The UCI Regulations now prohibit injections that have the aim of artificially improving performance or helping recovery. It means riders can no longer inject vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids or antioxidants to aid recovery. It is hoped the ban will contribute to the eradication of doping by greatly reducing the use of injections in cycling.
It would be in clear contravention of the policy. But, in the Van Avermaet case, it reportedly pre-dates the needle ban and, without direct evidence of injections, how do the authorities prove it?
isn't there a no needle policy that intravenous feeding would be in clear contravention of?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy
The UCI Regulations now prohibit injections that have the aim of artificially improving performance or helping recovery. It means riders can no longer inject vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids or antioxidants to aid recovery. It is hoped the ban will contribute to the eradication of doping by greatly reducing the use of injections in cycling.