I think that that statement has a few pertinent facts.
WADA decided there was no AAF based on the weight of the Sky legal team lined up against the UCI.
There was no pharmacokinetic study done. (Not possible they say).
The whole arguement to drop the case appears to be based on theory. (What took all this time then? Will The Lancet be publishing some research papers to explain what's new?)
Having decided that there was no case to answer, WADA would not appeal the UCI dropping the case (can someone explain why it was necessary for them to say that, unless it's a fop to the oppositions legal team).
Dan Roan has it right when he says that Froome still presents a public order risk on the Tour (and I would add, to the other riders as well as to himself).
I love the bit about Froome always trying to conduct himself as a leader - and his farts smell of roses as well I suppose, although I am not offering to find out.
He might be clean but this doesn't take us any closer to a definitive proof.