CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 49 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Of course, but a TUE still isn't decided using ethics, it's decided using medical diagnosis and justification against ISTUE Protocol by the TUEC signing it off.
lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lols
 
lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lols
That was 'personal' ethics, nothing to do with WADA's. This is my entire point. Freemans ethics were within WADA's definition what is not cheating and not doping, be it the teams IV protocol in light of Gonzalez death arguably exacerbated by Dr Hulse refusing to use IV and Needles on staff/riders in exactly the same as a doctors persona ethics might not ethically agree with WADA's or that a TUE is allowed when it satisfies ISTUE.
 
Last edited:
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.
I guess you never read the CAS case vs. Petacchi. After presenting a ton of evidence that Petacchi's urine level could not have been the result of inhaling the allowed dose, including an enantiomer test that basically is used to prove that the drug was taken orally rather than by inhalation, the panel concluded:

The Panel is satisfied that Mr. Petacchi is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance.

There was nothing in the evidence presented that supported the conclusion that Petacchi took too much, yet did not do so intentionally.. To come to that conclusion, after all the evidence against, can only be the result of ethics. There is no rule anywhere in WADA that specifies that conclusion. The panel simply showed some mercy. The rules did allow the panel to reduce the sentence, according to no significant fault, but again, there is nothing in the WADA rules that specified that particular conclusion.

To repeat, your fundamental misunderstanding is believing that decisions made by specific rules are 100% legal, and have nothing to do with ethics. In the first place, the rules themselves reflect ethics. When a rider is sanctioned for having some substance in his system, this is a judgment based on ethics. Without ethics, there would be no reason to have that rule.

Second, even by your flawed view of ethics as having nothing to do with laws or rules, ethical judgments come into play. The Petacchi case is only one example. WADA says that the evidence of a positive should be somewhere between preponderance of evidence, > 50%, and beyond a reasonable doubt, < 95-99%. There is nothing specific in WADA’s rules that instructs where to come down in that range. It’s left up entirely to the arbiter or judge. There is no formula one can use. Making that judgment inevitably brings ethics into the process.

One reason Froome got off is because the arbiters couldn’t believe he would knowingly take the risk of a salbutamol positive. There was a definite, non-zero probability that he took salbutamol intentionally as a performance enhancer—despite all the efforts of WADA/UCI to cover up the process, to make it as non-transparent as possible, they couldn’t hide that fact--but this was weighed against the likelihood that he would risk his career. Again, there is nothing specific in WADA’s rules that tells any judge how to carry out that weighing process.
 
So that's a no, you couldn't find a case? Pettachi's case was because of an AAF according to CODE, not ethics.

Where in 'the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol' do you see the application of ethics to decide the AAF isn't one or is one? The conclusion of how it happened has an ethical argument of it's a possible accident, but the Code still makes it an ADRV even if an accident Merckx, therefore ethics really not part of the decision applied. AAF exists, ADRV exists regardless.

Doping is always a legal matter, there's never been a case of unethical doping in the history of sport, just like there's never been a case of unethical speeding tickets. You are are either too fast or you are not.
 
Last edited:
I originally responded to your statement “doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision.”

I quoted a passage directly from the WADA Code, in which they specifically state that ethics are part of one criterion that determines whether a doping violation has occurred. For anyone thinking logically and rationally, that would have been the end of the discussion. I also pointed out that “rules only” is NOT equal to a legal process only, since ethics ALSO involve rules. You continue to make the mistake of believing that if a case is decided on how or whether it conforms to specific rules, it must be wholly legal. This simply is not so.

In fact, there is no such thing as a purely legal process, since all laws are rooted in ethics, in assumptions about what desirable behavior constitutes. If the speed limit is 65 mph, and a cop catches you doing 70, you have broken the law. But the cop may decide not to cite you. That decision involves ethics. The cop may have rules that s/he isn’t fully aware of that determine that decision, but in any case, a strict reading of the law isn’t involved.

You then moved the goalposts, by demanding that I name a case that was “tipped” from innocent to guilty. There may be such examples, but none is necessary to support my original case. I did point out that Petacchi’s sanction was not determined solely by any rules written in the Code, which by your own definition would mean it was not determined solely by a legal process. You seem blind to the fact that judges in all kinds of legal processes frequently make decisions that are not entirely determined by the law, but by subjective judgments that may involve ethics. This is one major reason why we still have trials by human judges and juries, rather than simply have a computer determine what the law is and whether someone broke it. The law is organic, constantly subjected to interpretation, and interpretation generally involves ethics.

I could have gone even further, though. One of Petacchi’s arguments was that if his urine SG had been taken into account, his salbutamol concentration would have been below the maximum allowed. The panel rejected this claim, but they didn’t have to, and of course the rules were changed, very conveniently for Froome, in 2017. Suppose the panel had decided to allow Petacchi’s argument? On the basis of what legal rule would that have been made? How do you rationalize this scenario with your claim that "the Code still makes it an ADRV"?
 
It's still a judgement based on what doping code was first 'violated' Merckx to get to a tribunal hearing in the first place is the point. Same as speeding. No anti-doping tribunal is ever started because of an ethical/unethical doping violation but satisfying WADA Prohibited Substances & Methods and is the context which began this discussion and my point re. Freeman, Sky, DCMS, UKAD. You have either illegally violated the code or you haven't, there is no ADRV for legal doping unethically, only the sanction itself can be adjusted with leniency if an ethical point it might not be intentional aka Pettachi.
 
Last edited:
Tribunal updates last 5 days as the usual journalists don't seem to have been there the last few days. Sounds like the Chair is now trying to bring Jackson's 5 week cross-examination to a close that was meant to only take him 5 days but more documents during the cross-examination of Freeman kept being added. Chair has now asked the panel not to take any more additional documents into their consideration even though they will be included in the cross-examination. The tribunal won't be affected by Covid lockdown. Continues on Monday where hopefully we then hear from Freemans witnesses.

 
Big movement with testogate story today with it at last being linked and because of vengeance over Sutton and Lawton fabricating jiffygate. Freeman for the first time under oath, also says no injection ever took place on the bus or with Wiggins I believe. Seems like Jackson is yet to realise this isn't an alibi to cover-up the testogel order, it's simply the legal opportunity Wiggins lawyer and Freemans lawyer has to expose what Lawton and Sutton did.
 
Freeman's QC playing softball as doc's stint in the witness box enters its seventh week. But ... note the number of qualifiers in Freeman's statement:
“My job is to protect the health of the riders even against themselves,” he said. “We do have to take risks because these are elite sportsmen, there’s no time to sit down if they have asthma or something. They all want to win but it’s not at all costs. You have to take a risk/benefit analysis, this is elite sport.

“I would never, ever take risks or put a rider at serious harm’s way and I have to be prepared to fall on my sword and if senior management sack me then so be it. I have never, ever taken any undue risks with a rider and they have never come across any harm because of my care. I will stand to that until my last breath.”
 
Freeman's QC playing softball as doc's stint in the witness box enters its seventh week. But ... note the number of qualifiers in Freeman's statement:
Not the 7th week. The Chair ended Jackson's 5 days of cross-examination that he actually took 5 weeks over. This week is week 1 of Freeman being examined by O'Rourke now and Freeman's witnesses to give evidence. Yesterday or Monday, we had Ineos submitting the zero-tolerance stuff related to Froome and Sutton. I assume today we hear from Nicole Cooke or or her Dad which was meant to be yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Probably more significant and why Ineos submitted this as evidence on Sutton in the first place, is Sutton has clearly lied about his own doping past given Freeman's witnesses stating he used to dope and used to store testosterone in his fridge. That added to his DCMS v Lawton statements will probably sway the panel to believing Freeman more than Sutton about who the Testogel was ordered for.
 
Jackson's question wasn't about anti-doping in terms of riders, it was in the context of 2.6.2. ie Freeman admitted he wasn't aware that under certain circumstances Testogel could be against WADA Code for Sutton. As it turns out Jackson was running on the assumption it is prohibited, when in fact 2.6.2 clearly permits ordering and possession of testogel for non-athletes anyway.
 
Last edited:
Knows how to bork a hard drive, didn't know testosterone was a PED.
At his fitness-to-practice hearing, Dr Freeman was asked by tribunal chair Mr Neil Dalton about the drug culture within cycling in 2011 and whether the medic would have known testosterone could be used to boost performance. "No, I wouldn't have, really," he told a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on the final day of his cross-examination that has stretched into a seventh week. "I'm not a cycling fan, I'm a doctor in sports medicine. We [the team] were focused on managing athletes and there was this mantra that we were a clean team and it was never discussed."
 
How could anyone associated with cycling in any way not have heard of Floyd Landis?

I suppose Freeman never heard of Contador or clenbuterol, either.

"I'm not a cycling fan, I'm a doctor in sports medicine. We [the team] were focused on managing athletes and there was this mantra that we were a clean team and it was never discussed."
How can you do your job of sports medicine responsibly if you aren't aware of substances, legal or illegal, that riders might be putting into their bodies?
 
Well when they were discussing 2.6.2 Jackson was also quizzing Freeman browsing research articles on basic stuff like iron kevels relating to testosterone so it would seem Freeman didn't have any basic knowledge in terms of its doping properties. As for Landis, unless you were a keen cyclist and a doctor, you would never have heard of Landis. I just asked my father in law who was a GP and he had no idea who Landis is or how testosterone is used in cycling and he's inly 10 years older than Freeman and only has a general interest in all sports other than F1 and Cricket. Still a surprising answer from Freeman, but context is a bit unknown just like it is for Froomes motorbike statement from Sutton. Pretty sure Froome used to own a motorbike instead of a car in the early days anyway.
 
I just asked my father in law who was a GP and he had no idea who Landis is or how testosterone is used in cycling
But your father-in-law, I take it, doesn't work for a cycling team. If i worked for any kind of pro sports team, in any kind of capacity, I would have a good working knowledge of the recent history of that sport. Maybe that's just me, but I can't see how you wouldn't, regardless of whether you were a fan or had any interest in who won or lost. It's just basic background.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY