CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[brownbobby]

Arising from that, a geek question here, for those who are clued up on this topic: in 2011 there was no steroid part of the ABP so in theory you had more freedom to mess about with your T levels than, say, with your red blood cells. T has an impact on red blood cells, yes? Is that impact noticeable in the ABP's blood module? And is the effect different for injections and topical application?

(Or - in more general terms - why do cyclists use patches and gels when, as established upthread, injections are more efficient? Glow time?)

I don't have any specific research to hand to back it up, but certainly anecdotally bodybuilders (obviously taking much higher doses) have had problems with dangerously high Hct levels when using Test (amongst other AAS) but im not so sure this would be an issue at the sort of doesages cyclists are reported to have used.

I think the question over why patches/gels over injections again comes down to doseages....typically injectable testosterone will come in oil dosed at between 200-400mg/ml. This is good for the kind of doseages used for strength and size gains where the typical user will inject twice per week to get doseage in the 400-800mg per week range....but as discussed upthread i think most pro cyclists would want to avoid going over 100mg per week due to the weight gains associated, with doses spread out daily to reduce glow time....you could see how it would be problematic/impractical to draw up such small doses of oil based T for injection....and if you're getting the dose you need/want from the gels then it makes sense to avoid the added risks that would come with daily injections.

 

[fmk_RoI]

News from Manchester - quelle surprise, the Daily Mail didn't hand over the contents of their safe and a decision is to be made on what happens next (a long, slow climb up the legal ladder that'll take the tribunal well past its scheduled end date of Dec 20th, or something else):

BBC report:

On Friday, O'Rourke said she had received an acknowledgement from the Daily Mail but described that as "inadequate", adding: "We have asked the GMC to pursue an obtaining order and they are still considering their position."

She also said that her client, Dr Freeman, was keen that the tribunal did not "drag out" should the alleged document itself become the subject of litigation.

The tribunal, which has already been hampered by legal argument, is set to conclude on 20 December.

 

[samhocking]

If Daily Mail resist 35A then they are perverting the course of justice as that's part of the medical act and it ends up a criminal matter for them in Court I believe. If they sacrifice their Editors embarrassment Sutton and Lawton made up the jiffy contents, Daily Mail escape with probably only the PCC to deal with and Sutton potentially takes all the heat for Perjury.
The defamation claims will be interesting if PCC decide Daily Mail didn't follow editors code of practice and Courts find Sutton guilty.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If Daily Mail resist 35A then they are perverting the course of justice as that's part of the medical act and it ends up a criminal matter for them in Court I believe. If they sacrifice their Editors embarrassment Sutton and Lawton made up the jiffy contents, Daily Mail escape with probably only the PCC to deal with and Sutton potentially takes all the heat for Perjury.
The defamation claims will be interesting if PCC decide Daily Mail didn't follow editors code of practice and Courts find Sutton guilty.

Oh Sam. You're so funny. Newspapers not giving up their sources is considered proper journalistic practice, you know that as well as the rest of us do, so cut the crap, all this spinning is dizzying.

Also, where's the perjury? Collins would like the power to make telling porkies to Commons Committees perjury, but currently it's not.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Contempt of Court. Section 10 of the 1981 Act:

Sources of Information
No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

 

[Parker]

Also, where's the perjury? Collins would like the power to make telling porkies to Commons Committees perjury, but currently it's not.

And quite right too. Commons Committees aren't the law and they have little accountability into what they want to investigate, who they call and the relevance of what they ask.

 

[samhocking]

MPTS operates as a Civil Court. Affidavit will be Daily Mails insurance to run Suttons story without any evidence, just his word legally. 35A is part of the Medical Act. To not provide the document under 35A becomes a criminal act of withholding evidence to a Court.
Sutton has said opposite to DCMS he has to Lawton under oath. That then is Perjury if a lie under oath. If a lie to DCMS, the truth to Lawton, Sutton is potentially very stuck legally as is Daily Mail with PCC if Sutton decides to admit he lied to Lawton.

 

[samhocking]

Contempt of Court. Section 10 of the 1981 Act:

Medical Act 1983 is what you need to be looking at also fmk. It allows a Court Order.

(6A) If a person fails to supply any information or produce any document within 14 days of his being required to do so under subsection (1) above, the General Council may seek an order of the relevant court requiring the information to be supplied or the document to be produced.

This will be GC today requesting the document through a higher Court. ie through the Crown Court. If Daily Mail wishes to withhold the document then 'disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice' becomes relevant and of course they will have to ignore a Court Order. The Medical Act is part of the justice system and so therefore is the GC requiring that evidence for it to proceed using 35A via Court Order.

The consequences for breaching a Court Order include imprisonment and high financial penalties.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Medical Act 1983 is what you need to be looking at also fmk. It allows a Court Order.

This I had to point out many days ago at this stage to Sam. But if he thinks that the protection afforded journalists is somehow trumped by the Medical Act then what can I say, he's obviously the expert here.

Sam's expertise, however, doesn't extend to actually having read the Medical Act. If he had he'd know that the matter - if it is to be taken further and not just dropped - needs to be taken to the county court, not as he's just authoritatively told us "through the Crown Court."

Affidavit will be Daily Mails insurance to run Suttons story without any evidence

Sam keeps calling the alleged contents of the Mail's safe an affidavit. Why? Does he know something Freeman's QC doesn't know? Because she refers to it as "a witness statement or an affidavit" - she is unsure which and there is a difference between the two.

If we for a moment assumed it was an affidavit, it would only count as perjury if used in a judicial proceeding. Which, so far, it hasn't been.

Sutton has said opposite to DCMS he has to Lawton under oath. That then is Perjury if a lie under oath

Again there's the claim that what Sutton said is under oath. A claim not fully supported by what Freeman's QC has actually said. If the "lie under oath" relates to the alleged contents of the Mail's safe, well as has already been said, if it does prove to be an affidavit, it's only perjury if used in a judicial proceeding, which - one more time - so far it has not yet been. If the "lie under oath" relates to Sutton's DCMS evidence, let's make this clear one more time too: Collins wants the power to make telling porkies to Commons Committees perjury, he doesn't currently have it.

So, no perjury, despite what Rumpole of the Velodrome insists.

How 'bout we park all this nit-picking of Sam's evident expertise for a moment and cut to the quick: what is he actually trying to demonstrate here? That the Jiffy bag story was a lie, that there was no Jiffy bag? Cause, you know, I think the boat has sailed on that one. Is he trying to prove that Sutton lied to the DCMS when he said he had "no knowledge that any laws were broken or any anti-doping trafficking regulations were breached"? Cause, well, honestly, I'm not sure that's a good place to be going. Is he trying to say Sutton can't be believed? Personally, I think Sutton himself said that far more eloquently and entertainingly than any formulation Sam has come up with yet.

So, what's the point, the vain hope that Wiggins will come good on his word and actually sue the Mail, and run the risk of a lot worse coming out in the wash? That'd be about as clever as Oscar Wilde doing the Marquess of Queensberry for libel. But without the hope that Wiggins's next book would come even close to Reading Gaol.

Or is it about somehow trying to recover Wiggins's image? If it is it's quite counterproductive, cause so far Wiggins is being kept well out of this story, with the exception of Sam's Trojan efforts to link him to it.

 

[samhocking]

The 14 days already passed on Friday fmk. 'Now' the General Council can request the same documents using a 'Court Order' from a higher Court to progress things if GMC agrees. That would be Crown Court I believe. Sure, Daily Mail can ignore a Crown Court Order and deal with that fallout instead of the fallout from providing the document. There is no protection afforded to journalists when a Court Order is being used as far as I know?

Mary O’Rourke, the QC acting for Freeman, said:

"the affidavit was held in the managing editor of the newspaper’s safe as an insurance policy against any potential claims for defamation by Sir Bradley Wiggins, Freeman or Sir Dave Brailsford and that it contained a number of lies. The statement came into existence in or around September or October 2016 and it is a statement made by Mr Sutton for the purposes of supporting a story run by the Daily Mail and its then chief sports correspondent Matt Lawton,”

O’Rourke added.
“Its relation to this proceeding is in fact it contains a number of lies. It is totally inconsistent with evidence Mr Sutton subsequently gave to the DCMS inquiry in parliament where he will have given evidence under the position of being on oath.”

Sutton's witness statement to DCMS was under effective oath. ie, should it be used in a Criminal matter, it is a statement that can be used to prove perjury. There is no way if the affidivit is Lawton's insurance policy it will match Suttons statements on video to DCMS which claim the entire opposite of the jiffybag story.

 

[fmk_RoI]

That would be Crown Court I believe.

Sam wants to go on belief, or Faith. The law doesn't.

(6A)If a person fails to supply any information or produce any document within 14 days of his being required to do so under subsection (1) above, the General Council may seek an order of the relevant court requiring the information to be supplied or the document to be produced.

(6B)For the purposes of subsection (6A), “the relevant court” means the county court

There is no protection afforded to journalists.

More Faith based law?

Sources of Information
No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

It is for a court to decide if disclosure is "necessary in the interests of justice" (should the GMC not decide that first and throw the 35A request in the bin).

Sutton's witness statement to DCMS was under effective oath. ie, should it be used in a Criminal matter, it is a statement that can be used to prove perjury.

Sam knows more about Commons Committes than Damian Collins does. Go Sam.

 

[samhocking]

Crown Court or County Court, there still is no legal process to ignore it without further consequences fmk. They can ignore the 14 days, that's simply General Council request. Daily Mail can't ignore a Court Order simply because they are a newspaper.

Failure to obey a Court Order is contempt of court. Contempt of Court is punishable by fine or imprisonment

 

[fmk_RoI]

Crown Court or County Court, there still is no legal process to ignore it without further consequences fmk. They can ignore the 14 days, that's simply General Council request. Daily Mail can't ignore a Court Order simply because they are a newspaper.

Failure to obey a Court Order is contempt of court. Contempt of Court is punishable by fine or imprisonment

Oh Sam. You said it was Crown Court. Your error was pointed out. You insisted you were right. Your error was again pointed out. Now you say there's no difference? Ha!

The legal consequences are clear: if the GMC pursue the matter, it goes to court. One side loses. What happens next we can guess but most of us would be guessing it'd be an appeal, by whichever side loses. And slowly the appeal ladder will climb, one side or the other challenging the result, to the bitter end of the appeals process. Will the last appeal go against the Mail? They have a legitimate, legally enshrined protection to not submit to O'Rourke's request and failing to protect that right is not something they are likely to do lightly. No journalist would. Well, except Isabel Oakeshott maybe.

 

[samhocking]

You mean General Council, not GMC? General Council is I assume the Chief lawyer and has already requested the affidavit on behalf of O'Rourke, not the GMC have. Now the General Council lawyer decide/request through a higher court as 14 days have passed according to the below.

6A) If a person fails to supply any information or produce any document within 14 days of his being required to do so under subsection (1) above, the General Council may seek an order of the relevant court requiring the information to be supplied or the document to be produced.

As you say this will be a County Court Order. Daily Mail will still be in contempt if they refuse to act on a County Court Order. They probably will then go to court claiming what you say, but that's still hypothetical, we're not at that stage yet.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Daily Mail will still be in contempt if they refuse to act on a County Court Order. They probably will then go to court claiming what you say, but that's still hypothetical, we're not at that stage yet.

And if they go to court Sam, they can rely on the protection afforded to them by the Contempt of Court Act, protection which you have time and again in the last few hours said they don't have. Third time of tell you this bit:

Sources of Information
No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

It is for a court to decide if "disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice" and that is not something decided lightly, given its consequences. That is not the "Daily Mail will still be in contempt if they refuse to act on a County Court Order".

Hypotheticals are better than the fallacious certainty you've been trying to mislead people with.

 

[fmk_RoI]

You mean General Council, not GMC? General Council is I assume the Chief lawyer

Maybe you could read something before spouting assumptions, Sam, or is that too much to ask?

(1) There shall continue to be a body corporate known as the General Medical Council (in this Act referred to as “the General Council”) having the functions assigned to them by this Act.

 

[samhocking]

I think you're dismissing the additional powera Court Order has for requesting information for the 'Medical Act' & simply journalists not having to disclose their sources myself. If a medical tribunal completing isn't in the interest of justice and the medical act being applied for both GMC & Freeman, then I'm not sure what would be considered an interest in justice myself when it's still only about Sutton's v Freeman's credibility a panel can decide on and will require more than a few .pdfs and both to be liars.

Lets see what Daily Mail do. I think they will just hang Sutton to mop up. They are protected legally, they have Sutton's signature, Lawton is no longer there and Lawton's old boss resigned over jiffygate and is now actually Wiggins boss at Talk Sport, so would possibly be how O'Rourke knows even the document is in a safe, its date, who signed it and for what purpose. That wouldn't have come from Freeman or Daily Mail that's for sure!

 

[samhocking]

The GMC's chief lawyer, yes. Not GMC as in Jackson QC v O'Rourke.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I think you're dismissing the additional powera Court Order has for requesting information for the 'Medical Act' & simply journalists not having to disclose their sources myself.

Well Sam, you ain't got nothin' wrong on this so far...

Keep digging...

 

[samhocking]

See you on the other side then. Daily Mails track record in this is bloody appalling though.

 

[samhocking]

Interesting point re when disclosure for Journalists can be used via Court Order.

A party must show that an order is truly "necessary" by demonstrating it has tried other ways to identify the source before resorting to court orders.

Could O'Rourke claim she named Sutton as source (assume she has details of Sutton's affidavit from someone in writing too) but Sutton walked out of the tribunal before he could be identified as the source by questioning? GMC tried to persuade him to remain also and failed?

 

[Parker]

Throughout this fiasco it has been entertaining to see people (not necessarily here) who think that the Daily Mail is evil and all Tories are scum making exceptions for Matt Lawton and Damian Collins just because their prejudices briefly matched.

And the idea that transparency doesn't apply to tabloid hacks. Leveson?

 

[fmk_RoI]

And the idea that transparency doesn't apply to tabloid hacks. Leveson?

Can you explain that a bit, not sure I fully get it.

By and large, I think many of the sources of recent British Cycling-related stories have been questionable. The TUEs we know about because Russian hackers decided to use Olympic athletes as pawns in the new Cold War. The DCMS report is just a piece of political theatre, all sound and fury. Even this MPTS hearing seems in part to be about a need for the GMC to be seen to be doing something, to be seen to be acting tough. The bullying story stands out for being clearly sourced and open about what it expected to achieve.

 

[samhocking]

I just read CTs inside story interview with Matt Lawton again where he walks through how the story came about with the Jiffy Bag. This in interesting:


CT: So were you told it was triamcinolone?

ML: I think Nicole Sapstead [UK Anti Doping’s CEO] said the allegation was triamcinolone. But I never wrote triamcinolone, no. I couldn’t.

CT: But in retrospect, now that she has said it, are you happy to say that is indeed what you were told?

ML: [Pauses]… The allegation was triamcinolone.


So he ran the story it appears without evidence of the contents, other than Sutton must have told him there was wrongdoing, or stating triamcinolone was in the package. Sutton then I assume signed the affidavit as Daily Mail's protection against defamation claims as O'Rourke alleges, because it's only Sutton's word v defamation claims. Lawton has no actual proof of wrongdoing other than Pooley & Wiggins location proved incorrect leading him to beleive Brailsford was covering something up. He said those two locations of the riders gave him confidence to run the story.

Sapstead must have had contact with Lawton though at some point in order for her to say triamcinolone & begin the investigation of it in the first place, or was she simply putting Fancy Bears TUE substance of few weeks earlier & Lawton's story together to see if anything surrounding it could be found at Dauphine? That is some assumption if true, although Sutton wasn't known as the whistleblower to her at the time.

 

[Parker]

Can you explain that a bit, not sure I fully get it.

Frankly, I have no idea. It doesn't make sense. Posted at 11.19pm on Saturday - it probably made sense after four hours in the pub.