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, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re:

08 Mar 2018 09:20

macbindle wrote:Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.


And that's how every nation should treat their heroes. Can't understand you brits, born to be jealous and/or learn to love scandals?
User avatar miguelindurain111
Junior Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 26 Jun 2017 13:03

08 Mar 2018 10:38

That puts you at odds with most of the posters in this thread, including me.

The Spanish reaction to Contador's positive was a joke. Compare it to the British reaction to Wiggins and Froome.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2018 10:57

miguelindurain111 wrote:
macbindle wrote:Evidence? Any?

In case you hadn't noticed we've just had a government investigation pronouncing Wiggins as a cheat. (DCMS) This is what Lappartient is using to push for a CAF investigation. The UK government investigation was prompted by British journalistic investigations into Team Sky (Daily Mail)The Wiggins case has been covered by the British media since the FB hack and very little of it has been supportive. The entire push against Team Sky has been British.

Compare this with Contador, where his fed tried to bury it, and his prime minister stepped in on his behalf.

By all means, criticise British sports based on evidence. We do. But don't come on here emptying your brain and expect to get away with it.


And that's how every nation should treat their heroes. Can't understand you brits, born to be jealous and/or learn to love scandals?


Very politically incorrect, I must say, Big Mig. And ... maybe not the place for it here ... let the Mods decide ... But ... this very thing (in the context of the Froome scandal) was pointed out to me by my closest friend, where I now live ... a British University prof ... a guy for whom I have the utmost respect ... that this is known, in the UK, as the "Politics of Envy." Now ... it could be bullocks ... but it gives rise to a the question of fact or fancy, nao eh?
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 629
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

08 Mar 2018 13:37

Remember Mark Bonar, the dodgy Harley St doctor UKAD couldn't be arsed investigating? He's trying to avoid a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service inquiry by claiming to have retired and emigrated. The inquiry seems to be going ahead without it...
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 08 Mar 2018 13:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,579
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

08 Mar 2018 13:38

Also in the news and buried by the Sky brouhaha - West Ham get three strikes for Whereabouts failures ... and a £30,000 fine

The 'tricks' they used involved sending DCOs to the wrong house number...

The club promises to "endeavour to tighten our procedures to avoid this happening again."
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,579
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

09 Mar 2018 12:53

fmk_RoI wrote:Remember Mark Bonar, the dodgy Harley St doctor UKAD couldn't be arsed investigating? He's trying to avoid a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service inquiry by claiming to have retired and emigrated. The inquiry seems to be going ahead without it...
And they struck him off.
A tribunal found Dr Mark Bonar, 40, guilty of misconduct yesterday, saying that he had shown “a reckless disregard for patient safety” and had “yet to show any recognition of, or insight into, the seriousness of his actions”.
If I was a British sports doctor currently in the news for possibly miss-prescribing some seriously heavy duty drugs to an athlete, I'd probably be thinking of changing career round about now...or following Bonar abroad...

Edit: the MPTS decision should appear here in a few days and could be worth reading if some of the quotes in reports are correct:
‘The tribunal determined that, both individually and cumulatively, Dr Bonar’s conduct (which includes dishonesty during the course of a consultation, non-clinically indicated prescribing, contraindicated prescribing, prescribing with the aim of improving a patient’s athletic performance, and advising an athlete on how to actively avoid detection) amount to misconduct that is serious.’
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,579
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

10 Mar 2018 10:25

macbindle wrote:That puts you at odds with most of the posters in this thread, including me.

The Spanish reaction to Contador's positive was a joke. Compare it to the British reaction to Wiggins and Froome.


Yes, you are sucking their dicks in this forum and in the comments to random british newspaper. Not speaking about some well known journos who could’ve done a serious career as escape artists.

How did we even end up talking about Spain when it turned out Great Britain was as filthy cheaters as the rest of them?

Ahh yes, of course, the ”ok we cheated like the rest of them despite telling the world only wogs did that but they are still more evil because look how outraged we pretend we are”-routine.
User avatar No_Balls
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 30 Jul 2009 15:23

14 Mar 2018 10:00

So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:
c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.
Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’
71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:
‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’
72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.
Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:
26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’
Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:
‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’
If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.
It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,579
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

14 Mar 2018 11:26

fmk_RoI wrote:So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:
c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.
Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’
71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:
‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’
72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.
Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:
26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’
Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:
‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’
If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.
It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?


