CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 41 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
and sorry...what do you think Brailsford was doing?
 
Well
and sorry...what do you think Brailsford was doing?
Well we now know it was Ellingworth & Slarkey iirc who incorrectly recalled where Wiggins & Pooley were that day and why Cope was there, not actually Brailsford, who has since said, running their statements to Lawton without validating them was a huge mistake. If there's evidence their statements never were and Brailsford made them say this for him afterwards, or made it up since, then I'm all ears, but at the time I always thought this is over Brailsford, Freeman & Wiggins not supporting Sutton v Varnish. As for Ellingworth & Slarkey's claims on where Wiggins and Pooley were, this is just another race of 100's each year from 6 years ago, I think the inaccuracy is probably expected and Lawton and everyone getting so excited about it proving something led them to believe it was definitely wrongdoing, rather than taking a step back and asking how accurate would your memory be from 6 years ago and the objective of the whistelblower given he had just been sacked.
Add in this is now a Sutton story to Lawton all that is left to know, is Suttons statement to DCMS the truth or is his story to Lawton. The Testogel now is clearly without any evidence who it was for. GMC would have proof by now, not be facing a half-time request to throw out the remaining charges.
 
Last edited:
Sad face. Postponed til tomorrow.

Maybe they're trying to turn it into Freeman: The Musical!
  • Test-oss-terone! It really is quite silly!
  • The coach, he said, he used it for his willy!
(They're actually arguing over Sutton. Freeman's QC still wants his evidence ignored, GMC now want to submit the Dan Roan interview.)
 
Reactions: MartinGT
Sad face. Postponed til tomorrow.

Maybe they're trying to turn it into Freeman: The Musical!
  • Test-oss-terone! It really is quite silly!
  • The coach, he said, he used it for his willy!
(They're actually arguing over Sutton. Freeman's QC still wants his evidence ignored, GMC now want to submit the Dan Roan interview.)
Now they're saying Thursday. Obviously not clear cut one way or the other...
 
Reactions: MartinGT
I'm glad it's admissible as the bigger back story in all this would probably never come out otherwise. Also interesting yesterday was O'Rourke said the Daily Mail insider who told her about the contents of Sutton's affidavit is in fear of their job if their witness statement is heard in public, which could be interesting . Looks like it will have to be adjourned until March/April though according to O'Rourke's schedule in the new year.
 
GMC appear to be submitting Freeman's reply to Roan stating "I was never bullied to give medication by Shane Sutton" when asked "Were you bullied into giving medication that you didn't think was right"? in the context of Wiggins/riders in light of Jiffybag story.
Seems rather different contexts to me, I'm surprised it's been decided as applicable evidence. Dan Roan is clearly talking about medicating athletes and wrongdoing/lines, Freeman is simply talking about Sutton & ED to GMC.
 
Last edited:
(Between Freeman's doc prescribing skiing holidays for his depression and Victoria Pendleton telling peeps to go surfing, you gotta wonder about the culture in British Cycling. It was bad enough when Peters was telling them to spank the monkey... )
 
Reactions: MartinGT
From Friday - after Sutton's evidence was allowed to stand, and the Dan Roan interview was allowed to be introduced, Freeman's QC, Violet Elizabeth O'Rourke threatened the hearing with a visit to the High Court for a judicial review:
O’Rourke said she would still be making a submission to have the remaining charges thrown out and raised the possibility of applying for a judicial review into the decision to allow Sutton’s evidence.
Delay, Deny, Distort, Defame, Distract, Dissumulate - this is a familiar playbook...
 
Reactions: MartinGT
You think Freeman is keeping his licence? They have doctors erased for rather simple offences like working one job while calling in sick to a second to get sick pay, so I think erasure for the number of charges Freeman admitted to is almost guaranteed fmk.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS