Vorganov had been provisionally suspended by the UCI under its anti-doping rules. He tested positive for Meldonium after an out-of-competition test on January 14.
The Katusha rider subsequently requested that the provisional suspension be lifted, and the UCI’s Disciplinary Commission agreed. He is now free to race again.
According to the UCI’s rules, a provisional suspension can be lifted when “the Rider establishes the assertion of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, or that there is a strong arguable case that he bears ‘No fault or Negligence’ for the ADRV asserted, or some other facts or circumstances exist that, in the UCI Disciplinary Commission’s opinion, make it clearly unfair to impose or maintain the Provisional Suspension.”
The exact reason given to lift the suspension has not been disclosed.
Despite the lifting of the provisional suspension, Vorganov’s case is continuing to be examined and the UCI’s Disciplinary Commission has yet to give its final decision.
Meldonium hit the headlines earlier this year when Russian tennis superstar Maria Sharapova announced that she had failed a test for the substance, which was only placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of banned substances from January 1.
In March, WADA reported that there had been over 100 positive cases for the drug since January 1. WADA stated in early April that athletes with less than one microgram of Meldonium in their sample taken before March 1 may not be sanctioned.
Watch: Anti-doping debate
“In the case of Meldonium, there is currently a lack of clear scientific information on excretion times,” read a WADA statement. “For this reason, a hearing panel might justifiably find (unless there is specific evidence to the contrary) that an athlete who has established on the balance of probabilities that he or she ingested Meldonium before 1 January 2016 could not reasonably have known or suspected that the Meldonium would still be present in his or her body on or after 1 January 2016.
“In these circumstances, WADA considers that there may be grounds for no fault or negligence on the part of the athlete.”