• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
samhocking said:
The WADA code at the time technically allows possession, so long as not for an athlete. As Freeman claims it's for staff, it will require MPTS tribunal to have evidence that wasn't the case in order for GMC to pass back to UKAD to open an ADRV allegation against Freeman and/or athlete.

2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person
In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or
any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an
Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of
any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited
Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition
in connection with an Athlete, Competition or
training, unless the Athlete Support Person
establishes that the Possession is consistent
with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance
with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

We better hope the athlete has a TUE or there is an acceptable justification - My reading of the Code suggests Freeman could be in trouble, assuming relevant and admissible evidence comes out at the Medical Tribunal and of course if UKAD want to re-open the investigation - I still doubt UKAD will re-open the case.
 
samhocking said:
The only charges from GMC I can see the MPTS upholding (assuming Sutton continues saying it wasn't for him) will be record keeping malpractice with no backup of his laptop, not updating 3 patients GP doctors records for treatment and depending on validity of the email shown to Peters made untrue statements as a Dr to another Dr.
It's like a Peloton spin session in here some days with Jihadi Sam misleading the class with his Holey War on truth.

The first and principal charge faced by Freeman is dishonesty: that he lied to his BC and Sky superiors about the Testogel being ordered in error; that he again lied to his BC and Sky superiors with the email saying it was ordered in error and had been returned; and that he lied a third time when he told UKAD that the Testogel was ordered for a non-athlete.
It is alleged that Dr Freeman’s conduct as set out above was dishonest.
One can understand Jihadi Sam not thinking dishonesty is much of a problem - he'd be a hypocrite if he claimed it was - but the GMC and the MPTS are not, thankfully, goverened by the same lack of morality. For them such dishonesty cuts to the very heart of the relationship of trust we should enjoy with all doctors.
 
FMK, the reply was to yaco and this comment. I don't disagree with anything you've added, but my response was confined to only yaco saying:

Any athlete support person is not allowed to have prohibited substances at their workplace under the WADA Code

The WADA code does allow possession by athlete support person, that's all I was correcting. It wasn't an analysis of MPTS charges, only in relation to what could be passed back to UKAD in terms of a possible ADRV.
 
samhocking said:
FMK, the reply was to yaco and this comment. I don't disagree with anything you've added, but my response was confined to only yaco saying:

Any athlete support person is not allowed to have prohibited substances at their workplace under the WADA Code

The WADA code does allow possession by athlete support person, that's all I was correcting. It wasn't an analysis of MPTS charges, only in relation to what could be passed back to UKAD in terms of a possible ADRV.
To quote:
The only charges from GMC I can see the MPTS upholding
Spin away...
 
yaco said:
samhocking said:
The WADA code at the time technically allows possession, so long as not for an athlete. As Freeman claims it's for staff, it will require MPTS tribunal to have evidence that wasn't the case in order for GMC to pass back to UKAD to open an ADRV allegation against Freeman and/or athlete.

2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person
In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or
any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an
Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of
any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited
Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition
in connection with an Athlete, Competition or
training, unless the Athlete Support Person
establishes that the Possession is consistent
with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance
with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.

We better hope the athlete has a TUE or there is an acceptable justification - My reading of the Code suggests Freeman could be in trouble, assuming relevant and admissible evidence comes out at the Medical Tribunal and of course if UKAD want to re-open the investigation - I still doubt UKAD will re-open the case.

Maybe. At the moment we don't even know if intended for non-athlete staff, BC staff, Sky Staff or athlete though. MPTSs' use use of the term 'non-athlete staff' is interesting. I assume because some staff compete at Masters level etc such as Steve Peters. Is an odd choice to specifically call staff non-athletes to me?
 
samhocking said:
Use of the word 'non-athlete staff' is interesting. I assume because some staff compete at Masters level etc such as Steve Peters. Is an odd choice to specifically call the staff non-athletes to me?
Or maybe Freeman - like many - believes athletes to be staff? Gosh, if only there had been an employment case recently in which his views on this could have ben made clear...without, we may never know.
 
Re:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no clause I can read other than athlete TUE or other justification. If it's in connection to an athlete, it is an ADRV, no escape regardless of IC, OOC or Training. If it's not, it can't be. Staff's own medical treatment is not subject to WADA code at all.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...as-freeman-prepares-to-face-medical-tribunal/
While UKAD ran into a dead-end in its investigation, the GMC possesses greater powers when it comes to examining specific details of medical conduct. UKAD’s investigation into the jiffy bag, and the testosterone lead it obtained in the process, was frustrated not only by a lack of records, but also by doctor-patient confidentiality rules. The GMC has greater authority in demanding that information, meaning it is within their power to identify anyone – whether it was an athlete or not – who might have been administered with the testosterone gel.

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

Thank you whoever wrote the article! :)
A whole month for the tribunal? Phew! I'll have to order the extra large jumbo family bag of popcorn.
 
We should take bets on the outcome. My bet is there won't be an athlete involved. It will be decided Freeman lied to Peters & UKAD to cover his tracks to save his job after being intercepted for ordering Testogel for a senior member of staff he treated from his 1 day a week GP surgery he ran in the Velodrome. I think like the jiffy bag story, this too will be one more about vanity and broken friendships than doping.
 
Re:

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

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

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

We don't know when it was returned. Or even, for that matter, if it was really returned - the charge sheet for the MPTS hearings suggest the GMC has doubts about this.
 
WRT the Testogel and WADA's rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe British Cycling, not just UKAD are making the allegations to GMC too. It's a 3 way battle at least to begin with.
 

TRENDING THREADS