ITA explains controversial nighttime tests on Pogacar and Vingegaard

Jonas Vingegaard was reportedly tested at around 2.00 a.m. before stage 15, while race leader Tadej Pogačar was visited by doping control officials at approximately 5.00 a.m.

Both riders criticised the timing, saying the controls disrupted their sleep ahead of a demanding mountain stage finishing at Plateau de Solaison. The discussion intensified after Vingegaard crashed later that day, broke his collarbone and was forced to abandon the Tour.

In a statement issued to the media, the ITA confirmed that it had conducted nighttime anti-doping tests during the race. The organisation, which manages doping controls in cycling on behalf of the UCI, acknowledged that such controls can affect riders’ recovery.

“The ITA is conscious that night-time testing may be disruptive to riders’ rest and recovery,” the agency said. “Due consideration has therefore been given to minimise as much as possible the impact testing activities have on riders.”

The ITA did not explain what those considerations involved. It also did not directly address whether the controls could have been conducted at a different time without reducing their effectiveness.

However, the agency stressed that its responsibility extends beyond minimising disruption to riders.

"The ITA, on behalf of the UCI, has the responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of the cycling anti-doping program and the integrity of cycling races,” it said. “As such, effective testing must, in limited and justified circumstances, be capable to occur outside standard daytime hours.”

According to the ITA, all testing decisions at the Tour de France are made in accordance with its testing strategies, the World Anti Doping Agency rules, the UCI Anti Doping Rules and French law.

“All testing activities conducted at the Tour de France and at any other international events, including decisions as to the specific timing of such tests, are carried out in accordance with the ITA’s testing strategy and subject to the safeguards established under the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and French law, with due consideration for riders’ welfare, equity and fundamental rights,” the agency said.

Vingegaard said before the stage that he supported anti doping controls but believed testing at 2.00 a.m. went too far.

“It is good that they test us,” the Dane said. “But when it affects your sleep and your performance, I do not think it is good anymore.”

According to Vingegaard, the control took around 40 minutes and significantly disrupted his night.

“It was not my best night,” he said.

Pogačar experienced a similar problem after being tested at 5.00 a.m. He said he had slept for only four hours and had been unable to fall asleep again after the officials left.

Following Vingegaard’s crash, the Slovenian cautiously raised the possibility that disrupted sleep could affect concentration and rider safety.

“Perhaps you are less focused when your sleep has been completely disrupted,” Pogačar said. “I am not saying that was the cause, but it could have played a part.”

Vingegaard also stopped short of blaming the crash on the control.

“It certainly did not help,” he told TV 2. “But whether it caused the crash, I cannot say. I do not want to blame it on that, because this is cycling.”

Nevertheless, the incident has intensified the debate over how anti doping authorities balance effective testing with athlete recovery and safety, and the controversy is unlikely to end here.