Doping git thread

[roadrash]

keep yer pecker up shane

 

[Pale Rider]

Freeman might be hiding behind a screen at the hearing, but it looks like he briefed an attack dog in Mary O'Rourke QC.

It would have been good theatre to see her and Sutton going at each other.

Sutton always struck me as a bit of a pig, but I suspect he found Ms O'Rourke could be just as nasty as him.

 

[mjr]

Like a fecking episode of Dallas ! All we need now is Sir Dave to turn up with erectile disfunction

Who's going to be in the shower when we all go back to 2012 and Froome wins the Tour?

 

[Adam4868]

Who's going to be in the shower when we all go back to 2012 and Froome wins the Tour?

Lol I can't see this going past Freeman,he's going to take all the flak I think.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Who's going to be in the shower when we all go back to 2012 and Froome wins the Tour?

Or even Nibali. He was first non-Sky rider.

 

[Adam4868]

Too much info Shane...

 

[lane]

Why is Freeman behind a screen . Ludicrous. Should only be if you need anonymity which he clearly does not because we know who he is. I have a bit of respect of Sutton's comments at the hearing.

 

[Adam4868]

Why is Freeman behind a screen . Ludicrous. Should only be if you need anonymity which he clearly does not because we know who he is. I have a bit of respect of Sutton's comments at the hearing.

Said he's nervous ?

 

[roadrash]

I bet he is sh!tting himself , nevermind nervous

 

[Pale Rider]

Said he's nervous ?

Pretty much.

He's been pulling a long term stress sickie, so apart from anything else it's probably good tactics to maintain that by saying he can only face the hearing from behind a screen.

 

[mjr]

Pretty much.

He's been pulling a long term stress sickie, so apart from anything else it's probably good tactics to maintain that by saying he can only face the hearing from behind a screen.

Would you choose to look at Sutton if you had a choice?

 

[Adam4868]

Would you choose to look at Sutton if you had a choice?

With or without patch on ?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Kinda funny that Sutton responds to accusations of (among other things) being a bully by shouting "You're spineless! Man up and look me in the eye! Come out from behind that screen!", and calling a QC a "mindless little individual". Oooops.

I wonder if may now have served his purpose now as far as the defence is concerned. Although there may still be that Daily Mail affidavit to surface which could prove interesting.

This is brilliant theatre but I've completely lost track of its overall significance.

 

[Adam4868]

Kinda funny that Sutton responds to accusations of (among other things) being a bully by shouting "You're spineless! come out from behind that screen!", and calling a QC a "mindless little individual". Ooops.

I wonder if may now have served his purpose now as far as the defence is concerned. Although there may still be that Daily Mail affidavit to surface which could prove interesting.

This is brilliant theatre but I've completely lost track of its overall significance.

I think it's more about actually finding out which riders had the "stiffy patches"

 

[Dogtrousers]

I think it's more about actually finding out which riders had the "stiffy patches"

Being serious for a minute (and it's quite difficult) what is actually going on. The defence is trying to demonstrate that Sutton is a bully and that their client was bullied into getting the patches by him. I think I understand that.

Are they then implying that - if there was any doping going on it wasn't their client's fault. Evil shouty Shane told Freeman that he had problems in his pants and needed some T, and that if he (Freeman) didn't get it he (Shane) would kick his (Freeman's) ass. Frightened Freeman got the T, handed it to evil shouty Shane, and is guilty only of being a bit of a wet. If there was any doping going on it was evil Shane?

Is that the general thrust of the defence, or have I got it wrong?