Editor’s Note: After team leader Alexander Vinokourov tested positive for homologous blood doping during last year’s Tour de France, the entire Astana team left the race under a cloud. Vinokourov’s top lieutenant Andrey Kashechkin tried to relax by spending time with his family in Turkey. His time out of the limelight, however, was short-lived as anti-doping testers knocked on his hotel room door and asked for a sample. That knock began a year-long struggle for the Kazakh rider, which has yet to be resolved.

Kashechkin recently spoke with VeloNews editorial director John Wilcockson about that night in Turkey and the scandal that followed. This is part two of Wilcockson's special report. The first half of this report appeared on VeloNews.com on Thursday, July 3.

A week after the out-of-competition test was performed, it was revealed in the media — Kashechkin claims not to have received official notification — that his A sample tested positive for a homologous blood transfusion. This and Vinokourov’s similar result a week earlier, were the first such positives since those of Tyler Hamilton and his then Phonak teammate Santiago Perez at the 2004 Vuelta a España.

It seemed odd that there had been no positives for almost three years. It was said in the peloton that no more homologous blood transfusion tests were being done because of problems with the analytical testing method, so we asked for clarification from Dr. Mario Zorzoli, the UCI’s anti-doping chief.

Dr. Zorzoli replied by e-mail, saying: “It is true that in the winter of 2005 the test was suspended, but purely because we were waiting for the Hamilton decision. In fact, theoretically, the CAS [Court of Arbitration for Sport] could have said that the test was not valid enough, or not valid at all, and that some adjustments had to be done. It was more a precaution from the sport movement than a belief that the test was not valid.

“As soon as the CAS stated that the test was valid [in February 2006], we reintroduced the test and so did the IOC at the [winter] Olympic Games in Torino, where the Lausanne [Switzerland] lab was appointed to conduct those tests.

“To my knowledge the principles of the tests have not changed, and there might have been some technical improvements, which I don't know about, but which daily occur in all the labs and for all anti-doping tests. It is more a question of ‘fine tuning’ than major changes.”

Astana suspended Kashechkin after the A sample tested positive, and then dismissed him on August 31 after the B-sample confirmed the initial finding. Kashechkin claims that the three-week gap between testing the A- and B-samples was another breach of protocol. Indeed, rule 200 of the UCI anti-doping regulations states: “The B sample analysis of a blood sample shall take place no later than 3 (three) days after the analysis of the A sample.”

Our recent conversation with Kashechkin was set up through his press agent who said that the European media was reluctant to get involved in his case and give an unbiased account. Kashechkin confirmed this on the phone when he said, “Until now, with all that has taken place, not one person has wanted to hear the details. So, until you came to me, I have had no confidence. I am 100-percent, 150-percent in favor of anti-doping controls. Normally.

“But after the things that have happened with me I have no confidence in the people who come for [the out-of-competition tests] and demand that you be ready. You can’t prove anything [afterward]. For example, when they came to me in Turkey. Every rider knows that you let your federation know where you are going or know where you are staying, right? That’s normal. I have never once contested that. I have always been in favor of the rules and everything that the UCI does.”

The 28-year-old Kazakh, who in six years of pro racing was said to be somewhat of a loner, said he was speaking to VeloNews in the hope of starting to clear his name. Clearly frustrated, but also lucid and defiant, he took up his side of the story after the initial shock of his positive test result.

“Everything after that I only learned from the radio and television,” he continued, speaking in colloquial French. “I never received an official letter — which is already a serious situation. I was back at my house [in Monaco] after the [vacation] when I first heard that I was positive. That was very hard for me. After that I never received a thing, no letter, no details of the analysis, nothing … just what I heard from the radio or the press … that I was positive for a homologous transfusion, the same as Vinokourov.

“Afterward, what could I do? I started with my team. [They] said, ‘We can’t do a thing, and you shouldn’t get [Tony] Rominger, your manager, to clear this up. You should do it yourself.’ So I was on my own.

“I decided to find a lawyer … and also tried to find a way to show that I am clean. I went to the Côte d’Azur blood transfusion center in Nice, and took a test one week after my positive. Four days later, I got the result. It was negative. With that information I went to a few journalists but it was really difficult because very few were interested. They all said that a positive is a positive. They said all the riders [who are caught] say the same thing. And I said I’m not like all the others. My case is an exception.

“I had this test done in France. It may not have been a [UCI] sanctioned laboratory, but it is very well respected in France. They said that the test has no value. So I asked a hematology specialist how long the test result would be valid after a transfusion. He said, three months. With the Tyler Hamilton affair that’s how it happened, right? The test is valid for three months.

“So I tried within those three months to find a laboratory that can do the test. With the help of my [Belgian] lawyer I went to Liège in Belgium to have this test done. They took my blood and said they would send it to Ghent for testing at the lab that is certified by the UCI. I wanted it done to prove to my family and friends that I am clean. But three days later the lab told my lawyer that they couldn’t do the test. They said that the second test could only be done where the UCI asked for it to be done. They said that it could only be tested in Switzerland, at Lausanne, where the original one was done on my sample from Turkey. I asked why can’t they do my test with the approved equipment, just for my interest. They said that was forbidden.

“So five days later I went to another hospital in Belgium, gave my blood and asked for the same thing as in the certified lab. But after doing the paperwork and seeing my name was Kashechkin they called me back and said the test couldn’t be done as it was a test for a judicial procedure. So I ask, when everyone says you’re positive like this, how can you prove you’re not positive, when an uncertified lab won’t do the test and you don’t have the right to have it done in a certified lab?

“After that, the second analysis was opened after 21 days … and after coming from Turkey with all that heat, and remaining in Switzerland for 21 days, it’s difficult to believe that the blood is still good. Finally, they did the second test and they said it was positive. I asked for the paperwork. But nothing came. Nothing. I asked to have it for my defense, simply to see the details. Nothing. So I waited.”

Frustrated at not receiving any documentation, Kashechkin went along with his then lawyer, Luc Misson, who advised him to challenge the positive test on the grounds that privately run bodies such as the UCI have no right to test athletes, and that such procedures contravene Europe’s declaration of human rights. “I tried to get things moving with the human rights case,” Kashechkin agreed. “But that didn’t work because I understood that this process could take five, six or seven years. I didn’t want to make a revolution in cycling. I just want to be polite, okay?”

He was right in his assessment. Misson’s signature legal victory in 1995 for Belgian soccer player Jean-Luc Bosman in his suit over “restraint of trade” at the European Court of Justice took five years. As for Kashechkin, the Liège court said on November 27 it wasn’t competent to hear his case. A couple of weeks later, the Kazakh Cycling Federation delivered a one-year suspension on Vinokourov — a lenient verdict that the UCI threatened to appeal until the 34-year-old Vino announced his retirement from the sport.

Meanwhile, in mid-January this year, Kashechkin dropped Misson and engaged attorney Ralph Isenegger, from Geneva, Switzerland, to look at his case.

“Anyway,” he continued, “the winter passed. I trained as normal, because I thought that finally something would happen. If they gave me the paperwork, I would show them to a specialist to start my defense.”

A letter to the UCI

Kashechkin’s new lawyer asked the Kazakhstan Cycling Federation on February 13 to make a statement on the case. As a result, the federation wrote to the UCI, finally asking for the complete documentation on Kashechkin’s alleged positive test. On not receiving a reply within five weeks, the federation declared on April 8 that Kashechkin “had no case to answer” and he was free to return to racing.

The federation decision, which was signed by its president Daniyal Akhmetov (who also acts as the Astana team owner) and the Kazakh minister of sports Dosmuhambetov Temirhan, elicited action from the UCI — which said it had twice sent Kashechkin’s complete dossier to Kazakhstan and it would appeal the April 8 decision.

“The UCI had a month to appeal if they didn’t agree with the decision taken by the minister of sport in Kazakhstan,” Kashechkin explained. “They had until May 14 to appeal, but there was nothing. Then, after a month and 10 days, the UCI sent some communications to the national federation, which were forwarded to my lawyer. But the time limit had already passed. So why didn’t the UCI make an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within the 30-day limit?

“Afterward, they said, ‘No, no, no, we sent everything.’ But it wasn’t me who made a mistake; I am the victim of all this. They’ve prevented me from working for 10 months. I’ve just been waiting for some news. In my view, they can’t make a new decision because the decision has already been made.

“Now, as I’ve read in the press, the UCI said they sent [the dossier] three times to the Kazakh federation. I just don’t understand what happened with that. It’s been 10 months, not just one month. It’s not possible that the mail doesn’t work for that length of time. Also, how can I make my defense, if I have no analysis in my hands? I’ve always being asking for this analysis through letters so we can start the defense. But I never received a reply to my letters.

“For me, the first thing is, I can’t work. It’s been one year since I’ve received my salary. One year since I’ve been able to race. All that doesn’t turn well in my head. I’ve always said, I am clean, right? I have never done blood transfusions or anything like that. And how can I defend myself if I never received any communication?”

Finally, a month ago, with the dossier in hand, the Kazakh federation met with Kashechkin. “They want to make a new decision,” he told VeloNews. “As I understand it, they want to give me a two-year suspension. But I don’t understand everything. My lawyer wrote a letter to the national federation saying they cannot make a second decision because of the decision that was taken April 8. The letter spells out everything that’s happened which makes it impossible for them to make a second decision.

“Now I’ve heard that the federation would like to make a new decision for two years. They don’t have the right to make this decision if neither I nor my lawyer was present there.”

The federation agreed and a formal hearing, with both Kashechkin and his lawyer present, but Isenegger has asked for additional time to prepare, so no formal date has yet been set.

When we asked what he would do if he were given a two-year suspension, the Kazakh replied, “I will wait until they make it official, and then I will go before the sports tribunal, because they can’t make two decisions.”

Kashechkin’s case is clearly a complicated one because of the delays in handing down a decision and the apparent breaches of anti-doping regulations by the UCI and the Kazakh federation.

When we asked him if he continued riding his bike through what has been nearly a year of frustrations and disappointments, he said, “Yes. I’m training all the time. I’m at a good level. I just haven’t had any racing, I don’t have the intensity, but I have the hours on the bike. It’s important to keep fit because if I win my defense I can return to racing very quickly. I’m still motivated, and I just hope that things work out.”

But what about the interminable delays and twists in his case? Hasn’t it been tough to stay optimistic? “That’s true,” he said. “You’re always expecting something to happen, but it never changes. Ten months is a long time. Furthermore, because I know I am clean, and because I was clean when this analysis happened I don’t have any confidence in the result. During the Tour de France I was controlled three times, and there were no problems. But the moment I left for Turkey suddenly there’s a problem. That’s the system, and it’s very difficult to beat this system.

“Well, I am for the system, and I am for the normal anti-doping controls, but with the system it is very difficult to prove there’s been an error, and everybody makes mistakes, right?”

While researching this story, we discovered a French Web site called astrotheme.fr, which had examined Kashechkin’s birth signs. It said that the Kazakh cyclist’s character is partly determined by his dominant element, fire. According to the astrologist, this tells Kashechkin: “You are inclined to be passionate, you assert your willpower, you move forward, and come hell or high water, you achieve your dreams and your goals. The relative weakness … is the difficulty to step back, or a kind of boldness that may prompt you to do foolish things.”

This is part two of Wilcockson's special report. The first half of this report appeared on VeloNews.com on Thursday, July 3.