World cycling chiefs have backed calls for Alberto Contador to be presumed innocent of doping until proven guilty, as the Spaniard prepares to embark upon the defence of his Tour de France crown.

Contador confirmed his participation for the July 2-25 epic earlier this week, meaning he is primed for a rare Giro d’Italia-Tour de France double.

However, debate is raging over whether the Spanish cycling ace, who won the Giro last month, should be competing at all.

Contador tested positive for clenbuterol during last year’s Tour de France but was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Spanish federation after it accepted his claim that he ingested the banned substance through a contaminated steak.

The International Cycling Union (UCI) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have since appealed that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is set to deliver a verdict in August.

Although a CAS ban would annul all his results dating from and including last year’s Tour de France, legally Contador currently has every right to compete.

Less than three weeks ahead of the world’s biggest bike race, the UCI called for understanding of the case and for Contador to be treated like any other athlete.

“The UCI recognises the legitimacy of the request made by Contador’s defence team, and has accepted that request in the interests of guaranteeing the rider a fair trial,” the UCI said in a statement issued by its management committee.

“However, the UCI also perfectly understands why the time-table set by the Court of Arbitration for Sport has caused some disappointment, even incomprehension, among many observers within the cycling community as well as the general public.”

Following a management committee meeting in Maastricht, the UCI said the “excessively long” process of considering the Contador case was “the logical result of the need for justice to be administered properly”.

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge commented on the case this week: “I agree that it will cast a question mark on the validity of the result until the verdict is rendered... but there is a presumption of innocence.”