CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 48 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Why would an NHS ENT specialist know anything about doping protocols? Jorg Jaksche and Michael Rasmussen describe how they used TUEs to obtain the same drug and use it in the same manner for doping purposes. An interesting coincidence (St David of Miller also used it)

Not wanting to impugn Hargreaves reputation, but it looks as if there might be a Freeman link (Freeman worked for Bolton Wanderers)

It is interesting that Wiggins former team doctor at Garmin (Prentice Steffan) and Jeroen Swart were very uncomfortable with using TUEs to administer Triamcinalone. Curious that Wiggins and Freeman had no such qualms.
Might be, but a Bolton area GP sending a rider living in Eccleston to a Bolton ENT is hardly suspicious lol! Where should he go as an out-patient?
As I said, without Hargreaves RAST, Endoscopy, Report on Wiggins, while on maximal therapy without a TUE, it's impossible for anyone to know if it was medically justified. Even then it will come down to one expert opinion v another expert opinion.
 
Reactions: macbindle
Why would an NHS ENT specialist know anything about doping protocols? Jorg Jaksche and Michael Rasmussen describe how they used TUEs to obtain the same drug and use it in the same manner for doping purposes. An interesting coincidence (St David of Miller also used it)
Back in their day a sick note from the team doctor was enough get a TUE. It got tightened up, which is why Wiggins had to get all the documentation from the specialist. Riders have a right to the best healthcare available. Some sportsmen need banned drugs for legitimate medical conditions. They're no different to you. Or do you think they should be denied the healthcare available to you just because someone cheated back in the day?
 
Remember Froome's fast-tracked TUEs for huge doses of Prednisoline?

Got waved straight through by Zorzoli. Bypassed the 3 people rule.
So long as the medical reason was justified, that's EXACTLY why the TUE exist, so the rider can take the substance you or I could and go to work with in our system. To know something was 'bypassed' requires more than assumption. The TUE doesn't exist to not be used does it. It is there to be used by riders, in races otherwise it would never have been part of WADA in the first place.
 
Remember Froome's fast-tracked TUEs for huge doses of Prednisoline?

Got waved straight through by Zorzoli. Bypassed the 3 people rule.

It got investigated and everything was done correctly. The report said:

“Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure. The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process.”

WADA agreed: “WADA is satisfied that the UCI’s decision to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) to Chris Froome was conducted according to the rules of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), and therefore will not be reviewing this case any further,”

"Duly documented medical history". There was no three people rule, it was a best practice recommendation
 
The UCI TUEC back then was probably one Dr still, but ADAMS was set-up by then, so it all went through WADA TUEC same as Wiggins did. Zorzoli's opinion on it being justified is really only to confirm all the elements of ISTUE are satisfied in the application or to ask for more evidence from the team dr. For emergency or hospital treatment, clearly it really is just a phone call to get permission, once you get permission, it's then administered and finally the Team Dr then has to satisfy ISTUE. Sure you could lie, you could fake medical justification like in the past, but in the past there was no ADAMS & WADA TUEC reviewing what Zorzoli did, he would have mostly just ticked the box and it was based on trust and so then teams abused it as Millar said. Fake a sore knee, get TUE for IA injection, but the doctor accidentally gives you IM and so you get the performance benefit and the TUE when tested positive to cover it and UCI never required medical evidence.
 
The mere fact that there was a DCMS hearing on Team Sky and a GMC hearing on Team Sky's doctor is a sure sign that there really is nothing to see and we should all move on ;)
DCMS report in relation to Jiggygate is entirely based on 'If Sutton sold Lawton the truth' and 'if this had happened in this theoretical circumstance that has no evidence to support it, it would cross an ethical line beyond WADA code'.
3 years on from jiffygate, Jackson QC has just spent a week discussing the legal practice of IA within the rules and if a doctor should do this in a hotel room like all other cycling team doctors, all totally unrelated to knowing he ordered Testogel for an athlete to rub in his chest.
GMC haven't called Lawton as a witness as requested, Lawton now refusing to cooperate while GMC also denies allowing Section 35A to reveal jiffygates whistleblower and failed to even summons Sutton as a witness, allowing him to fly out of UK leaving his family in UK, now living in Spain he told GMC was his hole??
What exactly is GMC, Lawton and Sutton sho afraid of from the defence requesting all this. Should't jiffygate at least put a huge nail into the defence?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: pastronef
So long as the medical reason was justified, that's EXACTLY why the TUE exist, so the rider can take the substance you or I could and go to work with in our system. To know something was 'bypassed' requires more than assumption. The TUE doesn't exist to not be used does it. It is there to be used by riders, in races otherwise it would never have been part of WADA in the first place.
Sam...please catch up......doping used to be undertaken by the rider...doping is now having a "medical reason" to take substances which improve performance...that is why Freeman sought that non-compliant certain doctors were removed and more compliant ones installed. Its the docs that enable...the riders are removed from the responsibility....if you can't read that from between the lines from the e-mail below then.....er....what is the Ullrich quote??? lol

