British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars including Br

[arthurvandelay]

Re: Re:

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.[/quote]

Some very good posts by all. I am fascinated with this topic, being a physician myself (Anesthesia and Critical Care). I have always wondered why doctors would slide into the field of helping athletes cheat. Here in the US we have a burgeoning field of "Anti-aging Medicine" which seems to cross over nicely into helping age-group triathletes cheat to get their medals with testosterone, HgH, etc. In Europe I think of Ferrari, Leinders et al approaching this from a perspective of being fans of human physiology and have an academic interest in maximizing performance, rules be damned. Having the ability to prescribe medicine is a powerful tool, but it certainly can be abused. We have a huge problem here with "pill mills" (prescribing potent opioids for cash) by physicians. I suppose prescribing PED's for endurance athletes or steroids for body-builders might be a similar cash rich (but risky !) endeavor.

Thanks again for discussing this topic.

Tony

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

agreed also on bonar.
not sure why posters are putting in such effort to make him look like a medical tool.

I understand the WHY...

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.

Exactly. The big takeaway is that the UK is behind Spain/Italy/France in regulations. And that they sure as hell aren't in the fore-front of anti-doping.

But something I expect to happen: Bonargate not yielding a a significant athlete => people claiming that this proves the top athletes are clean.

I have always wondered why doctors would slide into the field of helping athletes cheat.

I actually believe that (as some claim!) some of the team-doctors started out with the notion that if they did't help the athletes, they would experiment and harm themselves. And then when you are on that slippery slope.... all the way down you go.

To fight doping you need to have a team management (including the medical staff) unified on rooting out doping. But the problem is that such a team will suffer in results and thus sponsorship. This is why it's so hard to believe in clean teams. The pressure to be competitive is immense. Being morally upright leads to the team folding.

And if you look at Football with it's absurd monetary interest? Well, chances of that being a clean sport are "less than zero". Nobody in that world can afford not to maximize their potential.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars includin

All the talk about anti-aging doctors reminds me of this very good story http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/mlb-steroid-scandal-how-porter-fischer-exposed-the-coral-gables-clinic-6394432
not so much regarding the PEDs themselves but regarding how serious this is, how unpleasant the doctors are, and the psychology of whistleblowing.

 

[Cloxxki]

If a doctor claims to have doped 150 patients, the world and authorities are forced to take him on his word. And take him to the cleaners for it. No way out of this one. He better be forced to cough up some client details now, a criminal treating criminals can't be held to doctor-patient confidentiality, surely?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Cameron and Boris were apparently rivals at Eton; good to see how rationa and mature our politics is.)

yeah, lemme find the picture of them sitting round on the steps...

[blackcat goes off to googles and tries to find the eton pic floating round the net]

had something to say about il guardina[sic] journo george monbiot, i thought they were roommates and in the same oxford college i could be wrong, and think hes a year older

If I alluded to David Cameron's most impressive university exploit, irondan would ban me, so I won't even mention farm animals...oops.

#praeteritio

I definitely won't drop this link here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6652895/I-smoked-dope-with-David-Cameron.html

Apparently DC was a mediocre student who never really worked, unlike Gideon 'George' Osborne (Gideon, a name so posh that he changed it while at a ****ing public school because he was getting bullied).

Oh, and on the subject of GO and drugs, he's supposed to have enjoyed cocaine and prostitutes on the yacht of a Rothschild, which is just so elitist it's painful.

bullingdon club or whatever the bacchanalia epicurean club is. ? I dont know this anecdote, I just know this is the potential anecdote to smear him. bit like Malcolm Fraser and #Memphispants

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

If a doctor claims to have doped 150 patients, the world and authorities are forced to take him on his word. And take him to the cleaners for it. No way out of this one. He better be forced to cough up some client details now, a criminal treating criminals can't be held to doctor-patient confidentiality, surely?

There is no crime here a lot of doping drugs are available via a prescription and doping is not a criminal offence in the UK. Therefore that clincs records are subject to confidentiality.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If a doctor claims to have doped 150 patients, the world and authorities are forced to take him on his word. And take him to the cleaners for it. No way out of this one. He better be forced to cough up some client details now, a criminal treating criminals can't be held to doctor-patient confidentiality, surely?

