vosadrian wrote:I think most people here think he is guilty of breaking the rules which relate to his intake of Salbutamol as inferred by an "adverse" (not guilty or positive) urine sample. Everyone knows that the urine samples are not a reliable way to test intake, and therefore we have the adverse finding scenario. Consider for a moment that he did do the right thing in terms of intake and there is some plausible reason he is later able to prove for his urine sample. What do you think he should do?
* Take one for the team and not compete despite being in the right whilst being favourite to win in the prime of his career and possibly break records?
* Assume the truth will eventually come out and weather the storm until it does whilst continuing for personal career goals?
SKY have dragged the chain on this (deliberately in my view so that Froome can keep racing in the face of a ban). If, as Alex has suggested previously, the athlete could not compete again until they proved why they had an adverse finding then this would have been dealt with by SKY in a much more expedient fashion.
Froome and SKY have alluded to the public not having a full understanding of what has happened and said that they have information which will make us all understand and see it his way but here we are 9 months later and they have released nothing????
SKY and Froome have brought this on themselves, zero sympathy and well done to the ASO, maybe their actions will help bring a quicker end to the ongoing saga.
And please no "innocent until proven guilty" arguments, Froome has to prove why he had twice the accepted levels of Salbutamol in his system.