The Tour de France started earlier this month, and one of the big stories of the spring was that the UCI allowed a 23rd team in each of the three Grand Tours – one more than usual. You may not know it, but ASO – the organiser of the Tour and other races like the Vuelta a España and Paris-Roubaix – has a rule of only granting wildcard spots to MPCC member teams. It is therefore not surprising that 16 of 17 second division ProTeams are members of the organisation.

This is not the case, however, for the WorldTour teams that are automatically selected: Visma-Lease a Bike were a member until 2015, but withdrew when one of their riders had to withdraw from the Giro d'Italia due to a low cortisol level, in accordance with the rules of the MPCC; Astana also left in 2015 because they refused to remove a rider from the Tour de France for having low cortisol levels; Alpecin-Deceuninck left in 2024 because they didn't agree with our recommendations; and Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe left at the beginning of this season because they said that all our rules had been adopted by the UCI and therefore it was no longer necessary to be a member of the MPCC. 

I have no problem with teams leaving the MPCC – it's voluntary membership, after all – but what I tell them is this: OK, but what do you propose to reduce suspicion around our sport? So far, they have not proposed anything. If we want less suspicion in sport, it is necessary that the big teams and riders, winners of the biggest races, are active in the fight against doping. Can you imagine the difference it would make to the image of the sport if Pogačar, Vingegaard, Evenepoel, Van der Poel and Van Aert joined the MPCC tomorrow? If a big rider said, "If I test positive, my career is over," it would make a big difference to the suspicions that people have. But I also don't want to say that if you're not in the MPCC, that's a bad thing – you join on a voluntary basis.

It is worth remembering why the MPCC started. In 2007, after the Operación Puerto affair – the last big EPO scandal – I was the manager of the Crédit Agricole team, and us and six other teams wanted to create a rule that said if a rider is involved in a doping case they can no longer race during the investigation period, and if they are suspended for more than six months then no team can hire them.

For 18 years, this rule has been respected by all the MPCC member teams. We’re proud of that, and in that period the UCI has adopted many of our rules, such as a team being prohibited from racing for 15-45 days if two riders test positive within a 12-month period. We are an active and not a reactive organisation, and we have highlighted problems with corticosteroids, tramadol and carbon monoxide rebreathing before the UCI banned them.

We are working with the International Testing Agency (ITA) and we want to work with a better WADA. We told WADA in 2012 that tramadol was dangerous, but it was not banned until 2024. The same goes for corticosteroids. This meant that cyclists could use a dangerous and performance-enhancing substance for many years after we highlighted its problems. This is unacceptable, and WADA has been too slow to make decisions. It's their job to make the sport credible. In anticipation of WADA eventually banning these substances, the MPCC has carried out more than 5,000 blood tests for cortisol levels. 

Some teams, like I’ve said, say that there’s no need to be part of the MPCC if the first line of defence is WADA and its prohibited substance list, but we are the second, alternative way. And look at what’s happened in the past: Festina, Puerto, the Russian Olympics and Chinese swimmers affairs, and of course Lance Armstrong, who tested negative 500 times. It’s the police, journalists, authors, investigators and whistleblowers who expose big doping cases. It’s important to have a negative test, but we cannot only accept WADA and its Prohibited List – it’s also necessary to keep our eyes open and the lights on at all times. The carbon monoxide story was a recent reminder: they’re bike riders in good shape, aged between 18 and 35, so why do they need to inhale carbon monoxide? It’s crazy. 

I was a pro rider for 10 years and rode with Merckx and Hinault, and was a team manager for 23 years, so I’ve seen really strong riders. Every generation has its Merckx or Pogačar. But the problem with cycling is the suspicion that follows it around, and products in the grey area add to that. The problem with a lot of these substances is that we don’t know enough about them, such as if they enhance performance. The famous one, of course, is ketones: MPCC teams and riders cannot use them until we know if they’re bad for a person’s health in the future. We asked the UCI to investigate, but six years later we’re still waiting. It’s too long.

People say that with most of the big teams not being members of the MPCC, we are less powerful than before. But I think the real question should be asked of the teams: why aren't you registered with the MPCC? Why did you use tramadol? Why did you use carbon monoxide rebreathing? We have 52 teams and more than 1200 members: individual riders, doctors, staff members, organisers, federations, agents and stakeholders registered with the MPCC, and they all respect and believe in our philosophy. I think there should be even more. 100% of the actors should be active in the fight against doping.

In August, I will be 76 years old and it is time to hand over the presidency of the MPCC to another person. We have a very motivated and well-structured board of directors and everyone is working towards the same goal: a more credible and less suspicious cycling. People always ask me if I think cycling is clean today, and I always say: if you ask me this question, it's because you too have suspicions about the sport, so what can we do about it? I think we can all do a lot more.

- Roger

You can read more from the In My Words series here.