Froome decision seems to reverse responsibility rule

Chris Froome. Photo: Getty Images
Chris Froome. Photo: Getty Images
When is an adverse finding not an adverse finding? When you have a team of lawyers behind you and a system which is vulnerable to legal challenge.

Four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome will get to ride in the world's greatest cycling race despite testing positive for asthma medication salbutamol during last year's Vuelta Espana.

He was cleared of a doping violation by the International Cycling Union earlier this week, which brought the nine-month saga to a sudden conclusion just before its biggest event gets under way.

Froome's sample results did not constitute an adverse analytical finding, it said.

Funny that, because we were led to believe his sample was twice the permitted limit.

But it appears when you factor in dehydration, using an approved adjustment calculation, Froome's sample came down to 19% above said limit which can actually be accounted for by measurement error. Silly us.

It also appears the big fish get returned to the water - the rest go in the pan.

Veteran Otago cyclist Mark Spessot fits neatly into the latter category. Two years ago, the then 50-year-old was banned from all sport for two years after using prescription medication.

An asthmatic since childhood, he tested positive for prednisone and terbutaline, which he took to treat his asthma two days before competing in the Twizel to Timaru race, a club-level event.

That would have be fine but he self-administered an old prescription rather than going back to the doctor and was denied a retroactive therapeutic use exemption certificate because there was ''insufficient clinical details for a satisfactory diagnosis [of asthma] to be established'', the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand said.

It stated Spessot's actions were ''not consistent with the clear obligations on every athlete [even though] they were taken legitimately for genuine medical reasons''.

Note the obligation is on the athlete. Froome and his legal help appear to have been successful in reversing that responsibility.

Instead of the obligation falling on the Team Sky rider, the burden of proof is being turned on to the governing bodies to convince everybody their findings are accurate and credible.

We are left with a sense athletes with enough resources at their disposal can challenge the system and perhaps that system is more brittle than we would like to think.

World Anti-Doping Agency regulations were introduced to bring about a level playing field. But if the rules are not bing applied equally then how level is the playing field?

The other perhaps more concerning issue Froome's case raises is whether the UCI and Wada actually believe their testing regime, and the science underpinning it, is robust enough to hold up in court.

Was there just a hint of desperation in the statement announcing Froome had been cleared?

''The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision, but wishes to reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, Wada's advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case.''

Trust us. We know best. Hmmmm.

 

Add a Comment