"Well it's a complex reaction. On one hand I would say this is a really good lesson for the fans, for the media, for writers, for everyone involved in cycling to take the process of justice and anti doping a little bit more seriously and stop being so knee jerk reaction to an initial test or an initial rumor or whatever and just automatically jumping to conclusions."
"What everyone has to fundamentally understand is that this case never even got to the point of being a case. The UCI and WADA were determining whether or not they even wanted to pursue this and whether or not this test was a valid adverse analytical finding to the point where they might try to pursue ADRV. They decided that they weren't going to pursue it. With almost any other rider, i'll just say with any other rider, none of what happened would have ever been public. It would have never, never have been public because the process in deciding whether or not we're going to pursue an AAF is normally a completely confidential process because the rider is presumed innocent at first and the rider is given certain rights of privacy until there's enough facts to try and pursue an ADRV. That was completely b******ized by somebody leaking this to the press and whoever that person is, and I hope they're listening to this, what you did was horrible! To leak that out., Now if he had tested positive, if it was a confirmed AAF and if it became a confirmed ADRV , should that be public and should it be published? Absolutely, but not at the point at which it was leaked to the press that it was. I can't imagine this person, whoever it is who works for the UC I or someone around there and and the fact they've leaked to the press it's just, and I don't know what their motivation, it's just vindictive and I don't know what their motivation was, but it really makes me angry because it's it's not just Chris Froome, that could've happened to anyone."
"That said, I think the whole situation was made worse by Team Sky's attitude toward it and the management and the history of the organization. I think people view them very skeptically, they don't view them as being credible at all. Clearly with a whole Shane Sutton, Brad Wiggins, Richard Freeman jiffy bag disaster, it showed that they're unwilling to be an honest as an organization, that you know in order to protect their theoretical zero tolerance policy that they're basically willing to to do anything to just keep a level of opaqueness in front of of what's really going on and I think that when this situation hit from the fact that there just really isn't any credibility there and the fact that they aren't transparent whatsoever, turns the public against them in a really nasty way and in some ways I almost feel that Froome, well I don't want to say it was an unfortunate victim but he definitely, he caught you know the sharp edge of the of the sword because of all the history of Sky. I don't have a lot of Sympathy you know towards the fact that they would think that it was given such a negative reaction he was given such a negative reaction because of the way they treated the media, because of the way they're treated fans, because of the very arrogant attitude that have to rest of cycling. To me there's not a lot of sympathy there."
"But again going back to my first point. I do you know have sympathy for not just for Chris Froome, but any athlete that would have been at that stage in the anti doping process and to have a preliminary finding released to public and to be judged guilty as a result of that, that's just wrong. We don't, we don't do that in the rest of society. We don't do that in you know a modern society. I mean the last 300 years sort of post Magna Carta, post-declaration of independence, post constitution, post bill of rights western society - we don't do that! And in this sport, we just chose to essentially, you know, eat the guy alive, not only before even declared guilty, but before he'd even been officially charged with anything. So this is, this is the fundamental reason that confidentiality and privacy in the initial phases of these investigations exists, because anti doping science isn't simple. Anti doping adjudication isn't simple. For some reason, the impression the public has is that it's sort of a binary it's black or it's white, it's positive or negative and that is not the way anti doping science works and the people who who spent countless hours in the lab who are actually you know a lot of people involved and not doing it for the money. They're very passionate about fairness and support and they're working as scientists you know endless hours because they're passionate about protecting the rights of clean athletes. That said it's not simple those laboratory procedures. It's very difficult to get an exact answer that is 100 percent defensible...."
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram