Paulatic wrote:Debs wrote:Are these reports, details, allegations, a bit premature for the public domain?
Maybe it would of been appropriate to keep this investigation confidential until such time as confirmed proof of guilt.
Sample A and B have tested positive, the rider is responsible, can’t be blamed elsewhere. Noticeably the SKY statement very quickly distance themselves from Froome. He might well come out with some plausible reason or excuse but I don’t see how you can doubt the proof of guilt.
It's not guilt if he can use the permitted defence. We'll have to wait and see. I don't think he'll be able to. I suspect he's been badly-advised by SKY that he could keep on puffing a bit more.
Paulatic wrote:It’ll be interesting to know if we are ever told if it was intravenous or inhaled. ( remember the long sleeved rest days? )
Wow, that's quite some conspiracy theory - I wear long sleeves on sunny days but I'm not injecting myself with anything. Can they tell whether it was intravenous or inhaled?