With the revelations regarding Dr Freeman I would assume that if the committee recall Dave Brailsfraud then his "management" of the medical team is what they are really going to go for. On the face of it his original evidence is at best a misrepresentation and at worst a pack of lies.
I would expect some of the committee members to be pretty irritated by it indeed.
Surely if Freeman wasn't following protocol there was some kind of disciplinary process in place, if he consistently ignored the protocol then he should have been sacked. Why wasn't he? If he was a loose canon then why would you allow him unfettered medical assistance to your star athlete?
Full original evidence is here:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...tee/combatting-doping-in-sport/oral/44749.pdf
Pertinent parts relating to the medical team:
Chair: I can understand that, and the purpose of our question today and
the issues we want to look at is really to look at how these difficult ethical
issues are policed by both Team Sky and by British Cycling as a national
governing body.
Sir David Brailsford: What is probably worth sharing is that on that side
of things we have a very good compliance and governance structure
within the team; I would say world leading. We don’t have a single doctor
operating in isolation. We have a team of doctors and they regularly sit
down and peer review their work. They regularly assess our policies and
procedures and make sure that they are up-to-date and being applied
properly. Of course, every other week the medical team have a
conference call, and I have Dr Steve Peters—a leading forensic
psychiatrist who leads on medical practice—to make sure that our
standards are upheld. If anybody sees any issues or if there is any
tension between riders or medical staff, or any issues in or around the
use of any product that is brought to their attention, we discuss it and we
can then pass it on if ever we needed to, to the compliance department.
If ever we felt it necessary I would take a disciplinary approach, and if
necessary pass it on to UK Anti-Doping.
Chair: One final question on this area. Obviously Bradley Wiggins was
the team leader. There might have been greater scrutiny and interest in
the treatments that he was receiving than there would have been for a
junior rider in the team. Are you aware that Bradley Wiggins was
prescribed corticosteroids out of competition while as a rider at Team
Sky?
Sir David Brailsford: Not to my knowledge.
Chair: Have you asked that question internally?
Sir David Brailsford: No, I would not ask the medical department. That
was up to them. I would not push the medical client confidentiality. It is
always a bit of a challenge, to be honest. We sit down in meetings where
we have the entire staff, and at times it becomes very difficult because
the doctors are bound by their own professional code. We have to respect
that and we have to make sure that we don’t push them to break their
own code, but as performance guys and as staff quite often you feel like,
“Come on, guys, we want to know what is going on.”
Chair: Is there documentary evidence to show that it was fluimucil or is
that what Dr Freeman has told you?
Sir David Brailsford: Yes, it is what Dr Freeman has told me. Let’s not
forget, I was not aware of the package at the time. It was brought to my
attention not so long ago.
When such things are brought to my attention,
I think my role and my responsibility then is to take those matters
seriously, to try to gather the facts and see whether there is any
wrongdoing for myself, and if there is any need for a disciplinary
procedure or not. My first course of action in those situations was to
speak to all of the guys on our team and say, “Right, I have had this
brought to me and I would like to gather the facts about what happened
at the end of this race.” Obviously we would go to many races and
people’s recollection of a particular race was a bit vague. I gathered
those facts—I spoke to everybody involved and I got them to give me
written statements just to back it up, so I could have that documented in
writing—and then I felt that there was no substance. I could not see any
anti-doping rule violation. However, I also felt that it was probably
appropriate for me to pass that on, to have that reviewed by an
independent authority that could verify the facts and probably go further
than I could.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram