Not in any court in the UK he wouldn't, it wouldn't even get to trial, circumstantial evidence can't be the whole case. He wouldn't even lose a case in a civil court where the burden of proof is much lower.Benotti69 said:Maybe you forgot there is no legal requirements in a cycling forum.deviant said:
But all the evidence, i must repeat ad nauseum, is circumstantial evidence and that is considered in law courts.
I think all the evidence that points to Froome as a doper would get him convicted, as to date he has not shown anything that could be construed as a talented GT rider who never got a chance till he was 26!
The above highlighted statemennt is the problem, there is nothing that could be considered evidence in any way in a court of law. That being said there is enough to be 'suspicious as fcuk'.