Craigee said:
Anyone who thinks Sky and Wiggins are clean with all the evidence mounted against them has to be pro doping and cheating. They can be nothing else.
Imagine if it went to a trial by Jury and the defence attorney trying to explain why Sky sent had couriered by hand all the way from Manchester via Switzerland, a simple cheap legal product that they could have bought at the closest pharmacy in France.
And your verdict Foreman of the Jury?
Guilty on all counts your Honour.
Yes - this is the point I made yesterday and one which is not lost on Damian Collins Either:
“I think it clearly shows that UKAD does not have the powers it needs and I've been very clear on this. UKAD currently relies on people's willingness to cooperate. It has no legal authority to compel anyone to speak," Collins said.
When asked whether doping should be criminalised in the UK, Collins added: “I think so. I was very struck by the evidence [former rider] Nicole Cooke gave to the select committee when she said that in those countries where doping is illegal, they have much more effective investigations.
If you were to lift the investigation out of the Anti-Doping and into the realm of a Criminal court, a number of main protagonists in this would be facing charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and possible perjury given their contradictory oral evidence and disappearing medical records. If nothing else Freeman would have had a supoena (as would Wiggins) and have been compelled to give evidence under oath along with proof of the stolen laptop. The jury would also be able to draw an inference from missing evidence and witnesses remaining silent.
Another point which is work making is there would be restrictions placed on the reporting of the matter thus severely limiting the 'spin' Sky and BC have been able to put on it. In short they would be silenced or else risk finding themselves in contempt of court.
So will Mr Collins present a Bill to Parliament?
Interesting Ego driven statement by Wiggins though. If he went after people for Libel he would have to prove that what they were saying was not true, does he really have the stomach for that?