CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
samhocking said:
No wonder it's scheduled to take 30 days! Crux of any anti-doping matter seems to be the non-athlete said it wasn't for him so GMC allegation is it must be for athlete, or non-athlete said it was ordered for an athlete. That decision will come down to evidence the testosterone wasn't returned to fit4sport but kept by Freeman (who fabricated fit4sport email or fit4sport fabricated for him) and evidence it was administered to said athlete. Seems very unlikely any ADRV will be found based on the allegations.

Sum of GMC matters seems to be, Freeman lied to UKAD and did order on purpose.
Poor Record keeping
Not backing up laptop.
Doping his cyclists

Interesting observation is Testogel alleged to be ordered on 16 May 2011, explained on 18th May 2011 (assume when it was opened and he told Peters) but email from fit4sport only showed to Dr Steve Peters in October 5 months later? Not sure why such delay?

Fixed that for you Sam...better not forget the most statistically likely option :D
 
samhocking said:
Statistics? Doping is a legal matter only. There's not anything sanctionable in MPTS statement so far. Could be an old guy needing help getting it up privately, could be related to an athlete, that's all we know so far.
so...you're invoking the Rumsas defence? classic ;)

In other news the stash of money found in crashed get-away car was 'found' by the masked driver...at the moment, this is all we know...............
 
samhocking said:
To be honest i'm more fascinated that Freeman will testify to MPTS that Sutton had Erectile Dysfunction Problems and was the intended recipient. Kind of ironic he told Jess Varnish to go and have a baby. Tickles me anyway.
Distract. Distort. Defame.

What a dull Playbook you have...
 
fmk_RoI said:
gillan1969 said:
you know that there was no ADRV in the case of Armsrong yeah??? :D
ADRVs can be analytical or non-analytical. It is true that LA never had an analytical ADRV: he never tested positive (without the fall back of a TUE). But he did have multiple non-analytical ADRVs.
well...yes but you get the point

sky will be left with the never tested postive claim against the big pile of circumstatial evidence growing slowly by the day......

i await the good doc to be too poorly to attend any further hearings.....
 
gillan1969 said:
well...yes but you get the point
Indeed, yes. But given the disinformation campaign being waged by the miliant wing of BC's PR department ...
gillan1969 said:
sky will be left with the never tested postive claim against the big pile of circumstatial evidence growing slowly by the day......
A point some have already reached. Apparently without being aware of what constitutes an ADRV or who can commit one.
gillan1969 said:
i await the good doc to be too poorly to attend any further hearings.....
Given he's already lost about half the issues he's being accused of one wonders what's in it for him. Maybe he'll do a Bonar and disappear. Or perhaps an LA, thumb his nose at the system, refuse to participate, and then try to salvage his dignity with a tear-filled TV confessional? (The last he has form for and played Dan Roan like a ... well, like a kazoo.)
 
Would someone like to offer a news story linking Sutton and the testosterone gel?

Am I correct in thinking it's that idiot Robert Dineen in the Telegraph, this story which was copied to Yahoo? Road.cc seem to have also picked it up but have now spiked it. As, it would appear has the Telegraph: it's no longer on Dineen's list of stories and I have been unable to locate it with Google.

Did Dineen make stuff up, again, as he did in his last book?
 
fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
To be honest i'm more fascinated that Freeman will testify to MPTS that Sutton had Erectile Dysfunction Problems and was the intended recipient. Kind of ironic he told Jess Varnish to go and have a baby. Tickles me anyway.
Distract. Distort. Defame.

What a dull Playbook you have...
Not my playbook. That's what Freeman's witness statement says he will put to MPTS as reported today?
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
fmk_RoI said:
Sam, you're at the 'never tested positive' point now and can no longer see the wood for denying this is a tree.
It's a medical tribunal, nobody will be found to have tested positive and no athlete wil be named even if the order was for an athlete.
bloomin' eck....you're now discussing the intricacies of fungii whilst seemingly ignoring the decaying tree on which it depends and the larger forest it inhabits......please carry on...fascinating....

in the meantime..."tell me more about your mother"........
 
The BBC have a copy of the Fit4Sport email it took Freeman five months to produce:
In March 2017, Team Sky's then medical director and psychiatrist Dr Steve Peters told the Sunday Times he had immediately been made aware of the delivery of testosterone on 18 May 2011, but was told by Freeman that the delivery was made in error.

Peters said that was confirmed by the supplier by phone that day, and that he asked Freeman to send it back and to ask for written confirmation from the supplier that it had been a mistake.

Peters said he was shown this and was satisfied it had been an administrative error so did not inform team boss Dave Brailsford.

It is now known that the written confirmation was not sent by Fit4Sport to Freeman for a further five months.
 
samhocking said:
To be honest i'm more fascinated that Freeman will testify to MPTS that Sutton had Erectile Dysfunction Problems and was the intended recipient. Kind of ironic he told Jess Varnish to go and have a baby. Tickles me anyway.
Mod hat on:

These claims need backing up, please provide a link.
 
Pretty sure it's old news. Daily Mail was banging on about Freeman ordering Viagra to the velodrome for the same thing years ago, I thought it was common knowledge about Sutton not getting it up?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eebc4b08-181c-11e9-abc2-c39e91e3ea05

Freeman, 57, said yesterday he was preparing a witness statement for the tribunal. He has previously denied all doping charges and any wrongdoing.

It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems. When the delivery was opened by another staff member, he returned it to the supplier.
 
samhocking said:
Pretty sure it's old news. Daily Mail was banging on about Freeman ordering Viagra to the velodrome for the same thing years ago, I thought it was common knowledge about Sutton not getting it up?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eebc4b08-181c-11e9-abc2-c39e91e3ea05

Freeman, 57, said yesterday he was preparing a witness statement for the tribunal. He has previously denied all doping charges and any wrongdoing.

It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems. When the delivery was opened by another staff member, he returned it to the supplier.


this one from Daily Mail ?? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4295230/Team-Sky-tried-sex-pill-Viagra-search-advantage.html

At least one rider was prescribed the drug by their personal GP, although it is not known for what reason. It is also believed a British Cycling staff member was prescribed the impotency drug for personal use by a team doctor.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

I'm waiting for either a link to the witness statement or a story that specifically names Sutton.
I don't have a link, it was in The Telegraph paper just before Xmas long since used to light the fire i'm afraid. It was around the time when Freeman was claiming the Testosterone was for Sutton and then Sutton was refuting he was the intended recipient. looks like there's an online version here if you have a Telegraph subscription. I think Road.cc and a few other cycling sites reported the same story, but not where I read it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/12/23/shane-sutton-denies-claims-among-intended-recipients-testosterone/

The witness statement part was in The Times link previos, who's reporter believed it will be about "[Freeman] intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems."

Given Freeman's already said the Testosterone was for Sutton, i'm not sure the need to keep proving links, it's not exactly new news anyway, especially given Sutton's already denied it in the press anyway. It's obvious Freeman will not change his claim it was for Sutton if you ask me. He said Sutton to UKAD 2 years ago and he's said Sutton to GMC too now it seems.

Edit:
I've found The Telegraphs story reproduced on Road.cc. Can't find original link, only a cached page, but I remember this page coming up on their live blog or twitter at the time too, but it's just a copy of Telegraph mostly:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?safe=strict&biw=1500&bih=859&ei=8lJAXNPsJ7mn1fAPlOi-mAw&q=cache:https://road.cc/content/news/253744-shane-sutton-insists-he-didnt-receive-testosterone-patches-dr-richard-freeman&oq=cache:https://road.cc/content/news/253744-shane-sutton-insists-he-didnt-receive-testosterone-patches-dr-richard-freeman&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3666.5631..5930...0.0..0.0.0.......4....1..gws-wiz.7Ydh_sF9XaI

Former British Cycling technical director Shane Sutton has refuted suggestions that he was one of senior staff for whom testosterone patches allegedly ordered by Dr Richard Freeman, who left the organisation’s medical staff last year.
Now, Telegraph Sport has reported (link is external) that Sutton was specifically named by Freeman as being one of the recipients of the patches, the existence of which only came to light when officials from UK Anti-doping (UKAD) visited the National Cycling Centre as part of its investigation, since closed, into allegations of wrongdoing at Team Sky and British Cycling.

But Sutton said: “I had absolutely no knowledge of it. The first I heard of the testosterone was via a meeting with UKAD and then I saw it on Cycling News."
 
Mod hat on:

Thanks. We take a dim view of posters tying people to accusations when it hasn't been reported, even if those accusations subsequently turn out to be true. As such we may request evidence for claims be linked.
 
No problem, I understand.

Looking at this again, it actually looks like The Telegraph & Road.cc has had to perhaps retract their stories. While it was definitely published before xmas, it seems both sites have removed the pages now?? The road.cc page says "we can't let you access that page" which is pretty weird given it exists in google cache.

I'm wondering if GMC's or Freemans legal team have requested the link to Sutton/Erectile Dysfunction be removed to not jeopardise the MPTS tribunal?

Managed to find the Telegraph article on WaybackWhen just in case

https://web.archive.org/web/20181223194057/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/12/23/shane-sutton-denies-claims-among-intended-recipients-testosterone
 
samhocking said:
fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
To be honest i'm more fascinated that Freeman will testify to MPTS that Sutton had Erectile Dysfunction Problems and was the intended recipient. Kind of ironic he told Jess Varnish to go and have a baby. Tickles me anyway.
Distract. Distort. Defame.

What a dull Playbook you have...
Not my playbook. That's what Freeman's witness statement says he will put to MPTS as reported today?
Here you say "reported today". Elsewhere you say two years ago. Then you find an article from before Christmas. Which the journalist had to pull cause he'd screwed up, again.

Let's add Deny and Dissimulate to Distract, Distort, and Defame.
 
Mod hat on:

Thanks. The article being pulled makes it tricky as we obviously have no idea why it was pulled. I know very little about libel laws so I don't really want to do the whole, "I'm not a lawyer but *insert uninformed nonsense here*", so I'll just say that posters should take into account these situations when they post. Of course, that requires they know that the article was pulled which I'm assuming you didn't until you looked for it. The protections that are afforded to the forum providers may not cover the forum users, that's something I would urge everyone to consider.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS