British Doctor claims he doped 150 sports stars including Br

[thehog]

Re: Re:

good post hog.

UKAD are powerless only if they choose to be.
i could think of a plethora of useful things they could do with the info, completely regardless of SoL.
Instead they spent 50k on defending themselves against Dan's accusations.

Whilst not UK, the French senate inquiry into EPO use in 1998 is a good example. All names were released (eventually), had nothing to do with sporting sanctions but freedom of information.

 

[sniper]

indeed, good point.

btw, it really is good work by Benson.
UKAD's omerta response is all we need to know.

 

[Cannibal72]

I don't think UK's FoI Act applies to UKAD, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I don't think UK's FoI Act applies to UKAD, but I'm not 100% sure.

I read this incorrectly.

FoL act as I stated would apply, the SoL is doubtful or unnecessary.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

I don't think UK's FoI Act applies to UKAD, but I'm not 100% sure.

I wouldn't see it applying either. This is not tort nor criminal however it is part of arbitration. Its irreverent though. The information contained in those files at UKAD are free to be released. In saying that the Times didn't hand all of the names over.

It does apply, subject to this

What Information Am I Entitled to?

You are entitled to be told whether we hold the information you have requested. This is sometimes referred to as the duty to "confirm or deny". If we do hold it, you are entitled to have the information communicated to you. However, there are some exemptions to these rights, such as if the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.

The Act is fully retrospective and any information recorded in any form which is held by UKAD is eligible for release and subject to the exemptions.

See http://www.ukad.org.uk/uk-anti-doping-freedom-of-information

By the way, as you were keen that the right words should be used, you have a "typo" with "irreverent"

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I don't think UK's FoI Act applies to UKAD, but I'm not 100% sure.

I wouldn't see it applying either. This is not tort nor criminal however it is part of arbitration. Its irreverent though. The information contained in those files at UKAD are free to be released. In saying that the Times didn't hand all of the names over.

It does apply, subject to this

What Information Am I Entitled to?

You are entitled to be told whether we hold the information you have requested. This is sometimes referred to as the duty to "confirm or deny". If we do hold it, you are entitled to have the information communicated to you. However, there are some exemptions to these rights, such as if the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.

The Act is fully retrospective and any information recorded in any form which is held by UKAD is eligible for release and subject to the exemptions.

See http://www.ukad.org.uk/uk-anti-doping-freedom-of-information

By the way, as you were keen that the right words should be used, you have a "typo" with "irreverent"

As stated, of course the FoI Act applies, clearly you don't read up thread the SoL is what is what irrelevant here. But hey in the new world of transparency it shouldn't need to be used as UK sports administrators have a "collegiate" approach to anti-doping

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You guys delivering blows over spelling and word use.

I did think the "Statue of past and present dopers" was funny.

But to think someone would actually hide behind or feel good about a statute of limitations. That is the same stuff I remember reading when folks were going after lance.

 

[thehog]

Re:

indeed, good point.

btw, it really is good work by Benson.
UKAD's omerta response is all we need to know.

It’s very strange that this type of thing is just left by the mainstream media. On Sunday you had direct evidence of the UCI tipping of a motor manufacturer of a police investigation and nothing is printed or even discussed. It’s strange, that there is a un willingness to investigate. Then again UK journalists aren’t’ about to give up their free trips to the Tour and to hang out at the Sky bus.

 

[sniper]

Someone like Cookson should be all over UKAD for their lack of transparency and lack of action in the Stevens vs. Bonar case.
His election campaign was based on transparency and antidoping almost entirely.
Seems again it was all talk, zero walk.
Shocker.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Someone like Cookson should be all over UKAD for their lack of transparency and lack of action in the Stevens vs. Bonar case.
His election campaign was based on transparency and antidoping almost entirely.

Cookson has already told us they are "dubious" claims. He knows you see.

Now he's probably waiting for Matin Gibbs to tell him what to do next

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

indeed, good point.

btw, it really is good work by Benson.
UKAD's omerta response is all we need to know.

It’s very strange that this type of thing is just left by the mainstream media. On Sunday you had direct evidence of the UCI tipping of a motor manufacturer of a police investigation and nothing is printed or even discussed. It’s strange, that there is a un willingness to investigate. Then again UK journalists aren’t’ about to give up their free trips to the Tour and to hang out at the Sky bus.

bang on the money.
It's telling that web-based reporters like Shane Stokes and Dan Benson are the flagbearers of anglophone investigative journalism these days.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Cookson has already told us they are "dubious" claims. He knows you see.

This is what Cookson said:

“I saw that article,” Cookson confirmed to CyclingTips prior to the start of the Ronde Van Vlaanderen [Tour of Flanders] on Sunday morning. “It looks to me highly dubious set of claims from this doctor, who I believe is under some sort of disciplinary hearing from the general medical council himself. I don’t know anything other than what I saw on the internet this morning.”

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

 

[nevada]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

Clearly you didn’t listen to the testimony at the Parliamentary Committee hearing. Stevens sought medical treatment which was diagnosed prior to Bonar by a NHS Doctor. He went to a private doctor because he was training and working regular hours and couldn’t see a regular doctor in the off hours. It started with the prescribed treatment for his low testosterone condition then Bonor suggested EPO after the 3rd meeting – Stevens was being coerced into using drugs in an unlawful manner.

He did not sought the drugs nor that type of treatment.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

Clearly you didn’t listen to the testimony at the Parliamentary Committee hearing. Stevens sought medical treatment which was diagnosed prior to Bonar by a NHS Doctor. He went to a private doctor because he was training and working regular hours and couldn’t see a regular doctor in the off hours. It started with the prescribed treatment for his low testosterone condition then Bonor suggested EPO after the 3rd meeting – Stevens was being coerced into using drugs in an unlawful manner.

He did not sought the drugs nor that type of treatment.

Yeah, there's no way that going to a private GP is automatically suspicious. Quite a lot of people do, and more would if they had the money.

Also, even if Stevens did test positive, there's nothing UKAD could have done on their own: Bonar is not regulated by any sporting federation. Their only option in whatever circumstance was to get the GMC involved, as they conspicuously and negligently failed to do.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

Shooting whistleblowers is not productive to cleaning up sport.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

Clearly you didn’t listen to the testimony at the Parliamentary Committee hearing. Stevens sought medical treatment which was diagnosed prior to Bonar by a NHS Doctor. He went to a private doctor because he was training and working regular hours and couldn’t see a regular doctor in the off hours. It started with the prescribed treatment for his low testosterone condition then Bonor suggested EPO after the 3rd meeting – Stevens was being coerced into using drugs in an unlawful manner.

He did not sought the drugs nor that type of treatment.

Maybe you need to go back and read what I said. I watched the whole thing btw.

I woudl also say Steven's clearly found lots of time in his 'busy life' to keep meeting Bonar, keep meeting UKAD and keep picking up his prescriptions. Perhaps he couldn't get the right brand of Testosterone from his local GP ; )

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

That's quite different from what the ST guy, Jon Calvert, said who was sitting next to Dan Stevens in the parliamentary hearing. Calvert said the detail provided by Bonar and the fact that Bonar told the same things on two different occasions (to Stevens and to the undercover guy) taken together suggests we should take Bonar's claims very seriously.

Yes, but that is only known 'after' Stevens ban, it wasn't known by UKAD when Steven's was trying to reduce his ban by providing substantive evidence which at that time consisted of 3 perfectly legal prescriptions and a boxer he didn't know a name of.

It's important to take into consideration the time that had passed between Steven's UKAD defence and attempt to reduce his ban and the newspaper investigation and also the fact UKAD don't even have a positive test from Steven's. Had Steven's actually agreed to the test and then actually tested positive, no doubt UKAD could have then investigated Bonar much more cheaply and without the complication of GMC beng in the way or at least justified the far less risk financial risk when you have clear positive doping case to investigate. Without the evidence of Steven's positive, like all other cases currently open also without a positive test result they run on and on forever, cost craploads of money and often go nowhere anyway in the end. I can see how UKAD's hands were tied, but this being perceived as omerta I struggle to agree with. Time might show it to be omerta, I don't know, but I think the whole solicitor thing with Steven's was actually to save money as an organisation, not to shut Stevens up.

As an anti-doping agency, sure, they should have investigated Bonar, reduced Steven's ban and everyone would be happy, but the reality is lack of funding and no positive Steven's test not lack of transparency when the money has to fry bigger, more expensive fish than an amateur.

Also, at the time of Steven's ban and him trying to give evidence to reduce his ban, Steven's didn't actually give any evidence, other than 3 prescriptions for what Bonar was legally treating him for, which is corroborated by a second NHS Dr who actually diagnosed Steven's low blood levels. The fact Steven's treatment escalated from treatment to performance enhancement is obviously dubious. Clearly he could have been treated freely via his GP and I doubt the time it would take to get the prescriptions was the reason he went private to Bonar, but Steven's is never going to say he went to Bonar to buy PEDs because that simply justifies UKAD not reducing his ban and the whole reason he's brought this out via the newspapers in the first place!

I also believe Steven's already knew beforehand, by Bonar who was prepared to write prescriptions out under the protection of GMC was a long-term solution to buy PEDs. Steven's planned to dop from the moment he decided to seek out Bonar and not his local GP. He's fitted everything that's happened into a nice rant against UKAD for not reducing his ban, but the timeline doesn't connect up in the right order unfortunately to believe his word enough for me yet.

Spot on. He's a liar, a crap cyclist even with the doping.

He actively sought to dope.

Clearly you didn’t listen to the testimony at the Parliamentary Committee hearing. Stevens sought medical treatment which was diagnosed prior to Bonar by a NHS Doctor. He went to a private doctor because he was training and working regular hours and couldn’t see a regular doctor in the off hours. It started with the prescribed treatment for his low testosterone condition then Bonor suggested EPO after the 3rd meeting – Stevens was being coerced into using drugs in an unlawful manner.

He did not sought the drugs nor that type of treatment.

Maybe you need to go back and read what I said. I watched the whole thing btw.

I read your post; you were merely providing your own opinion on what you thought Stevens intentions were rather than what was actual events.

I'm sure you'll be supporting WADA and Coe in your next post... lol

 

[samhocking]

How can it be my opinion, when it came out of Stevens mouth? It was an NHS Doctor and he even works for British Cycling, that's what Steven's said in the interview?

 

[thehog]

Re:

How can it be my opinion, when it came out of Stevens mouth? It was an NHS Doctor and he even works for British Cycling, that's what Steven's said in the interview?

I'm not disputing that point. Why bring it up?

 

[samhocking]

The fact is, Steven's found the time to visit Bonar (hours from where he lives), visit the NHS Dr diagnosing him, and visit the chemist to pick up the prescription in his busy life, yet he could have just nipped out once at lunchtime and done it all through his GP probably just down the road if the other NHS Dr diagnosing him really exists. That was the main point missed in the whole interview in my opinion. It doesn't make sense no matter how busy your life is. Everyone has a busy life if you work full-time with kids, I don't feel I would save time going private to pick up a prescription for something already diagnosed anyway - do you?

 

[thehog]

Re:

The fact is, Steven's found the time to visit Bonar (hours from where he lives), visit the NHS Dr diagnosing him, and visit the chemist to pick up the prescription in his busy life, yet he could have just nipped out once at lunchtime and done it all through his GP probably just down the road if the other NHS Dr diagnosing him really exists. That was the main point missed in the whole interview in my opinion. It doesn't make sense no matter how busy your life is. Everyone has a busy life if you work full-time with kids, I don't feel I would save time going private to pick up a prescription for something already diagnosed anyway - do you?

Again, supposition, speculation and biased person opinion. Come back to us when you have facts please otherwise it is pointless debating with you.

"nipped out at lunchtime" - Seriously?

 

[samhocking]

You call up your surgery, ask the receptionist to book you an appointment on the next available lunctime slot available with your GP and nip out at lunchtime from work. He sees your notes from the other NHS Dr who diagnosed you and writes you out a prescription. It's hardly a big deal, it's just a prescription like anyother, it's not like waiting for surgery to have a triple heart bypass is it.

 

[samhocking]

Anyway, i'm just gonna drive 80 miles to Harley St in the morning and find a good fast private Dr to write me out a prescription for my beta blockers my Dr diagnosed I needed last year because I don't have time to renew the prescription 5 mins down the road. I'm a very bust amateur cyclist who trains for a whole 8-9 hours a week don't you know!