09
2012 Tour of Britain:
The defining moment of T-L’s 2012 season was stage six of the Tour of Britain: the 189.6km trek between Welshpool and Caerphilly. At the foot of Caerphilly Mountain, T-L seized his chance and broke free of the peloton, putting himself into the yellow jersey by the slimmest of margins (thirteen seconds to be precise). T-L’s Endura teammates were then able to show Sky like resilience to protect their man for the final two stages of the tour, allowing T-L to claim the general classification by a final margin of eighteen seconds. It is alleged that T-L was drug tested after every stage of the Tour of Britain – if he was indeed doping at the time, why was this not flagged up? It is the equivalent of having an alibi for a crime but being convicted regardless.
Circumstantial Evidence:
Moving from the sphere of professional cycling into that of criminal law, it is arguable that T-L has been convicted off the back of circumstantial evidence alone. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence (in cycling terms, this would be an actual failed drugs test) if there are a number of circumstances that, together, leads to a guilty verdict. To paraphrase the leading case of R v Exall:
“One strand of a cloud might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite sufficient of strength…there may be a collection of circumstances no one of which would alone raise a reasonable conclusion…but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.”
It is the view of Criterium that the flawed biological passport alone is not enough circumstantial evidence to amount in a conviction. In line with R v Exall, this would need to be supplemented with something more: a confession a testimony or a failed doping test. >>>