Re: Re:
Fair enough. You could be right. Walsh clearly has his own agenda. Which presumably involves saving what's left of his tattered reputation
But he still appears to have sources within Team Sky presumably from his period embedded with the team ahead of writing that dreadful Inside Team Sky book. And it appears that (much too late) he's now speaking to those contacts
FWIW here's another quote from yesterday's ST article:
"Brailsford has not gone beyond his matter of fact support for Froome in his [initial] statement. Within the team there is the sense that since last year's controversies with Wiggins, the TUEs and the infamous "jiffy bag", Brailsford's relationship with his number one rider has been nothing more than businesslike. Froome did not support him back then and now there's a sense of payback"
Nest of vipers!
Eyeballs Out said:That's a long way from confirming that Sky are hanging Froome out to dry. And the fact that Walsh wrote it makes me more inclined to believe the opposite is trueWiggo's Package said:brownbobby said:Wiggo's Package said:Froome has two ways to dodge a ban
The second and last resort is to go into the UCI lab and try to replicate the elevated output with a legal input. Good luck with that, Chris
Prior to that Froome's lawyer will be trying every trick in the book to get him off on a legal/procedural technicality. Bear in mind the same lawyer got Armitstead off by challenging every aspect of all 3 of her missed whereabouts tests (he got lucky when CAS went with 1 of his many lines of attack). And the same lawyer had Liverpool football player Mamadou Sahko's ban lifted by persuading UEFA to drop the fat burning drug Sahko had taken from the banned list (that's a nice trick if you can pull it)
A complicating factor for Froome is the suggestion in Walsh's second article in yesterday's ST which say that Brailsford is hanging Froome out to dry over the salbutamol bust to retaliate for Froome's lack of support over the Wiggo TUE/jiffybag sagas, including that Sky are refusing to fund Froome's defence (remember Sky also refused to fund JTL's defence). Which is odd given Froome's initial "just following the team doctor's orders" defence and that if Froome goes down then Sky will most likely fold. But Brailsford has a thing for irrational decision making at key moments eh
In the meantime if Froome is funding his own "leave no stone un-turned" defence then things will get expensive very quickly. Especially Froome is banned and inevitably appeals to CAS
Really? I didnt see that...if true then that is a very significant development indeed.
Although my guess, based on events in the Walt Disney boardroom and completely aside from the whole Froome saga, is that they only have a limited amount of funding now to see them through to 2020 (at best). After that, they need to fend for themselves.
So yes, a multi million pound legal process may not be something they want to contemplate.
Have you read the article? This is the quote: "A source within the team claimed it would be presumptuous to believe that Team Sky were funding Froome's defence. Officially, the team refuses to say"
Fair enough. You could be right. Walsh clearly has his own agenda. Which presumably involves saving what's left of his tattered reputation
But he still appears to have sources within Team Sky presumably from his period embedded with the team ahead of writing that dreadful Inside Team Sky book. And it appears that (much too late) he's now speaking to those contacts
FWIW here's another quote from yesterday's ST article:
"Brailsford has not gone beyond his matter of fact support for Froome in his [initial] statement. Within the team there is the sense that since last year's controversies with Wiggins, the TUEs and the infamous "jiffy bag", Brailsford's relationship with his number one rider has been nothing more than businesslike. Froome did not support him back then and now there's a sense of payback"
Nest of vipers!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram