Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[Adam4868]

In an idle moment, I did wonder if Thomas might be the anonymous source the DCMS spoke to. For the source to be credible, it has to be someone who had access behind the scenes at races, so a rider or soigneur or maybe even the chef or bus driver (though I've met one of the Team Sky bus drivers and he didn't strike me as a grass). It's also likely to be someone who is vociferously anti-doping, and Thomas certainly fits that bill. On the other hand, he's been a good mate of Wiggo for years, so would he dob him in? There have also been doubts expressed about Thomas's own purity in some quarters.

Anyway, this really is delving into the realms of speculation so I won't pursue this line of thought any further.

Id have never thought of Thomas as I see him as someone who wouldnt have a bad word to say about anybody.Allround likeable bloke !
There again I dont really.like the idea of a "annonymous source" either come out yourself or its not credible to me.

 

[smutchin]

My thought was Fabio Bartalucci

Yes, he's a strong candidate.

 

[Siclo]

The other obvious candidate is Leinders, you can see why the DCMS would not reveal they'd spoken to him.

 

[Adam4868]

It could have been Froomey before his adverse episode.......or it could be a figure of speech.

 

[Siclo]

It could have been Froomey before his adverse episode....

Can't see it....Michelle would have had to tweet it.

 

[Foghat]

There again I dont really.like the idea of a "annonymous source" either come out yourself or its not credible to me.

Whistleblowing has a very important place in British law, including in investigations such as these.

In this case, there's no reason to doubt the ability of the select committee to assess the credibility of the witness correctly. It says:

The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation.​

Anyway, I should imagine anyone who knows the team/management structure, and knows who was employed by Sky, during the period in question would be able to deduce who the whistleblower is, given the very specific knowledge they demonstrate in their evidence.

There is clearly enough verifiable content in the witness's evidence to establish their credibility - and remember the committee does know who it is. Given their testimony doesn't come across as much of a grievance, and is very much presented as simply clarifying matters and setting the record straight on certain points, then the select committee has obviously made the correct decision to give credence to and publish it and to use it in determining its findings...... and whilst I am also very curious to know the identity, I'm prepared to delegate making this judgment to the select committee, and for the identity to remain undisclosed to protect the individual.

 

[smutchin]

There is clearly enough verifiable content in the witness's evidence to establish their credibility - and remember the committee does know who it is. Given their testimony doesn't come across as much of a grievance, and is very much presented as simply clarifying matters and setting the record straight on certain points, then the select committee has obviously made the correct decision to give credence to and publish it and to use it in determining its findings

I think they have come to a sincerely held view based on their understanding of the available evidence. My only problem is that certain aspects of the report, as noted upthread, show the limits of their understanding.

Either way, there are enough known and indisputable facts to cast serious doubt on the ethical standing of the team. They've definitely got that bit right.

 

[Foghat]

My only problem is that certain aspects of the report, as noted upthread, show the limits of their understanding.

A valid point, but I would say those aspects aren't that significant or material to the determining factors in reaching justifiable conclusions.

I would even suggest that with more specialised knowledge, and with a more judicial approach, they would have been even more damning and for instance would have found that WADA rules were indeed breached by the fraudulent TUE applications.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

SKY are lucky that Travis Tygart wasnae on their case

 

[jowwy]

A valid point, but I would say those aspects aren't that significant or material to the determining factors in reaching justifiable conclusions.

I would even suggest that with more specialised knowledge, and with a more judicial approach, they would have been even more damning and for instance would have found that WADA rules were indeed breached by the fraudulent TUE applications.

your only speculating on the Fraudulent TUE applications....................Shane sutton has stated that he has seen 1st hand how bradley suffers after hard efforts due to his illness/asthma/allergies, but maybe you missed that bit.

anyway is no longer up to us to speculate and read into the findings of the selective committee to boost our told you so rhetoric, like some have been doing in this thread............

 

[jowwy]

SKY are lucky that Travis Tygart wasnae on their case

https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/...verup-of-sexual-abuse-by-coaches-9ffb9277a5f3

 

[Foghat]

Fran Millar certainly has form for some less than exemplary behaviour towards Sky's critics, not sure even LA would stoop to the depths she's plumbed.

Blimey. It must be bad if what she's done is worse than wilfully misleading and exploiting millions of cancer sufferers, and suing, threatening, bullying, intimidating and deliberately ruining the careers and business interests of innocent people. What's she done?

 

[Foghat]

https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/...verup-of-sexual-abuse-by-coaches-9ffb9277a5f3

Indeed - as Armstrong found, you wouldn't want someone that ruthless or lawyerly going after you, so Sky will be quaking in their boots even more if Tygart starts sniffing around the case.

 

[jowwy]

Blimey. wilfully misleading and exploiting millions of cancer sufferers,

That's a bit harsh isn't it - i'm pretty sure livestrong have helped an enormous amount of cancer sufferers through their illness and still do. Saying that LA exploited them is very harsh indeed. Mislead them on being a clean rider yes.........

 

[jowwy]

Indeed - as Armstrong found, you wouldn't want someone that ruthless or lawyerly going after you, so Sky will be quaking in their boots even more if Tygart starts sniffing around the case.

i wonder if the swimmers of the US would agree with you there..................also tygart is the CEO of USADA or did that escape you, why would USADA sniff round a UK cycling team