Cost-Benefit analysis ... one of the best tests on the market. Everyone should get the App. :geek:
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 629
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

14 Mar 2018 15:19

Alpe73 wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:
c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.
Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’
71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:
‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’
72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.
Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:
26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’
Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:
‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’
If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.
It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?


Cost-Benefit analysis ... one of the best tests on the market. Everyone should get the App. :geek:


Your continued posting of nonsense, which you may find humorous, adds nothing.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

26 Mar 2018 22:14

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/ukad-hack-anti-doping-agency-server-fancy-bears-premier-league-athletes-a8274816.html
The UK anti-doping agency, which holds thousands of sports stars’ drug test details and medical records, has been hit by a cyber attack.

The Independent can reveal that staff at the agency’s London headquarters were called into a meeting on Monday morning, where they were informed of the breach and sent home.

Premier League footballers, high-profile cyclists and well-known Olympic athletes are among those whose data is held on Ukad servers.

Previous hacks on anti-doping agencies have revealed detailed medical information of some of the world’s leading athletes, sending shockwaves through the sport and geopolitical communities.

A Ukad spokesperson confirmed the agency had been the subject of a cyber attack but claimed it was unsuccessful and that they believed no data had been lost.


Ooh! :)
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

27 Mar 2018 08:59

Robert5091 wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/ukad-hack-anti-doping-agency-server-fancy-bears-premier-league-athletes-a8274816.html
The UK anti-doping agency, which holds thousands of sports stars’ drug test details and medical records, has been hit by a cyber attack.

The Independent can reveal that staff at the agency’s London headquarters were called into a meeting on Monday morning, where they were informed of the breach and sent home.

Premier League footballers, high-profile cyclists and well-known Olympic athletes are among those whose data is held on Ukad servers.

Previous hacks on anti-doping agencies have revealed detailed medical information of some of the world’s leading athletes, sending shockwaves through the sport and geopolitical communities.

A Ukad spokesperson confirmed the agency had been the subject of a cyber attack but claimed it was unsuccessful and that they believed no data had been lost.


Ooh! :)


UKAD tries its hardest to avoid finding out bad stuff about British athletes ("No bad news before Rio!")

So no data has been lost because there was nothing of interest for the Fancy Bears to hack
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

27 Mar 2018 16:31

53*11
Junior Member
 
Posts: 140
Joined: 05 Feb 2018 10:19

Re:

27 Mar 2018 18:46

53*11 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fancy-bears-hackers-linked-to-failed-cyber-attack-on-uk-anti-doping/
interesting development..


So on the one hand UKAD says "no electronic systems [are] live at the moment [and] it’s probably going to take 24 hours for the systems to back online, while they’re doing their appraisal of the systems"

But on the other hand UKAD says it “can confirm that no data has been lost or compromised”

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

27 Mar 2018 19:20

spetsa wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:So. No one really cares that one 'doping' doctor has been removed from the (British) scene, all people seem to care about is the hundreds - nay, thousands! - of athletes he doped and who haven't been punished for their deviancy. Here's what the MPTS 'reasoned decision' had to say about those thousands - nay, hundreds of thousands! - of other athletes Bonar is alleged to have doped:
c. purported that you had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of other ‘elite’ athletes in various sports to improve their athletic performance.
Found proved

70. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response, as well as the video recording and transcript of the consultation. In Dr Bonar’s Rule 7 response he does not deny purporting to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes, stating:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements. In hindsight, they were ill-advised and I regret saying them.’
71. During the consultation itself Dr Bonar informed Mr B that he had worked
with:
‘… boxers, tennis players, cricketers, what’s it called – the UFC I have got a guy who is quite high up there in that as well… I see quite a few of the cyclists… I haven’t worked with any runners so you would probably be my first runner, but I’ve worked with pretty much every other sport.’
72. Based on these comments, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bonar purported to have provided similar treatment programmes to other elite athletes; Dr Bonar denies actually having done so, but that is not the Allegation as put by the GMC. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 4(c) of the Allegation proved.
Elsewhere in the decision, there's this:
26. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that Dr Bonar himself asserted that he was untruthful during his consultations with Patient A and Mr B. In response to the Allegation (subsequently found proved by this Tribunal) that Dr Bonar purported that he had provided a similar treatment programme to a number of elite athletes in order to improve their performance, Dr Bonar wrote:
‘I was simply ‘over selling’ my practice to a businessman who had offered me a lucrative contract working with a number of amateur athletes. It was no more than ‘business banter’ and there was no substance or truth behind the grandiose statements.’
Not only did Dr Bonar claim to have worked with a number of elite athletes, but he also named an alleged patient who was in the public eye. The Tribunal determined that Dr Bonar’s false claims were potentially damaging to Patient A, as well as to the reputation of the profession as a whole. It had particular regard to paragraphs 66 and 68 of GMP, which set out that:
‘You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and current role.’

‘You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients… This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate’
If Dr Bonar is to be believed, he was untruthful with Patient A about his experience and current role and intended to mislead him in these respects. The Tribunal found that this is neither honest nor trustworthy.
It's actually kind of funny, in a sweet way: they could bust him for bragging without having to go any more bother. I mean, busted is busted.

The only Q is, are UKAD now paying more attention to Dr Bonar's former patients, just in case it wasn't just 'banter'?


Cost-Benefit analysis ... one of the best tests on the market. Everyone should get the App. :geek:


Your continued posting of nonsense, which you may find humorous, adds nothing.


Put him on ignore then.

At the very least it'll save the rest of us from having to scroll through your endless and pointless whining about him.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

28 Mar 2018 03:07

Wiggo's Package wrote:
53*11 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fancy-bears-hackers-linked-to-failed-cyber-attack-on-uk-anti-doping/
interesting development..


So on the one hand UKAD says "no electronic systems [are] live at the moment [and] it’s probably going to take 24 hours for the systems to back online, while they’re doing their appraisal of the systems"

But on the other hand UKAD says it “can confirm that no data has been lost or compromised”

:lol: :lol: :lol:


The problem with Fancy Bears is they have no idea what to look for in the data. They need a Cambridge Analytica to assist in the data mining. They’ve got to do some pattern matching in the data, in the same was the work was done on the leaked IAAF blood data.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,093
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

28 Mar 2018 07:34

just watching a tv program and they said that 1000 Brits die from asthma attacks every year.

Gee I hope Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome are very careful.
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 252
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: Re:

28 Mar 2018 09:24

thehog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
53*11 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fancy-bears-hackers-linked-to-failed-cyber-attack-on-uk-anti-doping/
interesting development..


So on the one hand UKAD says "no electronic systems [are] live at the moment [and] it’s probably going to take 24 hours for the systems to back online, while they’re doing their appraisal of the systems"

But on the other hand UKAD says it “can confirm that no data has been lost or compromised”

:lol: :lol: :lol:


The problem with Fancy Bears is they have no idea what to look for in the data. They need a Cambridge Analytica to assist in the data mining. They’ve got to do some pattern matching in the data, in the same was the work was done on the leaked IAAF blood data.


The Fancy Bears' TUE dump was certainly hit and miss

Finding out genuine asthmatics had TUEs for low level asthma meds pre-2010 was not of interest

They hit the target with Wiggo's TUEs though :razz:
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

19 May 2018 15:38

A guy who improved his climbing level by leaps and bounds versus a guy who drastically improved his form from one day to the other.

Isn't that grand?
User avatar Alexandre B.
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,278
Joined: 10 Feb 2015 20:04
Location: Paris, France

Re:

19 May 2018 15:55

Alexandre B. wrote:A guy who improved his climbing level by leaps and bounds versus a guy who drastically improved his form from one day to the other.

Isn't that grand?


A British 1-2 on the day of the cup final and royal wedding! :p
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,093
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carolina, Google Adsense [Bot], Merckx index and 29 guests

Back to top