• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
MatParker117 said:
macbindle said:
Indirectly it might, but also if he's struck off, thereby rendering him unemployable, he might do an Oprah.
Not a chance, a gagging order would be issued in minutes.

On what grounds?
Doctor patient confidentiality and privacy. While in theory he could say that I gave "Banned substance X to Team Sky rider/staff" there's no legal way for him to prove it was for a specific individual thanks to the robbery and loss of the laptop. Without that it's he said she said and Freeman and whoever prints the interview puts themselves at massive risk of being sued.
 
ferryman said:
samhocking said:
Wiggins legal battle with Lawton & DCMS begins once Testogate is over a dicky bird tells me ; )
Him Sam, do you ever frequent football forums during the transfer window? It usually goes like this, my high up source at the club tells me x is signing on Monday, or my source, my good mate, who knows high up people at the club tells me Y is signing on Tuesday or, my best mate, who is my source but supports A tells me B is signing on Wednesday. And then there is, I was standing in the queue at Greggs yesterday and I heard this guy saying we're signing A, B, X, Y and Z on Thursday, but I can't reveal my source. Do you like sausage rolls and vanilla slices??
Not sure you realise 'dicky bird' is Cockney Rhyming Slang for 'nothing', ie no word. Too subtle outside Bow Bells maybe?
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
MartinGT said:
If he didnt have anything to hide, surly he would just show up. Clear his name and the name of Sky / BC.

If he does have something to hide, he will surly be under immense pressure from whoever are the guilty parties.
I don't think this is always true (there's a huge amount of evidence that it isn't) and I certainly don't think it's true for someone who suffers from mental health problems.


The MPTS chair said:
There is likely to be a further application on Friday morning which would require legal arguments and it may well be that they would be heard in private
It sounds like new evidence has come to light. Nothing to do with Freeman's health or not being there. In fact the chair also confirms:

Both parties - Freeman and the GMC - have been invited to submit documents to the tribunal panel, which will be read through on Thursday ahead of reconvening on Friday morning.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
King Boonen said:
MartinGT said:
If he didnt have anything to hide, surly he would just show up. Clear his name and the name of Sky / BC.

If he does have something to hide, he will surly be under immense pressure from whoever are the guilty parties.
I don't think this is always true (there's a huge amount of evidence that it isn't) and I certainly don't think it's true for someone who suffers from mental health problems.


The MPTS chair said:
There is likely to be a further application on Friday morning which would require legal arguments and it may well be that they would be heard in private
It sounds like new evidence has come to light. Nothing to do with Freeman's health or not being there. In fact the chair also confirms:

Both parties - Freeman and the GMC - have been invited to submit documents to the tribunal panel, which will be read through on Thursday ahead of reconvening on Friday morning.
I don't know why you quoted me, your post seems to have nothing to do with mine.

Tribunals are public, at the moment it's just as likely an application will be for part or all of it to be held in private. I assume this would also require legal arguments.
 
Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.
Or they intend applying to have the whole thing heard in private, the media kicked out.

You never have had the sharpest Occam's razor when it comes to things like this...
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.
That's fine, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Your point about him not being there goes to my point about his mental health and the idea that if you have nothing to hide you'll be there doesn't sit right with me.

Whether it's new evidence or not I don't think we can speculate. Considering the charges relate to record keeping and treating patients I think it was fairly obvious that patient information is likely to be discussed. I'm guessing that this happens a lot and as such they clear the room regularly in tribunals. This may be why it's expected to last a month. If that's the case, I would assume that this wouldn't require a further application and that it is therefore more likely the request is for the whole or majority of the hearing to be in private.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
samhocking said:
Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.
That's fine, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Your point about him not being there goes to my point about his mental health and the idea that if you have nothing to hide you'll be there doesn't sit right with me.

Whether it's new evidence or not I don't think we can speculate. Considering the charges relate to record keeping and treating patients I think it was fairly obvious that patient information is likely to be discussed. I'm guessing that this happens a lot and as such they clear the room regularly in tribunals. This may be why it's expected to last a month. If that's the case, I would assume that this wouldn't require a further application and that it is therefore more likely the request is for the whole or majority of the hearing to be in private.
to stretch the goodfellas analagy further....

"a motherf**ker! I almost had him, I almost had him. Ya stuttering pri*k ya. Frankie, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes, Henry. You may fold under questioning"

Its kind of obvious...the good doctor will fold under questioning...as we would say him in my line of work...'don't let them near the client'...or for criminal lawyers...'don't let him in the wirtness box'

either nobody (when I say nobody I mean SDB) trusts the good doctor...or the good doctor doesn't trust himself

all we do know is that one day he'll blow
 
Could Sky/Comcast/BC be trying to get the doc/riders interactions done in private as some sort of corporate "trade secret" (i.e. training & dietary methods) and as well as doc/patient confidentiality?

Due to the docs mental health, is it possible to get him removed as a doctor? He does seem a troubled man.

Edit - would Freeman have signed a NDA as well? "What a legal web we weave ..."
 
samhocking said:
ferryman said:
samhocking said:
Wiggins legal battle with Lawton & DCMS begins once Testogate is over a dicky bird tells me ; )
Him Sam, do you ever frequent football forums during the transfer window? It usually goes like this, my high up source at the club tells me x is signing on Monday, or my source, my good mate, who knows high up people at the club tells me Y is signing on Tuesday or, my best mate, who is my source but supports A tells me B is signing on Wednesday. And then there is, I was standing in the queue at Greggs yesterday and I heard this guy saying we're signing A, B, X, Y and Z on Thursday, but I can't reveal my source. Do you like sausage rolls and vanilla slices??
Not sure you realise 'dicky bird' is Cockney Rhyming Slang for 'nothing', ie no word. Too subtle outside Bow Bells maybe?
No, 'dicky bird' means 'word': 1 2 3 4

Your sarcastic dig seems misplaced, and your initial comment would be totally meaningless if 'dicky bird' were to mean what you seem to think it does: "Wiggins legal battle with Lawton & DCMS begins once Testogate is over a nothing tells me ; )". I think the idiom you were looking for was, "a little bird (an anonymous source) tells me," although we all would have had a better chance of knowing what you meant if you had used some punctuation.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
not a dicky...............well? the clue is in rhyming........................

so will the doc sing? has he much to share?

reading news tribunal is 'to judge fitness to practice'...............if indeed freeman is ill and there is little chance

of him practicing anyway will the tribunal go light?

CN news 'the stakes are high for team sky'...............this i doubt ...........only team sky will know depending upon

the good docs activities
 
Armchair cyclist said:
we all would have had a better chance of knowing what you meant if you had used some punctuation.
I thought the meaning was abundantly clear: "Oh dear, the Freeman hearings are about to begin, I had better attempt to cause a distraction. 'Quick! Look over there! It's a tenuous Wiggins story you've been showing no interest in for ages now!'"

Where I am confused is in the way The Boy Who Cried 'Nope, That Ain't No Wolf, It's A Cute Little Dicky Bird' has done a reverse ferret and become the 'Oh! My! God! They're Bringing In A Wolf!!!' Boy, even before things have got under way.

As said before: it's set to be a long, slow month. It'll make Game of Thrones seem fast paced.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.
Or they intend applying to have the whole thing heard in private, the media kicked out.

You never have had the sharpest Occam's razor when it comes to things like this...
FMK. The Chair already said the tribunal is most likely not going to be held in public? Seems pretty obvious someones Erectile Dysfunction or other personal medical matters are going to be the focus of Freeman's witness statements as discussed by Ziegler in The Times yesterday again (although without the Sutton reference now).
 
Does it matter? If you're discussing private medical conditions and the press/public are there, it will adjourn in private. If O'Rourke has submitted a request for private tribunal due Freeman's alleged mental health, it's going to be in private too. The Chair said Freeman's tribunal was mostly not going to be public and clearly it's not Freeman's choice what is and isn't public, it will be The Chairs.
 
Looks like Cycling News have employed a comedian for the live reporting ;)
http://live.cyclingnews.com/
And in the latest development, Dr Richard Freeman's tribunal has been put on hold once more. It will start up again next week. Team Sky have had terrible luck hiring doctors when it comes to controversy. First it was Leinders, and now Freeman is under investigation. There plenty of doctors out there to choose from guys...

Eh... there's radio DJ, Dr Fox, Dr Dre, Dr Doogie Howser, Dr Pepper, Dr Quinn Medicine Woman, and of course Dr Who.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
Looks like Cycling News have employed a comedian for the live reporting ;)
http://live.cyclingnews.com/
And in the latest development, Dr Richard Freeman's tribunal has been put on hold once more. It will start up again next week. Team Sky have had terrible luck hiring doctors when it comes to controversy. First it was Leinders, and now Freeman is under investigation. There plenty of doctors out there to choose from guys...

Eh... there's radio DJ, Dr Fox, Dr Dre, Dr Doogie Howser, Dr Pepper, Dr Quinn Medicine Woman, and of course Dr Who.
Sky will be hoping their doctor gets off like Dr Fox.
 
So, we have to wait to hear whether the whole thing will be behind closed doors (my bet, because of Sky's & BC's legal pressure) or just certain days. I'm also betting Freeman won't be seen in Manchester until Martinmas at the earliest.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
So, we have to wait to hear whether the whole thing will be behind closed doors (my bet, because of Sky's & BC's legal pressure) or just certain days. I'm also betting Freeman won't be seen in Manchester until Martinmas at the earliest.
Close the competition for "Best Gratuitous Mention of an Obscure Religious Observation of the Year" now.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS