While I am a cycling spectator, I also am in the WADA system. So I understand firsthand the balance between clinical need and a desire to compete. Sorry if the real life experience is insulting to you.
Wiggins had an allergy attack. A TUE was granted. Doctors may disagree on whether the drug was best but the relevant UCI doctors approved it. His use was approved and legal. "End of story."
Froome has asthma. Drugs are appropriate. "End of story." Until his urine sample was too high. The relevant doctors and officials are reviewing that and will make a judgement. Not spectators. Not other athletes. After their judgement we will have the end of this part of Froome's story.
These drugs aren't cocaine, amphetamines, heroin or anabolic steroids (all proven PEDs and no TUEs approved - and all very dangerous to the athlete). These are needed medicines with minor helpful side effects at little risk to the athlete. Nobody will die from these. Why the indignation?
@Primoz noted that the medical savvy of a team Sky confers an advantage. Absolutely agree - it was really hard to go through the TUE process with my civilian doctors. And there was no cherry picking of medicines like what Sky did. But we need TUEs for the health of athletes. And even 30 year olds who are pushing that hard will not always (never?) be healthy.
Like LKLA said.
Save the juice for us old folks that need it.
I made the Open division in my 50s. I am the current over 35 division National champion in my 60s. I'm a contender in my World age division. I have been and likely will be tested. I need the juice. Policies on medicines are relevant to me.
If Froome had a team of bike designers that gave him a 1% advantage, is that cheating? If Froome had a team of physical therapists that trained him to an extra 20 watts, would that be cheating? Are doctors that use medicines (sometimes with TUEs) to keep him in the best possible health that different? As long as the athlete is healthy, I don't get the problem.
Eric
Half of doping products are enhanced existing medicines, the other half are drugs that failed certification processes or tests didn't go as planned, and will therefore never reach production and intended use. I would hardly dare to say, that using this sort of stuff is good information. Testing for this stuff on the other hand has absolutely zero use in real world out of anti-doping territory. So analogy with race cars is, at least in my mind, absolutely not appropriate.
