British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars including Br

[Franklin]

Re:

I'm not sure you've understood my post, but hey.

I agree, most riders never fall foul of the anti-doping system. Why? Because they are lucky, careful, and the most tested (ie. Winning) ones probably have more skilled and informed doctors.

Yes and no. Yes, the best riders can afford the best doctors.

But no, it's not due to tremendous luck or skills that most dopers are not found. It's a lack of testing. And that's a money issue that's hard to solve.

But you are deluding yourself if you think you know for sure how they are doing it.

Uhm no, it's pretty well documented. It's not THAT hard.

I don't and unless you are somebody with an academic and professional background in applied haematology and anti-doping technology then you are just some guy who reads the internet (like me)

Nonsense. For example Leinders had no "background in applied hematology" and though he was pretty good in keeping his riders from glowing, the vast majority of team-doctors managed to do that.

Another example: Keep in mind that we have two riders being associated to testosterone pacthes: Floyd and Lance. I seriously doubt that they were the only ones or that it was anything special considering the extremely pedestrian way to administer doping. Logic indicates that this almost never got detected...

Lastly, Hog says it right: do you actually think that a burgeoning athlete knows that much more than we do? Do you actually think that the needed resources (methods) are not found online?

You overestimate the detection chances.

There won't be an answer because it is a meaningless comparison which is why I didn't make it in the first place. It's irrelevant.

The point still stands that you cannot know what you dont know, and if you think otherwise perhaps you can enlighten us all as to exactly what doping practices are being used by current Tour champions and how they are evading tests. I want facts not speculation, please, and as much detail as possible.

Can you do it? No. So unless you think they are all doing it on energy bars and peanuts butter sandwiches then you'll have to accept my point.

You overlooked my answer: Occams Razer. There's no reason not to go with the hypothesis they still do it mostly old-school.

 

[thehog]

Re:

There won't be an answer because it is a meaningless comparison which is why I didn't make it in the first place. It's irrelevant.

The point still stands that you cannot know what you dont know, and if you think otherwise perhaps you can enlighten us all as to exactly what doping practices are being used by current Tour champions and how they are evading tests. I want facts not speculation, please, and as much detail as possible.

Can you do it? No. So unless you think they are all doing it on energy bars and peanuts butter sandwiches then you'll have to accept my point.

Micro dosing is available, even Dr. Boner explained how it was easy to beat the test, managing and monitoring your hematocrit.

Landis explained how Ferrari beat the new EPO in five minutes by injecting into the skin fold of your stomach.

AICAR etc. has a very short window of testing, it can still be used outside of racing.

Using altitude to beat the passport is also easily used, Ferrari told us this. Simple. Nothing has changed since this time in testing for EPO.

So, yes, we can tell you how to dope and avoid testing positive.

"Dr. Ferrari recognized that the EPO testing method works through separating and measuring the quantity (known as “intensity”) of various types of EPO and comparing the ratio of EPO bands in what is known as the “basic” region (where the bands tend to be caused by the administration of synthetic EPO) to bands in the acidic region (where the bands are naturally produced). However, because the test operates by measuring a ratio, the test can be fooled to a degree by increasing the amount of EPO in the acidic region (i.e., those produced naturally),which can be accomplished by stimulating natural production of EPO either through going to altitude or by sleeping in an altitude tent (also known as a “hypoxic chamber”). Dr. Ferrari advised the use of hypoxic chambers to reduce the effectiveness of the EPO test in detecting the use of synthetic EPO. Regular training at altitude (such as at St. Moritz, Tenerife or Aspen) would achieve a similar result."

 

[kwikki]

Why do you assume Leinders was Sky's doping doctor? What makes you think they didn't have others? For example, Wiggins and Frome may have personal doctors.

You might be right, I might be overestimating the chances of being caught for substances that are tested for....but what about the ones that have no test?

 

[Franklin]

1. Experimental drugs are MegA expensive.
2. Cardo vascular drugs are extremely effective as it is.

And Leinders. Was he the only one? Probably not. But why else hire him? Especially with all the flat out lieing of DB?

Other explanations are so farfetched. You dont hire a carpenter to do your bookkeeping.

 

[kwikki]

Micro dosing?

