He’s appealing, naturally. Anyone have an idea of his chances to get it overturned?
It seems to me like a mess, and probably one to make as much press and publicity for the race as possible. And that’s beside the facts of if he was doping last year or not.
I’m not an expert, but the whole system seems needlessly dense and opaque to me. Why not have set rules and procedures for this type of thing, ESPECIALLY in cycling? Why does it take so long?
Team Sky said Froome was only 19% over the limit
“on 28 June 2018, Wada informed the UCI it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF (adverse analytical finding)” and “in light of Wada’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided to close proceedings against Mr Froome”.
It reached this conclusion after considering a number factors including “a documented illness”, the natural variation of salbutamol levels in Froome’s other samples and that Froome took “a significant increase in dose” shortly before the test, as Team Sky claimed he had on the advice of the team doctor, without exceeding the maximum permitted dose.
Sounds like he argued it was a positive test, but he had a legitimate reason. I’m pretty surprised the bike bosses accepted that argument.
Goodwood final shootout! Pity the Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo didn’t take part, but the VW Pikes Peak did! Top two places to electric cars though, which seems like will happen with more and more short distance/time races over the next few years.
Since we’re putting bicycle races here instead of in the biking thread: