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.
This is what UKAD may hit Freeman with if they press charges - An athlete support person having prohibited substances at the cyclists workplace.
Interesting....so the new allegation now reads
It means that the GMC have just lowered the burden of proof to something quite achievable.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?
At least you admit there was doping.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.
(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.
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
possible section 45A (35A I think it would be) application to a paper.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"
"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"
Don't you think the whole thing is a mess?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.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?
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 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.
teamI 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.
That's not the point. We will have got to this point because information was withheld by 1. The media and 2. Parliament. I think that's probably more important than a box of 30 Testogel!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
But why let ignorance of the facts get in your way Sam, throw in your ill-informed opinion anyway.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?
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.