I tend to think this is along the lines of what happened. It certainly fits the unusual twists and turns and timeline of this case. It also fits the modus operandi of people and organisations (Teflons?) that seem immune from the penalties, censures and restrictions normal mortals face. That is to say when you are facing a guilty verdict, a reverse, a decision you don't like, don't fight facts with facts, rather go for the figures of authority who make the decisions. Attack them, get them changed, bribe them, have them transferred, blackmail them, leverage them, go to their boss and have their boss do it, do it any way you can. Widen the playing field, offer a Brexit deal, offer an improved knighthood, whatever.Benotti69 said:WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.bambino said:That is pretty.... bizarre.Benotti69 said:WADA statement.
So no testing of Froome.In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.
When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.
WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!
Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?
They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.