You are reading a single comment by @Jimmy_Fingers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
What is the key evidence you think it omits? I would be interested in a rebuttal. I have got to the point where I'm not sure what to think.
Jimmy_Fingers-
I have got to the point where I'm not sure what to think
Given that we haven't seen the defence case at all, and we haven't seen how the prosecution case stands up to cross-examination, that's where you should be.
-
Froome was tested by the UCI as part of their development programme, when he was in his early 20s. The results from that show he had the raw talent to be a top level pro, what was missing was the ability to ride in a bunch, as he’d never raced in large groups before.
gbj_tester
andyp
He quotes Varjas ffs, how the fuck can this be called hard hitting? Why do the likes of Varjas and Vayer get given a free pass by the press, when most of their claims can be dismissed by someone with GCSE level scientific knowledge.
It's light on fact and misses some of the key evidence, presumably on purpose, that exists in the public domain around Froome.
It's a hatchet job, pure and simple.