- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Halfords Tour Series Marcel Six and Dean Windsor (© Simon MacMichael)18-month ban for Marcel Six who refused Tour Series doping control due to family emergency
Metaltek Scott rider Marcel Six has been banned for 18 months by UK Anti Doping (UKAD) after refusing to provide a urine sample following the Halfords Tour Series round at Canary Wharf in May this year. In his defence, the Belgian rider, who had been called up to race that afternoon, said that he had to leave the venue immediately afterwards because his wife was locked out of their home and their son was ill.
While the decision of UKAD’s National Anti-Doping Panel suggests that its members were to some extent sympathetic to Six’s plight, the sanction imposed does send out a clear and unequivocal message that riders are required to follow the letter of the law when it comes to complying with testing procedures.
In UKAD’s full decision, it is revealed that cycling had become “a bone of contention” between Six, who races as an amateur, and his wife Chevone, who insisted that their children and her job should come first.
A nurse also provided a statement to the effect that Mrs Six suffered from “ongoing mood and anxiety-related symptoms,” which were “consistently worse at times when she is alone” meaning that she “relies heavily on her husband / partner.”
The nurse added that it was “fair to suspect that her symptoms may deteriorate should her husband be asked to work away from home.”
The panel accepted that on the day in question, 31 May 2012, Six “had not expected to be racing… and had made none of the domestic arrangements that he should have done. When – at a late stage – he was asked to race, he agreed to do so to avoid letting down his team.”
Finishing the race in 11th place, Six was selected for a random doping control – only riders from the top 12 finishers faced the prospect of such a test – and doping control chaperone Keith D’Wan approached him to tell him at 2020 hours that he would have to take a test.
According to D’Wan, he viewed Six’s “demeanour as being frustrated, angry and upset,” with the cyclist telling him he had to get home to his family.
However, the official was not aware at this point of the pressure that was being put on the cyclist by his wife via a string of phone calls and text messages creating what his lawyers, who were working for Six on a pro bono basis, described as a ‘drip drip’ effect.
The first of those calls came at 1715 hours to tell the rider that his son was ill, and she also attempted to contact him a number of times during the race itself and afterwards, including while D’Wan was trying to persuade the cyclist, who had by now walked to the underground car park, to take the test.
Six signed a form acknowledging that a “refusal or failure to comply with this request to provide a urine sample may constitute an Anti-Doping Rule violation,” adding in the field headed ‘Athlete Comments,’ “...wife with kids who are extremely ill and I need to be there.”
The decision noted that "it says something about his motivation that he did (albeit unrealistically) suggest that testers might carry out the test at home that day or the following day."
Crucially, however, Six failed to establish to the panel’s satisfaction that the circumstances, including the fact his son was ill and his wife locked out, constituted a “compelling justification” for him to refuse to provide a sample.
“Honourable though the Athlete’s motives may have been, we have no hesitation in finding that his refusal was not based on any compelling justification,” it said in its decision.
“To be blunt, even if he agreed to race only at the last minute and under pressure, the fact of the matter is that, if he had time to compete in a cycle race, he had to make time to take the test. If, as was the later the case, he wished to put his family first, then the time to do that was before he agreed to race rather than when he came to be tested.”
It added: “As we say, the Athlete’s situation here was avoidable. He chose to race and, having chosen to race, he should have been prepared to take the test.
“To that extent, the problem was of his own making and whilst his decision to put his family before his obligations as an athlete may be commendable and humane, his motives do not, in our view, constitute a defence on the basis of Article 2.3.”
The panel did however accept that “his clear motivation was to go urgently to the aid of his family whom he believed to be in significant distress with the potential for harm to the health of his wife and possibly also his children,” and while rejecting that it constituted “compelling justification,” said it did mean “he has behaved without significant fault.”
As a result, the potential two-year ban that Six could have faced was reduced to 18 months.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- lonpfrb 45 min 33 sec ago
PCCs are an attempt to provide Legitimacy by connecting an elected representative to the oversight of Policing. Thus voter surveys to sample...
- ktache 1 hour 33 min ago
Mine tend to get knocked by the chaining of the bicycle, then fall off later. To be found next time I use the light. Some crushed.
- ktache 1 hour 36 min ago
I'm guessing not that very manoeuvrable either.
- Simon E 2 hours 49 min ago
That is a pity, Malcolm had a great reputation and spent a lot of time posting his no-nonsense advice gained over many years on Bikeradar....
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 2 min ago
It's a mark of how weak your pompous pontificating is that you're forced to make up things I never said in order to try to defend your "look at me...
- SaveTheWail 4 hours 44 min ago
'I was so lucky that I was doing the speed limit' (!) http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17d598vj0qo
- Blackthorne 6 hours 5 min ago
It's mentioned in benefit #2 in the article...
- levestane 6 hours 17 min ago
Pneu ballon and hookless rims are back, I still have some 27" Birmalux rims in the shed somewhere.
- brooksby 8 hours 6 min ago
Well yes, but it is the holidays
- Rendel Harris 9 hours 18 min ago
Thank you for that excellent forensic analysis, I couldn't figure out where I'd gone wrong! Must drink more coffee and put on glasses before trying...
Add new comment
31 comments
Where did this "in the first 12"comment come from. That is complete rubbish. When the testers come they have the possibility of all randoms, a winner and some random placings, or picking numbers from the start list. You can finish last and still get called for a test!
I have to challenge the "notorious for not testing at Tour Series" comment. Having been to quite a few locally, I have seen testers more than once, and so far only Mr Six has come up as a refusal or positive.
Plenty of hearsay and opinion about, but not much knowledge of how things work, really. A little research - look at UKAD site - would make everything clear.
Intravenously injected EPO is supposedly undetectable after two hours according the experts.
Old school or not though the questions in my previous comment still stand - if he'd taken something he knew was likely to show up, why accept the ride and/or why not simply finish outside the top 12 - he'd ridden the Tour Series often enough to know what the rules were.
Equally of course he must also have known it was simply a case of pee and go. Personally I still think 18 months is harsh - and rumours in the peloton aren't the same thing as actual proof.
I don't know your knowledge of the UK peloton but the Tour Series is notorious for having no testing, not for winners, runners up or randoms. He wouldn't have expected a test there in a million years. Rush to the race, charge up, race and go home, no worries.......
......except that night.
Guilty as charged.
Yep, I have to say, I don't believe him. It seems far more likely he dosed himself up not expecting to race, then when the call came thought "well, as long as I don't finish on the podium I'm unlikely to get tested", then when his number came up decided to leg it and used the domestic situation as an excuse. Surely, knowing full well a deliberately missed test counts as a positive, so leaving would almost certainly result in a two year ban, he would have found the extra time on top of the time to travel to and from the race, and race, to pee in a cup.
Gone for a Burton six, not surprising considering the current climate!
Harsh - but fair. See also the recent Bassons case. Given the current climate I can't believe that people are surprised that the anti-doping authorities are being strict. I'm equally surprised that people seem to think that selectively bending the rules is ok.
I can scarcely believe how naive you all seem to be.
UKAD is a professional body, with the sole aim of catching drug cheats. Here they caught a rider who has cheated, and cheated many clean UK based riders.
Marcel Six is not a good up and coming rider. He is an ex-professional rider from the doping heartland of Spain and, if you do some research, you'll find he used to ride for Kelme, far from the cleanest team in the history of the sport.
The word is in the UK peloton that he's been banged to rights. Rumours have been surrounding him for a while and now he's been caught. So he concocted a nice little tale of woe to get him off the hook, it's not like guilty riders haven't been doing this since the dawn of time is it? Guilty riders are first class liars.
So please accept that Marcel Six is guilty as charged. He was sentenced for 18 months by a well respected and very experience group of people at UKAD and he deserves every one of those days. Accept that people cheat and stop burying your heads in the sand.
Umm… he's Belgian and he went to university in Spain. I don't know whether he doped or not but it looking at the facts of that we've got and his record - it doesn't seem very likely. If I was him and I'd been doping I'd have long ago asked for my money back.
Kelme may not have had the greatest reputation but I doubt its budget ran to juicing it's semi-pros. A quick Google reveals that he raced in Spain for a couple of season and hardly set the world on fire - not as a pro, but as a semi pro. .
If he was a hard bitten doper, you'd think he would (a) simply have refused the gig - he was after all a last minute call up; or (b) made sure he finished outside the first 12 and thus there would have been no question of a test.
How likely is it though that a crit rider from St Albans was at home micro dosing EPO when the call came or had just taken a blood bag out of the fridge? Apart from anything else what race would he have been doping for? AND if he was taking EPO why would he even worry - as we've all learned in the last couple of weeks a test will only catch you if its administered two hours after you've doped.
I suppose he could have been using something else - but all drugs cost and he doesn't seem like a bloke who had a lot of money to splash around. Mrs Six was the one in charge of the purse strings.
Somehow I don't think it's epo micro dosing. Most likely something more primitive than that, something that might well be gone the following morning. Old school.
If the reason given by the rider is true then UKAD have been harsh.
It seems his reasoning was backed by professional medical person and also there'd be records of the mobile phone calls.
IMO UKAD should take a look and maybe a 6 -12 month ban would suffice.
'Women and children first'.