C'mon. Are we seriously suggesting that microdosing accounts for meteoric rise of Frome, with the obvious caveat that he must have been clean prior to his Vuelta podium?

Sorry. Not buying it. He's not on some sort of dialled back programme that is available to anyone with Internet access and a credit card.

Nah. We'll find out in a decade what was going on now and it sure as hell won't have been Micro dosing epo.

 

[thehog]

Re: British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars includin

From 2013:

Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson said: “Drug cheats have absolutely no place in sport and in the UK we are working hard to ensure we not only catch the cheats but the suppliers and traffickers that put banned substances in their hands.

The partnership between UK Anti-Doping and the NHS, with information sharing at its heart, will play an important role in the continued fight against doping.”

Andy Parkinson: focus is on supply and trafficking

UK Anti-Doping Chief Executive Andy Parkinson continued: “Formal links with external agencies are fundamental to ensuring that UK Anti-Doping has access to valuable information, allowing us to focus on those wishing to gain from the supply and trafficking of prohibited substances.

“When creating UK Anti-Doping as an independent agency in 2009, our vision was to build a centralised body that firstly removed the conflict of interest for sports in the area of doping and secondly allowed us to establish partnerships with public authorities.

“Today, we are delighted to formalise our relationship with the NHS and strengthen our ability to tackle the supply of doping-related substances, particularly in relation to administration. This should send another clear message to those who are considering becoming involved in doping activities, that we are doing all we can to protect the rights of athletes to participate in clean sport.”

Richard Rippin, NHS Protect's Head of Information and Intelligence, said: "NHS Protect leads on work to identify and tackle crime across the health service, including fraud and the theft of controlled drugs. UK Anti-Doping is one of the organisations with which NHS Protect shares intelligence and information, which ultimately helps both organisations prosecute and deter criminals."

Ivana Bartoletti, NHS Protect's Information Governance Lead, added: "Sharing information, within strict legal boundaries, is crucial to increase cooperation between organisations to tackle crime. Our MoU with UK Anti-Doping gives a solid legal framework for this data sharing.

http://www.100percentme.co.uk/news/article/UKAD-agreement-with-nhs-protect

 

[kwikki]

Good find

 

[thehog]

Re: British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars includin

Dr. Bonar is an experienced GP who currently works for the NHS and is a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK. He offers his clients a highly discreet, efficient and patient centered service from his Harley Street practice.

So he works for the NHS at the same time UKAD has the special tie to supply information between UKAD and the NHS?

Nice work UKAD!

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Micro dosing?

C'mon. Are we seriously suggesting that microdosing accounts for meteoric rise of Frome, with the obvious caveat that he must have been clean prior to his Vuelta podium?

Sorry. Not buying it. He's not on some sort of dialled back programme that is available to anyone with Internet access and a credit card.

Nah. We'll find out in a decade what was going on now and it sure as hell won't have been Micro dosing epo.

Not sure why you're presenting microdosing as an absurd possibility, when it's provably effective (see the BBC documentary on athletics, for example).

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Micro dosing?

C'mon. Are we seriously suggesting that microdosing accounts for meteoric rise of Frome, with the obvious caveat that he must have been clean prior to his Vuelta podium?

Sorry. Not buying it. He's not on some sort of dialled back programme that is available to anyone with Internet access and a credit card.

Nah. We'll find out in a decade what was going on now and it sure as hell won't have been Micro dosing epo.

Why not? After they figured out Synthetic Epo, everyone including Contador was limited a bit.

Froome? A very good conventional program, talented rider, ridiculous weight regime. He's younger than Alberto, that's a reasonable explenation for AC not getting to the same level as froomey with a similar program.

2011? Luck, hitting perfect form when Wiggo died in the race, pushing the doping a tad harder. After 2012? Protection under the Sky/UK umbrella, strongest team. Big break through on weight (might be Aicar, but just daring to go farther with dieting is not out of the question).

Dirty? Hell yeah. But still nothing that makes me think he's so much different from AC etc.

I could be wrong, but why do we focus on some new drugs when it's still within the realm of the old drugs? Besides Aicar, there's nothing thats being rumored to be a game changer. Yet EPO was known from the start and Aicar was mentioned here immediately after it hit clinical (which was prior 2011).

Again, why imagine there's a super secret drug nobody heard about? Good old test dodging and corruption would be much more effective.

 

[kwikki]

Oh come on. Froome? Where was the talent when he was at Barlo? Why did it only suddenly emerge at Sky? If it was good old EPO, then why wasn't the EPO working at Barlo, or are you suggestion he was clean?

 

[Benotti69]

Some here are forgetting moto doping.

Canc in 2010 Froome 2011 on.......not so far fetched.

 

[sniper]

I think he was microdosing (and all the other old school stuff) before, during, and after 2011.
In the SA cycling scene thread somebody close to the game says it was Aicar that changed froome in 2011.
Makes sense. Doesn't just make you loose weight rapidly; it simultaneously enables you to increase power.
It's called "exercise in a pill" for a reason. And the timing fits perfectly: it was a relatively new and very expensive drug in 2011. As it happens he started dating the more wealthy Cound around the same period.

motors may definitely have been in the mix, too.
though i personally doubt that motors alone explain his transformation.
but agreed that it's a possibility to take into consideration.

 

[doperhopper]

Re:

I think he was microdosing (and all the other old school stuff) before, during, and after 2011.
In the SA cycling scene thread somebody close to the game says it was Aicar that changed froome in 2011.
Makes sense. Doesn't just make you loose weight rapidly; it simultaneously enables you to increase power.
It's called "exercise in a pill" for a reason. And the timing fits perfectly: it was a relatively new and very expensive drug in 2011. As it happens he started dating the more wealthy Cound around the same period.

motors may definitely have been in the mix, too.
though i personally doubt that motors alone explain his transformation.
but agreed that it's a possibility to take into consideration.

I would take Brailsford and his marginal gains mantra seriously: so not one single magical drug, but a carefuly selected and tested personalized pillowful of juice mix and then it's about finding the best responder (so Vroom yes, but not LRP). Takes some years to develop, but once you do it routinely, you don't even need Leinders anymore.

Also, they probably don't need altitude as a masking agent (having something better, obviously), so Vroom speaks up and scares the competition to death by inviting testers to come to the miraculous sacred mount Teide... while scoring points to his "spokesman of clean cycling" jersey. Brilliant, they must have laughed like mad that evening.

 

[sniper]

@hog, those are two fantastic finds.
it's becoming hard to deny that UKAD deliberately ignored the evidence regarding Dr. Bonar.
shocker.

@doperhopper.
not sure if they don't need the altitude masking.
fwiw, i could be wrong, but i personally think it's an important part of their scheme.
it explains why they stick to tenerife, as well as the whole henao-altitude-native bullcrap.
Froome's comments were cheap PR. With UCI's full backing, they can effectively say whatever they want.
Indeed they must have rolled on the floor laughing that night and some nights after.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Re:

Sky.
Its been pointed out that Murdock,s News Corp owns The Times newspaper and the case put that they surely wouldn't want to expose any wrong doing within Team Sky.
Well lets ponder this. Team Sky,s budget is just 2% of Sky UK,s promotional budget.
Murdock,s empire is often accused of interfering in editorial independence .... ergo here is one way he could claim that that is not true.
To the best of my knowledge the current contract with Team Sky ends at the end of 2016 and , as yet , I,ve not seen anything about renewal,
Team Sky will be subcontracted to run the team and there would be nothing whatsoever to show that News Corps, Sky UK, or any other part of the Sky group knew of or had any involvement with any wrongdoing.
The ramifications of any big scandal involving Team Sky would shift *** loads of column inches for News Corps.
You would have to be stark raving nuts to believe Murdock,s empire gives a *** about cycling.
They would throw the team and UK cycling " under the bus" without a 2nd thought.
Given Murdock,s reputation as an utter shark it seams to me that when BC/ Team Sky got all cuddly they never, not for even a brief second pondered the kind of peeps they were getting involved with. Blinded by £ signs.
I personally would have more confidence in the loyalty of an Al Capone than Murdock or anyone of his companies.

 

[thehog]

Re:

@hog, those are two fantastic finds.
it's becoming hard to deny that UKAD deliberately ignored the evidence regarding Dr. Bonar.
shocker.

@doperhopper.
not sure if they don't need the altitude masking.
fwiw, i could be wrong, but i personally think it's an important part of their scheme.
it explains why they stick to tenerife, as well as the whole henao-altitude-native bullcrap.
Froome's comments were cheap PR. With UCI's full backing, they can effectively say whatever they want.
Indeed they must have rolled on the floor laughing that night and some nights after.

The fascinating part to this of course is the inaction by the UCI, UKAD on Stevens testimony. Because of the that inaction they haven't investigated therefore no rider or doctor could be sanctioned.

Now for the next question....

How many riders/athletes have reported issues to the UCI or UKAD for them to be dismissed out of hand without followup? How many Dr. Bonar's are their operating in the UK? Couldn't be just him?

The last part is he hymn sheet from WADA, UCI and UKAD; they are all singing from the same one - "dubious claims that couldn't be backed up".

What the actual ***?

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

Sky.
Its been pointed out that Murdock,s News Corp owns The Times newspaper and the case put that they surely wouldn't want to expose any wrong doing within Team Sky.
Well lets ponder this. Team Sky,s budget is just 2% of Sky UK,s promotional budget.
Murdock,s empire is often accused of interfering in editorial independence .... ergo here is one way he could claim that that is not true.
To the best of my knowledge the current contract with Team Sky ends at the end of 2016 and , as yet , I,ve not seen anything about renewal,
Team Sky will be subcontracted to run the team and there would be nothing whatsoever to show that News Corps, Sky UK, or any other part of the Sky group knew of or had any involvement with any wrongdoing.
The ramifications of any big scandal involving Team Sky would shift **** loads of column inches for News Corps.
You would have to be stark raving nuts to believe Murdock,s empire gives a **** about cycling.
They would throw the team and UK cycling " under the bus" without a 2nd thought.
Given Murdock,s reputation as an utter shark it seams to me that when BC/ Team Sky got all cuddly they never, not for even a brief second pondered the kind of peeps they were getting involved with. Blinded by £ signs.
I personally would have more confidence in the loyalty of an Al Capone than Murdock or anyone of his companies.

I made this point above. Interesting to see Sky terminated sponsorship of British Cycling at end of last year: preparation for some kind of drawdown? Also the withdrawal of prior major sponsor Rapha from the team. (I also made points about Sky and James Murdoch, up thread which are relevant to this discussion.)

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Micro dosing?

C'mon. Are we seriously suggesting that microdosing accounts for meteoric rise of Frome, with the obvious caveat that he must have been clean prior to his Vuelta podium?

Did you miss this story? viewtopic.php?p=1891148#p1891148

UCI tests this generation's never tested positive team, makes tonnes of money at the Olympics, riding the wave all the way into the beach. USPS 2.0 with better damage control.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Micro dosing?

C'mon. Are we seriously suggesting that microdosing accounts for meteoric rise of Frome, with the obvious caveat that he must have been clean prior to his Vuelta podium?

Sorry. Not buying it. He's not on some sort of dialled back programme that is available to anyone with Internet access and a credit card.

Nah. We'll find out in a decade what was going on now and it sure as hell won't have been Micro dosing epo.

Why not? After they figured out Synthetic Epo, everyone including Contador was limited a bit.

Froome? A very good conventional program, talented rider, ridiculous weight regime. He's younger than Alberto, that's a reasonable explenation for AC not getting to the same level as froomey with a similar program.

2011? Luck, hitting perfect form when Wiggo died in the race, pushing the doping a tad harder. After 2012? Protection under the Sky/UK umbrella, strongest team. Big break through on weight (might be Aicar, but just daring to go farther with dieting is not out of the question).

Dirty? Hell yeah. But still nothing that makes me think he's so much different from AC etc.

I could be wrong, but why do we focus on some new drugs when it's still within the realm of the old drugs? Besides Aicar, there's nothing thats being rumored to be a game changer. Yet EPO was known from the start and Aicar was mentioned here immediately after it hit clinical (which was prior 2011).

Again, why imagine there's a super secret drug nobody heard about? Good old test dodging and corruption would be much more effective.

Oh come on. Froome? Where was the talent when he was at Barlo? Why did it only suddenly emerge at Sky? If it was good old EPO, then why wasn't the EPO working at Barlo, or are you suggestion he was clean?

here is how it worked

Robertson's program was not a clean program at Barlo and his feeder Konica.

But Froome had an auspicious debut at the Tour.

Froome, like most in the peloton, can be good in the Tour and on drugs, like he showed at Barlo in his debut, when? 2008?

But he sucked in some timetrials out of the main season, when he could not be on the tip-top program. But on a decent program, 8 years back, he could definitely ride a very strong chrono.

BUT NO ONE WAS EVER GONNA FULFILL THEIR POTENTIAL ON BARLO
caveat: unless you are Mauricio Soler.

Barlo were constrained with their resources and budget. OK, in his debut year, Siutsou also had a fantastic debut, but there were never gonna be domestique after staccato domestique supporting a tilt with GC ambition.

Goes to British Cycling and the testing lab in (Manchester?) and rides a great ergo test that had Brailsford in paroxysms. Brailsford is on record some time 2009ish, talking up Froome and the ambitions of the first British tdf winner.

Then this Vuelta GC in 2011, when his career looked a little delicate... and JV was lowballing him with offers as JV is wont to do.

Then post Poland, it is a combination of starvation diet anorexia
aicar
GW
cortisone
testo
epo
hgh
lipotropin

maintains his power, goes from 74kg to 66 kg. you do the sums.

becomes a champion thru chemistry and diet

oh and cound her own travelling motowoman, a good doctor in monaco, and enabling by brailsford and the frauds at BC

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

UCI tests this generation's never tested positive team, makes tonnes of money at the Olympics, riding the wave all the way into the beach. USPS 2.0 with better damage control.

BDC? better damage control. yet to be seen.

it is game theory, the new parameters have changed, people know about Armstrong and the scourge or stench of doping and cycling...

i dont think it is possible to know how they are better, when the rules of the game have shifted.

like we wont know, prove the negative on Lemond, no one will know but Greg and his inner sanctum support.

If you can ride out the wave of the first decade after retiring, if you were an egregious doper, yet in the mind of the public you will always be 'clean' whatever that is

they have more money, they have more resources, they are enabled by power structures and the propaganda that follows Olympic endeavours. Was it a happy coincidece that James Murdoch took a keen interest in cycling, or did Brailsford do a long-game pitch to NewsCorp after their Athens rise on the track

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Sky.
Its been pointed out that Murdock,s News Corp owns The Times newspaper and the case put that they surely wouldn't want to expose any wrong doing within Team Sky.
Well lets ponder this. Team Sky,s budget is just 2% of Sky UK,s promotional budget.
Murdock,s empire is often accused of interfering in editorial independence .... ergo here is one way he could claim that that is not true.
To the best of my knowledge the current contract with Team Sky ends at the end of 2016 and , as yet , I,ve not seen anything about renewal,
Team Sky will be subcontracted to run the team and there would be nothing whatsoever to show that News Corps, Sky UK, or any other part of the Sky group knew of or had any involvement with any wrongdoing.
The ramifications of any big scandal involving Team Sky would shift **** loads of column inches for News Corps.
You would have to be stark raving nuts to believe Murdock,s empire gives a **** about cycling.
They would throw the team and UK cycling " under the bus" without a 2nd thought.
Given Murdock,s reputation as an utter shark it seams to me that when BC/ Team Sky got all cuddly they never, not for even a brief second pondered the kind of peeps they were getting involved with. Blinded by £ signs.
I personally would have more confidence in the loyalty of an Al Capone than Murdock or anyone of his companies.

NewsCorp only own about 40% of Sky? Or is is 55%?

Murdoch's take over offer hit the wall when the hacking "scandal" came to light and no way the media parliamentarians could approve the takeover, even when the Sky shareholders were gonna take it, or murdoch woulda offered more. this would have been his last crowning achievement. Hiving off Newscorp into the two divisions, was all about going back in a few years. Jerry may not hold more interest. but lets be frank, she wont, on honeymoon and then Rupert would happily retire carnal knowledge and get back to Sky complete control project.

gotta luv those poison pills, A class shares, and the Delaware corporations laws

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Sky.
Its been pointed out that Murdock,s News Corp owns The Times newspaper and the case put that they surely wouldn't want to expose any wrong doing within Team Sky.
Well lets ponder this. Team Sky,s budget is just 2% of Sky UK,s promotional budget.
Murdock,s empire is often accused of interfering in editorial independence .... ergo here is one way he could claim that that is not true.
To the best of my knowledge the current contract with Team Sky ends at the end of 2016 and , as yet , I,ve not seen anything about renewal,
Team Sky will be subcontracted to run the team and there would be nothing whatsoever to show that News Corps, Sky UK, or any other part of the Sky group knew of or had any involvement with any wrongdoing.
The ramifications of any big scandal involving Team Sky would shift **** loads of column inches for News Corps.
You would have to be stark raving nuts to believe Murdock,s empire gives a **** about cycling.
They would throw the team and UK cycling " under the bus" without a 2nd thought.
Given Murdock,s reputation as an utter shark it seams to me that when BC/ Team Sky got all cuddly they never, not for even a brief second pondered the kind of peeps they were getting involved with. Blinded by £ signs.
I personally would have more confidence in the loyalty of an Al Capone than Murdock or anyone of his companies.

I made this point above. Interesting to see Sky terminated sponsorship of British Cycling at end of last year: preparation for some kind of drawdown? Also the withdrawal of prior major sponsor Rapha from the team. (I also made points about Sky and James Murdoch, up thread which are relevant to this discussion.)

if Sky win in July, be tough not to recontract.

Olympic year, BC sure to sweep the medals in rio.

3 more years? Brailsford gets a generous increase? (that is how I reckon it plays out)

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Oh come on. Froome? Where was the talent when he was at Barlo?

Bad team, domestique role, not believeing in himself? These are humans, not robots. Think about it... never had a thing where you THOUGHT you couldn't do and when you got confidence you actually got pretty good at?

The donkey to racehorse trype we get on him and Lance are IMHO misleading. The top riders are rather close, a small push and they are obliterating the others. I hate Lance as much as the next guy, but by spinning he's a talentless clown we distorted the whole situation. There's no miracle. It's simply bad men doing bad things.

Also, a big part of winning a GT is the Team, both team mates as staff. Its extremely rare to win a GT and then join a top squad. What's overlooked about people like Jan, Laurent, Bernard, Aru, Quintana etc. is that they were young stars, but they also were part of the strongest team from day 1. That makes the Froome story a bit less crazy. It's not fair to suggest someone at Barlo has an even chance with a rider of team Saxo. Clearly it doesnt work like that.

Why did it only suddenly emerge at Sky? If it was good old EPO, then why wasn't the EPO working at Barlo, or are you suggestion he was clean?

Why got riders good at USPS, while we know they also used similar drugs as other teams (but at a different scale!)? Or Leinders who became doctor for 3 (almost 4)gt wins, we know that it was blood and Epo at Rabo.

A few very possible explanations:

1. Corruption/protection made it easier to push doping. The USPS angle
2. A better doctor who knew how far to go for a GT (his speciality). Someone fitting that bill justjoined Sky.*
3. Good old luck. Not having to domestique early in a race gave him a chance after Wiggo crunched.
4. Much stronger team, so less need to spend energy.
5. Weight got pushed harder at Sky

The problem with the EPO 2.0 explenation is:
- What would it be? Whats this miracle drug that hasn't even hit the internet?
- Why would they administer it to a guy who was on the chopping block?

* Creating a low key doping scheme is to all accounts easy. Creating a GT winning scheme is obviously an art considering certain doctors are bettter at it than others. The fact that only a few doctors manage to have a GT winner makes it clear there's a connection there (not just being at the right place).

And no, Bonar is not the next Leinders/Ferrari. Still doesn't mean he didn't prescribe products to pro athletes.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

good post.
i don't see what problem there is with idea of Froome microdosing both pre- and post-2011.
everything suggests it (see SA cycling thread for details)

2011 transformation: agree with your five possible explanations, but you forget the most plausible one, aicar (you did mention it before though). It's advanced by an insider in the SA cycling scene thread, and it explains everything nicely.

agreed also on bonar.
not sure why posters are putting in such effort to make him look like a medical tool.
Nobody's claimed that he was as good or influential as a Ferrari or Fuentes.
As Ross Tucker nicely argued, this guy is merely symptomatic for several wider issues of cheating and corruption in the UK.