I've no problem whatsoever with parliamentary scrutiny of taxpayers' money, which essentially what this boils down to.
But to use 'an anonymous but well respected' source as the main source of your accusations doesn't sit well with me, then to make the headline that Sky crossed an ethical line, which doesn't exist, is fundamentally wrong. They either broke the rules of the sport or they didn't, and all the available evidence says they didn't, so there is no case to answer.
I doubt it. I don’t care really either, the WADA code is for all sports to follow, as long as cycling remains signed up to that then that’s good enough for me.
I've no problem whatsoever with parliamentary scrutiny of taxpayers' money, which essentially what this boils down to.
But to use 'an anonymous but well respected' source as the main source of your accusations doesn't sit well with me, then to make the headline that Sky crossed an ethical line, which doesn't exist, is fundamentally wrong. They either broke the rules of the sport or they didn't, and all the available evidence says they didn't, so there is no case to answer.