His wife may have been neurotic for reasons related to his job...we can only but speculate. He gets paid big bucks for a reason and has to adhere to protocols. It is not like he did not agree to this when he signed up. I might have argued that they should have pushed for a test a home after her disquiet. It takes several hours prepping for an event, it only takes 20 mins to do a sample after it. There was obviously not enough medical evidence to suggest leniancy in this case
In response to this, I would like to say that unfortunately the riders on the UK pro race circuit do not get paid big bucks. If you take a look at the riders out there, a lot of them hold down another job just to help pay the bills. It's a tough life for the guys wanting to follow their dreams.
It was the same when I trained with saracens rugby club we were all poor and held down normal jobs. bUT VERY WELL TREATED. ONLY DRUGS I EVER SAW IN THE CHANGING ROOM WAS DEEP HEAT RUB.
Does that condone the cycling community intaking life debilitating drugs because they are more commercially orientated, where do we draw the line?
You didn't spot all the steroids then?
As it says in the decision (and in the third paragraph of the article), he's classified as an amateur. No big bucks there.
This story makes more sense to me if he was doping, then unexpectedly had to race, aware that he had drugs in his system, than his neurotic wife excuse. I'd say he was lucky to get six months taken off his two year ban.
I agree with you cat this seems much more plausible.
I feel for him. 18 months is really a single season given where we are in the year, I wonder whether a year without racing will improve his family situation or just make it worse when he wants to start racing again.
If he was not fit for whatever reason he should have excused himself from the race. To subsequently then enter and say I had no time for a pee test is more then suspect. I accept that everyone has family that they are a priority but his timing seems a little off. Given our voice for change, I see no reason to bend the rules. They have been proven to be good liars on and off the field. We are now just coming to terms with that and I suspect they are playing on our good nature.
He is a great rider and was an emerging talent in the Tour Series competition.
Could better communication between officials, rider and team have helped this situation have a happier conclusion.
if they had taken this sort of hard line with some of the actual evidence (not just testimonies) against armstrong and many others then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. 6 month bans mean nothing in cycling especially at the end of the summer
Lushmeister: ' just as sickening as the behaviour of the dopers'.
You can hardly accuse UKAD of that can you? The poor guy probably made the wrong decision in going to the race but given the obvious pressure at home, you can probably understand why if it was some kind of 'release' from those issues.
Granted, the ban seems heavy (especially if you compare to Rio Ferdinand's 8 month ban for failing to appear for a test).
Perhaps you should thank the dopers who systematically cheat for the need for the whole doping control regime? I sincerely hope we see Marcel again in on the Crit scene. He's a good rider.
In response to the people saying why couldn't he have pee'd and gone, straight away after. Weren't the tour series races ran at 7pm - 8pm therefore, it was only 20 minutes after the finish. it's not like they'd asked him to stick around for 3 hours... (correct me if I'm wrong)
@Steph-hent - as someone who has worked on The Tour Series, the doping control chaperone approaches the riders as they cross the finish line. In this case it would have been about 8:10pm/8:15pm. The riders normally get time to do podium presentations if needed) and then go immediately to the doping control room. If they don't have podium to do, then they go straight to the control. There is a set amount of time after the race is finished that the rider needs to get to doping control - which leaves the rider with no time to do anything else really other than get to control.
The message from UKAD and his team is clear cycling above family regardless of circumstance and you fit with us at our convenience. A philosophy and just as sickening as the behaviour of the dopers. And says a lot about the attitudes within cycling administration
Why some arrangement 'pee and go' could not have been made in this situation is unclear, although perhaps the was just no stream on the horizon. In such circumstances perhaps doping control chaperone Keith D’Wan could have followed Mr Six around like the grim reaper with a sample bottle. Mr Six's major fault would appear to have been not to have explained his situation early enough so some sanction maybe merited but 18 month instead of 24 month still seems draconian
Doping control is a 'pee and go' situation. It just needs to be done in a clean environment where the rider selects his two bottles, breaks their seals and does what he needs to in front of the anti-doping doctors.
If you read the rules, once the riders signs the form acknowledging he needs to go to doping control, the onus is up to him to get there in a timely manner.
@ thereandbackagain - yes, Mrs Six, fixed
@step-hent - changed word order to clarify, he was told at 2020 he had to undergo test. Nothing in decision I can seee re how long it would take.
I don't understand why they couldn't just have tested him immediately and let him go on his way?
This seems somewhat harsh and poorly managed.
I think there may be a typo in here too. Based on the report, I presume it's in fact Mrs Six, not Mr. who 'suffered from “ongoing mood and anxiety-related symptoms,” which were “consistently worse at times when she is alone”'
Pages