The aftermath of the 2017-2018 Chris Froome salbutamol case caused tensions at the time between the UCI and World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), correspondence published by the BBC reveals.
A dope test on Froome at the 2017 Vuelta showed he had elevated amounts of salbutamol, for treating asthma, in his sample. However, nine months after the test WADA concluded there was no wrongdoing. In July 2018 the UCI also ended the process involving Froome, saying it was doing so "primarily based on WADA's advice".
The letters between the two agencies at the time in 2018, and now published by the BBC, show WADA accused cycling's world governing body of trying to attribute to WADA the decision to end the case.
For his part, Froome was cleared of any wrongdoing and his victory in that Vuelta stood. He was never prevented from racing at any time and also went on to win the Giro d'Italia the following year and place 3rd in the Tour de France.
Advertisement
The correspondence obtained by the BBC and published on Tuesday was between UCI president David Lappartient and the then-president of WADA, Craig Reedie.
Lappartient told
Reedie that WADA "appears to be placing full responsibility for the
decision squarely on the UCI's shoulders".
"We both know very well who took the initiative of
closing this case and the reasons
why," he said. “It
is disappointing to see that your organisation is not taking responsibility on
the ground that technically the decision had to be taken by the UCI."
Lappartient also told Reedie there were concerns within the UCI about WADA’s system around the use of salbutamol. However, he said the UCI did not state this to Froome because it understood WADA would support the UCI as it tried to explain the outcome of the case, which he said was difficult for the public to understand.
Lappartient told Reedie there was an “objective difficulty in explaining how the WADA salbutamol regime can allow an athlete with a concentration of 2000ng/ml to be absolved".
Related News
Reedie wrote to Lappartient saying WADA believed it was "disappointing" and "wrong" that "the position of the UCI is now apparently that it had no choice but to follow the position of WADA and close the case".
"The UCI was the results management authority with
exclusive jurisdiction over the case and all relevant elements at its
disposal," he wrote, implying the
UCI had more control over the Froome outcome than the UCI was suggesting
publicly.
"If the UCI… disagreed with WADA's position, it was under no obligation to espouse it," Reedie said, adding that WADA "had no influence on the way the process was conducted".
"It is with regret that we have observed apparent attempts on the part of the UCI to divest itself of any responsibility for the decision," Reedie told Lappartient.
The French UCI president said the WADA rules allowing a rider with such levels of salbutamol to be “absolved” were hard for the public to understand and he believed the case had damaged the public’s trust in the UCI.
WADA has now told
the BBC that it believed the decision to end the process involving Froome,
without the rider being charge with any violation, “was the correct and
fair one”.
Chris Froome's legal representative told the BBC he was “never charged with any wrongdoing and was fully exonerated”. The representative added the process was confidential and should have remained confidential as Froome "did nothing wrong and was not charged with any offence”.
Froome and salbutamol
Froome returned his adverse sample towards the end of the 2017 Vuelta, which he won. He was informed, confidentially as per the rules, his test was problematic in late September.
Because salbutamol is allowed to certain levels, his adverse test result from the Vuelta was not an automatic doping offence that carried a suspension. Instead, the rider and his team had an unlimited amount of time to prove there was an innocent explanation for his heightened levels of salbutamol.
Froome and his team, then Team Sky, contended that dehydration and problems with the salbutamol testing system had effectively conspired to push his test result in excess of the legal limit. even though he had remained within that legal limit at all times.
This was accepted by WADA and the UCI and he was absolved of any wrongdoing, was never accused of a violation and was never prevented from racing at any point.
Topics
