-
The sign off was by Zorzoli on his own which WADA were very concerned about because they require the 3 expert panel (referred to by BW) that UCI only actually put in place in 2015.
The whole UCI TUE process that was in place pre-2015 was Zorzoli was able to do whatever he wanted. And people like Rasmussen have said he was complicit in what went on at Rabobank. With Leinders. And TUEs.
dubtap-
Got there before me^
The Zorzoli thing is interesting. Did BW mislead again in his interview then. He stated it got past the three member panel, but this is also not true?
He does seem to have a recurring problem with facts if so.
-
Ah. I didn't know that.
So..legal, but even more dodgy.
-
I don't believe this is true. There was definitely a three person panel in place in 2013, and my understanding is that this was operating for the 2012 Olympics in London.
Scrabble
villa-ru
andyp
Well - he definitely hasn't (legally) because he was given TUE's by the authorities.
Ethically, my personal view is that they did step over the line. I don't Sky would be happy if it was another team and were they in the MPCC he wouldn't have ridden / taken it. And if it was Valverde or Contador I'd be thinking there goes the filthy doper again. IANADr but it seems likely that what he was given was more than strictly necessary and probably did have positive impact on performance.
That said, the treatment was signed off 3 times, (by different people?) so it clearly wasn't that obviously dodgy.