42x16ss wrote: keeponrollin wrote: pastronef wrote:But all the time there were no records of who the drugs were dispensed to.
So we don't know if they were used by BC Cyclists, of Sky Cyclists, because Dave used Freeman as a cutout, & probably the only records were on the missing laptop.
so if there are no records of drugs and their users, how can they be accused of using which drugs? (what I ask is how could a court a jury a commission act against Sky?)
Short answer; they can't. Long answer, whoever administered the drugs would want to be really sure
that they aren't going to be left in the position where their professional license to practice is at risk, because there are a bunch of drugs they've ordered, of which there is no record of them ever being administered. Because that will look really bad for them, super bad !
For a Doctor to have no records of what drugs they administered, is just as bad as administering drugs that weren't medically justified. So they'd be just as screwed one way as the other.
If someone were in that position, they might want to consider if, 'throwing themselves on the mercy of the court
', is their best option, & screw the dirtbags who left them to carry the can for just following orders.
How's it going to look in this scenario:
"So Dr Freeman, you are alleged to have been practising medicine for Team Sky for a period of several years, who claim that you provided a number of prescription only drugs, but you claim to have no records of patients, diagnoses or medications prescribed?"
Ouch, that's going to end well every time...
this is the only way a doctor can operate on a full-service cycling operation
If you have the blood-work and urine assay tests, or a gas chromatography mass spectrometer urine result, it is simple for an experienced person in this field, to work out if this is NOT NORMAL. Control sample is all the thousands of other examples they have seen.
The doctor can only work with a shield of plausible deniability
. (I jokingly refer to it as implausible undeniability[sic] )
It is a Damocles sword, so when he is found out, inevitably those at the pinnacle will take the proportion and toughest scrutiny, i) he only has his implausible undeniability[sic] and ii) he may have a semblance of cover, whilst also being thrown under the bus, but those above him, as scapegoat. so those above him will seek to at once, protect, whilst also being expedient, and get him to take the proportion of the blame. We call this the bad apples maxim. There are a few bad apples. This will apply to professional equivalents and those in the respectable professional and guilds with the hippocratic oaths like medicine. He will not be prosecuted or taken before any medical guild and have a hearing to see his medical practising licence revoked. wont happen. like no banker took any heat or prosecuted by the SEC for the banking crisis. This is not how those institutions operate.
A doctor cannot keep records of something that will be self-incriminating and incriminate the team. It is a paradox.
So we should stop seeking such professional ethichs, and recalibrate the lens and realise this is a different sphere of operation. You must seek to see the indirect and circumstantial pieces of evidence, of which the greatest one is a polymath's view on the history and behaviour in the sport. If you seek to hold the doctor of a sporting team to the same context and professional expectation of the local GP or specialist doctor working in the private sector, well then... in the words of Jan Ullrich, I can't help you. You have the assessment incorrectly calibrated from the start, and no chance you can ever find the most accurate analysis at the final stage.