CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 5, 2018
67
66
780
Yes. It's the connection of the prohibited substance with the rider that would be an issue. The connection of a prohibited substance to a support person wouldn't break any WADA code.

Other situations a Team Doctor can order, store and administer prohibited substances within the rules are: Illness, Injury, TUE, Emergency etc.


This is why BC having a store of Triamcinolone went no further with UKAD or WADA because it's not against WADA code to have it in their possession unless connected to an athlete directly. In fact there are numerous legal ways to use Triamcinolone in and out of competition too, so storing it would be expected, it's used for injury all the time and riders are busting up themselves all the time, so treatment would be pretty routine, no differently to that rider going to hospital and having a Triamcinolone injection under provision of the hospital doctor instead to aid their recovery, stop swelling, get back to work again etc.
Doctor's will have their own practice where they can store WADA banned substances and provide to non-athletes for medical reasons BUT you must not have these substances on site where athletes train - This is the difference ! To be frank there was no need for Dr Freeman to have testerone or the like at the training venue for the British Track Program - Whether UKAD take action is up to their discretion.
 
No, they don't.

From https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulations/11-jo-20180403-e_english.pdf?sfvrsn=864a0364_24


Letter sent by David Lappartient to national federations on the 4th September 2019


Minsk, Glasgow, Hong Kong or Cambridge would all have been acceptable launches.
Ah ok, it was reported elsewhere simply as teams must register the bikes before for the first world cup event in order that no further technical development takes place between it and the Olympics and so other teams cannot alter designs to copy others.
 
Doctor's will have their own practice where they can store WADA banned substances and provide to non-athletes for medical reasons BUT you must not have these substances on site where athletes train - This is the difference ! To be frank there was no need for Dr Freeman to have testerone or the like at the training venue for the British Track Program - Whether UKAD take action is up to their discretion.
The relationship in 2.6.2 is between the substance and the athlete via the support person. Nowhere is it not explicitly a 1:1 relationship. Clearly a doctor will routinely have a prohibited substance on the bus, in his hotel, at the track, in his office, in the Service Course etc that might be legal for one rider, but would be illegal for another and order in bulk and have to store it where the athlete and him are/train/work/compete.
 
The relationship in 2.6.2 is between the substance and the athlete via the support person. Nowhere is it not explicitly a 1:1 relationship. Clearly a doctor will routinely have a prohibited substance on the bus, in his hotel, at the track, in his office, in the Service Course etc that might be legal for one rider, but would be illegal for another and order in bulk and have to store it where the athlete and him are/train/work/compete.
Ordering 30 sachets of testa gel which is stored at the British Track Cycling headquarters could be considered by UKAD as breaching 2.6.2 - Anyway we can disagree and we'll what transpires with UKAD - I will add that when this case was first made public, I suggested that UKAD's best chance of a conviction was with Dr Freem an - Anyway the Medical Tribunal is more important for Dr Freeman's future.
 
Ordering 30 sachets of testa gel which is stored at the British Track Cycling headquarters could be considered by UKAD as breaching 2.6.2 - Anyway we can disagree and we'll what transpires with UKAD - I will add that when this case was first made public, I suggested that UKAD's best chance of a conviction was with Dr Freem an - Anyway the Medical Tribunal is more important for Dr Freeman's future.
It would be if it exists for a rider, yes.
 
Walsh goes in to bat on this in today’s ST. Behind a paywall but he puts the boot in on Freeman and Brailsford.

‘It is with journalistic embarrassment that I recall this period in my life ... The most important mistake was believing Brailsford when he said he had nothing to hide.’
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
Walsh goes in to bat on this in today’s ST. Behind a paywall but he puts the boot in on Freeman and Brailsford.

‘It is with journalistic embarrassment that I recall this period in my life ... The most important mistake was believing Brailsford when he said he had nothing to hide.’
I wonder who else is going to miraculously jump ship, and who is going to try and keep it afloat.
 

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
Jul 5, 2018
67
66
780
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.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
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"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS