Team Sky have stated that they will not release any further information explaining how Chris Froome was cleared of an anti-doping violation in his salbutamol case, despite Froome’s claim on Monday that full details of the process would be divulged to the media.
In an interview with Sky Sports News on Monday, shortly after the UCI had announced that it had dropped anti-doping proceedings against him, Froome said: "It is a very complicated process. It has taken nine months of dealing with the UCI, going back and forth on this point. It's not something I've got my head around fully. It's very technical data. All of that will be fully communicated in the media in the next few days about how we got to this point."
A spokesperson for Team Sky has since contacted Cyclingnews to correct Froome's remarks, stating that the onus was on the UCI and WADA to publish the details of the case.
"The Team won't be putting out more information as it's obviously a UCI/WADA process and it's for them to decide what to put out and when. We don't have access to their data and scientific studies," the spokesperson said.
"Chris had been out on his bike training all morning yesterday and wrongly assumed WADA would be putting out more detail when he said that to Sky News. We would of course be happy with them doing so but is ultimately for them to decide what they choose to do."
Froome returned a urine sample containing 2,000ng/ml of salbutamol after stage 18 of the 2017 Vuelta a España. News of the positive test was leaked to Le Monde and The Guardian in December, but Froome denied any wrongdoing and declined to withhold himself from racing pending the resolution of the case.
On Sunday, it was reported that Tour de France organiser ASO was attempting to block his participation in this year’s race, but the process was rendered moot on Monday morning when the UCI announced that it had dropped its anti-doping proceedings against Froome.
Neither the UCI nor WADA have furnished precise details as to how Froome's legal team, led by Mike Morgan, had managed to win the case.
WADA confirmed on Monday that Froome did not undergo a controlled pharmacokinetic study to prove that the level of salbutamol in his urine was a normal consequence of his physiology, stating "it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control."
Anti-doping expert Robin Parisotto, who was previously part of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation’s Biological Passport panel, told Cyclingnews that the UCI’s decision to drop proceedings against Froome lacked credibility unless a full report into their findings was published.
"I'm quite bemused and it's hard to comprehend how a salbutamol level that high could not constitute an AAF," Parisotto said. "It's now about having full access to the reasoned decision as it's hard to comment without it. This is a case where they need to release the report in order to silence the agitators."