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

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 8, 2015
120
0
0
Papparrazzi said:
King Boonen said:
Couple of highlights from Sapsteads testimony:

Massively blurred lines between BC and Sky, drugs passed between organisations with no documentation.

It really doesn't look good.
So potentially over several years, Team Sky's foreign riders were benefitting from British Cycling's (Tax payers) medicine cabinet
The last 7 years in the UK have been a time of austerity, attempts at greater cost control in use of taxpayer funds etc. Bearing that in mind, it'd be interesting to find out if the taxpayer funded medicines provided to BC were used to the benefit of non-British riders.

Might the DCMS select committee invite, say, the National Audit Office quango to investigate this?
 
I didn't see the previous occasion(s) UKAD had appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday Sapstead was given a very easy time - in fact at one point she was making a pitch for more funding. I thought Damien Collins was angling to ask about the Lizzie Deignan case after Sapstead had dutifully trotted out the three missed tests rule but alas not. But he would surely be in his rights to ask what we would be getting for our money if UKAD funding was increased. In the Lizzie Deignan case either the testing procedures were not robust or UKAD is giving special treatment to a star athlete. We will probably never find out but n either case would more funding help or is it case of throwing good money after bad ?

Likewise we have Nicole Cooke's concerns, Dan Stevens' evidence apparently ignored and in this case (which only came about because of the BC source for the Mail) we have over 1000 hours of work already and probably no sanction coming
 
Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
I didn't see the previous occasion(s) UKAD had appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday Sapstead was given a very easy time - in fact at one point she was making a pitch for more funding. I thought Damien Collins was angling to ask about the Lizzie Deignan case after Sapstead had dutifully trotted out the three missed tests rule but alas not. But he would surely be in his rights to ask what we would be getting for our money if UKAD funding was increased. In the Lizzie Deignan case either the testing procedures were not robust or UKAD is giving special treatment to a star athlete. We will probably never find out but n either case would more funding help or is it case of throwing good money after bad ?

Likewise we have Nicole Cooke's concerns, Dan Stevens' evidence apparently ignored and in this case (which only came about because of the BC source for the Mail) we have over 1000 hours of work already and probably no sanction coming
It's the standard line parrotted by NADO's in their sleep - ' We need more funding' - Departmental heads are usually grilled by Senate Committees 3 or 4 times a year - Nothing unusual in Sapstead's appearance.
 
Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
I didn't see the previous occasion(s) UKAD had appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday Sapstead was given a very easy time - in fact at one point she was making a pitch for more funding. I thought Damien Collins was angling to ask about the Lizzie Deignan case after Sapstead had dutifully trotted out the three missed tests rule but alas not. But he would surely be in his rights to ask what we would be getting for our money if UKAD funding was increased. In the Lizzie Deignan case either the testing procedures were not robust or UKAD is giving special treatment to a star athlete. We will probably never find out but n either case would more funding help or is it case of throwing good money after bad ?

Likewise we have Nicole Cooke's concerns, Dan Stevens' evidence apparently ignored and in this case (which only came about because of the BC source for the Mail) we have over 1000 hours of work already and probably no sanction coming
I have to say Slappersted <edited by mods>. She simply didn't want to uncover what she knew was under the carpet. She's been asleep at the wheel telling the world that UKAD are at the forefront of anti-doping when truth be told, to be successful is to do nothing.

JTL must be having a good laugh into his beee right about now.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
I didn't see the previous occasion(s) UKAD had appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday Sapstead was given a very easy time - in fact at one point she was making a pitch for more funding. I thought Damien Collins was angling to ask about the Lizzie Deignan case after Sapstead had dutifully trotted out the three missed tests rule but alas not. But he would surely be in his rights to ask what we would be getting for our money if UKAD funding was increased. In the Lizzie Deignan case either the testing procedures were not robust or UKAD is giving special treatment to a star athlete. We will probably never find out but n either case would more funding help or is it case of throwing good money after bad ?

Likewise we have Nicole Cooke's concerns, Dan Stevens' evidence apparently ignored and in this case (which only came about because of the BC source for the Mail) we have over 1000 hours of work already and probably no sanction coming
+1

thehog said:
I have to say Slappersted <edited by mods>. She simply didn't want to uncover what she knew was under the carpet. She's been asleep at the wheel telling the world that UKAD are at the forefront of anti-doping when truth be told, to be successful is to do nothing.

JTL must be having a good laugh into his beee right about now.
+2

This is a 6 months investigation but it still appears like they have only completed the first two weeks of it.
Anyone praising Sapstead for her performance yesterday is not seeing the timeline and asking the question: since when did she knew things were not above board?

Sapstead and UKAD were going to wrap this up in concert with BC before the christmas break, but then Nicole Cooke ripped into Brailsford & BC/Sky in that Guardian article. Only then did Sapstead get the invite from Damian Collins and suddenly Sapstead was fighting for her job. It was either her job or put BC/Sky in the spotlight, and she wisely went with the latter.
And so being under pressure she had to send out the team in order to be seen to be doing something. That generated the late night session in Manchester ending with Freeman throwing his computer in the dumpster somewhere.
 
Jul 7, 2015
90
0
0
Re:

yaco said:
Dr Freeman will be protected by his professional association - Medical association's have plenty of power.
You would think they would use their power to recommend regular backup of computer files. ;)


edit: grammar
edit:spelling
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

King Boonen said:
The Hitch said:
Crazy how, as time goes by, a lot of snipers early theories and assumptions turn out to be quite close to the truth
I'm not sure pointing to a doctor on a pro cycling team and suggesting they might be doing something dodgy is then being proved right is particularly surprising, but Sniper does deserve credit for the perseverance he shows when many people dismiss some of his theories out of hand.
cheers guys, appreciate it.
Fair point KB, admittedly Freeman being dodgy wasn't hard to foresee.
But bottomline is of course: you should listen to sniper more often rather than argue with him :D ;)

I like how Freeman's case turns out to be an appraisal for real cycling docs like Leinders.
Clearly Freeman and Kerrison together couldn't do the magic for Sky.
That said, when Leinders was gone, Sky kept getting results.
Had Freeman been a good student? Or is Kerrison the elephant in the room.
Alan Farrell and Phil Burt are also there being shady in the background.
 
Mar 11, 2009
832
0
0
That initial interview in the first post read like Skyparody: frost chambers, liquid nitrogen, hot and cold bathing.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Eyeballs Out said:
I didn't see the previous occasion(s) UKAD had appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday Sapstead was given a very easy time - in fact at one point she was making a pitch for more funding. I thought Damien Collins was angling to ask about the Lizzie Deignan case after Sapstead had dutifully trotted out the three missed tests rule but alas not. But he would surely be in his rights to ask what we would be getting for our money if UKAD funding was increased. In the Lizzie Deignan case either the testing procedures were not robust or UKAD is giving special treatment to a star athlete. We will probably never find out but n either case would more funding help or is it case of throwing good money after bad ?

Likewise we have Nicole Cooke's concerns, Dan Stevens' evidence apparently ignored and in this case (which only came about because of the BC source for the Mail) we have over 1000 hours of work already and probably no sanction coming
+1

thehog said:
I have to say Slappersted <edited by mods>. She simply didn't want to uncover what she knew was under the carpet. She's been asleep at the wheel telling the world that UKAD are at the forefront of anti-doping when truth be told, to be successful is to do nothing.

JTL must be having a good laugh into his beee right about now.
+2

This is a 6 months investigation but it still appears like they have only completed the first two weeks of it.
Anyone praising Sapstead for her performance yesterday is not seeing the timeline and asking the question: since when did she knew things were not above board?

Sapstead and UKAD were going to wrap this up in concert with BC before the christmas break, but then Nicole Cooke ripped into Brailsford & BC/Sky in that Guardian article. Only then did Sapstead get the invite from Damian Collins and suddenly Sapstead was fighting for her job. It was either her job or put BC/Sky in the spotlight, and she wisely went with the latter.
And so being under pressure she had to send out the team in order to be seen to be doing something. That generated the late night session in Manchester ending with Freeman throwing his computer in the dumpster somewhere.

Question now, what next? Will they bring proceeding against Wiggins? I don't think UKAD have the balls, they are too scared of Sir Dave.
 
Aug 26, 2014
1,218
0
0
I found the lack of precision quite irritating from Sapstead. I mean, surely instead of saying 'there was an excessive amount of Kenalog' it'd be far better to say there were x dosages over a Z month period, which amounts to z per rider per year, or whatever. This way it'd give a much better idea of the scale of the problem. At the minute, all we have is 'more than one rider or an excessive amount for one rider'. What we want to know is whether this was a team-wide routine usage OOC, or potentially isolated to the select few. The former cannot be plausibly hidden from team management. The latter is slightly more credible as an issue with the doctor and rider alone (not that I believe that, but there we are).

As for the misuse of public funds - this has been obvious for a long time, and is only not causing an issue because it's such a dry matter compared to the more shocking medical revelations. But I cannot see that it won't be a serious issue for them and UK Sport in general, who clearly failed dismally to see the massive potential issues it was creating. Or just ignored them whilst the results kept coming.

Who is the mole, I wonder? Allegations were clearly made to UKAD and the mail? Also - has this Burt guy gone before the committee???

And like Mme Desgrange, I'm ever so slightly obsessed by 'Why Eastbourne" when by Cope's own account he should have been in Manchester ?

MmeDesgrange said:
The University of Brighton has a top notch sports science facility based in Eastbourne - they're heavily into genetic research. Be funny if Cope was on another courier run from there to Manchester...
 
Feb 23, 2011
446
0
0
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/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/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.
 
Realistically the best UKAD will get from the on-going investigation is to ping Dr Freeman for Trafficking prohibited substances - He my be in trouble if UKAD can prove he gave substances to friends, family and staff - This can attract a life ban.
 
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

The Hitch said:
Crazy how, as time goes by, a lot of snipers early theories and assumptions turn out to be quite close to the truth
Agreed, good to see Dr. Maz and Race Radio trying to shut down the claims :cool:
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

thehog said:
The Hitch said:
Crazy how, as time goes by, a lot of snipers early theories and assumptions turn out to be quite close to the truth
Agreed, good to see Dr. Maz and Race Radio trying to shut down the claims :cool:
Shrug. When everyone is suspected of being guilty, we shouldn't be surprised when a few of them actually are. That's not exactly insight or thoughtful analysis.

John Swanson
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
It's not insightful, but it's kind of amusing that something as obvious as Sky's doctor problems never got much traction outside this echo-chamber.

Anyway, it's beyond any reasonable doubt. Sky used traditional means to make the jump to super-team.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re:

Franklin said:
It's not insightful, but it's kind of amusing that something as obvious as Sky's doctor problems never got much traction outside this echo-chamber.

Anyway, it's beyond any reasonable doubt. Sky used traditional means to make the jump to super-team.
always good to see you chime in.

traditional means in any case.
perhaps aided by less traditional means in the form of motorized bikes.

anyhow, Freeman is a goner.
Can only hope he decides to spill in return for immunity or something.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

ScienceIsCool said:
...
Shrug. When everyone is suspected of being guilty, we shouldn't be surprised when a few of them actually are.
agreed, it's not so much the speculation about wrongdoing but the denial of it that is surprising.
 
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

sniper said:
ScienceIsCool said:
...
Shrug. When everyone is suspected of being guilty, we shouldn't be surprised when a few of them actually are.
agreed, it's not so much the speculation about wrongdoing but the denial of it that is surprising.
That was my point. Back in the day, Froome was normal, Leinders wasn't Ferrari and there was no hospital room. If it wasn't a carbon copy of Lance then it didn't happen.

Oh and there was lunch with Richie Porte! :cool: :eek:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

D-Queued said:
There have been studies on lighting in the workplace.

In the first study, the light levels were increased.

Productivity improved.

In the second, follow-on study, light levels in the same environment were decreased.

Productivity improved.

The moral: Attention to people improves productivity.

Dave.
Sounds like a camp follower was trying to dismiss anything to see here. Almost like back in the blue train days.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

thehog said:
The Hitch said:
Crazy how, as time goes by, a lot of snipers early theories and assumptions turn out to be quite close to the truth
Agreed, good to see Dr. Maz and Race Radio trying to shut down the claims :cool:
What are they vortex and RR trying to do? I must have missed it. Twitter?
 
Re: Dr. Freeman, what do we know about him?

Semper Fidelis said:
thehog said:
The Hitch said:
Crazy how, as time goes by, a lot of snipers early theories and assumptions turn out to be quite close to the truth
Agreed, good to see Dr. Maz and Race Radio trying to shut down the claims :cool:
What are they vortex and RR trying to do? I must have missed it. Twitter?
It's a reference to older posts in this thread. When Sniper started it DM and RR weren't impressed with the premise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts