-
Evidence for Froome? Because a lot of people have been looking for a long time and, thus far, have turned up nothing.
Caruso's is an odd case, the offence which he was charged with was for 'complicity' in trying to obtain doping products when he was an amateur in 2007, whatever that means. He got a one year, backdated ban which annulled his results, from 2011, but didn't actually serve a out of competition ban.
andyp-
I think Froome is the most scrutinised GC winner in the history of the sport in terms of anti doping.
Plenty of ex Sky/Ineos riders with no revelations after leaving.
Obviously the leaked salbutamol story didn’t help, the authorities say it wasn’t doping. So he wasn’t doping.
-
Because a lot of people have been looking for a long time and, thus far, have turned up nothing
It’s not hard to join the dots between:
- The very convenient TUE for cortisone before the Dauphine in 2014
- Overuse of salbutamol
- Everything else we’ve learned about Sky and British cycling bending the rules i.e. Wiggins TUEs for allergies, the Jiffy bag, Freeman’s missing laptop
- Overuse of salbutamol
And end up being suspicious about a rider to the point where, even if there’s no positive test, you put an asterisk next to their achievements.
- The very convenient TUE for cortisone before the Dauphine in 2014
Acliff
%~}
An entirely different tale of murkiness.