THE TEST THAT BECAME A VERDICT

On 7 September 2017, during the Vuelta a España, Chris Froome provided a routine urine sample. It recorded an elevated concentration of salbutamol, the asthma medication he was permitted to use. The reading triggered an adverse analytical finding and required further investigation. It was not, by itself, a finding that he had broken anti-doping rules.

Froome was notified privately that month. In December, before the regulatory process had reached a conclusion, the result was leaked to the Guardian and Le Monde. The distinction between an unresolved laboratory result and a proven doping offence quickly disappeared. One of Britain's most successful athletes was discussed as a drugs cheat facing the possible loss of his Vuelta title and a lengthy ban.

Froome maintained that his asthma had worsened during the race and that he had followed medical advice without exceeding the permitted dosage. Salbutamol concentrations in urine can be affected by factors including dehydration and individual metabolism, meaning the reading did not necessarily establish how much medication had been taken.

The investigation continued for more than six months. Froome remained eligible to compete, but other riders called for his suspension and his presence at races attracted hostility. In July 2018, the organisers of the Tour de France attempted to prevent him from defending his title, arguing that his participation could damage the race's reputation.

The following day, the Union Cycliste Internationale closed the case. After reviewing Froome's evidence and consulting the World Anti-Doping Agency, it concluded that his sample did not constitute an adverse analytical finding. No anti-doping proceedings were brought, no sanction was imposed and all his results remained intact. WADA confirmed that it would not appeal the decision.

Froome was allowed to enter the Tour and finished third. But the finding that he had committed no violation could not reproduce the months during which an incomplete process had been presented as a doping scandal.

The test required an explanation. The coverage supplied a verdict. By the time the regulator reached its decision, the unresolved allegation had already become part of how his career was remembered.

SOURCES