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

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
It will be interesting to see what from the allegations get edited once re-listed on MPTS calendar as a new tribunal starting from scratch again. If nothing's changed, that would beg the question, what exactly was discussed for 3 weeks?
the physiological circumstances under which a 2kg stool is produced I would warrant
It's only possible if you poo twice a day according to Adam Hansen who's experimented with it apparently. As well as a diet that cleans arteries to widen the walls slightly in order for more blood (oxygen) to reach his muscles. Some far out stuff Hansen comes out with.
 
Apr 16, 2017
112
0
1,830
If the tribunal is going to be convened again, then it seems nothing else has changed other than the panel. Presumably Freeman's team was able to argue there was a problem with the panel that was just dismissed? Not that I know what I am talking about, obviously, just trying to extrapolate from what information we do have.
 
Tom Cary tweets
https://twitter.com/tomcary_tel/status/1103246359652691968
apparently MPTS ruled that decisions on applications can't be made public so as not to influence new tribunal. But think we can all agree it looks terrible.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/47461988
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairman Damian Collins said it meant questions needed to be asked.

Freeman also failed to appear in front of a DCMS committee hearing in 2016.
...
"We should be concerned that there is a concerted effort to make sure that Dr Freeman never has to give evidence, and we should rightly question why that might be the case," Collins told BBC Sport.
 
Re:

MartinGT said:
Wasn't Wiggins supposed to be suing Dan Roan? Or is that being delayed also?
He said it's going to with Court with Lawton & Daily Mail to HLN.be. I can't imagine that will commence until Freeman is cleared though as he will be witness for Wiggins.
 
Liking a good coincidence, I reckon the date for the next tribunal will be announced after Sky's new sponsorship deal. It does take a lonnnng time for Mrs O'Rourke to find some time in her busy schedule - I'm betting Plough Monday 2021 :)
 
Re:

topcat said:
The case is now scheduled for never. Sky problems don't die, they just fade away.
It's not Freeman's decision. The allegations are GMCs & British Cyclings. The only way MPTS can make it go away is for GMC to drop all allegations. That hasn't happened. Legal tribunals are slow, not suspicious, especially MPTS tribunals are known for it.
 
Just like any of us working in liable industries, Freeman's legal costs will be paid by his medical indemnity body he would have to pay into as a GP I would hope! This is how he said his previous GMC & UKAD legal costs were paid for during Jiffygate for example.
I'm struggling to see any actual evidence of intentional legal delay by O'Rourke or MPTS? There is a delay, but there is delay in plenty of other MPTS cases too it seems so relatively normal.
 
Happy for you to list what legal tactics have been employed by O'Rourke and change my mind because I don't know of any? I've looked at cases on MPTS Tribunal Schedule for other GPs and delay, adjournment and legal argument happen.
 
samhocking said:
Just like any of us working in liable industries, Freeman's legal costs will be paid by his medical indemnity body he would have to pay into as a GP I would hope! This is how he said his previous GMC & UKAD legal costs were paid for during Jiffygate for example.
I do so hate rising to the bait of yet more unsourced claims, but please, a source for the claim that he said his legal fees for the UKAD inquiry were paid out of medical insurance. If you say he said it, you won't have any problem providing that much. And I suspect you actually meant the CMS not GMC inquiry, seeing as there was no previous GMC inquiry. Unless you're claiming to have yet more knowledge no one else has. The rest, I won't ask you to back it up, I'll just take it with the usual fistful of salt.
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-outrageous-to-suggest-i-injected-bradley-wiggins-on-bus-08nf8zxj9

“it was a very difficult time because my professional integrity was brought into question. I had my own medical defence union, my medical indemnity society lawyers helping me, they were my mainstay
A couple of GPs on Dan Roan's tweets have said this would be normal for his legal protection to come from medical indemnity/liability insurance.

If you read the full transcript from Dan Roan's jiffygate interview, Freeman says he couldn't discuss the testogel order because he was currently under GMC investigation for his medical management policy. Clearly it doesn't actually matter what legal fees were paid that apply to GMC or UKAD, both would have generated legal costs paid by his medical defence union & indemnity policy.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-outrageous-to-suggest-i-injected-bradley-wiggins-on-bus-08nf8zxj9

“it was a very difficult time because my professional integrity was brought into question. I had my own medical defence union, my medical indemnity society lawyers helping me, they were my mainstay
A couple of GPs on Dan Roan's tweets have said this would be normal for his legal protection to come from medical indemnity/liability insurance.

If you read the full transcript from Dan Roan's jiffygate interview, Freeman says he couldn't discuss the testogel order because he was currently under GMC investigation for his medical management policy. Clearly it doesn't actually matter what legal fees were paid that apply to GMC or UKAD, both would have generated legal costs paid by his medical defence union & indemnity policy.
Once again you appear to be demonstrating a worrying ability to claim that something says something it does not. Getting legal advice from your union is not the same as getting a QC paid for by your insurers. When it does provide representation, the MDU provides in-house legal experts, not outsourced.

If all you're really saying is that you read on Twitter somewhere someone saying of course his insurance - the extent of which you have no knowledge of - covers a QC, well, what can I be expected to say to that?
 
I think his description using 'indemnity society lawyers' suggest he pays into a medical body. I might be wrong, but like e.g. myself, I wouldn't actually be able to work without it. It's a contractual condition to do what I do and part of that is £2.5 million legal protection. I can even choose what lawyers I want to represent me too.

This artlcle seems to suggest a GP is required to have Indemnity Insurance to practice.
https://www.gponline.com/know-so-far-plans-state-backed-gp-indemnity/article/1447763
 
samhocking said:
I think his description using 'indemnity society lawyers' suggest he pays into a medical body. I might be wrong, but like e.g. myself, I wouldn't actually be able to work without it. It's a contractual condition to do what I do and part of that is £2.5 million legal protection. I can even choose what lawyers I want to represent me too.

This artlcle seems to suggest a GP is required to have Indemnity Insurance to practice.
https://www.gponline.com/know-so-far-plans-state-backed-gp-indemnity/article/1447763
Wow, what a way to say you don't know what you're talking about and haven't even understood what you posted. Yes, he has insurance. How much insurance does he have? You don't know. What does his insurance cover? You don't know. He appears to be saying he has coverage through the MDU. As I have said, the MDU provides in-house representation at tribunals (his "indemnity society lawyers"), not outsourced QCs.
 
If you've ever bought your own professional indemnity and liability insurances to do your job you will know it's generally sold in £2.5m or £5m policy chunks. I've never seen a professional indemnity that provides less than £2.5m legal costs where you can't use your own lawyer that they pay for. Even as a BC Coach, they are covered with £5m professional indemnity as part of their £42/year membership.

It would seem GMC require indemnity to practice just like I require it too.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/managing-your-registration/information-for-doctors-on-the-register/insurance-indemnity-and-medico-legal-support

If you carry out any private practice, you’ll need to arrange adequate and appropriate insurance or indemnity (even if this work takes place on NHS or HSC premises). This applies even if the work is in addition to work you do for a trust or board in the NHS or HSC.

Many independent healthcare providers will ask you for confirmation of your insurance or indemnity arrangements as part of their pre-employment checks. Some independent healthcare providers provide insurance and indemnity but you should always check that it gives you adequate cover for all of your work.

If you’re doing non-NHS or non-HSC private work in the UK but your EU wide insurance was arranged outside of the UK, you must make sure that:

your EU insurance or indemnity from outside the UK covers your work in the UK, and
your EU insurance or indemnity is adequate and appropriate, and of sufficient value (at least the same value as a UK policy of insurance or with the same scope as a UK indemnity arrangement) to cover any claims made about your practice in the UK through the UK legal system.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
If you've ever bought your own professional indemnity and liability insurances to do your job you will know it's generally sold in £2.5m or £5m policy chunks. I've never seen a professional indemnity that provides less than £2.5m legal costs where you can't use your own lawyer that they pay for. Even as a BC Coach, they are covered with £5m professional indemnity as part of their £42/year membership.

It would seem GMC require indemnity to practice just like I require it too.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/managing-your-registration/information-for-doctors-on-the-register/insurance-indemnity-and-medico-legal-support

If you carry out any private practice, you’ll need to arrange adequate and appropriate insurance or indemnity (even if this work takes place on NHS or HSC premises). This applies even if the work is in addition to work you do for a trust or board in the NHS or HSC.

Many independent healthcare providers will ask you for confirmation of your insurance or indemnity arrangements as part of their pre-employment checks. Some independent healthcare providers provide insurance and indemnity but you should always check that it gives you adequate cover for all of your work.

If you’re doing non-NHS or non-HSC private work in the UK but your EU wide insurance was arranged outside of the UK, you must make sure that:

your EU insurance or indemnity from outside the UK covers your work in the UK, and
your EU insurance or indemnity is adequate and appropriate, and of sufficient value (at least the same value as a UK policy of insurance or with the same scope as a UK indemnity arrangement) to cover any claims made about your practice in the UK through the UK legal system.
Wholly irrelavant to what I said but thank you for yet again telling us just how professional you are.
 
Happy for you to go and find a GP indemnity policy that couldn't pay your legal fees as a GP lol! What would be the point of potentially being able to kill multiple people, if your indemnity wouldn't cover you? As I said, £2.5m legal expense cover is the smallest i've ever seen and that's in a similar industry where I could kill people just like a GP can.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Happy for you to go and find a GP indemnity policy that couldn't pay your legal fees as a GP lol! What would be the point of potentially being able to kill multiple people, if your indemnity wouldn't cover you? As I said, £2.5m legal expense cover is the smallest i've ever seen and that's in a similar industry where I could kill people just like a GP can.
Well, Sam you could start by looking at what the MDU cover actually covers and stop trying to extrapolate from your rather limited and very tiresome personal experience.
 
Why are you so passionate about Freeman not having enough legal protection? His MDU is one thing, his indemnity policy will include legal cover fmk. Who do you think pays your legal costs if you killed someone driving your car? You or your policy?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Why are you so passionate about Freeman not having enough legal protection? His MDU is one thing, his indemnity policy will include legal cover fmk. Who do you think pays your legal costs if you killed someone driving your car? You or your policy?
Again, Sam, you demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend what has been written. I have nowhere questioned whether Freeman has "enough" legal protection. I have questioned your wholly baseless assumptions, particularly that whatever protection he has covers a QC at a tribunal.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Why are you so passionate about Freeman not having enough legal protection? His MDU is one thing, his indemnity policy will include legal cover fmk. Who do you think pays your legal costs if you killed someone driving your car? You or your policy?
Again, Sam, you demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend what has been written. I have nowhere questioned whether Freeman has "enough" legal protection. I have questioned your wholly baseless assumptions, particularly that whatever protection he has covers a QC at a tribunal.
Where are you chaps heading with this? Is it not more likely that Freeman has defence costs for fitness to practice and disciplinary hearings written into his indemnity insurance than that he has not? Subject to the underwriting criteria and the terms of the policy there is no reason to assume, is there, that this would not include Queen's Counsel if such a level of representation were approved by the insurer? In the absence of information, do carry on scoring points to create amusement!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS