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

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 35 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So if we optimistically use 10% to make the maths easy, a daily sachet of 50mg is going to give you a weekly effective dose of just 35mg. You also have to factor in that as soon as you start introducing exogenous testosterone the body senses this and responds by reducing production of its own endogenous supplies. This suppression isn't an issue in individuals who are already suppressed through age, illness or other stresses such as high volume endurance training, hence the use of Testogel as a therapeutic aid....but true sports performance enhancement is another matter.
Don't non-sportspeople who receive TRT, including transdermally, get tested for unusually high hematocrit? They're compelled to donate blood whenever their RBC is too high (because it's a health risk). Besides recovery, elevated RBC would be an ergogenic aid for cyclists.

Bodybuilders typically seek supra-physiological blood serum testosterone, but cyclists probably just want to keep in the normal/upper normal range, despite high intensity/volume training and under-eating. I don't believe there's evidence that supra-physiological test levels assist in endurance performance.
 
I
Don't non-sportspeople who receive TRT, including transdermally, get tested for unusually high hematocrit? They're compelled to donate blood whenever their RBC is too high (because it's a health risk). Besides recovery, elevated RBC would be an ergogenic aid for cyclists.

Bodybuilders typically seek supra-physiological blood serum testosterone, but cyclists probably just want to keep in the normal/upper normal range, despite high intensity/volume training and under-eating. I don't believe there's evidence that supra-physiological test levels assist in endurance performance.
im not so sure about those receiving TRT, where the aim is just to reestablish ‘normal levels’...I wouldn’t expect the sort of doseages used to raise RBC too high but I guess individuals react differently so I’d imagine it’s not unheard of. But in bodybuilders it’s definetely an issue at higher doses and yes I’ve heard and read about people commonly giving blood to keep their hct levels down.

I think the main reason anyone engaged in endurance sports is going to want to avoid higher doses is the weight gain...there are certainly performance gains to be had from boosting t levels way above normal, but you’re quickly going to gain at least 8-10 lbs (mostly from water retention) within a couple of weeks of starting a serious cycle and for most endurance athletes that’s not good..
 
Why isn’t Freeman just taking one for the team, like, say, Cope? Surely SDB could have bought him off. Will it be he who becomes the Floyd of UK Cycling? Or does he tip Shane over the edge to achieve the same effect?
 
^^Judging from what I read today, I think it worked.

Seriously, what a sh**show. Once again, doping brings everyone down.

Freeman might be more like the Millar of UK Cycling, if that makes any sense. Though I do sense a tip of the iceberg emerging from the depths, just wish Freeman was a more credible witness. But I guess, like Floyd, you take what you can get.
 
The spiel will be that Sutton asked Freeman to order the Testogel ostensibly for personal use, and Sutton was the one who forced it onto the poor, naive riders using knowledge gained while riding with those dirty continentals.

Wait and see.
An interestingly similar story to this possible version of events is told pretty well by Tony Cascarino about his time at Marseille. He talks about doctors assuring that "vitamins" that would make him foam at the mouth and other side affects been taken through the year and he was always suspicious but willing to go against his better judgement and believe the professional doctor
 
Hi all. A long time since I posted around here, but wondering if you can help me understand this tribunal more clearly?

I only dipped into this yesterday, so I've missed points. But from what I can make out the GMC charge is that Freeman was doping a rider, and Freeman's defense is that, no, he ordered the testosterone to treat Sutton's erectile dysfunction?

Sutton, meanwhile, was a witness for the GMC, trying to undermine that defense?

So I'm a bit confused by the tenor of the comments here, which seems to imply that Freeman and his lawyers are the good guys fighting for truth? Surely if Freeman wins on this point it undermines the case for Sky doping with the testosterone, as they'll be accepting it was for Sutton's bits?

If anyone can explain what is going on here, and who we should be cheering for, I'd appreciate it!
 
I now think it’s a double act between Freeman and Shane to feign conflict, shout a lot and exit pursued by a bear, leaving the tribunal unable to conclude on doping. Yes the test turned up but ...

Freeman may sacrifice his medical career but perhaps it was going down the pan anyway (look how Shane got in the message about him supposedly turning up .... ‘unprepared’). He’s of retirement age anyway, I think, and the two of them could get a bung from the boss if they keep the smoke and mirrors act going for another year or two.
 
Hi all. A long time since I posted around here, but wondering if you can help me understand this tribunal more clearly?

I only dipped into this yesterday, so I've missed points. But from what I can make out the GMC charge is that Freeman was doping a rider, and Freeman's defense is that, no, he ordered the testosterone to treat Sutton's erectile dysfunction?

Sutton, meanwhile, was a witness for the GMC, trying to undermine that defense?

So I'm a bit confused by the tenor of the comments here, which seems to imply that Freeman and his lawyers are the good guys fighting for truth? Surely if Freeman wins on this point it undermines the case for Sky doping with the testosterone, as they'll be accepting it was for Sutton's bits?

If anyone can explain what is going on here, and who we should be cheering for, I'd appreciate it!
Cheer for GMC. Both Freeman and Sutton are ***. Freeman ordered illegal drugs and pushed people to cover it up and if the texts that Sutton hasn't actually denied are true he knew about it. An arrogant ass like Sutton was always gonna come out swinging when hearing he couldn't get it up so I assume that was designed to drag the case into farce. And as for Sutton we didn't need this tribunal to know he's a ***
 
To make it even more confusing, there was this passage in the CN story yesterday:

“I am prepared to take a lie detector test. Who is lying? The guy who isn’t prepared to look his friend in the eye. This is a guy who came to hospital when I had bleeding on the brain when he had no reason to. To me he is a bloody good doctor and a friend,” Sutton said of Freeman.
I totally don't get that statement, but no one seems to have pointed out how little sense it makes. He describes Freeman as a good doctor and his friend, right after saying Freeman is a liar. And that passage is followed by:

"I’ve spent two days waiting to come up here. I’ve come and told the truth. I’ve taken your bullying, your gutter tactics in the press. You've accused me of all kinds of things. I’m going to leave now. I don’t need to go through this *** fight," Sutton was reported as saying, attacking Freeman, who was sat near him but behind a screen after being deemed to be a vulnerable witness.

"The head of BC wanted him out, he turned up to work several times drunk, he was like a Scarlet Pimpernel. I had two critical cases when I couldn’t get hold of him."

"You’re spineless individual," Sutton directed at Freeman.
Hello? Sutton describes Freeman as a good doctor, then says he came to work drunk. Either CN totally misquoted Sutton, or Sutton is insane, and CN didn't point that out.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I read all that and wondered WTF is going on.

And it seems an odd thing to do as a double act to deflect attention - why not just admit to what Freeman claimed?
Probably because what Freeman is claiming isn't true, and his legal team are taking advantage of Sutton's volatile personality.

Ew. I can't believe I'm defending Shane f-ing Sutton. That's how messed up this has gotten.
 
Jul 4, 2016
234
12
3,060
The *** show is back on today. Sutton is not here and Freeman is not here after an "adverse reaction" to Sutton's "testimony". At the moment they're having talks about talks with Dr Peters.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS