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

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 37 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 11, 2012
10
2
8,535
Varnish has already appealed the decision to the EAT.

How does anything said at the MPTS hearings this week impact her employment status?
I didn't think she had appealed the case. It brings in to question the veracity of the employer/governing body. If they will mislead about the bullying they may mislead about the nature of the working relationship with the riders/employees.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
I didn't think she had appealed the case.
Are you suggesting the Daily Telegraph 's story about her appeal is wrong?
If they will mislead about the bullying they may mislead about the nature of the working relationship with the riders/employees.
Have you actually read the employment tribunal decision? If so, please point to the sections of it that are impacted by what Peters has said.
 
Oct 11, 2012
10
2
8,535
Are you suggesting the Daily Telegraph 's story about her appeal is wrong?

Have you actually read the employment tribunal decision? If so, please point to the sections of it that are impacted by what Peters has said.
You can't believe a word the Daily Telegraph prints so I'd recommend checking another source. My understanding is she has appealed and it hasn't been heard yet.

A statement by Dr Freeman was discounted because he was not present. We do not know what that statement said or if it could have changed the course of the case. However what we now know is the immense pressure Dr Freeman was under. He was ill; undoubtedly bullied and intimidated; did he get any texts persuading him not to attend? Who knows.

Unless you were on the panel or representing any of the parties I'm guessing you wouldn't know either?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
You can't believe a word the Daily Telegraph prints so I'd recommend checking another source. My understanding is she has appealed and it hasn't been heard yet.
You can't believe a word in the Daily Telegraph? FFS, did you read the linked article? I suggest you do. I also suggest not moving the goal posts: I said she had appealed, I made no comment on the status of the appeal. But at least it's good to see your understanding that there is an appeal, as reported by the Telegraph, improving.

Is that as far as you're going with the published decision, , CTRL+F on Freeman's name and the fact that his unsigned statement was dismissed as he didn't attend in person? That that changes everything, that that turns over all the case law actually relied on in reaching the decision? Oh boy....
 
You can't believe a word the Daily Telegraph prints so I'd recommend checking another source. My understanding is she has appealed and it hasn't been heard yet.

A statement by Dr Freeman was discounted because he was not present. We do not know what that statement said or if it could have changed the course of the case. However what we now know is the immense pressure Dr Freeman was under. He was ill; undoubtedly bullied and intimidated; did he get any texts persuading him not to attend? Who knows.

Unless you were on the panel or representing any of the parties I'm guessing you wouldn't know either?

yes you f*cking can
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Oct 11, 2012
10
2
8,535
You can't believe a word in the Daily Telegraph? FFS, did you read the linked article? I suggest you do. I also suggest not moving the goal posts: I said she had appealed, I made no comment on the status of the appeal. But at least it's good to see your understanding that there is an appeal, as reported by the Telegraph, improving.

Is that as far as you're going with the published decision, , CTRL+F on Freeman's name and the fact that his unsigned statement was dismissed as he didn't attend in person? That that changes everything, that that turns over all the case law actually relied on in reaching the decision? Oh boy....
I stopped reading the Telegraph when it was bought by a couple of tax dodgers who chose to interfere with it's editorial independence; but thanks for your advice. I won't take it.

I have focused on what has changed and that is the credibility of the two organisations.

You might have spotted that if you hadn't been concentrating on your big moment in the sun; apologies social media spotlight.

FFS CTRL+F Off :)
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI and GVFTA
I stopped reading the Telegraph when it was bought by a couple of tax dodgers who chose to interfere with it's editorial independence; but thanks for your advice. I won't take it.
The Daily Mail are no different and they were Varnish's biggest cheerleaders. And the source of the jiffy bag story.

Personally when it comes to cycling knowledge I'd pick Tom Carey above Matt Lawton
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Jul 6, 2019
4
1
15
The Daily Mail are no different and they were Varnish's biggest cheerleaders. And the source of the jiffy bag story.

Personally when it comes to cycling knowledge I'd pick Tom Carey above Matt Lawton
Whatndoes David Walsh say aboout this all, he was very loud with Armstrong? Or has he moved on from cycling? Not in the UK, so I have not followed him.
 
Whatndoes David Walsh say aboout this all, he was very loud with Armstrong? Or has he moved on from cycling? Not in the UK, so I have not followed him.
Walsh is quite a bit softer on Ineos than he was on Armstrong and has kinda gone quiet recently. His contemporary Kimmage from back in the Armstrong days is still going all guns blazing though
 
Walsh is quite a bit softer on Ineos than he was on Armstrong and has kinda gone quiet recently.
He's demanding that Freeman must "come clean on cycling’s dark arts and the ‘jiffy bag’ case". He's said recently he was disappointed by the way he allowed himself to be duped by Brailsford, but he's still standing shoulder to shoulder with Froome (they are still tied together by that ghosted autobiog).
 
Thinking ahead to Wednesday. O'Rourke submitted a request for GMC to make a section 35A legal application to the Daily Mail on 8th Nov for Sutton's affidavit with Lawton. This would mean by Friday 22nd they could have it.
Under the Medical Act, Daily Mail have 14 days to provide the document and failure to provide it would then mean GMC can request the County Court to obtain it using the Medical Act on their behalf.
Will Daily Mail delay the tribunal, taking it past 20th December without all the evidence O'Rourke requested for her client through the County Courts, or will they hang Sutton and reveal their jiffybag story isn't to be believed given Sutton's opposite claim under ( effective) oath to Parliament's DCMS?
 
Given he can only not be charged over the Testogel, if the panel decides Sutton's word is less reiable than Freeman's, I would say it is about the most important piece of evidence myself. The MPTS panel will see Sutton claiming to DCMS/Paliament nothing in the jiffybag, no wrongdoing - even taking offence at the suggestion from the DCMS there was any wrongdoing, while all along he's signed the affidavit with Lawton that the Jiffy contains Triamcinolone and the reason they are all there in the first place.

Is there a reputation to uphold for Daily Mail? Obviously Daily Mail are insured against defamation claims but Sutton won't be and if it is revealed Lawton went with a made up contents from Sutton which seems the only possible outcome if they release the affidavit to GMC, is 'that' something they will just let Sutton take the blame and absorb the embarrassment themselves, or will they want to protect their own integrity by fighting in the the Courts with Wiggins? Remember Wiggins has already stated this is with the Courts last year already. I highly doubt Wiggins himself had the power of Medical Act to force Daily Mail to release the affidavit to him though. It has ramifications far beyond Freeman & Sutton for Daily Mail imo.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Walsh is quite a bit softer on Ineos than he was on Armstrong and has kinda gone quiet recently. His contemporary Kimmage from back in the Armstrong days is still going all guns blazing though
Kimmage very rarely writes about cycling these days. His recent clinic related articles have mainly concerned rugby union.
 
all most the same with digger_forum once a regular here, before twitter called.
Digger and co, Twitter seems to reward their tinfoil hatted theories better. They're very much on the fringe of cycling Twitter but, echo chamber that it is, Twitter amplifies their craziness. As do FUD merchants like CT who think their conspiracy theories need to be written about Off Twitter.
 
Reactions: rick james
Digger wants to through mud and *** yet wants to hide behind a stupid mask when on TV....plastic hard man who should have went public if he really believed what he was posting on Twitter
Who is this Digger lad. Google threw up a few articles but nothing about who he is. Is he just a social media poster or someone who was involved in cycling?
 
Kimmage very rarely writes about cycling these days. His recent clinic related articles have mainly concerned rugby union.
I've read a few of them when Ive been able to get my hands on an Independent. As usual he has some great points but his style of mixing facts and emotion often gets in the way if him getting the points across
 
Sam - Freeman has already accepted 18 out of 22 charges brought forward by the GMC - He's contesting the remaining 4 charges - The testagel charge may not have to be proven for him to lose his medical licence.
 
Reactions: GVFTA
The rest is all theatre.
And as has already been noted, O'Rourke's motives for playing the 35A card could have little to do with actually getting access to the contents of the Mail's safe. She could simply have been trying to wind Sutton up (partly, as with the doping allegation, by making clear in public what has been known/suspected in private for ages, that Sutton was the source of the Jiffy bag story). Or she could be using it as a way to derail the tribunal by forcing it to chase the Mail up the legal ladder of appeal and counter appeal. The contents of the safe - that Sutton tells porkies - is already proven. But it is also proven that Freeman tells porkies. How O'Rourke spins Peters's evidence on that regard - that neither Freeman nor Sutton can be trusted, and that the Testogel was more likely for Freeman's personal use than Sutton's - is probably more important at this stage than what is or is not in the Mail's safe.
 
Reactions: yaco and Breezy1985

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS