CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

In its original case summary, the GMC outlined the allegation that Freeman's "motive for placing the order was to obtain Testogel to administer to an athlete to improve their athletic performance". However, it is now seeking to alter the notion of 'motive' to that of Freeman knowing - or that he should know - this would be a possibility.
 
Freeman is caught red handed with doping products and now he is admitting to some lesser charges which probably carry a lighter penalty, this will satisfy the council and avoid something more serious that would involve the team/riders, well played
 
Interesting....so the new allegation now reads

“12. You placed the Order and obtained the Testogel:

"a. when you knew it was not clinically indicated for the non-athlete member of staff.

"b. knowing or believing it was to be administered to an athlete to improve their athletic performance."

So does this mean it was ordered on behalf of Sutton, but Freeman knew that Sutton did not want it for himself, but intended to administer it to one of his athletes?
 
So does this mean it was ordered on behalf of Sutton, but Freeman knew that Sutton did not want it for himself, but intended to administer it to one of his athletes?
It means that the GMC have just lowered the burden of proof to something quite achievable.

They don't have to prove that the Testogel was for an athlete, they only have to prove that Freeman knew or ought to have known that it probably wasn't really for Sutton. That ought to have known is a much easier target.

This leaves us with the picture of Sutton running the doping somewhat independently of Freeman.
 
Reactions: yaco and brownbobby

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
222
135
1,230
It means that the GMC have just lowered the burden of proof to something quite achievable.

They don't have to prove that the Testogel was for an athlete, they only have to prove that Freeman knew or ought to have known that it probably wasn't really for Sutton. That ought to have known is a much easier target.

This leaves us with the picture of Sutton running the doping somewhat independently of Freeman.
At least you admit there was doping.
 
O'Rourke claiming she might use 35A this afternoon to force a newpaper to release information that would reveal Sutton's credibility is interesting. This would be Sutton's whistleblowing to Daily Mail over the Jiffybag it seems. At least they might finally get to the bottom of why Sutton whistleblew to Lawton I guess.
 
So, the 35A application - below - having lost the reasonable doubt argument, the new line will be a big boy bullied me into doing it and ran away?

35A:
(1)For the purpose of assisting the General Council or any of their committees in carrying out functions in respect of a practitioner’s fitness to practise, a person authorised by the Council may require—

(a)a practitioner (except the practitioner in respect of whom the information or document is sought); or

(b)any other person,

who in his opinion is able to supply information or produce any document which appears relevant to the discharge of any such function, to supply such information or produce such a document.
 
Would seem Damien Collins & Daily Mail have withheld information about Sutton bullying Freeman and Sutton's Jiffy Bag claim being credible, yes.

We are in contact with Damian Collins, because we are given to receive he received a quantity of information that did not get published [in DCMS report] in relation to Mr Sutton. We want to check that information out
We got contacted out of the blue, without soliciting it, by total surpise with individuals with information about Mr Sutton. We are duty bound to investigate it." Says she has seen enough from three witnesses "to put matters to Mr Sutton"
possible section 45A (35A I think it would be) application to a paper.

"I wouldn’t make an unfocused and wishy-washy application. I will name the legal person involved. I will give details in the approximate time it came into existence. And I will name the author"
 
Yes, reality would be sooo much simpler if they could just get a jury of Clinicians in to decide on the matter in moments, without being hampered by legal niceties or evidence, wouldn't it?
Don't you think the whole thing is a mess?

It's gone from Freeman to denying it to now saying it was ordered whilst Dr Mind says he also said it was a mistake order?
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
222
135
1,230
Yes, reality would be sooo much simpler if they could just get a jury of Clinicians in to decide on the matter in moments, without being hampered by legal niceties or evidence, wouldn't it?
What would be much simpler would be for individuals with the real evidence to just come forward and put an end to the entirety of the situation. But I understand. You would rather just see the legal niceties which will lead to nothing.
 
The other point about 35A is ... it spells a mega delay. Few newspapers would willingly hand over such information, so the MPTS would have to chase them through the courts and climb the appeals ladder.
I believe there is a time limit on 35A to a couple of weeks. Not sure what happens if Daily Mail simply don't though?

The really damning thing will be if Collins & Daily Mail's lawyer have withheld information re. Sutton and Jiffy Bag in order to publish the DCMS report they wanted to see and the newspaper story they wanted to tell that triggered all this with Freeman. O'Rourke claims such information will reveal Suttons credibility, so will indirectly discredit DCMS & Lawton/DM too if this is the case.
 
yup Sam...because that's the big story...meanwhile....the doctor of the world's most successful GT team buying PEDs and lying to UKAD on the other other hand is a trifle :);)

I believe there is a time limit on 35A to a couple of weeks. Not sure what happens if Daily Mail simply don't though?

The really damning thing will be if Collins & Daily Mail's lawyer have withheld information re. Sutton and Jiffy Bag in order to publish the DCMS report they wanted to see and the newspaper story they wanted to tell that triggered all this with Freeman. O'Rourke claims such information will reveal Suttons credibility, so will indirectly discredit DCMS & Lawton/DM too if this is the case.
team
 
Reactions: yaco and fmk_RoI
I believe there is a time limit on 35A to a couple of weeks. Not sure what happens if Daily Mail simply don't though?
But why let ignorance of the facts get in your way Sam, throw in your ill-informed opinion anyway.

You could read the relevant legislation and not just copy and paste journalists' Tweets without attribution:
If a person fails to supply any information or produce any document within 14 days of his being required to do so under subsection (1) above, the General Council may seek an order of the relevant court requiring the information to be supplied or the document to be produced.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS