Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Parker]

Re: Re:

You forgot to mention that it's also well documented that Froome's Romandie TUE was signed off by the UCI's notorious Dr Zorzoli in breach of the UCI's newly introduced rule that a panel of three doctors must sign off emergency TUEs. Zorzoli of course also signed off Wiggo's dodgy TUEs. The Zorzoli/Leinders connection still working its magic

Since the UCI finally got round to booting Zorzoli out there has been a huge drop in the number of TUEs granted each year. Sky had to find new rules to bend to breaking point. Like the salbutamol limit...

1. Who else could they get to sign it off?
2. The new rule came in after this. Previously it was just best practice.
3. Leinders had left Sky long before Froome's TUE.
4. The number of TUEs declined during Zorzoli's tenure not after it.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You forgot to mention that it's also well documented that Froome's Romandie TUE was signed off by the UCI's notorious Dr Zorzoli in breach of the UCI's newly introduced rule that a panel of three doctors must sign off emergency TUEs. Zorzoli of course also signed off Wiggo's dodgy TUEs. The Zorzoli/Leinders connection still working its magic

Since the UCI finally got round to booting Zorzoli out there has been a huge drop in the number of TUEs granted each year. Sky had to find new rules to bend to breaking point. Like the salbutamol limit...

1. Who else could they get to sign it off?
2. The new rule came in after this. Previously it was just best practice.
3. Leinders had left Sky long before Froome's TUE.
4. The number of TUEs declined during Zorzoli's tenure not after it.

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie/

'According to the French newspaper, UCI scientific advisor Dr. Mario Zorzoli signed off on a request from Team Sky for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) without submitting Froome’s medical dossier to a TUE committee, which is required under World Anti-Doping Agency regulations. The WADA code states that applications for a TUE must be reviewed by a committee that “should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” '

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-suspends-zorzoli-from-anti-doping-work/

'Former rider Michael Rasmussen testified that Zorzoli met with Leinders and said that "Rabobank was a team that had ‘butter on its head’…meaning that all the problems, doping related problems would slide off,” USADA wrote in the full decision. It goes onto say that Leinders refers to Rasmussen as "the most protected rider in the race". Rasmussen also claimed that Leinders advised him to use the steroid DHEA (didehydroepiandrosterone) as a result of a recommendation from Zorzoli.'

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

 

[topcat]

Give up. The conspiracy theory has been proven.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

They might have not been gaming it in a preplanned way that time, a likely explanation is that he was still glowing from OOC use and needed the TUE to not pop an AAF.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

1. Rules is rules. You're really struggling to grasp that concept eh. If a 3 doctor panel isn't available for an emergency TUE application then you have to wait. If that means you miss the start of the race so be it. Be thankful and take to bed with a Lemsip. Since you're so goddam ill an all

2. "Should" equates to "must" (dictionary definition "indicates an obligation"). It is not the same as "can" or "may". You can thank me for the English lesson later

3. Freeman applied for a triamcinolene TUE for Wiggo prior to the 2013 Tour of Britain. Farrell stepped in and stopped him. Wiggo won the race btw so was he really ill? The urge to game the system is strong in Team Sky

4. Special favour for Team Sky. Zorzoli waived the rules. Maybe Uncle Brian had a word. Whatever, Froome's Romandie TUE shouldn't have happened. Simples

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

See point 3 of my post above

How does that fit your theory?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

UKAD's external legal fees in the Tyson Fury case were £500,000+

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/42965999

This is an example of how stringing his AAF case out works in Froome's favour. As time ticks by and with multiple lines of defence put forward the UCI's legal fees keep going up. And the financial pressure on the UCI to settle becomes greater

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

They might have not been gaming it in a preplanned way that time, a likely explanation is that he was still glowing from OOC use and needed the TUE to not pop an AAF.

Likely? :lol:

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

They might have not been gaming it in a preplanned way that time, a likely explanation is that he was still glowing from OOC use and needed the TUE to not pop an AAF.

Likely? :lol:

Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.

 

[53*11]

Re:

UKAD's external legal fees in the Tyson Fury case were £500,000+

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/42965999

This is an example of how stringing his AAF case out works in Froome's favour. As time ticks by and with multiple lines of defence put forward the UCI's legal fees keep going up. And the financial pressure on the UCI to settle becomes greater

it is bizarre that there is seemingly no time limit imposed by UCI for entering your defence for an AAF like this; again the strategy favours those larger teams with resources, armies of experts, doctors and legal eagles to shape and mould a case; 5 months on and it appears the dehydration defence, the kidney defence and the abnormal physiology have all borne no fruit so what are they going to come up with , and when??

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

I wasn't replying to Guimard.

And why would a ethical team suspend someone they believe to be innocent of doping and at worst negligent in taking permitted medication? All they are doing is sticking to the rules that WADA have deemed the most appropriate. Are we saying that WADA are immoral and unethical? This all needs to be kept in perspective.

You probably missed a lot of points and stories of Sky to see them as an ethical team, or maybe you don't understand the meaning of that word.
That is not believe or not, but to do the best for ETHICAL reason! As we know, Froome has the responsibility to clear his name by convincing a panel. How can it be thical to race in such conditions?
To follow rules doesn't mean to be ethical, or moral!

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

1. Panel of 3 doctors. As required by WADA Code. Complying with the rules is a PITA eh
2. Incorrect (see first link and quote below)
3. Indeed. But Leinders taught naive Brit doctors Freeman and Farrell how to game the TUE system. And we know from Rasmussen that Leinders' relationship with Zorzoli was very cosy (see second link and quote below)
4. Yes. After Froome's Romandie TUE Zorzoli couldn't pull that blag anymore. Too much heat

1. Such a panel was not avaiable.
2. No. Have a look at that word 'should'. You would be better quoting the actual code rather than CyclingNews reporting of it. WADA said that procedure had been followed.
3. So they used all this 'gaming' for just the Tour of Romandie?
4. The declining number of TUEs predated the Froome incident too.

A good point which had crossed my mind...surely if you're going to game the TUE system, you save it up for the biggest races of the season, a la' Wiggins and the Tour...

They might have not been gaming it in a preplanned way that time, a likely explanation is that he was still glowing from OOC use and needed the TUE to not pop an AAF.

Likely? :lol:

Yes, likely. As in “not far fetched”, like the notion that a rider so I’ll with respiratory issues that he needs a massive dose of a steroid would be able to demolish the field the next day.

Amazing that people still swallow this garbage.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

UKAD's external legal fees in the Tyson Fury case were £500,000+

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/42965999

This is an example of how stringing his AAF case out works in Froome's favour. As time ticks by and with multiple lines of defence put forward the UCI's legal fees keep going up. And the financial pressure on the UCI to settle becomes greater

it is bizarre that there is seemingly no time limit imposed by UCI for entering your defence for an AAF like this; again the strategy favours those larger teams with resources, armies of experts, doctors and legal eagles to shape and mould a case; 5 months on and it appears the dehydration defence, the kidney defence and the abnormal physiology have all borne no fruit so what are they going to come up with , and when??

Indeed. In UK civil court cases judges have a low tolerance of parties appearing to employ deliberate stalling tactics. The judge might refuse to grant any more extensions and move straight to trial and/or impose costs penalties on the stalling party etc

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

UKAD's external legal fees in the Tyson Fury case were £500,000+

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/42965999

This is an example of how stringing his AAF case out works in Froome's favour. As time ticks by and with multiple lines of defence put forward the UCI's legal fees keep going up. And the financial pressure on the UCI to settle becomes greater

it is bizarre that there is seemingly no time limit imposed by UCI for entering your defence for an AAF like this; again the strategy favours those larger teams with resources, armies of experts, doctors and legal eagles to shape and mould a case; 5 months on and it appears the dehydration defence, the kidney defence and the abnormal physiology have all borne no fruit so what are they going to come up with , and when??

Indeed. In UK civil court cases judges have a low tolerance of parties appearing to employ deliberate stalling tactics. The judge might refuse to grant any more extensions and move straight to trial and/or impose costs penalties on the stalling party etc

It’s difficult to delay a civil case in the UK without agreement of both parties. In saying that 6-12 months to trial date is about standard. In UK civil cases discovery occurs which is similar to what I assume has occurred at LADS. It’s the point which both parties send their evidence and case bundles so each side has a full understanding of the other parties case and allows good opportunity for mutual settlement.

It’s clear Brailsford is going his normal route of aggressively ramming his way through and if that fails to abandon Froome (like he did with Wiggins) for the next GT winner (insert Poles, G, etc.).

 

[Parker]

Re:

- Vegni, being a Muppet, says he will do nothing to stop Froome, because he doesn't want to have to say 'no' to his own €1.4 million appearance-fee deal, after schmoozing with Sky and the Israeli financial backers
- UCI, seeing Vegni's nutty behavior in the media, know Vegni is unreliable, they expedite the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Froome banned from competition before May, sparing Vegni from having to decide
- The Anti-Doping Tribunal has thus far never given anyone a ban of less than 18 months. The standard is two years for what Froome has done, and any less than two years requires some extenuating explanation as to why the ban should be reduced. Only Luca Paolini got less than two years, and that was for complex reasons. Froome has a straightforward case in comparison
- UCI itself is not going to request less than two years, after they offered Froome something like 9 - 12 months, and he refused the deal. The UCI's leverage in LADS negotiations depends on the concept that "Acceptance of Responsibility" is a deal to avoid the likelihood of a more lengthy ban.
- A month ago (January 8, 2018), the Anti-Doping Tribunal gave Matzka a ban of two years for tamoxifen, and the judge noted that (A) tamoxifen is a 'Specified Substance' and (B) "the UCI does not submit that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional". They don't have to prove intent to give Froome a two years ban.
- Froome gets banned for two years, probably in April, but appeals the decision to CAS
- Then the lawyers can spend many more months arguing about intentionality, organ failure, testing lab data, and every other possible excuse to get the ban reduced
- CAS probably upholds the ban of two years.

An alternative view:

- Vegni knows that he doesn't have the grounds to exclude Froome. The UCI knows it too.
- The process is independent of the UCI management. They have no leverage and no influence on it.
- The Anti-Doping tribunal has yet to rule on a salbutamol case. Most of the cases have a four year maximum. This has just two.
- Matzka had no history of using tamoxifen or no condition that would require taking it (breast cancer). Froome's use of salbutamol is long established.
- The last two cyclist to fall foul of this got nine months
- Froome could possibly apply for a reduction having contributed to CIRC (I doubt this will work though)
- If found guilty he'll probably get nine months. It will most likely be after the Giro. Perhaps even after the Tour.
- The judgement will, like Petacchi, state that there was no intention to cheat, so Sky will use this to retain him
- He'll be back in action by the 2019 Tour.

 

[70kmph]

Ullissi ruling is outdated
Nine months isn't possible because the Code describes the reduction as one half of the standard,

10.5.2 ...the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility
otherwise applicable


Currently Froome isn't eligible for a reduction because of his reluctance to admit to Negligence (degree of Fault) see

10.5 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence

 

[Parker]

Re:

Ullissi ruling is outdated
Nine months isn't possible because the Code describes the reduction as one half of the standard,

10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault .

Article 2.4 is a whereabouts failure.

You need a different section

10.5.1.1 Specified Substances
Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

Here's an example of a reprimand: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36404943

Froome hasn't yet been referred to a hearing so it's a bit premature to state what he is or isn't eligible for.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

- Vegni, being a Muppet, says he will do nothing to stop Froome, because he doesn't want to have to say 'no' to his own €1.4 million appearance-fee deal, after schmoozing with Sky and the Israeli financial backers
- UCI, seeing Vegni's nutty behavior in the media, know Vegni is unreliable, they expedite the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Froome banned from competition before May, sparing Vegni from having to decide
- The Anti-Doping Tribunal has thus far never given anyone a ban of less than 18 months. The standard is two years for what Froome has done, and any less than two years requires some extenuating explanation as to why the ban should be reduced. Only Luca Paolini got less than two years, and that was for complex reasons. Froome has a straightforward case in comparison
- UCI itself is not going to request less than two years, after they offered Froome something like 9 - 12 months, and he refused the deal. The UCI's leverage in LADS negotiations depends on the concept that "Acceptance of Responsibility" is a deal to avoid the likelihood of a more lengthy ban.
- A month ago (January 8, 2018), the Anti-Doping Tribunal gave Matzka a ban of two years for tamoxifen, and the judge noted that (A) tamoxifen is a 'Specified Substance' and (B) "the UCI does not submit that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional". They don't have to prove intent to give Froome a two years ban.
- Froome gets banned for two years, probably in April, but appeals the decision to CAS
- Then the lawyers can spend many more months arguing about intentionality, organ failure, testing lab data, and every other possible excuse to get the ban reduced
- CAS probably upholds the ban of two years.

An alternative view:

- Vegni knows that he doesn't have the grounds to exclude Froome. The UCI knows it too.
- The process is independent of the UCI management. They have no leverage and no influence on it.
- The Anti-Doping tribunal has yet to rule on a salbutamol case. Most of the cases have a four year maximum. This has just two.
- Matzka had no history of using tamoxifen or no condition that would require taking it (breast cancer). Froome's use of salbutamol is long established.
- The last two cyclist to fall foul of this got nine months
- Froome could possibly apply for a reduction having contributed to CIRC (I doubt this will work though)
- If found guilty he'll probably get nine months. It will most likely be after the Giro. Perhaps even after the Tour.
- The judgement will, like Petacchi, state that there was no intention to cheat, so Sky will use this to retain him
- He'll be back in action by the 2019 Tour.

A doper would only be offered a reduced ban if they provide full disclosure on others who have doped, suppliers, etc. Are you suggesting the Dawg rocked up to CIRC and gave such info in return for a get out of jail free card to play down the line?!

Another equally plausible theory on Froome and CIRC is that it was him who told the panel about the comprehensive and expensive bespoke doping programmes available to those lucky enough to live in Monaco:

http://www.velonews.com/2015/03/news/circ-report-20-90-percent-modern-peloton-still-doping_362399

CIRC wrote: “The largely non-orchestrated nature of doping today was echoed by a number of knowledgeable and reliable people. They were of the view that there is an elite who are still doping in a sophisticated way today. Most activities are alleged to have taken place in Italy and Switzerland, and to a more limited extent in Tenerife and Monaco.”

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

- Vegni, being a Muppet, says he will do nothing to stop Froome, because he doesn't want to have to say 'no' to his own €1.4 million appearance-fee deal, after schmoozing with Sky and the Israeli financial backers
- UCI, seeing Vegni's nutty behavior in the media, know Vegni is unreliable, they expedite the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Froome banned from competition before May, sparing Vegni from having to decide
- The Anti-Doping Tribunal has thus far never given anyone a ban of less than 18 months. The standard is two years for what Froome has done, and any less than two years requires some extenuating explanation as to why the ban should be reduced. Only Luca Paolini got less than two years, and that was for complex reasons. Froome has a straightforward case in comparison
- UCI itself is not going to request less than two years, after they offered Froome something like 9 - 12 months, and he refused the deal. The UCI's leverage in LADS negotiations depends on the concept that "Acceptance of Responsibility" is a deal to avoid the likelihood of a more lengthy ban.
- A month ago (January 8, 2018), the Anti-Doping Tribunal gave Matzka a ban of two years for tamoxifen, and the judge noted that (A) tamoxifen is a 'Specified Substance' and (B) "the UCI does not submit that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional". They don't have to prove intent to give Froome a two years ban.
- Froome gets banned for two years, probably in April, but appeals the decision to CAS
- Then the lawyers can spend many more months arguing about intentionality, organ failure, testing lab data, and every other possible excuse to get the ban reduced
- CAS probably upholds the ban of two years.

An alternative view:

- Vegni knows that he doesn't have the grounds to exclude Froome. The UCI knows it too.
- The process is independent of the UCI management. They have no leverage and no influence on it.
- The Anti-Doping tribunal has yet to rule on a salbutamol case. Most of the cases have a four year maximum. This has just two.
- Matzka had no history of using tamoxifen or no condition that would require taking it (breast cancer). Froome's use of salbutamol is long established.
- The last two cyclist to fall foul of this got nine months
- Froome could possibly apply for a reduction having contributed to CIRC (I doubt this will work though)
- If found guilty he'll probably get nine months. It will most likely be after the Giro. Perhaps even after the Tour.
- The judgement will, like Petacchi, state that there was no intention to cheat, so Sky will use this to retain him
- He'll be back in action by the 2019 Tour.

it's established but perhaps not as long as you think

there is no public record of asthma pre-2014

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

it's established but perhaps not as long as you think

there is no public record of asthma pre-2014

Three years. That's plenty long enough.

And medical records are the usual evidence, they're not public.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

it's established but perhaps not as long as you think

there is no public record of asthma pre-2014

Three years. That's plenty long enough.

And medical records are the usual evidence, they're not public.

no, but depending on his defence he may be required to produce them...

imagine...a condition which affects you so much and which could even ruin your career warrants not one single mention pre-2014...even in his biggest fan's book about him......those with inquiring minds and all that.....

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

it's established but perhaps not as long as you think

there is no public record of asthma pre-2014

Three years. That's plenty long enough.

And medical records are the usual evidence, they're not public.

no, but depending on his defence he may be required to produce them...

imagine...a condition which affects you so much and which could even ruin your career warrants not one single mention pre-2014...even in his biggest fan's book about him......those with inquiring minds and all that.....

You know how people like to say 'this is a forum, not a court of law'

Well a court of law isn't a forum either. 'It wasn't in your book' is really going to cut it.

 

[GraftPunk]

The dawg fanboism is strong here... it's like watching the LA denials all over again. If some of you boys keep it up, Michelle is going to get jealous.