Froome got off on the Salbutamol because he had the resolve and of course crucially the resources to stand up and challenge the case.Froome got off on a drug where dozens of others got banned for. And that's just one thing in a looooong line of things.
Froome finishes a GT in 2nd but is later awarded a victory even though the winner did not test positive for a controlled substance. Contador wins a Grand Tour, doesn't test positive, and later loses that victory.
How can I pretend it's fair?
I don't like Valverde, and I don't pretend he's a good guy in this. But at least he did the time and at least the pretense of cleeaanz is gone.
Without being expert enough in this field to fully interpret what limited info we got on the decision, to the layman the conclusion seemed to be that the test itself was inherently flawed.
Sure it sucks for those banned before him, but that’s not Froome fault. If he genuinely knew that he’d done no wrong then of course he’s not just going to roll over and accept a sanction just for the sake of parity with those who went before him.
My guess is we won’t see any salbutamol sanctions in the near future now with this precedent set. So rather than adding to the list of reasons to dislike him, maybe it’s a reason for some to thank him.
Of course if you’re of the opinion that he simply bought himself out of it, some kind of bribe, cover up etc, then there’s no answer to that really
And just out of interest, what part do you think Froome/Sky//Ineos had to play in the whole Cobo chain of events...do you really think this is something they pushed through?