Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Add new comment
2 comments
Good lord really? If they are actually assessing him on the evidence the verdict of another body based on that evidence should be irrelevant.
Anyone would think they are reluctant to get to the bottom of this stuff.
On the medical (especially ethics) front, they surely have to defer to the expert opinion of the medical profession?
Honestly, I'd love to know what's really behind all this, because nothing makes any sense here. The stuff we've heard so far just raises questions. The only thing it's strongly suggested is that if Sky were doping, Freeman was kept well away from it.
I half wonder if the real story isn't something as bizarre as providing testosterone to a transgender person who couldn't get treatment on the NHS. The kind of thing that would get Freeman in much bigger trouble if it came out.