The MPCC is becoming increasingly concerned about an excessive use of medicine in the sport and calls upon its governing body to take action against the expansion of the so-called grey area.
This grey area includes substances and medical treatments not yet banned by WADA, but which raise serious ethical questions when used by healthy athletes, rather than the sick patients they were developed to treat. Cycling needs the UCI to act quickly and decisively to protect both the sport’s credibility and the health of the peloton – so that no athlete feels forced to take questionable products merely to keep up.
The lengthy timelines of anti-doping processes without quick and concrete action leave space for various substances to be debated each year, allowing athletes to continue using them despite the unanswered questions surrounding their health or performance enhancing effects. Is a safer approach to ban a product during its investigation and then when it’s safe, allow its use?
The most recent example is the topic of ketones, which has been a part of cycling’s credibility debate since 2017 when the first scientific research on the subject was published. The MPCC brought a clear position that their members would not use the product and then nearly two years later, the UCI issued a “notice of non-recommendation” until further analysis was completed. Many teams and riders ignored this advice, with some even forming partnerships with ketone suppliers.
On October 25th, 2025 the UCI published a press release reaffirming its position of not recommending ketone use. This remains a recommendation, rather than the introduction of a formal medical rule or anti-doping regulation to ban (or permit) this specific product, which unfortunately does not close the debate or discussion.
The so-called “Finishing Bottle” rumours are back writhe in the peloton, with multiple borderline substances said to be mixed and passed into the peloton to prepare riders ready for the final. Next to this, we face other potential substance abuse with medicine such as Tapendatol, which is up to ten times stronger than Tramadol (banned in competition by WADA after 12 years of lobbying from MPCC). The UCI now has this specific substance under monitoring, but must we wait for the result of another lengthy analysis while riders’ health is at risk and crashes are becoming even more prominent?
The authorities are clearly able to move quickly in decision-making: take the example of non-diagnostic use of carbon monoxide (CO), which after coming to light during the 2024 Tour de France will be listed by World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA) as a prohibited method from 2026.
What is clear is that, as long as the grey area remains, the credibility of cycling will continue to suffer and riders health is at risk.
The MPCC’s position has not changed: the endless medicalization of riders is a major problem and requires action. The MPCC urges the UCI to establish a clear and regulated position on a range of (medical) products in the grey area or other specific products (such as ketones). The MPCC stands ready to work closely with the UCI and support progress in this crucial area for the future of our sport.
As far as ketones are concerned, the position of the MPCC members, shared by the majority at its Annual General Meeting in Paris on October 22nd, is that the debate on this product must now be brought to an end. MPCC members will echo UCI’s recommendation to not use ketones and MPCC members will not accept sponsorship in this region.