I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.