Is it? Would it not just relate to him checking up on why Sutton might be demanding he provide it and if the reason was legitimate?The laptop searches...low T in endurance athletes etc?
In the context of this whole saga that’s a pretty tough one for him to explain and reconcile with the rest of his testimony
Do you mean this:
I don't really know the specifics of the search, or the timing of it....my point is that in the context of what he's actually being charged with ie. ordering synthetic testosterone knowing it was likely to be used by an Athlete, then when you add recorded searches relating to endurance athletes and testosterone levels then it looks highly suspicious.It's actually not. There are legit ways of boosting T.
But ... but ... but ... you mean it wasn't you who said this: "In the context of this whole saga that’s a pretty tough one for him to explain and reconcile with the rest of his testimony"?I don't really know the specifics of the search
Oh i looked at the story...it referenced searches relating to Viagra a month before the Testogel order, and undated and vague reports of searches relating to testosterone levels and endurance athletes.But ... but ... but ... you mean it wasn't you who said this: "In the context of this whole saga that’s a pretty tough one for him to explain and reconcile with the rest of his testimony"?
Do you often toss in an opinion without having looked at the story? Just so as I know for future reference...
It is one of their stronger cards because it's not the weak-ass crap they appeared to be trying to play with putting Shane Sutton in the dock to say "it weren't for me, guv!" The MPTS case that the Testogel was for doping - better still, their claim that it was for micro-dosing - is weak. So weak that this is one of their stronger cards.Why don't you explain your comment 'one of the stronger cards' if you dont think the laptop data is difficult for Freeman to counter?
But they only specifically reference that to the research on the Viagra....https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/testosterone-research-found-on-freemans-laptop-tribunal-told/
Research took place the month before ordering the testogel.
Fair enough...It is one of their stronger cards because it's not the weak-ass crap they appeared to be trying to play with putting Shane Sutton in the dock to say "it weren't for me, guv!" The MPTS case that the Testogel was for doping - better still, their claim that it was for micro-dosing - is weak. So weak that this is one of their stronger cards.
Just because the GMC present the evidence doesn't mean it'll swing the (doping element of the) case for them. Just because Freeman dismisses the evidence doesn't mean it'll swing the (doping element of the) case for him.
They didn't find evidence to pursue a formal case partly because of the lies told to them by Freeman when answering their questions.If so, and if they didn't deem this 'evidence' to be strong enough to pursue any kind of formal case then i guess that's quite telling in terms of any solid links to the Testogel order
First, and foremost, you're perfectly correct to note that a sport doctor should be looking at the effects that their sport has on health. To that end, they should be looking at testosterone levels. (Which of the Walsh books is it has a story of one of the Motorola riders coming into a team hotel during the Tour - I think this was before they started their programme - and pointing to a kid in the hotel foyer and saying his testsoterone levels were lower than that kid's? The 1993 one, Inside the Tour de France?)A sport doctor should be looking at the effects that his sport has on health. So that's not unusual. And the fact that additional testosterone boosts performance is common knowledge even to the dumbest people. So why would he look these things up if he's intending to dope? There's nothing to learn from those papers
Now if he had been looking up detectable doses or 'glow times' then that's a different matter. But the idea that one or two multi-million pound teams would entrust a doping progamme to someone who needs to google how to do it seems a bit of a stretch.
BBCFollowing on from Wednesday's sitting where it was claimed Freeman had researched testosterone-boosting drugs a month before he made the order, the credibility of Sutton's evidence was debated on another day when legal argument dominated proceedings.
But after hearing from anti-doping expert Professor Cowan, and with only one more GMC witness to be called, O'Rourke said: "The GMC has no evidence to support its case, even as amended."
She also told the tribunal that Sutton's evidence, which was cut short after he left the hearing, should not be submitted because he was an unreliable witness.
To address these points in order. Why the doping angle? Because media and politicians got involved. If Freeman was a doctor on cruise ship, for example, he'd be quietly admonished or pushed into retirement. They don't want to set an unwanted precedent.I don't think the GMC are anywhere near proving their argument that the Testogel was for the doping of an athlete - for the micro-dosing of an athlete! - and personally I don't understand why the GMC are trying to wrap Freeman's misconduct charges up with that ribbon (evidence? or hubris?) but one thing that does bother me in this is Peters' assertions that you wouldn't do it this way if you were doing doping and O'Rourke's assertions that you wouldn't do it this way if you were doing doping. Why couldn't doping be this banal?
From the get go, from the time all the chest thumping started and all the ethically purer than thou nonsense commenced, some people have allowed that Sky probably did start off trying to be clean (even Paul Kimmage has said that). Many of those people also said that if there was doping it would be at the edges of legality, excursions across the thin blue line into the grey area, sometimes into outright illegality but only of the sort that was too tempting not to. The DCMS anonymous whistleblower, a lot of what they said suggests that Freeman was doing some form of basic récup (why they brought Bartolucci in to do a récup programme if this was this case is another story), that the extra contents of the Jiffy bag was needles and B12. That Sky's "doping programme" (if one exists/existed) might be pretty banal - when compared with the glory of the EPO years - is not beyond imagination.
Accepting the possibility that the banality of it all should not be ruled out - that we shouldn't be expecting it to fit a particular and possibly inaccurate image of what doping looks like - reconsider the likelihood of doing interweb searches on Testogel in 2011. That's actually a good time to be doing interweb searches on Testogel. Cause that's when the no needles policy was coming in and you might want to be considering testosterone in a gel.
Is this what happened? I don't know. But ruling it out cause it's too banal ... I'm sorry, I'm not buying that either.
Sure, plenty of people could come up with a better plan, but many of these things happen without a plan, they're things that circumstances etc drag you into.Banal? I'd say inept, amateur, clueless. Plenty of posters on here could come up with a better plan. And why would you stop using needles because a UCI rule prevented it and replace it with something banned by WADA?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Was there ever any doubt? (British Cycling's eSports National Champion caught weight doping with a bot!)||The Clinic||15|
|Vuelta Dope Bust!!||The Clinic||11|
|D||The funny way Impey avoided a doping ban||The Clinic||5|
|F||Doping in the Enduro World Series||The Clinic||3|
|Doping in Austria||The Clinic||146|