There is no crime here a lot of doping drugs are available via a prescription and doping is not a criminal offence in the UK. Therefore that clincs records are subject to confidentiality.

Like LeMond's track career you spoke confidently about?

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

If a doctor claims to have doped 150 patients, the world and authorities are forced to take him on his word. And take him to the cleaners for it. No way out of this one. He better be forced to cough up some client details now, a criminal treating criminals can't be held to doctor-patient confidentiality, surely?

There is no crime here a lot of doping drugs are available via a prescription and doping is not a criminal offence in the UK. Therefore that clincs records are subject to confidentiality.

http://www.newstalk.com/-UK-AntiDoping-boss-speaks-out-over-doping-scandal

"UKAD said the doctor fell outside its jurisdiction and it did not believe there were grounds to refer the case to the GMC."

Watch the ARD video. They take the evidence to the Sports Specialist doctor at Oxford Uni and that doc immediately informs the GMC with a move to get Bonnar's actions investigated, with a view to him being struck off. Doctors can't prescribe meds even if they are (by definition - the clue is in the description) prescribable for enhancing performance in Sport. Even Bonnar understands that. The GMC can look at his records, they have that right, if he is under investigation.

This was wholly stoppable in 2014.

But even if there is an investigation by the GMC and they find Bonnar has behaved unethically, and they strike him off. don't underestimate the commitment of all those professional broom handlers and carpet lifters that have found ideal career placements in publicly funded sports administration. Sapstead could not have made it more clear; only a moron would deny her wholehearted motivation to her goal.

Try this one - same story different country.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/feb03/feb06news
Later it was all confirmed and his Medical Council determined that the good doctor was guilty of falsifying records and PRESCRIBING EPO for non-medical reasons. But never ones to allow a fig leaf, no matter how small or how see-through, not to be used, the Canadian Cycling Fed decided that the evidence was not officially available to them and he was not in their jurisdiction and as the rider concerned - Jeanson - had not tested positive (she wouldn't for several more years) they selected her for the World Champs that took place later that year, in Hamilton. Sadly despite all the support from the Canadian Fed that gave her the most clear green light that they loved everything she was doing for them, she misjudged the glow time and was still over the top before Hamilton. She ran off saying it was all the fault of sleeping too long in her altitude tent and suffered no sanction as a consequence. All is good in professional sport She should have just taken a little more care with her times like compatriot Michael Barry, Lance's team mate, who did a stunning ride in the Worlds that year. Even all them experts at Sky thought that he, just like saddle-sore-Joe - the good doctor Leinders & another ex Lance team-mate Yates to work as DS - was clean and could join them in their bus as they forged towards their goal of riding without pharmaceutical enhancement to World domination.

Here we go - Mike's wife, 2012 USA Cycling team selector and past Olympic silver medalist
https://instaviser.com/community/sleeping-high-olympic-cyclist-dede-barry-on-altitude-tents

Sure they help you darling, but I bet they are nowhere near as good as that epo you have in the fridge.

Sapstead “We’ll do everything we can to ensure the focus is on the positive news,” she wrote. “The last thing we want is a story like this detracting from the Rio countdown.”

It really is fun reading these old articles.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=michael_barry03
Maybe should have stuck to the pottery Mike ? No of course not, what am I thinking about ! A complete career without ever being detected and now, even after David Z blabbed his mouth off, many a fat middle-aged guy with no brain pays to ride with you so he can boast to his mates. There is one born every minute ! Way to go ! Doping pays.

As far as I can see right now, the only one to call it as it is is Moynihan who states that Sapstead should step down.

 

[Cannibal72]

Prescribing stuff for money is illegal wherever, surely, and it's certain that it's medically unethical.

 

[kwikki]

Therein lies the rub. Boner is trying to pass off his treatments as medical necessity for good health rather than for performance enhancement.

There are loads of medical treatments for money not health. Think of cosmetic surgery.

 

[thehog]

Re:

troll on hoggy....members point seemed valid.....

Mark L

members, point, bonar?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

snipped for brevity

great post. You hit several nails on the head.

excellent, that parallel case you bring up from canada 2003.
Barry (2x) is in the mix, and of course Ryder Hesjedal, who's still at it working with William Petty in Hawaii.
Petty who happens to be another (anti)aging doc, who already worked with Ryder and Hincapie in 2004-ish.
So that 2003 case, and William Petty, those are not trivial cases. They illustrate that people who were cheating big time in 2003/4 and managed to (a) get results, (b) stay out of trouble and (c) not spit in the soup, these people still constitute the heart of what is, amazingly, considered cycling's new clean generation.

And Barry, good Lord, he's such a nobrainer, him (and other ex-usps-ers) joining sky should have raised all sorts of alarm bells. Yet it didn't.

Anyway, you're right of course to point out that UKAD could've/shoud've done something about bonar in 2014.
In fairness to UKAD, when Rasmussen's tell all came out they sure as hell were on top of things spearheading the investigating into Leinders and possible wrongdoings at Sky.
Oh wait...

you just can't make this stuff up.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

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)

Hey, what about those new ASO events in the UK? Taxpayers enjoying a little entertainment, ASO gets paid, UCI gets paid. Better for the parties that matter than USPS by a long shot.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

snipped for brevity

great post. You hit several nails on the head.

excellent, that parallel case you bring up from canada 2003.
Barry (2x) is in the mix, and of course Ryder Hesjedal, who's still at it working with William Petty in Hawaii.
Petty who happens to be another (anti)aging doc, who already worked with Ryder and Hincapie in 2004-ish.
So that 2003 case, and William Petty, those are not trivial cases. They illustrate that people who were cheating big time in 2003/4 and managed to (a) get results, (b) stay out of trouble and (c) not spit in the soup, these people still constitute the heart of what is, amazingly, considered cycling's new clean generation.

And Barry, good Lord, he's such a nobrainer, him (and other ex-usps-ers) joining sky should have raised all sorts of alarm bells. Yet it didn't.

Anyway, you're right of course to point out that UKAD could've/shoud've done something about bonar in 2014.
In fairness to UKAD, when Rasmussen's tell all came out they sure as hell were on top of things spearheading the investigating into Leinders and possible wrongdoings at Sky.
Oh wait...

you just can't make this stuff up.

Why would UKAD be responsible for illicit activities at Sky? Unless those athletes are competing FOR Britain or IN Britain, unless I am mistaken it isn't in their remit. It would be the NADOS in which Sky are competing.

I think there are several forces at play here, and frankly whilst all the criticisms levelled on this thread against UKAD are valid, it doesn't strike me that UKAD are particularly worse than any other of the NADOS. Which is, of course, a bad thing and doesn't flatter the others.

Without trying to sound facetious, I've been trying to think of some reasons why any NADO would want to bust athletes for doping, and apart from a couple of low profile busts to make it look like they are doing something to justify funding, I cannot think of a single reason why any NADOS would want to bust anyone. Nobody wins, everybody loses. This surely is the crux.

I think it is also fair to say that without some kind of legal changes, NADOS cannot do all sorts of things that other investigatory forces can. They cannot enter premises to seize evidence. They cannot tap or intercept phone and other messages which might be evidence of doping. They cannot compel the giving of evidence under oath. They cannot seize funds. They cannot require the licensing of organizations or individuals beyond the scope of their own jurisdiction. They cannot demand access to information in the possession of public officials. They cannot demand or obtain banking records or records of transfer of funds. All they can do is test, and many of you here believe testing to be easily evaded.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

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)

Hey, what about those new ASO events in the UK? Taxpayers enjoying a little entertainment, ASO gets paid, UCI gets paid. Better for the parties that matter than USPS by a long shot.

Of course you are hitting the nail on the head. It is all about money. Even the anti-doping is about money, but not necessarily in a corrupt way, just the usual story of sporting bodies trying to get a slice of the pie. Getting a slice of the pie comes before everything else, including trying to promote and enforce clean sport.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Why would UKAD be responsible for illicit activities at Sky? Unless those athletes are competing FOR Britain or IN Britain, unless I am mistaken it isn't in their remit. It would be the NADOS in which Sky are competing.

I think there are several forces at play here, and frankly whilst all the criticisms levelled on this thread against UKAD are valid, it doesn't strike me that UKAD are particularly worse than any other of the NADOS. Which is, of course, a bad thing and doesn't flatter the others.

Without trying to sound facetious, I've been trying to think of some reasons why any NADO would want to bust athletes for doping, and apart from a couple of low profile busts to make it look like they are doing something to justify funding, I cannot think of a single reason why any NADOS would want to bust anyone. Nobody wins, everybody loses. This surely is the crux.

I think it is also fair to say that without some kind of legal changes, NADOS cannot do all sorts of things that other investigatory forces can. They cannot enter premises to seize evidence. They cannot tap or intercept phone and other messages which might be evidence of doping. They cannot compel the giving of evidence under oath. They cannot seize funds. They cannot require the licensing of organizations or individuals beyond the scope of their own jurisdiction. They cannot demand access to information in the possession of public officials. They cannot demand or obtain banking records or records of transfer of funds. All they can do is test, and many of you here believe testing to be easily evaded.

this is all true.
and so the biggest suckers are guys like Fotheringham, D. Walsh, M. Sayed, B. Cookson, and so many others who're selling us a clean UK sports illusion and more specifically a new clean cycling generation headed by Sky, things for which there is no basis what.so.ever in reality.

 

[kwikki]

Yes, I agree. Particularly disappointing is Walsh.

In a sense I can forgive the journalists and writers who've always just ignored the issue, after all that is what ALL of us do when we actually watch the sport. But Walsh? No. What he is doing is unforgiveable precisely because he made his name as an anti-doping journo, so in a sense he has cashed in all the credibility he earned during the Lance debacle.

Unless of course we are all wrong and he actually does believe in the stamp of approval he is putting on Sky. I don't think so, though.

I'm not sure it's a peculiarly British problem, though. I can't say I've ever experienced a nation that wasn't protective over it's sportsmen. I know that Sky are British and the PR effort is truly vomit-inducing, but I'm not sure it is very helpful to try and make this such a British focused debate for rather obvious reasons.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
I'm not sure it's a peculiarly British problem, though.

no need to point this out again, as nobody argues that it is.

I know that Sky are British and the PR effort is truly vomit-inducing, but I'm not sure it is very helpful to try and make this such a British focused debate for rather obvious reasons.

helpful or not, it's only logical.
in the late 90s, the doping discussion was French focused.
when Telekom fell, it was Germany focused.
when Puerto broke, it was Spanish focused.
When Contador got popped, it was, again, Spanish focused.
For over a decade, the debate has been pretty America focused.
all for obvious reasons.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

...
I'm not sure it's a peculiarly British problem, though.

no need to point this out again, as nobody argues that it is.

I know that Sky are British and the PR effort is truly vomit-inducing, but I'm not sure it is very helpful to try and make this such a British focused debate for rather obvious reasons.

helpful or not, it's only logical.
in the late 90s, the doping discussion was French focused.
when Telekom fell, it was Germany focused.
when Puerto broke, it was Spanish focused.
When Contador got popped, it was, again, Spanish focused.
For over a decade, the debate has been pretty America focused.
all for obvious reasons.

+1. Good post.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

...
I'm not sure it's a peculiarly British problem, though.

no need to point this out again, as nobody argues that it is.

I know that Sky are British and the PR effort is truly vomit-inducing, but I'm not sure it is very helpful to try and make this such a British focused debate for rather obvious reasons.

helpful or not, it's only logical.
in the late 90s, the doping discussion was French focused.
when Telekom fell, it was Germany focused.
when Puerto broke, it was Spanish focused.
When Contador got popped, it was, again, Spanish focused.
For over a decade, the debate has been pretty America focused.
all for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure the above is really that accurate.

The great scandals have been Festina and Armstrong but neither of those resulted in a focus on France or America. Take Armstrong, are you really prepared to maintain your position that the focus of anti-doping over the last decade has been the USA???

The focus might be on an American, but the saga very much played out in Europe, and indeed USADA was not a player except for the finale. During this decade there have been numerous sagas involving many nationalities.

In some ways, the vilification of Armstrong has been unhelpful, as making the issue to be about him rather than about doping in cycling (or indeed about doping in sport in general) has resulted in no real change. Armstrong is just another Festina, or another Landis, albeit on a different scale.

The reason why I feel a focus on any single nationality is unhelpful is because the issue transcends nationality. There is very little about cycling that is 'national'. The teams are rarely based in the country of registration, and the riders and staff come from everywhere. So do the doctors. To put all ones energies into one nation just smacks of petty zenophobia, and that can never be a good thing. We already have a skewed view towards Eastern European sports (because of the legacy of Cold war propaganda) as an example.

 

[kwikki]

Re: 'tis so funny

But Walsh? No. What he is doing is unforgiveable precisely because he made his name as an anti-doping journo, so in a sense he has cashed in all the credibility he earned during the Lance debacle.

reading this and other posts...i pi** laughing....as if walsh made any promise..

as though he is not free to write as he chooses......

anyone butt hurt......should take up the mantle themselves...

Mark L

Is that a coherent position?

Do you really not see that Walsh has being trying to lend his credibility as an anti-doping journalist to Sky?

I'd find it incredible if you didn't.

 

[kwikki]

Well, I thought this story might have legs and run, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong. I hadn't counted on the fickle British media.

The story was knocked off the headlines by the Panama Papers and the porcine-copulating David Cameron's desperate attempts to deny involvement. He seems to have succeeded as the story has now been knocked off the top of the news by some important clergyman discovering his dad isn't who he thought he was (why is that headline news?)

I'm inclined to partially agree with some of the posters here who have written that the British aren't interested in doping stories. They are, but only for as long as until the next headline crops up. They certainly aren't interested in doing anything about it other than being titillated.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Well, I thought this story might have legs and run, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong. I hadn't counted on the fickle British media.

The story was knocked off the headlines by the Panama Papers and the porcine-copulating David Cameron's desperate attempts to deny involvement. He seems to have succeeded as the story has now been knocked off the top of the news by some important clergyman discovering his dad isn't who he thought he was (why is that headline news?)

I'm inclined to partially agree with some of the posters here who have written that the British aren't interested in doping stories. They are, but only for as long as until the next headline crops up. They certainly aren't interested in doing anything about it other than being titillated.

Not sure I'd limit that sentiment to the British or to doping stories. Around the world, investigative journalists have done excellent work for the last few years, and yet it's very, very hard to point to an example where anything significant changed. Edward Snowden's revelations have been forgotten. Lux/Swiss Leaks inspired overwhelming apathy among the public. The Panama Papers are a rather bigger deal in the public consciousness than I initially expected, which overshadows Bonargate substantially. Unfortunately, the golden age of investigative journalism -back when societies were more homogenous, subscribed more to a set of 'universal moral values', and the privacy of the personal lives of the elite was sacrosanct (-->less tabloid trash in papers, more public respect for the investigators uncovering the political and criminal) - is over: the investigation portrayed in 'Spotlight' is one of the few pieces of investigative journalism which have had an impact over the last decade and a half, and that involved comparatively few completely new stories (trials of priests were snowballing in 80s/90s, and The System was common knowledge within Catholicism) and didn't compare to the impact of the story in the film's spiritual precursor 'All the President's Men'. A doping story is, it's got to be said, insignificant next to done of the things unearthed in the past year about Donald Trump, and yet they have had no discernible impact on his campaign.

 

[thehog]

Re: British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars includin

In tomorrow's Sunday Times, Steven's tells his story.

Probably just a bitter ex-doper with an axe to grind (copyright L.Armstrong 2002)

 

[kwikki]

Are you going to read it? If you do, would you mind posting up any interesting bits.