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

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 36 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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).
 
Reactions: MartinGT
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).
MASSIVE Damage. Win at all costs.
 
MASSIVE Damage. Win at all costs.
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.
 
Reactions: MartinGT
Jul 4, 2016
235
12
3,060
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).
Yes, Wise One. It's been great fun watching British Cycling getting flushed down the toilet.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Serious question here: Freeman Peters 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.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TheSpud
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.
Why do you assume it was paid for with a BC card? We know Freeman was running a private clinic part time from the site. He could use his own business credit card.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Why do you assume it was paid for with a BC card? We know Freeman was running a private clinic part time from the site. He could use his own business credit card.
Daily Mail:
On a Day Two it also emerged that a debit for the Testogel still existed on British Cycling's account with Fit4Sport and there was also a brief discussion over whether Viagra was only used by those with erectile dysfunction.
 
Does anyone else feel deeply uncomfortable with, Peters, a psychiatrist, discussing in such a casual way, Freemans mental health ?


I was skeptical about the reasons for Freeman disappearing, & sending a sicknote for any attempts to investigate this stuff; but now it seems BC has decided to use his mental state as a weapon against him.

It's a very shabby way to treat a vulnerable person :mad:
 
Reactions: 42x16ss
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
Sutton seems to have been a law to himself at BC. There were rumours about little blue pills for him way before the incident that kicked off this case. There were allegations of team kit being sold via Ebay by a cycle shop based under his flat in Manchester. In the 1980's there were question marks and rumours re performance. All of these are irrelevant without facts and evidence.

What is clear is Freeman is an ill man and whatever the rights and wrongs of his behaviour it is clear he felt intimidated by Sutton and would be unable to stand up to him if he was asked to do something untoward. As stated yesterday it is highly unlikely that these patches were used to dope riders; too easy to detect and having them delivered and stored in a BC cupboard is just ridiculous.

It is clear that the tribunal prosecution are not only after Freeman they are desperate to show that this gear was used for doping; you'd have to ask them why, because everything indicates that is not the case. The innocents in this shambles are the riders whose reputations have been tainted by the behaviour of some dodgy coaches and a weak doctor.

The real victim of the culture at British Cycling has been Jess Varnish; discarded by a bullying coach who has produced no evidence to show her performance was in decline and stitched up by an investigation that didn't bother to interview Steve Peters, and that changed most of it's findings when the accused got their legal right to review.

Such is the life of women in sport; it was expedient to dump Varnish; after all who will really care she was unfortunate to miss out on a medal in 2012, she'll be portrayed as weak and unable to take the pressures of elite sport and just can't meet the reasonable demands of the coaches.

We now know from Peters' testimony yesterday that Sutton was an aggressive bully who intimidated Burt and Freeman; many of the riders couldn't cope with his outbursts and behaviour and Peters had to intervene to manage this situation regularly. Single handed Peters has vindicated Varnish; it is now clear that she has told the truth throughout.

Varnish is a clear victim here; as probably are other riders and staff. Peters has now lifted the lid on what was a sham investigation at BC that all but exonerated Sutton (yet he still left BC?) and implied Varnish was a liar. I hope she kicks off legal action now the truth has become public and she gets the justice she deserves.
 
We now know from Peters' testimony yesterday that Sutton was an aggressive bully who intimidated Burt and Freeman; many of the riders couldn't cope with his outbursts and behaviour and Peters had to intervene to manage this situation regularly. Single handed Peters has vindicated Varnish; it is now clear that she has told the truth throughout.

Varnish is a clear victim here; as probably are other riders and staff. Peters has now lifted the lid on what was a sham investigation at BC that all but exonerated Sutton (yet he still left BC?) and implied Varnish was a liar. I hope she kicks off legal action now the truth has become public and she gets the justice she deserves.
And his statement, that he knew about Sutton's behaviour, now opens up, both BC & Sky to a whole series of legal actions now; as he has admitted he knew one of his reporting employees was bullying people,& he did nothing about it !

This could get very expensive for BC & Sky !!
 
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
Could you explain how, please?
Potentially any "victims" of bullying will have a much stronger case for compensation if the responsible manager knew he had a bully working for him / in his organisation and the victim can demonstrate harm to health or career caused by the bullying. In any organisation we are all obliged to speak up if we see or suspect bullying; particularly if you are in management.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI and GVFTA
Potentially any "victims" of bullying will have a much stronger case for compensation if the responsible manager knew he had a bully working for him / in his organisation and the victim can demonstrate harm to health or career caused by the bullying. In any organisation we are all obliged to speak up if we see or suspect bullying; particularly if you are in management.
Yes, but who are the "potential" victims and how much is the compo?

First, and foremost, we've already established it's not the riders. Thank Jess Varnish for clarifying that for us.

Second, what's the compo for mental anguish caused by bullying? A couple of grand or so.

So, a small number of potential victims, multiplied by a small individual potential claim, that doesn't multiply into "very expensive for BC & Sky", now does it?
 
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
So Sutton and Freeman had a "monumental" falling out over a flight back from the Cali World Cup after Freeman suffered a family bereavement. That's an interesting one, most organisations move heaven and earth to get someone home in such circumstances; the detail of that may be interesting.
 
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
Yes, but who are the "potential" victims and how much is the compo?

First, and foremost, we've already established it's not the riders. Thank Jess Varnish for clarifying that for us.

Second, what's the compo for mental anguish caused by bullying? A couple of grand or so.

So, a small number of potential victims, multiplied by a small individual potential claim, that doesn't multiply into "very expensive for BC & Sky", now does it?
Up until this week there had been no acknowledged bullying; it is now clear that the investigation was a sham and the bullying was rife.

Therefore there may well be a number of people who feel they have been bullied but, as is often in these cases, feel too bullied and intimidated to stand up for themselves. They may take some confidence now a senior member of management has confirmed it was going on and may do something about it.

After all Jess Varnish has stood up for herself and has had to deal with the whole of BC and Sport England attempting to shut her up; bullying at the highest levels in my view.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
So Sutton and Freeman had a "monumental" falling out over a flight back from the Cali World Cup after Freeman suffered a family bereavement. That's an interesting one, most organisations move heaven and earth to get someone home in such circumstances; the detail of that may be interesting.
+ on top of that, I'm struggling to understand why Sutton would give a stuff? Does he sign the cheques, control the budget? It feels like bullying for the sake of it which fits into the character that is being painted.

In general, certainly O'Rourke has done a good job to try and demonstrate that the culture was such that Freeman was effectively co-erced into doing what he did. Diminished responsibility if you like.

Its up to the individual to decide to what extent they believe this is true.
 
Reactions: timberlad
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
The drugs are now a side show; the issue is the acceptance of the bullying by senior BC personnel and general culture of BC at that time.

UK Sport need to re-open their investigations and so do the parliamentary sports and culture committee. This is a monumental cover up by British Cycling and they need to be brought to account and the bullies and liars, if they are still there, thrown out.
 
In general, certainly O'Rourke has done a good job to try and demonstrate that the culture was such that Freeman was effectively co-erced into doing what he did. Diminished responsibility if you like.
I think the defence has a similar problem to the prosecution. The GMC have stuck their neck out by seeking to put some icing on the cake and prove doping. O'Rourke has gone for bullying.

Peters is damaging to both insofar as he suggests the Testogel was more likely for Freeman's own personal use, that he'd have known if it was for Sutton, and appearing to hint that Freeman might have had reason to need it.

Burt, I'm not sure he's helped either side, the bullying he was aware of came four years after the Testogel order. So, as it looks today, the GMC have failed to prove doping, even on a balance of probabilities, but O'Rourke has failed to prove the Testogel was for Sutton.

The witnesses are done, there's still another month of this allowed for, I guess we have to wait and see next how O'Rourke and the GMC each try to spin the witness evidence.

Oh, and by the end of next week we should know whether the Daily Mail is going to comply with the 35A application or tell O'Rourke to stuff it. If the latter, O'Rourke could have already achieved what she wanted with that (winding Sutton up) or she could stretch this way into the future by insisting the Mail be chased through the courts.

UKAD don't need the GMC to prove the Testogel was for an athlete in order to revisit their initial investigation, the fact that Freeman lied to them may leave them no choice in that regard.

Nothing that's come up impacts the decision in the Jess Varnish employment tribunal case but she and the other riders will at least have the satisfaction of seeing all this more fully out in the open.

Damian Collins has found more profitable PR opportunities to be busying himself with (Facebook etc) and has little here to add to his DCMS doping in sport report.

UK Sport have already judged British Cycling's governance, found it to be wanting and recommended changes. So I don't see Peters's evidence causing many sleepless nights in that regard. His evidence does, though, fundamentally impact the narrative associated with the medal factory, and with Brailsford personally. But, with Tokyo only eight months away, there's time enough to get over that before being swept up in the Olympic narrative again. Especially with the Trotts set to become the most successful golden couple in the whole history of Olympics if they add just two more golds to their collective tally.

Not much, then, has changed, but more is out in the open.
 
Reactions: timberlad
Oct 11, 2012
14
3
8,535
Nothing that's come up impacts the decision in the Jess Varnish employment tribunal case but she and the other riders will at least have the satisfaction of seeing all this more fully out in the open.
I believe Jess Varnish still has the opportunity to appeal this case and although on the surface the evidence isn't directly relevant what it has done is totally undermined the credibility of the investigation in to Jess Varnish's grievances.

What that damages is the credibility of the very witnesses and organisations who contested the tribunal and won. Therefore if they covered up the truth of the investigation, and both Peters and Burt's testimony indicated bullying was rife, then arguably can you believe the testimony provided to the employment tribunal?

If she can demonstrate the culture delivered a far more controlling and extreme employer; employee relationship then there is an argument that says she was an employee and should be compensated for her dismissal or even better, if she wishes, brought back in to the fold to deliver the medals that she was capable of winning.
 
I believe Jess Varnish still has the opportunity to appeal this case and although on the surface the evidence isn't directly relevant what it has done is totally undermined the credibility of the investigation in to Jess Varnish's grievances.
Varnish has already appealed the decision to the EAT.

How does anything said at the MPTS hearings this week impact her employment status?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts