THE non-case against Chris Froome regarding salbutamol fell apart so quickly and totally once a few hard facts emerged and a degree of objectivity was brought to bear that cycling probably needs to look afresh at the Sir Bradley Wiggins’ TUEs saga and Dr Richard Freeman’s jiffy bag ‘incident’.
The accusers, having already trashed Wiggins’ name for evermore, must now answer some questions to substantiate their claims and plug some rather alarming holes in the case. The truth will never emerge while everybody peddles their own conspiracy theories. We need facts. If Team Sky and Wiggins did wrong they should be officially disciplined, if they didn’t an apology is way overdue.
1. What, if anything, is the evidence that Wiggins doesn’t suffer from asthma and that his application for a TUE was false? To date there seems none, in fact his medical history is well plotted right back to 2003 and his asthma recorded by numerous teams, official bodies and medics and indeed gushing newspaper articles on his asthma.
2. Where is the scientific evidence that triamcimalone is performance enhancing for somebody who genuinely has ashtma/pollen issues? We only seem to get anecdotal stuff from non-sufferers and convicted drug cheats. WADA appear to have allowed its use because their medics were convinced it doesn’t, that’s one of the criteria they employ to approve its use.
3. What is the evidence that Wiggins’ TUEs were inappropriately obtained?
4. Why hasn’t UCI president David Lappartient followed through his very vocal demand in March for a UCI investigation following the Parliamentary committee report? Sky are desperate to participate. Could it be that UCI officials have informed their president that they already did an audit on Wiggins’s applications and found them in order? Could it be that they also told Lappartient that Sky were the most sparing users of TUEs in the peloton during that period and that other teams and riders are not at all keen on any such investigation?
5. Where is the evidence that Wiggins knew anything about Dr Freeman’s jiffy bag, that he ever saw it or knowingly took any medication that might have been in it?
6. Why exactly would Sky, as alleged, spend four days getting triamcinalone to Wiggins by a bewilderingly chaotic route for it to arrive after he won the Dauphiné when he could take it legally a couple of hours later?
7. Why didn’t the Parliamentary committee not get Wiggins to give evidence in person at their self-appointed court before delivering a verdict they failed to back up with evidence?
8. What exactly is this new offence of ethical doping the committee invented and found Wiggins guilty of, in his absence, on unchallenged hearsay evidence?
9. The strange, violent, theft of Dr Freeman’s computer on holiday in 2014 has sparked lots of nudge nudge comments – how very convenient etc – but needs looking into. It seems odd and random.
10. Why are Wiggins and Sky still so interested in establishing the truth… but others seemingly less so?