A few odd points though that Wiggins / Sky don`t appear to have answered which given their `whiter than white` proclamations previously I would have hoped to have heard about
1. Why didn`t Wiggins make any reference to his asthma in his autobiography ? Froome has been open about getting bilharzia for example
2. Isn`t it a teeny weeny bit odd that he used the drugs, TUE or not, leading up to big GT rides, or was his asthma so selective that he needed the drug just then and there ?
3. Again given Sky`s whiter than white, within rule OK but maybe they should have not been so clear in proclaiming their riders were clean, technically and legally maybe but morally?
4 and why is it just now that Brailsford is talking about changing their TUE policy? Sounds like having been, albeit morally , caught out they, just like so many politicians do are trying to make retrospective amends and hoping it will all go away. Which of course it won`t.
--and having just seen the Telegraph item that Brailsford didn`t know about the performance enhancing capabilities of drug that Wiggins use to me is a laughable defence, one of, if not the, top pro team mangers claiming ignorance of a TUE drug capabilities is just making it all seem now to be a giant cover up.
Again legal OK but morally
?? IMO no way, sorry Sky have been very ingenuous in this
Simple question, if at time of Wiggins TdeF win Sky had been fully open about Wiggins using a TUE approved drug, but drug has known / reputed performance enhancing abilities would his victory have been met back in UK with such acclaim?
For me too many doubts now about the `genuineness` of Wiggins results, within rules yes, morally highly dubious.