Log in:  

Register

Brits don't dope?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, peloton, Eshnar, Red Rick, King Boonen, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re:

01 Mar 2017 23:28


I didn't get to that bit, what was said? I'm assuming BC we're selling on drugs to Sky? Were there records of that? Or were they lost/never created as well?
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 5,682
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

01 Mar 2017 23:35

King Boonen wrote:

I didn't get to that bit, what was said? I'm assuming BC we're selling on drugs to Sky? Were there records of that? Or were they lost/never created as well?


No, this is the magnificence of Brailsfords plan. He got BC (i.e. the British tax payer), to buy the drugs, & pay for the Doctor, & even pay the dumb ba$tard acting as drugs mule. 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. If Freeman was smart, he would have kept his own records, because he would have know exactly the kind of sh1t Brailsford is, & he'd have seen the possibility that this day would arrive, & made his own arrangements.

Given his pitiful excuses today, I'm guessing he's not so smart :(
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

01 Mar 2017 23:43

If all the drugs were bought by BC and then bought/used by Sky that could become a very big issue. If you act as a drug wholesaler you are not only required to get a license but you also need to keep very specific records.

I'm going to try and finish listening to Sapstead tomorrow. What I saw of Cope he just came across as the kind of person I wouldn't trust to open a tin of beans.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 5,682
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Brits don't dope?

01 Mar 2017 23:44

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?)
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,717
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

01 Mar 2017 23:47

Damian Collins indicated on Off The Ball radio this evening that Freeman will be called to give evidence after they receive a written reply to questions raised from today's events. That hearing will be worth watching and this slow drip drip of information is enabling the public, journalists and committee more time to get the correct line of question. It has been a PR disaster for sky, but when you are covering up the truth then this was always likely to happen.

What I don't understand, is the reluctance to call up Wiggins himself who has had everyone else take the flak for him to date. Maybe this card is being held for when yet more damning information becomes available as the MPs are probably reluctant to go after the only name who has any public affection in this whole story.

With Sapstead, it is very easy to see how Brailsford would rule the roost over her. She seemed reluctant and almost apologetic at times and but for the investigation, I'm certain nothing would ever have come to light.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 351
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

Re: Brits don't dope?

02 Mar 2017 00:19

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.
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

Re: Brits don't dope?

02 Mar 2017 00:53

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?)


Lol! :lol:

Apply this thinking to criminal drug proceedings;

Judge/Jury: "Mr. Crack Dealer, as you didn't keep records of your sales and Mr. Crack User, there is no records for you, you both can go free, have a good day".
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,971
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

02 Mar 2017 21:09

Freiburg innit Image
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,234
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

Re: Brits don't dope?

03 Mar 2017 02:06

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.

Spot on!

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...
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,282
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Brits don't dope?

03 Mar 2017 02:46

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.

Spot on!

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...


Can anyone remind me (cos I'm too tired to search for it), who was the doc who applied for and administered Brad's TUE's?
User avatar ferryman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,995
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 23:43
Location: LostinFife

Re: Brits don't dope?

03 Mar 2017 04:44

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.

Spot on!

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.
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,234
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

Re: Brits don't dope?

05 Mar 2017 21:40

ferryman wrote:
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.

Spot on!

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...


Can anyone remind me (cos I'm too tired to search for it), who was the doc who applied for and administered Brad's TUE's?


Freeman. Worked for Sky 2011-2014.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,387
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Brits don't dope?

06 Mar 2017 06:56

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?)

At least two ways are possible and even plausible.

1. BC having to answer for the missing drugs, managers pointing their finger to SKY,
2. Freeman getting the squeeze and starting to squeal

Way to solve #2 is giving Freeman a golden parachute if he takes the fall, which considering his ruined career is not unlikely. It's not as if being a bell-ringer is worth it, most of the time it only makes you a pariah.
Franklin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,547
Joined: 26 May 2009 20:52
Location: Flatland

Re: Brits don't dope?

06 Mar 2017 09:45

Benotti69 wrote:
ferryman wrote:
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.

Spot on!

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...


Can anyone remind me (cos I'm too tired to search for it), who was the doc who applied for and administered Brad's TUE's?


Freeman. Worked for Sky 2011-2014.


Freeman may have administered it, but the athlete applies for it. Freeman's name doesn't appear on any of the TUEs released by Fancy Bears, Mr Hargreaves, an ENT consultant is the only other name on the documents. The comments obviously weren't written by Wiggins as they talk about carrying out the treatment, so that could very well be Freeman, but we can't be sure.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 5,682
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

06 Mar 2017 10:09

Remember Fancy Bears only released the final TUE document. There's a stack of paperwork, online forms and various other stuff associated with each TUE both electronically and physically held with WADA and on ADAMS
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 816
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

06 Mar 2017 10:32

samhocking wrote:Remember Fancy Bears only released the final TUE document. There's a stack of paperwork, online forms and various other stuff associated with each TUE both electronically and physically held with WADA and on ADAMS


The TUEs could well be legitimate. The form states that the documents to back it up exist. That was for 3 (maybe 4?) doses though, not 70.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 5,682
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

06 Mar 2017 18:53

British Cycling have learnt their lessons. New appointment from a sport where doping is not tolerated!

It would appear British Cycling going into the future are not going to entertain doping in the same manner the FA do. Ie ignore it, don't test for it and absolutely dont talk about it.

:D
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,387
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

06 Mar 2017 18:56

King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:Remember Fancy Bears only released the final TUE document. There's a stack of paperwork, online forms and various other stuff associated with each TUE both electronically and physically held with WADA and on ADAMS


The TUEs could well be legitimate. The form states that the documents to back it up exist. That was for 3 (maybe 4?) doses though, not 70.


TUEs and legitimacy is a logical fallacy imo
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,234
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

Re: Re:

06 Mar 2017 19:01

King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:Remember Fancy Bears only released the final TUE document. There's a stack of paperwork, online forms and various other stuff associated with each TUE both electronically and physically held with WADA and on ADAMS


The TUEs could well be legitimate. The form states that the documents to back it up exist. That was for 3 (maybe 4?) doses though, not 70.


Wiggins doesn't have asthma. So not legit. If it was all above baord Wiggins would be giving interviews left right and centre with his medical records from pre racing showing he had asthma. Wiggins went into hiding and then gave an interview to Andrew Marr who knows little about cycling. If Wiggins/Sky were above boars they would have picked there biggest critic to give an interview too.

Kenacort is not a legitimate treatment of asthma or allergies, depending on which story Sky roll out.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,387
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

06 Mar 2017 19:25

Benotti69 wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:Remember Fancy Bears only released the final TUE document. There's a stack of paperwork, online forms and various other stuff associated with each TUE both electronically and physically held with WADA and on ADAMS


The TUEs could well be legitimate. The form states that the documents to back it up exist. That was for 3 (maybe 4?) doses though, not 70.


Kenacort is not a legitimate treatment of asthma or allergies, depending on which story Sky roll out.


Are Kenacort and kenalog the same thing?
Cos Kenalog seems a very legit treatment for allergies/asthma. Just playing devils advocate, not suggesting Wiggins is cleans.
https://forums.netdoctor.co.uk/discussion/44394/hayfever-injection-kenalog
Dan2016
Member
 
Posts: 622
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 15:36

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bobbins and 17 guests

Back to top