Re: Sky
I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".
There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.
Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.
I don't know anything about all of that.yaco said:My take is the leaker/s aim is to eventually make Brailsford resign from Sky - Continually build up public pressure so he is given little choice about his future - At the same time the leaks to UKAD contain soft evidence at best, which are unlikely to lead to any charges - And at the same time, NADO's always ask for more money when undertaking a complex investigation - Have to laugh at how NADO's telling sports organisations how to spend their money.red_flanders said:I'm guessing, "Altitude camps are cover for blood value manipulation", "AICAR allowed us to lose weight and gain power", "It's still really easy to microdose EPO" and a few I can't think of.Zypherov said:So Sky allegedly broke the no needles policy rule. What next.
Where have I heard this before...? It sounds so familiar...can't....quite put my finger on it...yaco said:I wonder if this leak is trying to make UKAD overspend their budget - Seems to be lots of leaks which raise the interest of UKAD, but at the same time little hard evidence.
Anyone?
I'm wondering what would constitute "hard evidence" in your view. Personally I think there is hard evidence that they've been abusing the TUE process with incidents by both Froome and Wiggins. If someone puts their name to the needles allegation, that will potentially be eyewitness evidence of cheating, but that hasn't happened yet. That would be "hard evidence". Positive tests I would file under "proof".
There is so much circumstantial evidence of riders on their team cheating and management doing backflips to cover it up that it's not even funny–wildly beyond what I need to form a strong opinion on the matter. Whether there will ever be proof, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that more and more is leaking out all the time.
Can't bring myself to be interested in the internal politics of any NADO. Their incentives are so far removed from preventing doping that it's pointless to wonder about.