“I like the idea of four to five doctors experienced in pro cycling......Specifically in areas such as management of infection, vomiting and recovery. I know Dr CC [Hulse] will not be able to adapt his views to reach a consensus decision fit for Sky’s purpose.......[Palfreeman]will not cope with the uncertainty of doping within professional cycling and will worry himself, and the team, to death......The second [Roberts] is a cycling nut first. He is not what Team Sky would need to move forward and put Sky in a place to compete to win and a friend of Dr CC [Hulse].”
 
lol...who needs a court to decide what went on...we're the jury...we can see the evidence
I was asking on twitter the other day: outside twitter and the Clinic, are the main news outlets in UK on it? I mean, if you read here or the 12 accounts in twitter such as Glen Cottingley and co it looks bleak. but it´s a medical tribunal and twitter and forums have no voice in that. as Sam said, doping is a legal matter. for now the tribunal is quite far from it.
 
outside twitter and the Clinic, are the main news outlets in UK on it?
Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?

The BBC's there. The Guardian''s there. The Mail's there. They're the ones you're getting the story from. They're not main outlets in the UK?
 
Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?

The BBC's there. The Guardian''s there. The Mail's there. They're the ones you're getting the story from. They're not main outlets in the UK?

There's certainly some coverage, but generally by journalists who, to use a poker term are 'pot committed'. They've gone in big in big the past, awarded each other prizes, and now they need some substance to back those stories up.
 
AFAIK doping isnt a legal matter in the UK, and no the news is barely reporting tge tribunal
Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.
 
Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.
...(post a watch of the Untouchabes out of respect for the bold Sean).....and Capone was just a tax evader...yes? ;)
 
Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.
As opposed to what?

It isnt a legal matter as there are no laws concerning doping in sports. Doping in the UK is governed by WADA regulations. WADA regulations are not law.

As far as doping is concerned, the law can only be invoked in so far as issue such as breach of contract, or use of controlled substances.
 
I'm using the term in the sense that doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision. The substance and conditions of using it is very clear in being either prohibited or not prohibited. Even a TUE is not decided ethically, it's a medical process using rules.
 
Reactions: macbindle
I'm using the term in the sense that doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision. The substance and conditions of using it is very clear in being either prohibited or not prohibited. Even a TUE is not decided ethically, it's a medical process using rules.
One of WADA's criteria for a doping violation is "It violates the spirit of sport."

That sure sounds like ethics to me. In fact, the WADA Code makes this explicit:

The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:

• Ethics, fair play and honesty

In fact, the whole notion that ethics has nothing to do with following rules is flawed. How can ethical behavior possibly be defined without reference to rules?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: BlueRoads
And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.
I responded to your claim that ethics are not involved in a decision about doping. What I quoted from the WADA Code shows in the clearest possible way that isn't so.

Your claim that spirit of the sport is defined in terms of the Code has it backwards. The spirit precedes the Code, the Code simply acknowledges that the spirit is a valid criterion. Not all doping decisions are based on so-called spirit, but even those that aren't may involve ethics. The law is not static, and how it changes has a lot to do with ethics. E.g., it's entirely plausible that the Code could be changed to allow some performance-enhancing substances to be permitted, and that a specific legal precedent might set the standard. A recent example is clenbuterol, where the process now takes into account that an athlete might have consumed contaminated beef. Ethics very definitely comes into this decision. It isn't just the presence of a PE substance in the athlete's system, but how it got there, what the athlete's intention was. This involves ethics.

You seem to think that because it's possible to act legally but unethically, therefore ethics are not involved in any legal process. That simply isn't so. An obvious, everyday example is when judges determine the severity of a sentence according to the defendant's character and previous behavior. Or more generally, when a judge shows mercy. Decisions like these are not based, certainly not entirely based, on any written code, but they are based on ethical rules, often subjective.
 
Reactions: veganrob
Name the last ADRV and its sanction that was decided using ethics and spirit of the sport to tip the balance from innocent to guilty then Merckx? You won't find one because doping is always only ever legal matter of what the rules say is cheating and doping, not an ethical judgement. One mans 2,000 mg of synthetic vitamin C in a tablet with his morning coffee is unethical to a man who's ethics say that 2,000 mg must be taken naturally by eating 40 oranges to get the same benefit. The ethics and spirit of sport don't say who is cheating, the rules simply define neither are cheating and ethics ignored.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: pastronef
S
And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.
TUE is doping if you don't have doc sign off.....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts