FORMER UCI president Pat McQuaid has called Chris Froome’s adverse drugs test “a disaster” for cycling and claimed Team Sky could lose all credibility as a result.
Four-time Tour de France winner Froome had double the permitted level of the asthma drug salbutamol in a urine test taking during his victory in La Vuelta in September.
The result is not automatically classified as a positive test and the 32-year-old has not been suspended, but he must provide a satisfactory explanation for the adverse findings or he faces a ban and the loss of his Vuelta title.
Froome has denied any wrongdoing and said he is providing all the necessary information to the UCI, but Irishman McQuaid, who was president of the world governing body from 2005 to 2013, told BBC Sport Froome would find it “very hard to avoid a ban”.
“I don’t see how Chris Froome can turn around like he did and say ‘I played by the rules, I broke no rules’,” McQuaid said. “The fact is, he has broken a rule. The fact is his urine sample was twice the permitted limit. It’s up to him to go and prove that he could have done otherwise. We’re now three months down the road, and they haven’t found a solution to it yet.”
News of Froome’s adverse test increased the pressure on Team Sky. It comes soon after the inconclusive investigation into the contents of the mystery medical package delivered to Sir Bradley Wiggins at a race in 2011, and revelations over Wiggins’ use of therapeutic use exemptions before major races.
McQuaid said Froome’s situation was a massive problem for Sir Dave Brailsford’s team.
“They’ve had a very difficult 15 months, when they set out to be the team that is the clean team, that was going to bring back the credibility of cycling and they certainly have gone in the opposite direction this year,” he said.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel