Froome has uphill ride from here
Last week the news broke that cyclist Chris Froome had an adverse analytical finding from the 18th stage of the Vuelta a Espana more than three months ago. A few days on I am still not certain where the truth lies.
Does this drug test, which shows he had twice the permitted level of the asthma medication Salbutamol, mean he cheated? Or can you believe Froome’s insistence that he has done nothing wrong?
I had long believed Froome rode clean. This test is not proof of wrongdoing, but it leaves him with a question that will take some answering. It needs to be said that Salbutamol is primarily a performance-enabling drug that allows asthmatics to keep their airways open. Multiple studies suggest that it is of little or no benefit to non-asthmatics, while anti-doping authorities believe that above a certain level, Salbutamol can be performanceenhancing.
This is why there is a threshold level and Froome exceeded that by 100 per cent. He has to explain how that amount of Salbutamol got into his body. If the authorities are not satisfied, he will be banned and stripped of his Vuelta a Espana title. The greater punishment will be to his reputation. If this finding is confirmed, he will be seriously damaged. Four Tour de France victories diminished by one asterisk.
The bad news for Froome at least explained one thing. I had called him in late October, nothing more than to catch up. He did not pick up. I left a message, asking him to call if he had a chance. It was unlike him not to return the call or send a message saying why he couldn’t. I did not think that much of it.
When it was announced last month that he would attempt the Giro d’italia-tour de France double, I called again. My view was that he would be insane to do the Giro before the Tour. His body needs far more consideration than he or his team gives it. Again, he didn’t pick up. I left another message on his voicemail. Still nothing.
I wondered if I had done something wrong.
After the news broke, I sent a text. Then we spoke that evening. He apologised for not returning my October-november calls, saying that he did not want to lie to me about the Vuelta test. For almost three months he had been concealing this from pretty much everyone he encountered.
On Wednesday evening he did most of the talking, insisting he had done nothing wrong and could recall precisely how many puffs he had taken from his inhaler on the day of the fateful test. He said he had stayed within the World Antidoping Agency’s stipulated limit and that his Salbutamol reading should not have been anywhere near the recorded 2000ng/ml level. He pointed out how stupid it would have been to take excessive Salbutamol when he knew that he would be tested that day. That point made sense and it is a challenge for those who presume he is guilty.
I spoke again with Froome on Friday evening. This time for more than an hour. It was a fraught, difficult conversation. Over the previous two days I had spoken to experts in anti-doping and pharmacology. They struggled to come up with any legitimate explanation for Froome’s elevated Salbutamol level. Really struggled.
I put it to Froome that maybe he should have accepted responsibility at the very beginning.
The suggestion disgusted him. Why should he admit to a crime he hadn’t committed? It was impossible for him to go into detail about the case that he and his team would present, but he did say my view would be different if I knew the minutiae.
One Salbutamol expert said it was impossible for an athlete to exceed the threshold while sticking to the rules in relation to the permitted number of puffs. Froome shot back that this was precisely what had happened to him.
I wished him luck in trying to establish his innocence, and I meant that. For the onus is now on him and it is not going to be easy.
❚ The Sunday Times