Log in:  

Register

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

04 Feb 2019 17:35

I'm sure they'll work it out just fine.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

04 Feb 2019 17:38

samhocking wrote:I'm sure they'll work it out just fine.
A moment ago you didn't. How quickly even you forget your own nonsense. All that spinning, I guess it makes you dizzy.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

04 Feb 2019 17:48

Didn't what? Seems pretty obvious why Freeman's team uses the term to me.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

04 Feb 2019 21:57

So how is it with doctor-patient confidentiality? Is that something for Freeman & BC to hide behind? The records keeping he'll get done for, but the Testogel?
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

Don't mention Khashoggi! It’s a collusion witch hoax!
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,961
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

05 Feb 2019 03:50

Robert5091 wrote:So how is it with doctor-patient confidentiality? Is that something for Freeman & BC to hide behind? The records keeping he'll get done for, but the Testogel?


This is where it becomes murky - Theoretically if UKAD can prove that testogel was on the premises used by Freeman in his role as an athlete support person under the WADA code, then even if Freeman can prove it was for a staff member or even his own side business, he has broken the code - Patient/confidentiality should not come into play.
Last edited by yaco on 05 Feb 2019 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 05:25

yaco wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:So how is it with doctor-patient confidentiality? Is that something for Freeman & BC to hide behind? The records keeping he'll get done for, but the Testogel?


This is where it becomes murky - Theoretically if UKAD can prove that testogel was on the premises used by Freeman in his role as an athlete support person under the WADA code, then even if Freeman can prove it was for a staff member or even his own side business, he has broken the code - Parent/confidentiality should not come into play.


My pragmatic head says the possession of Freeman during competition has been proved already with the 5 months delay of returning the stuff. I can't believe there has ever been a point in calendar where none of Freeman's athletes weren't competing for 5 months. I'm sure Freeman says though he wasn't really possesing the stuff, he just forgot/lost them for 5 months and accidentally found again and immediately returned.

The conclusion of Sam is that it need to be proved it was in connection to Athlete, but actually the clause itself he quoted says in connection to Athlete OR competition OR training. Any one of those 3 will do. I would say the posession is in connection to training at least, in case the stuff was 5 months in the training center. Sure Freeman will though say he immediately transferred the juice to his home and forgot to closet for 5 months.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 875
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

05 Feb 2019 10:36

I thought the story was the Testogel was returned on the same day that it arrived at BC? Not that it sat at BC for 5 months before being returned.
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

Don't mention Khashoggi! It’s a collusion witch hoax!
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,961
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 11:17

bambino wrote:
yaco wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:So how is it with doctor-patient confidentiality? Is that something for Freeman & BC to hide behind? The records keeping he'll get done for, but the Testogel?


This is where it becomes murky - Theoretically if UKAD can prove that testogel was on the premises used by Freeman in his role as an athlete support person under the WADA code, then even if Freeman can prove it was for a staff member or even his own side business, he has broken the code - Parent/confidentiality should not come into play.


My pragmatic head says the possession of Freeman during competition has been proved already with the 5 months delay of returning the stuff. I can't believe there has ever been a point in calendar where none of Freeman's athletes weren't competing for 5 months. I'm sure Freeman says though he wasn't really possesing the stuff, he just forgot/lost them for 5 months and accidentally found again and immediately returned.

The conclusion of Sam is that it need to be proved it was in connection to Athlete, but actually the clause itself he quoted says in connection to Athlete OR competition OR training. Any one of those 3 will do. I would say the posession is in connection to training at least, in case the stuff was 5 months in the training center. Sure Freeman will though say he immediately transferred the juice to his home and forgot to closet for 5 months.


There is no clause I can read other than athlete TUE or other justification. If it's in connection to an athlete, it is an ADRV, no escape regardless of IC, OOC or Training. If it's not, it can't be. Staff's own medical treatment is not subject to WADA code at all.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

05 Feb 2019 11:44

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/stakes-high-for-team-sky-and-british-cycling-as-freeman-prepares-to-face-medical-tribunal/
While UKAD ran into a dead-end in its investigation, the GMC possesses greater powers when it comes to examining specific details of medical conduct. UKAD’s investigation into the jiffy bag, and the testosterone lead it obtained in the process, was frustrated not only by a lack of records, but also by doctor-patient confidentiality rules. The GMC has greater authority in demanding that information, meaning it is within their power to identify anyone – whether it was an athlete or not – who might have been administered with the testosterone gel.


In March 2017, Dr Steve Peters, former head of medicine at both British Cycling and Team Sky, told the Sunday Times that he was immediately made aware of the delivery and that Freeman told him he had not placed the order and so it must have been sent in error. Peters requested Freeman return the package and obtain written confirmation of receipt from the supplier, and said this had been done, though the BBC revealed last month that email confirmation from the supplier only arrived in October, five months after the delivery.


Thank you whoever wrote the article! :)
A whole month for the tribunal? Phew! I'll have to order the extra large jumbo family bag of popcorn.
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

Don't mention Khashoggi! It’s a collusion witch hoax!
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,961
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

05 Feb 2019 12:02

We should take bets on the outcome. My bet is there won't be an athlete involved. It will be decided Freeman lied to Peters & UKAD to cover his tracks to save his job after being intercepted for ordering Testogel for a senior member of staff he treated from his 1 day a week GP surgery he ran in the Velodrome. I think like the jiffy bag story, this too will be one more about vanity and broken friendships than doping.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

05 Feb 2019 14:11

Robert5091 wrote:A whole month for the tribunal? Phew! I'll have to order the extra large jumbo family bag of popcorn.
With half the charges beyond dispute - he was dishonest, he didn't adhere to correct record keeping protocols, he failed to inform other doctors when treating their patients - it could be a long, slow month.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

05 Feb 2019 14:18

Robert5091 wrote:I thought the story was the Testogel was returned on the same day that it arrived at BC? Not that it sat at BC for 5 months before being returned.
The first version of the story, the Peters version, implied - but did not state - that the Testogel was returned immediately.

We subsequently learned that five months elapsed before Freeman produced an email claiming the Testogel was returned.

We don't know when it was returned. Or even, for that matter, if it was really returned - the charge sheet for the MPTS hearings suggest the GMC has doubts about this.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

05 Feb 2019 15:23

WRT the Testogel and WADA's rules.

The GMC does not have to convince the MPTS that the Testogel was for a BC or Sky athlete in order for this to hurt Brailsford. They simply need to create sufficient doubt for UKAD to look at the matter again.

If UKAD look at the matter again they do not have to prove that the Testogel was for a BC or Sky athlete. The burden of proof lies with Freeman.

Failing him producing the non-athlete in need of 30-odd Testogel patches, all that is required for UKAD to sanction Freeman is that they show his word cannot be trusted. A job for which the GMC will have laid the groundwork at the MPTS hearings with the principal charge of dishonesty, a large part of which is already proven.

So the real question is: what will it take for UKAD to look again?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

05 Feb 2019 15:53

One can only hope that UKAD don't run the line that they don't have the funds to run another investigation.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

05 Feb 2019 16:54

fmk_RoI wrote:WRT the Testogel and WADA's rules.

The GMC does not have to convince the MPTS that the Testogel was for a BC or Sky athlete in order for this to hurt Brailsford. They simply need to create sufficient doubt for UKAD to look at the matter again.

If UKAD look at the matter again they do not have to prove that the Testogel was for a BC or Sky athlete. The burden of proof lies with Freeman.

Failing him producing the non-athlete in need of 30-odd Testogel patches, all that is required for UKAD to sanction Freeman is that they show his word cannot be trusted. A job for which the GMC will have laid the groundwork at the MPTS hearings with the principal charge of dishonesty, a large part of which is already proven.

So the real question is: what will it take for UKAD to look again?


The burden of proof won't be on Freeman to prove innocence of not doping an athlete. It might be on him for proving it was for staff if MPTS can't though. Given they have more legal power to investigate medical relationships between Dr & Patient I think it's unlikely it would go back to UKAD unless an athlete is known or second witness to say they received the Testogel.
Incidentally 30 box Testogel 50 mg/5g is considered a single treatment for one patient. Other than the pump version it would be the smallest amount to order unless via the black market which it doesn't appear to be.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 17:04

fmk_RoI wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:A whole month for the tribunal? Phew! I'll have to order the extra large jumbo family bag of popcorn.
With half the charges beyond dispute - he was dishonest, he didn't adhere to correct record keeping protocols, he failed to inform other doctors when treating their patients - it could be a long, slow month.


I believe British Cycling, not just UKAD are making the allegations to GMC too. It's a 3 way battle at least to begin with.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 17:12

samhocking wrote:The burden of proof won't be on Freeman to prove innocence of not doping an athlete.
I wonder how often people here notice how The Boy Who Cried There's No Wolf To See Here does this, refuting a claim that hasn't been made. It's almost like it's a deliberate tactic.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 17:25

fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:The burden of proof won't be on Freeman to prove innocence of not doping an athlete.
I wonder how often people here notice how The Boy Who Cried There's No Wolf To See Here does this, refuting a claim that hasn't been made. It's almost like it's a deliberate tactic.


I certainly do. Keep going, it is rather amusing.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 875
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re: Re:

05 Feb 2019 17:27

fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:The burden of proof won't be on Freeman to prove innocence of not doping an athlete.
I wonder how often people here notice how The Boy Who Cried There's No Wolf To See Here does this, refuting a claim that hasn't been made. It's almost like it's a deliberate tactic.


I'm not refuting anything. Anti-doping is a legal process.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,076
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

05 Feb 2019 20:35

samhocking wrote:We should take bets on the outcome. My bet is there won't be an athlete involved. It will be decided Freeman lied to Peters & UKAD to cover his tracks to save his job after being intercepted for ordering Testogel for a senior member of staff he treated from his 1 day a week GP surgery he ran in the Velodrome. I think like the jiffy bag story, this too will be one more about vanity and broken friendships than doping.


:D first class..."you're a funny guy" (in goodfellas accent)

what was in the bag then, a mirror and a returned ring???? :lol:
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,519
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests

Back to top