Dear VeloNews,
So now that Ricardo Riccò, Stefan Schumacher, Leonardo Piepoli and Bernhard Kohl have all tested positive for CERA, what happens to the results they achieved during the Tour de France? Riccò, Schumacher and Piepoli “won” five stages among them and Kohl finished third in Paris and “earned” the climber’s jersey.

Do they get to keep those honors? How does the Tour de France decide if they get taken away? What will the record books show?
Suzette Byrnes
Vancouver, Washington

Dear Suzette,
On its face, this seems like a pretty easy one to answer. We all assume that the rule is simple: You cheat, you lose.

Indeed, the Explainer, too, is guilty of making that quick assumption, as we posted what we jokingly referred to as the "Final (?) Overall Standings" of this year's Tour de France in our original story on Kohl's positive. You'll note that we struck out the names of the third- and 25th-place finishers, Kohl and Schumacher, in our list. But in that story, Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme concedes that the decision to change the results is not one made by the Tour.

"It's clear that those who have cheated, we're not going to consider that they won," he said. "We are not the ones who do the rankings, but I can't see how they can stay."

Those comments mirror those made in 2006 by Prudhomme's predecessor, Jean-Marie Leblanc, when he said that he no longer considered Floyd Landis to be the winner of that year's Tour. Leblanc spoke within hours of the news that Landis had tested positive for testosterone on that epic Stage 17 ride that essentially gave him the win in that year's Tour.

Now recall that it wasn't until September 2007 that Oscar Pereiro was formally awarded the yellow jersey from the 2007 race. Had it been solely up to the Tour, the switch would taken place more than a year earlier.

So who is it that makes the decision?

Normally, the results of major races, like the Tour, are certified by the UCI. In doping cases, the UCI generally defers to the hearing panel assembled by the accused rider's national federation. In the case of Landis, for example, the UCI waited until the American had lost his first arbitration hearing, a decision announced on September 20, 2007. It was at that point that the UCI gave the prize to Pereiro and certified him as the winner of the 2006 Tour de France.

It was the hearing panel that not only suspended Landis for two years, but also exercised its option to strip him of the Tour title:

The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and 257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete’s results in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes.

You'll notice that the UCI rules say the negation of race results is "automatic," but it still defers the decision until the hearing panel issues an opinion. Once the panel rules, the enforcement is carried out by the UCI.

Still, that wasn't the final word in Landis. He appealed the ruling to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport, and had that court ruled in his favor, Pereiro would have been obligated to return the jersey and prize money.

Similarly, when David Millar was suspended for admitting to the use of EPO, he was stripped of his 2003 world time trial championship title, a penalty recommended by the hearing panel and carried out by the UCI. Tyler Hamilton, who was found guilty of homologous blood-doping at the 2004 Vuelta, was stripped of his victory in the eighth stage individual time trial, meaning that Victor Hugo Peña has been credited with that win. It's also why Dave Zabriskie is mentioned as the only American to have won stages in all three grand tours.

Indeed, we cannot recall a recent case in which a convicted rider was not stripped of results in connection with a doping violation.

This year, the issue of positives at the Tour is a little more complicated, since the race was not held under the auspices of the UCI. Because of that long fight between the grand-tour organizers and the UCI, this year's edition of the Tour was held under the sanction of the French Cycling Federation (FFC). In Riccò's case, the Italian Olympic Committee reviewed the charges — and his admission — and suspended him, as well as ordering the negation of race results from the Tour. He won two stages and CONI recommended that those results be nullified. That moved the ball back to the FFC, which has yet to formally act on that question.

As for the rest of the alleged miscreants, they still have an adjudication process available to them. If the results of their tests are confirmed and their respective national federations recommend that their results be canceled, then the FFC can, as it is expected to do, order that the record books reflect that. In other words, Kohl would be bumped off the podium and Denis Menchov — who won the 2005 Vuelta a España a year after the fact — will be the official third-place finisher.

By now, Suzette, you're probably thinking it's a lengthy process, especially since it doesn't ensure a final resolution for up to two years. We agree, but it's fair and necessary to provide accused riders with the proper due process outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI rules.

Frankly, our favorite resolution came after Jerome Chiotti's unprompted admission that he had used EPO in winning the 1996 world cross-country mountain bike championship. Surprised, the UCI wrestled with the question of how to handle Chiotti's confession — one which, quite admirably, came because of his conscience and not a positive drug test or a night in jail. But Chiotti didn't wait around for a decision. He invited Thomas Frischknecht to dinner, offered a sincere apology and handed the jersey and gold medal over to the man who had actually — and honestly — earned it.

Sometimes it just take a sense of decency to speed up the process a little.