Well, as long as you're being fair-minded about it. :roll:
I.e. get real. He wasn't busted at the border with vials of EPO; they didn't find markers of synthetic testosterone in his blood; he didn't wind up in the hospital with kidney failure from a failed autologous blood transfusion; no one has said under oath that Froome uses PEDs. On one out of dozens of tests he's taken over the years, the amount was too high. The UCI has a protocol to evaluate exactly these types of situations, and part of that includes giving the rider the opportunity to explain. WADA doesn't even require a TUE any more for salbutamol.
By the way, one of the voices criticizing the salbutamol test was...
the developer of the salbutamol test. He publicly stated that the test was flawed, was worried that it was hurting athletes' careers, and no he wasn't hired by Sky or Froome to say so. (
Scientist whose studies were the basis for salbutamol rules says the rules are flawed - Sports Integrity Initiative)
Meanwhile, WADA was already looking at studies which show that the test can produce false positives, and revised its standards just a few months ago -- and under the new standards, Froome would not have had a positive.
Last but not least, plenty of accused athletes have "paid a whole bunch of experts" to no avail. Why didn't that work for Petacchi, Contador, Landis, Vino, Basso, Di Luca, Valverde and so many other top riders?
If you want to prove Froome doped, you need better evidence.
