Doping

You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

deleted in reply to @andyp

Andy - your take on Wiggins is that he had no case to answer, as he was within the letter (if not the spirit) of the rules. Now your position on Froome is that he is within the spirit of the rules. Is this a case of having your cake and eating it?

•

Jimmy_Fingers in reply to @deleted

I don't know about Andy but I haven't a clue what position to take on this. The Hutch on Twitter pointed out that Wiggins took something performance-enhancing legally while Froome has taken something that isn't illegally. This really doesn't make any sense.
•

andyp in reply to @deleted

Where have I said that? My take on this, fwiw, is that Froome has a right to due process. His sample has triggered as AAF, he should be given the opportunity to present his case as to why that happened. If that satisfies the panel then he’s cleared, if not he should be banned, probably for 9 months as Ulissi was.

The limit as set does appear to be arbitrary and not based on the latest science available, so it does seem possible that Froome stayed within the allowed dosage yet still exceeded the limit. I think it’s only fair he is given the opportunity to prove that.