Great quote from DB:
I don't think this is the case at all. KB is correct when he says that CADF routinely checks AAFs for TUEs, and presumably in the process make sure the documentation is in order, but that’s quite a bit different from investigating whether the TUE was used for PE. There’s no way they could do this simply by checking the documentation. So when someone calls for an investigation, it’s not correct to dismiss this by saying, it’s already been done. I’m not sure what an investigation would accomplish at this point, barring as KB says new information emerging, but it would be an exercise that hadn’t yet been performed.fmk_RoI said:Audit and investigate can mean the same goddamned thing. Especially when you're talking about garbled translations that you haven't even seen the original of. Seriously Sam, why do you have to try and make everything so **** difficult? These things aren't hard.
Let's do this easy for you. You posted a link to one of your articles on EPO recently. If someone opens the link and confirms that the story is there, you're not going to know. You'll only know if someone decides to criticize what you actually said about EPO in the article. That's quite a bit different from just opening the link.Let's do this easy for you. You bragged about being a company director recently. If Revenue audit/look at/investigate/call-it-what-the-bloody-hell-you-want your file and find nothing there, you're not going to know. You'll only know if they decide to take the matter further.
Is that simple enough for you or can you find a way of complicating even that?
Yes, but Wiggins’ argument is based on probability. Had his allergy flared up at any point during any of those races, he maintains, he would have lost. The problem is we have no way of assessing how likely this was, and even if we could, there’s no rule to help us. I think we could all agree that if there was > 50% chance, we could understand why he would want to take the drug. But what if the chance were 10-20%. What if it were 1%? Where do you draw the line?vedrafjord said:There's no evidence that any allergy issues weren't already under control going into the 2012 Tour, given that he won three major stage races in a row and even won a bunch sprint in Romandie.
Yes, the 2013 Giro is suspicious. So, for that matter, are previous Tours, like 2009. Assuming FB was thorough, he had no TUE for triamcinolone then, only salbutamol, formeterol, another beta2-agonist, and budesonide, a corticosteroid, all taken by inhalation.The timing of the TUEs is damning, coinciding not with a consistent pollen season, but with season goals in grand tours. Why did he need a TUE at the 2013 Giro having not needed one at that time of year previously? It's the same pattern as Sharapova and meldonium: bigger doses before more important matches.
Great quote from DB:
Listen, anybody over the age of 35 or 30 years old in professional cycling is a concern. End of. End of.