Clearing Chris Froome lacks credibility without providing evidence, says anti-doping expert

A leading anti-doping expert has questioned the UCI’s decision to drop proceedings against Chris Froome, labelling it as being without credibility unless a full report into their findings is published.

Froome was cleared by the UCI on Monday, bringing to an end a near 10-month saga that began on stage 18 of the 2017 Vuelta a Espana, when the Team Sky rider returned an adverse analytical finding for salbutamol. Froome’s urine sample contained twice WADA’s threshold limit for the controlled asthma drug, but despite his legal team lodging a 1,500-page report as part of his defence, no facts or evidence relating to the case have been released.

In a statement published on Monday morning, the UCI merely said that “in light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.”

The statement rather naively finished with the following line: “The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar.”

Robin Parisotto is a leading anti-doping expert and previously worked as part of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation’s Biological Passport programme, which tested professional cyclists. He has previously voiced concerns over the integrity of anti-doping bodies such as WADA and he believes that the decision to clear Froome without providing any evidence lacks credibility and only undermines the sport of cycling.

“I’m quite bemused and it’s hard to comprehend how a salbutamol level that high could not constitute an AAF,” Parisotto told Cyclingnews from his home in Australia.

You can

Leave a comment
Stay up to date
Register now to get updates on promotions and coupons.

Shopping cart