ShockedSutton is not coming back.
Next up is the Monkey Mind. Lets she what bollocks he talks
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
ShockedSutton is not coming back.
Result for O Rourke I’d say if her primary intention was to cast doubt on the character and integrity of Sutton...Sutton is not coming back.
Neither Freeman nor Sutton have any integrity left. It remains to be seen who is going to sink with them.Result for O Rourke I’d say if her primary intention was to cast doubt on the character and integrity of Sutton...
Shocked
Next up is the Monkey Mind. Lets she what bollocks he talks
You seem to have a real downer on Peters....any reason for this other than his association with Sky/BC?Shocked
Next up is the Monkey Mind. Lets she what bollocks he talks
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 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’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.
Probably because what Freeman is claiming isn't true, and his legal team are taking advantage of Sutton's volatile personality.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?
Sutton looks like the kind of guy would burn the whole world down to defend the honour of his penisYes, 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?
You seem to have a real downer on Peters....any reason for this other than his association with Sky/BC?
Just curious...
Peters is hanging Freeman out to dry.
There is a major problem with instapundity like that: it misses what is actually being said.Peters is hanging Freeman out to dry.
There is a major problem with instapundity like that: it misses what is actually being said.
Freeman's testimony today looks like it's causing more damage to British Cycling as an institution than any one individual (with the possible expectation of the indirect damage this is doing to Brailsford).
Aye, but let's not think Peters is the hero today. He's the one saying you can't entertain the thought that the Testogel was for an athlete as that hangs a cloud over too many good people. Years ago, a British judge, Lord Denning, using a similar line to keep the Birmingham Six in gaol, saying it was an appalling vista to imagine the police fitted them up. For a man who has preached the need to get your emotional side under control by spanking the monkey, you'd imagine he'd be rational and not make such an emotive judgement. But then, given his lack of curiosity when Freeman claimed Sutton told him to order the Testogel, perhaps this is the norm with him.MASSIVE Damage. Win at all costs.
Yes, Wise One. It's been great fun watching British Cycling getting flushed down the toilet.There is a major problem with instapundity like that: it misses what is actually being said.
Freeman's testimony today looks like it's causing more damage to British Cycling as an institution than any one individual (with the possible expectation of the indirect damage this is doing to Brailsford).
Serious question here: Freeman suggests that there are two alternatives for the Testogel order, either it was for Freeman's personal use, or it was for Sutton's personal use.
What that means is that goods for personal use were being ordered on the BC credit card (well, accounts payable department or whatever). In normal organisations, you'd expect an employee to have to first of all have permission to do this, and to then recompense their employer for the expense. If this happened in this case, the audit trail would be clear and we'd know whose personal use the Testogel was for. Thing is, we don't. So it wasn't declared as personal use.
Not being declared for personal use doesn't mean it was for a rider. It could be a case of a very lax expenses policy. In which case, British Cycling licence holders should be asking questions about how their money was spent. And HMRC should be asking questions about whether BIK has been properly declared by BC staffers.