Chris Froome says he is confident of winning doping case

Okay, so it's close.. 

https://www.outsideonline.com/2252456/athlete-microchips-wont-solve-doping

I would like to think that there is a credible defence being made and that's why it's taking sooooo very long to sort this out. However for all we know it's just being tied up in knots to make it harder to untangle. I'm sure everyone will be relieved once this is over, either way. 

I admire Chris Froome, he is one of the best bike racers in recent years, he has done things differently to the norm and has visibly improved year on year since 2014, I thought his 2016 breakaway with Sagan was one of the most exciting moments in a grand tour I've seen.

I don't believe that he or sky would have crossed the red line of rules 'on purpose'. But I do believe that they would/have 'gamed the system' to the limits wherever possible. And I personally am okay with gaming the system.

In which it means it's the system which needs to be changed. The focus of vitrol should be directed at the UCI rules in my opinion. Why do they let a 1000mg salbutamol piss test? Why not 500mg, or zero or indeed why have a salbutamol piss test at all? Should there be another test? The infringement is morally about the amount of salbutamol he's put into his body in a given time, not what comes out, so why don't the tests monitor what is going into a sportsperson's body instead, they have the technology for that. 

I have a sideline insight into what happens every weekend in high stakes($$) motorsport and the rule infringements which happen by every team, and which, when caught are sanctioned by officials, these are so common and would be considered 'morally wrong' by most cycling commentors, by playing up to the rules and beyond, but due to sponsor pressures and the amount of rules which could be 'accidentally' infringed, it's considered normal to game the system, expected almost. I can't speak for althletics or tennis or those abnormal giants who play rugby, but I'd be surprised if gaming the rules isn't considered usual (or steriods!).

I still believe that this, and the Wiggins press coverage is all part of a larger stitch up by someone, probably at the UCI with their own nefarious agenda (in my head they have a lair, a long haired cat and a freaking great lazer).

So every other similar case seems to have resulted in a ban but CF is confident this one wont? I really wonder how being twice the limit. Or is it just down to money and status?

My persnal opinion, no athsma meds, no TUE's. If your not fit to race without them you are no elite athlete. Also minimum 5 year bans for any positive drug tests. When you sign up to race you sign up to race clean not cheat or abuse loopholes.

You've got to love the Ventolin blue they chose for the kit.

A big battle of the lawyers still in progress?

Of course, he's confident. Sky will do the same as they did with Wiggins "jiffy bag". When I have on good authority contained nothing but a large wedge of cash to cover up a failed test. By good authority, I got it straight from someone who was there when it left the UK.

Chris who?

There's more going on here than meets my jaundiced eye and I speak as a big fan of Chris Froome.  

He is not thick and neither are his management and advisers at Sky.  Any sensible person would have put their hand up last September, taken the six-month ban and come out fresh and fighting this spring.

Why haven't they followed this route?  Could it be the result of the case is already decided and he will be cleared "in the best interests of the sport."? 

Either way I expect it will all be forgotten this time next year.