Do you think they should have avoided mentioning Mo at all and just left the suspicion hanging? Not sure how else to report all the evidence they did have, and they made it as clear as they possibly could that there was no evidence at all of Mo doping.
The thread title is a perfect illustration of the innuendo that a British viewer would be expected to draw from the content of the documentary.
Plenty of decent pieces of investigative journalism never see the light of day because there isn’t quite enough evidence to get them to the point where they could be proven in a libel case.
You don’t just have to potentially prove a straight allegation of wrongdoing, but also any innuendo of wrongdoing you create with your reporting.
In the context of the Alan Wells material and the discussion of microdosing leading up to the Salazar segment, there is IMO clear innuendo aimed at Mo in a prime time programme aimed squarely at a British audience who for the most part will never have heard of Jupp or Salazar.
If the BBC were asked in court to prove the allegation within the innuendo, the arse-covering statement at the end about ‘no evidence’ will not cut the mustard. They will have to prove something for which they, at best, have only ‘guilt by association’ evidence, which is fundamentally worthless.