There's been an awful lot of comment on Chris Froome's Salbutamol
case, almost certainly too much. In spite of that, here's some more.
There wouldn't have been any comment if the case had remained
confidential, but news of the Adverse Analytical Finding was leaked
to The Guardian and Le Monde. Who leaked it? Despite the gallons of
ink splurged on articles on the subject, I haven't see that question
asked or answered by cycling journalists. They haven't shied away
from asking difficult questions of Froome.
The UCI had the information about the disciplinary process, and the
leak came shortly after the election of French politician David
Lappartient as UCI President. Was it Lappartient who leaked the
information, or authorised the leak? Does he see himself as an
impartial President, promoting the interests of cycling in an
even-handed way, without favouring one team over another, nor one
nationality over another? Or is he playing to the gallery - to
French sports fans, for example, with a view to boosting he profile
at home?
The product involved is a legal asthma medication. It's not like
EPO or human growth hormone, which are definitely
performance-enhancing, and banned. It wasn't a secret that Froome
used an inhaler. There is a limit on the amount which may be taken,
and that's the problem. The amount of Salbutamol found by a urine
test was greater than the limit, suggesting that Froome may have
taken too much.
There are only three possibilities:
1) Froome deliberately took too much Sabutamol during the Vuelta
a Espana; he knew he would be tested, and it seems unlikely he
would have taken this risk
2) he took too much Salbutamol by accident and/or without
realising it
3) he took only the permitted amount, and because of an anomaly
or because the test is not reliable, too much of it appeared in
his urine
We don't know which it is. To me, Froome comes across as very
polite, but not prepared to let anyone hinder him from pursuing his
objectives. You could say that he is ruthless; personally, I don't
get the impression that he's a liar or fraudster.
That's not the opinion of commenters below the line on sites like
cyclingnews. They never tire of putting the boot into Froome. Almost
whatever the subject of the article, the debate turns immediately to
the Kenyan-born Brit. The same joke about puffing is made over and
again. Many of the commenters 'know' that Salbutamol is a
smokescreen for a much bigger fraudulent conspiracy involving Team
Sky using electric motors and I don't know what else.
These are people who are upset that Froome has beaten their
favourite riders in the past; the easiest reaction is to say 'oh, he
must be cheating'. Although this seems to be the overwhelming
opinion on cyclingnews, most of it comes from the same five or six
people making tens or even hundreds of comments a day.
A bad performance is seen as evidence of cheating: he must have
stopped taking the magic sauce. A good performance is seen as
evidence of cheating: he couldn't ride like that without the magic
sauce.
When Fabio Aru cracked and lost time at the Giro, one cyclingnews
commenter wrote that it made him seem more credible; another replied
sarcastically, 'Only when all the riders come in last, 25 minutes
down, will we truly know that cycling is clean.' That does neatly
highlight a flaw in the original commenter's theory.
I've never warmed to Froome a great deal, but I admire the way he
has dealt with this affair. It takes incredible strength of
character to remain so steadfast and determined in the face of all
his critics.
I don't know what the outcome of his Salbutamol case will be. I'm
sure we are all suspicious of the performances of certain riders at
certain times, and our suspicions are often based on our
preconceptions of particular teams and nationalities. Despite the
history of cycling, we have to give the participants the benefit of
the doubt, and assume their performances are natural, unless proved
otherwise. If we don't do that, we may as well give up following the
sport.
As it happens, Froome had a very good day in the Giro - which is
incontrovertible evidence of...something or other.
An otherwise delightful Sunday morning bike ride was blighted by
the sight of too many fresh animal carcasses, the creatures killed
by speeding cars. Could we change the law, or change our driving
culture, and save our wildlife? Read about save
our wildlife - don't drive so fast.
Bike lanes in the Netherlands are designed with thought and
intelligence to create a joined-up, easily usable network. I
took a few photos of cycle infrastructure in Zandvoort, and I've
added some comments about the intention of the planners. In the
UK, we should pay particular attention to the way they give bike
routes continuity, instead of making them give way to every side
street.
