I think
Sunak's LTN review could threaten not just recent schemes but traffic calming and quiet streets measures that have been in place thirty years or more:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/review-of-low-traffic-ne...
I reckon they should rip out those cul-de-sacs. They're clearly stopping traffic flowing freely though our residential neighbourhoods and that'll stop ambulances getting through. Plus the old or poor are disproportionately affected by having to drive further than they might to get to vital services (the corner shop) or social support (the bookies).
In addition they force more traffic onto main roads, increasing pollution.
And those quiet leafy streets (possibly in Essex)? Apparently women don't feel safe on them, so we need to get more traffic going down them.
Railway lines too. TrAiNS aRE WokE!!
I mean have you ever watched a railway line for any length of time? - EMPTY most of the time. It's the wokerati that keep demanding alternative measures in their "war" on drivers & yet they don't use the trains that I PaY fOr!! AND there was no consultashyun about putting them in.
Rip out the train lines & replace them with roads!!
It was considered in 1957 and in the 1980's...
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/near-terminal-case-saving-maryl...
Good point - there have literally been several times when I've got to a level crossing before a train did but had to wait just because they put barriers down and give priority to the train? You can't have an ambulance, police car or a fire engine on a railway you know!
And another thing - the train comes nowhere near my house.
Actually you can have a fire engine on a railway:
Pages