Int'l Cycling Union (UCI) President David Lappartient said that Team Sky's wealth allowed it to "fight Chris Froome's asthma drug case in a way other teams could not have done," according to Nathanson & Skelton of the BBC. Cycling's governing body "dropped proceedings against Froome following a nine-month investigation" on Monday. He had been "under scrutiny for having more than the allowed level of legal asthma drug salbutamol in his urine." Lappartient said, "Froome had more financial support to find good experts to explain the situation." He said that it was "a reality of life unfortunately" that the outcome of cases could be affected by the resources the rider involved is able to "call on," with poorer teams "less able to secure justice." Lappartient admitted the case could have been handled better because it took "too long" and there was "too much pressure" waiting for the result, with Froome winning the Giro d'Italia in May while the investigation was ongoing and a ban "remained a possibility." He said that it took nine months to reach a decision in part because Froome "brought a lot of experts with him to try to demonstrate that he's not guilty" but also because the UCI was waiting on answers from WADA, on whose advice the governing body decided to drop the case (BBC, 7/6).
FALSE POSITIVES: In London, Matt Dickinson reported one of the scientists behind Froome’s defense claimed that, under WADA rules, there is a 10% chance of a false positive test for salbutamol "if athletes take the maximum asthma medication allowed." In research provided to Froome, Dr. Daren Austin, senior fellow and senior director of clinical pharmacology at GlaxoSmithKline, said that he had run "extensive virtual trials" to establish the possibility of breaching WADA regulations while staying within the rules. Austin said, "We analyzed Chris Froome's detailed dosing history to calculate the likelihood of him generating at least one presumed [adverse analytical finding, or AAF] using various statistical methods. Our calculations reveal a surprisingly high likelihood of a false positive" (LONDON TIMES, 7/7).
