The problem is that he doesn't show it can't be a false positive.
I just watched his video
.
It seems much more nuanced and balance than the article I read. In the video he accepts that WADA have been unable to show that the test works, talks about the possibility that innocent people have doping bans. It all seems fairly balanced and worries for the future of anti-doping. He is clearly angry about it all, and clearly gets the false positive/false negative balancing act. There are no solutions proposed and no evidence presented that show why Froome is definitely guilty.
He then goes off and still writes fairly scathing articles on Froome and Sky.
FWIW In the article he says that there have been no other late developers like Froome in endurance sport. That is plain wrong: Paula Radcliffe was definitely one, and ther have been a fair few succesful ageing distance runners over the years. I'd say late development is a lot more suspicious in sprinting. I'd also say if people are going to talk about asthma, they should show that exercise induced asthma isn't a thing. Given his background, it seems odd that he is willing to mix it up with normal asthma.
As an aside, Bernard Hinault can f right off. He is a member of the generation when doping and EPO was widespread, but nobody was caught. He is a lucky man that people still seemingly look up to him.
Author