and sorry...what do you think Brailsford was doing?I just read CTs inside story interview with Matt Lawton again where he walks through how the story came about with the Jiffy Bag. This in interesting:
CT: So were you told it was triamcinolone?
ML: I think Nicole Sapstead [UK Anti Doping’s CEO] said the allegation was triamcinolone. But I never wrote triamcinolone, no. I couldn’t.
CT: But in retrospect, now that she has said it, are you happy to say that is indeed what you were told?
ML: [Pauses]… The allegation was triamcinolone.
So he ran the story it appears without evidence of the contents, other than Sutton must have told him there was wrongdoing, or stating triamcinolone was in the package. Sutton then I assume signed the affidavit as Daily Mail's protection against defamation claims as O'Rourke alleges, because it's only Sutton's word v defamation claims. Lawton has no actual proof of wrongdoing other than Pooley & Wiggins location proved incorrect leading him to beleive Brailsford was covering something up. He said those two locations of the riders gave him confidence to run the story.
Sapstead must have had contact with Lawton though at some point in order for her to say triamcinolone & begin the investigation of it in the first place, or was she simply putting Fancy Bears TUE substance of few weeks earlier & Lawton's story together to see if anything surrounding it could be found at Dauphine? That is some assumption if true, although Sutton wasn't known as the whistleblower to her at the time.