CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Freeman headed up medical for all of BC membership, so that's effectively 125,000 members with access to Dr Freeman and BC medical team. Sure, in reality there's only a couple of thousand top level athletes across CX, MTB, Road, Track & BMX using or accessing BC's Doctors, but 70 viles of Kenalog that last 3 years on the shelf seems relatively low for so many riders if that's what the order was for? If this was ordered after May 2011, then clearly UCI no-needles policy applies. Just having an injectable object is subject to 8 days to 6 months ban for the athlete, even for something used widely within cycling recovery and injury treatment out of competition in injectable form, so long as you inform UCI of the injection first?

To put the substances in question into financial perspective, A Kenalog 40 injection costs about £10, and a 30 day supply of testosterone patches cost about £30, so in terms of money it's really nothing. Cheaper than a new set of tubs per race anyway lol!

Obviously the scope of UKAD's investigation is only documents relating to the Wiggins package, so you could say it's only the tip of the iceburg, but equally nothing to say it's not the whole iceburg either.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re:

samhocking said:
in reality there's only a couple of thousand top level athletes across CX, MTB, Road, Track & BMX using or accessing BC's Doctors,
That amount is absurd.

Also, I'm at a loss why a sporting federation would function as apothecary :confused:
 
2000's is a guesstimate, but it's not far off. There's 120 full-time riders each year in the Olympic Program alone. You've then got 1500 GBCT coached riders in regional schools feeding 100 apprentices, around 50 GB riders, not in Olympic, but are in World Championships programs and finally 30 Sky riders so that's effectively 1800 British Cycling Coached riders each year. If you're BC coached, you can also use BC Doctors. NHS really not the way to go for sports injuries anyway. Obviously I don't have figures for how many injuries under BC Coaches were treated by BC Medics, but i'm just saying there's around 2000 riders who have access if they need it.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
2000's is a guesstimate, but it's not far off. There's 120 full-time riders each year in the Olympic Program alone. You've then got 1500 GBCT coached riders in regional schools feeding 100 apprentices, around 50 GB riders, not in Olympic, but are in World Championships programs and finally 30 Sky riders so that's effectively 1800 British Cycling Coached riders each year. If you're BC coached, you can also use BC Doctors. NHS really not the way to go for sports injuries anyway. Obviously I don't have figures for how many injuries under BC Coaches were treated by BC Medics, but i'm just saying there's around 2000 riders who have access if they need it.
You mean 45?

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/gbcyclingteam/article/20161130-gb-cyclingteam-news-British-Cycling-confirms-Great-Britain-Cycling-Team-Olympic-Podium-Programme-squad-for-2016-17-0#podiumsquad
 
No 120 in the Olympic Program. You're talking only the podium program.

Olympic Podium Programme

BMX

Kyle Evans
Liam Phillips
Tre Whyte

Mountain bike

Grant Ferguson

Men’s road

Mark Cavendish
Steve Cummings
Jon Dibben
Owain Doull
Alex Dowsett
Andrew Fenn
Chris Froome
Luke Rowe
Ian Stannard
Ben Swift
Simon Yates
Adam Yates
Peter Kennaugh
Geraint Thomas

Women’s road

Lizzie Deignan
Alice Barnes
Hannah Barnes
Nikki Brammeier
Dani King

Men’s track endurance

Steve Burke
Ed Clancy
Kian Emadi
Chris Latham
Mark Stewart
Andy Tennant
Oliver Wood

Women’s track endurance

Katie Archibald
Elinor Barker
Emily Kay
Danni Khan
Joanna Rowsell Shand
Laura Kenny

Men’s track sprint

Phil Hindes
Jason Kenny
Ryan Owens
Callum Skinner

Women’s track sprint

Becky James
Katy Marchant
Victoria Williamson
Shanaze Reade

Olympic Senior Academy Programme

BMX

Quillan Isidore
Blaine Ridge-Davies
Paddy Sharrock
Beth Shriever

Men's endurance

Matt Bostock
Adam Hartley
Ethan Hayter
Jacob Hennessy
Joe Holt
Matt Walls
Reece Wood
Angus Claxton

Mountain bike

Frazer Clacherty
Ella Connolly
Will Gascoyne
Mark Maguire
Evie Richards

Track sprint

Sophie Capewell
Jack Carlin
Ryan Hutchinson
Alex Jolliffe
Joe Truman
Brit Jackson

Women’s endurance

Megan Barker
Abbie Dentus
Ellie Dickinson
Manon Lloyd
Mel Lowther
Emily Nelson
Annasley Park
Becky Raybould

Paralympic Academy Programme

Brian Alldis
Megan Giglia
Simon Price
David Smith
Jaco van Gass

Olympic Junior Academy Programme

Boys endurance

Fred Wright
Rhys Britton
Jake Stewart
Joe Nally
Tom Pidcock
Charley Calvert
Will Tidball
Jim Brown
Ethan Vernon

Girls endurance

Jess Roberts
Lauren Dolan
Rhona Callander
Jenny Holl
Emily Tillett
Anna Docherty
Pfeiffer Georgi
Georgia Ashworth
Ellie Russell

Sprint

Lewis Stewart
Hamish Turnbull
Ali Fielding
Caleb Hill
Lauren Bate-Lowe
Georgia Hilleard
Esme Niblett

Mountain bike

Dan Tulett
Cameron Orr
Calum Fernie
Sean Flynn
Sophie Wright
Emily Wadsworth

BMX

Tian Isidore
Euan Hunt
Ross Cullen
Tyrell Cooper-Nelson
Mason Chidley
Nathan Wood
Maddie Owens-Matthews
Elissa Bradford
Eleana Stafford
Libby Smith
 
Thanks. So I could agree with those, the GB riders and the Sky team having access (using the access is an entirely different matter). That's about 200. I think including the riders from schools is extremely dubious unless you can give any evidence that they are using them? Remember that there is apparently no documentation as to who received triamcinolone injections. To include the schools, and any juniors for that matter, is to imply the BC doctors are injecting or would inject children without the proper documentation. That goes beyond doping into something much, much worse.

In terms of who actually uses the GB medical staff I would guess it would be Sky and riders based at Manchester (Podium programme?). In which case the number is much more likely to be under 100. I think 2000 is an extreme over-estimate. But as with all of this, it should be very easy for GB to produce the documents.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Thank you for agreeing that your thousands of top level athletes was a hilarious statement.

Also, looking at the program, I find no evidence that these subsidiary schools have access to both the BC doctors as their medicine cabinet. If anything, any online document I stumble upon seems to redirect to your own doctor or a sports doctor. Indeed, as KB says, the alternative would be extremely worrisome indeed.

The claim that BC arranges medical assistance of thousands of athletes is unsubstantiated (and that without the even more insane top level statement).
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
I'm afraid I'm not a medic, I know about the regulatory side as I have family who work in it and I know about the actual drugs but when it comes to the logistics here I can only speculate. I'm pretty sure that a doctor who is going to dispense drugs has to do a separate qualification. It is a pharmacist who usually does it and it's a much more complicated job than most think. A lot of the time prescriptions will be wrong or patients will be on products that are contraindicated for the new drug so it has to be sorted out. I would guess that doctors can qualify to dispense certain drugs, but not everything, and possibly there is a qualification for sports medicine that allows them to deal with the kind of products being used here.
I've been given steroid injections directly by doctors and nurses on 9 occasions. 1 from my GP, 7 from a specialist Consultant / Doctor, and 1 from a nurse (after seeing my Consultant). On all those occasions they just lent over to the cabinet and pulled out the vial and a needle. There would obviously be paperwork for those (especially as some were private and my insurance company needed to be charged), but not once did they consult another person (eg pharmacist).
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
King Boonen said:
I'm afraid I'm not a medic, I know about the regulatory side as I have family who work in it and I know about the actual drugs but when it comes to the logistics here I can only speculate. I'm pretty sure that a doctor who is going to dispense drugs has to do a separate qualification. It is a pharmacist who usually does it and it's a much more complicated job than most think. A lot of the time prescriptions will be wrong or patients will be on products that are contraindicated for the new drug so it has to be sorted out. I would guess that doctors can qualify to dispense certain drugs, but not everything, and possibly there is a qualification for sports medicine that allows them to deal with the kind of products being used here.
I've been given steroid injections directly by doctors and nurses on 9 occasions. 1 from my GP, 7 from a specialist Consultant / Doctor, and 1 from a nurse (after seeing my Consultant). On all those occasions they just lent over to the cabinet and pulled out the vial and a needle. There would obviously be paperwork for those (especially as some were private and my insurance company needed to be charged), but not once did they consult another person (eg pharmacist).
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
King Boonen said:
I'm afraid I'm not a medic, I know about the regulatory side as I have family who work in it and I know about the actual drugs but when it comes to the logistics here I can only speculate. I'm pretty sure that a doctor who is going to dispense drugs has to do a separate qualification. It is a pharmacist who usually does it and it's a much more complicated job than most think. A lot of the time prescriptions will be wrong or patients will be on products that are contraindicated for the new drug so it has to be sorted out. I would guess that doctors can qualify to dispense certain drugs, but not everything, and possibly there is a qualification for sports medicine that allows them to deal with the kind of products being used here.
I've been given steroid injections directly by doctors and nurses on 9 occasions. 1 from my GP, 7 from a specialist Consultant / Doctor, and 1 from a nurse (after seeing my Consultant). On all those occasions they just lent over to the cabinet and pulled out the vial and a needle. There would obviously be paperwork for those (especially as some were private and my insurance company needed to be charged), but not once did they consult another person (eg pharmacist).

Naturally, however they are restricted by the amounts that they can store of each drug. If you want 70 vials then you have to have it signed off and sent by a pharmacy.
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
presumably everytime you've been given a steroid injection they

1. wrote it on your medical record (they didn't)
2. checked the drug out of the pharmacy (they didn't)
and
3. checked that the drug was available (they did)

and finally if you were a professional athlete they'd have to do all of that and apply for a TUE (they did 3/70 times)

So all in all, its gone quite badly
 
Re:

Franklin said:
Thank you for agreeing that your thousands of top level athletes was a hilarious statement.

Also, looking at the program, I find no evidence that these subsidiary schools have access to both the BC doctors as their medicine cabinet. If anything, any online document I stumble upon seems to redirect to your own doctor or a sports doctor. Indeed, as KB says, the alternative would be extremely worrisome indeed.

The claim that BC arranges medical assistance of thousands of athletes is unsubstantiated (and that without the even more insane top level statement).
As I said, I don't know the numbers seeking medical help for cycling-related injuries or otherwise with BC, but that's not what i'm claiming. I'm claiming there's 1500 Foundation level riders under the UKSport funding and BC Coaching umbrella within BCs Olympic Rider Route and you can get medical help from BC at this level. Obviously we're not talking club and go-ride etc. They're not subsidiaries or clubs/schools. They're riders nominated by clubs to be coached under Great Britain Cycling Team Regional School of Racing and coached as groups by GBCT Foundation-level Coaches. Basically it's the starting point of the Olympic program and where funding begins.
 
Another fact glossed over by Sapstead and others here, is Exemption clause 10(7) in the Medicines Act. Basically you didn't need a WDL until August 2012. Before that, clause 10(7) allowed small businesses, clubs, mountain rescue teams, ships, sports clubs etc to be a WDL without a licence if the turnover of medicine was less than 5% of total turnover. So in BC's case, their turnover was £20M, so as long as they're not turning over more than £1M in medicine, no licence was required.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Another fact glossed over by Sapstead and others here, is Exemption clause 10(7) in the Medicines Act. Basically you didn't need a WDL until August 2012. Before that, clause 10(7) allowed small businesses, clubs, mountain rescue teams, ships, sports clubs etc to be a WDL without a licence if the turnover of medicine was less than 5% of total turnover. So in BC's case, their turnover was £20M, so as long as they're not turning over more than £1M in medicine, no licence was required.
No, this isn't correct. Exemption clause 10 and its sub-sections applies to pharmacists and their supplying of prescription only medication to the organisations you mention. It does not then allow those organisations to sell them on to other businesses. This exemption would only be applicable if a pharmacist were ordering the drugs within BC and then selling them on to Sky as a separate entity.

Exemptions for doctors exist but they are for specially imported or specially prepared products, which this was not.
 
Re:

Vayerism said:
presumably everytime you've been given a steroid injection they

1. wrote it on your medical record (they didn't)
2. checked the drug out of the pharmacy (they didn't)
and
3. checked that the drug was available (they did)

and finally if you were a professional athlete they'd have to do all of that and apply for a TUE (they did 3/70 times)

So all in all, its gone quite badly
#1 - yes, or at least informed my GP
#2 - don't know, they just reached over to the cabinet and took it out
#3 - don't know, 8 of those occasions were at an orthopaedic / arthritis hospital / appointment so would assume they'd have loads of it

Anyway, the point I was making earlier was that as far as I am aware the Dr didn't need to consult the pharmacist to jab the needle in me, which I think is a point that was being raised.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Just as a mental exercise I thought I'd do a complete about-turn and try and test my own bias towards Sky. I've always thought they were 'at it', so everything that's happening now is certainly confirmation bias, regardless of the truth or otherwise.

I've just googled Kenalog and came across this forum thread for hayfever sufferers discussing it and how much it has helped them (if you don't want to read it, the synopsis is that it's really an extremely effective treatment, life changing for some, causing desperation when it became not so readily prescribed in the UK):
https://forums.netdoctor.co.uk/discussion/44394/hayfever-injection-kenalog

So, playing devils advocate for a moment, is it possible we have gotten a little carried away with the confirmation bias of this Sky scandal? It all started with the leaking of Wiggins TUE's for Kenalog. Even if he only had relatively mild asthma and niggling seasonal hayfever, Kenalog could have been a legit and logical prescription. The patients on the forum I linked above attest to that.

The 60 - 70 vials? Well, anecdotally, I would say a good 50% of all the cyclists I know suffer from seasonal hayfever. Let's guestimate that Sky + BC Olympic Programme is approx 200 riders. So it wouldn't be complete fantasy to assume a fair number of them suffer seasonal hayfever. Now what if there was a drug that after a single treatment just nipped the problem in the bud, no need to think about it for the rest of the year? Well Kenalog does exactly that so let's have some in our medical store room.

The jiffy bag? God knows. Bizarre story and explanations. Clearly multiple lies going on around this. Could it have been Kenalog for Wiggins for the reasons above but using it at that time wasn't allowed, would've incurred a ban? In other words, a legit non-PED reason, but a timing that would've flouted PED rules? Seems possible to me (devils advocate). They certainly can't admit that now though.

If any of you have been involved in any kind of legal proceedings you'll probably have experienced how quickly the intricacies of the truth of the matter get lost. Lies are sometimes used just to try and prove what is actually true, or at least not to weaken your position in proving the truth. I wonder if this is an irony in this whole Sky fiasco. They've been 'at it', but they are being ripped to shreds for something that was not actually 'it'. Generally guilty but specifically innocent, if that makes sense.

Just me waffling out loud, so to speak. I'll jump back in with the Sky bashing shortly. :)
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
I can't get my head around the nitty-gritty of the medical prescription side. Thanks Boonen for replying to my previous post. I have a gut feeling there is something really bad for Freeman/Sky/BC hiding in the details but I've no idea what.
The loss of relevant records is certainly very convenient isn't it.
But of course they have all the records to prove that the testosterone patches were delivered in *cough* error. Couldn't make it up.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Just as a mental exercise I thought I'd do a complete about-turn and try and test my own bias towards Sky. I've always thought they were 'at it', so everything that's happening now is certainly confirmation bias, regardless of the truth or otherwise.

I've just googled Kenalog and came across this forum thread for hayfever sufferers discussing it and how much it has helped them (if you don't want to read it, the synopsis is that it's really an extremely effective treatment, life changing for some, causing desperation when it became not so readily prescribed in the UK):
https://forums.netdoctor.co.uk/discussion/44394/hayfever-injection-kenalog

So, playing devils advocate for a moment, is it possible we have gotten a little carried away with the confirmation bias of this Sky scandal? It all started with the leaking of Wiggins TUE's for Kenalog. Even if he only had relatively mild asthma and niggling seasonal hayfever, Kenalog could have been a legit and logical prescription. The patients on the forum I linked above attest to that.

The 60 - 70 vials? Well, anecdotally, I would say a good 50% of all the cyclists I know suffer from seasonal hayfever. Let's guestimate that Sky + BC Olympic Programme is approx 200 riders. So it wouldn't be complete fantasy to assume a fair number of them suffer seasonal hayfever. Now what if there was a drug that after a single treatment just nipped the problem in the bud, no need to think about it for the rest of the year? Well Kenalog does exactly that so let's have some in our medical store room.

The jiffy bag? God knows. Bizarre story and explanations. Clearly multiple lies going on around this. Could it have been Kenalog for Wiggins for the reasons above but using it at that time wasn't allowed, would've incurred a ban? In other words, a legit non-PED reason, but a timing that would've flouted PED rules? Seems possible to me (devils advocate). They certainly can't admit that now though.

If any of you have been involved in any kind of legal proceedings you'll probably have experienced how quickly the intricacies of the truth of the matter get lost. Lies are sometimes used just to try and prove what is actually true, or at least not to weaken your position in proving the truth. I wonder if this is an irony in this whole Sky fiasco. They've been 'at it', but they are being ripped to shreds for something that was not actually 'it'. Generally guilty but specifically innocent, if that makes sense.

Just me waffling out loud, so to speak. I'll jump back in with the Sky bashing shortly. :)
i think this has been covered...the jiffy bag is now irrelevant...as is even the kenalog

if not sanctionable and otherwise innocent...how did we end up here?

but here we are...

and if this is the mess they are in due to non-sanctionable stuff then...well...the fridge is full and the bottle opener on stand-by :)

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, that's my fridge btw...who knows what you'll find in theirs :)
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Just as a mental exercise I thought I'd do a complete about-turn and try and test my own bias towards Sky. I've always thought they were 'at it', so everything that's happening now is certainly confirmation bias, regardless of the truth or otherwise.

I've just googled Kenalog and came across this forum thread for hayfever sufferers discussing it and how much it has helped them (if you don't want to read it, the synopsis is that it's really an extremely effective treatment, life changing for some, causing desperation when it became not so readily prescribed in the UK):
https://forums.netdoctor.co.uk/discussion/44394/hayfever-injection-kenalog

So, playing devils advocate for a moment, is it possible we have gotten a little carried away with the confirmation bias of this Sky scandal? It all started with the leaking of Wiggins TUE's for Kenalog. Even if he only had relatively mild asthma and niggling seasonal hayfever, Kenalog could have been a legit and logical prescription. The patients on the forum I linked above attest to that.

The 60 - 70 vials? Well, anecdotally, I would say a good 50% of all the cyclists I know suffer from seasonal hayfever. Let's guestimate that Sky + BC Olympic Programme is approx 200 riders. So it wouldn't be complete fantasy to assume a fair number of them suffer seasonal hayfever. Now what if there was a drug that after a single treatment just nipped the problem in the bud, no need to think about it for the rest of the year? Well Kenalog does exactly that so let's have some in our medical store room.

The jiffy bag? God knows. Bizarre story and explanations. Clearly multiple lies going on around this. Could it have been Kenalog for Wiggins for the reasons above but using it at that time wasn't allowed, would've incurred a ban? In other words, a legit non-PED reason, but a timing that would've flouted PED rules? Seems possible to me (devils advocate). They certainly can't admit that now though.

If any of you have been involved in any kind of legal proceedings you'll probably have experienced how quickly the intricacies of the truth of the matter get lost. Lies are sometimes used just to try and prove what is actually true, or at least not to weaken your position in proving the truth. I wonder if this is an irony in this whole Sky fiasco. They've been 'at it', but they are being ripped to shreds for something that was not actually 'it'. Generally guilty but specifically innocent, if that makes sense.

Just me waffling out loud, so to speak. I'll jump back in with the Sky bashing shortly. :)
An honorable exercise in self-examination. However, William of Ockham says 'hi'.
 
Jul 21, 2015
30
0
0
Re:

Dan2016 said:
I can't get my head around the nitty-gritty of the medical prescription side. Thanks Boonen for replying to my previous post. I have a gut feeling there is something really bad for Freeman/Sky/BC hiding in the details but I've no idea what.
The loss of relevant records is certainly very convenient isn't it.
But of course they have all the records to prove that the testosterone patches were delivered in *cough* error. Couldn't make it up.
The precise limitations around the confirmation from the supplier about the error would be interesting -- was the error sending testosterone to Freeman at all, or specifically and precisely around sending testosterone to Freeman at his BC address where others might see it and/or the paperwork. (So, did Freeman or his agents order from the same supplier in other guises?)
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
i think this has been covered...the jiffy bag is now irrelevant...as is even the kenalog

if not sanctionable and otherwise innocent...how did we end up here?

but here we are...

and if this is the mess they are in due to non-sanctionable stuff then...well...the fridge is full and the bottle opener on stand-by :)

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, that's my fridge btw...who knows what you'll find in theirs :)
I'm struggling to keep up. Jiffy bag and kenalog are now irrelevant? So it's the record keeping etc., that's the only relevant bit, is that right?

Still doesn't completely negate my point, I think (I'm not sure). The things that started all of this could actually be innocent (devils advocate), but they've been shafted getting caught in covering up other stuff and general complete incompetence.

It's very entertaining though, I agree, whatever the truth is.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

heartsnotinit said:
Dan2016 said:
I can't get my head around the nitty-gritty of the medical prescription side. Thanks Boonen for replying to my previous post. I have a gut feeling there is something really bad for Freeman/Sky/BC hiding in the details but I've no idea what.
The loss of relevant records is certainly very convenient isn't it.
But of course they have all the records to prove that the testosterone patches were delivered in *cough* error. Couldn't make it up.
The precise limitations around the confirmation from the supplier about the error would be interesting -- was the error sending testosterone to Freeman at all, or specifically and precisely around sending testosterone to Freeman at his BC address where others might see it and/or the paperwork. (So, did Freeman or his agents order from the same supplier in other guises?)
Haha! That would be funny. Supplier comes out and confirms the only error was sending it to the wrong address, but it was definitely ordered by Freeman.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY