CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Keep having to say this: he's not the inexperienced naif we're being asked to believe he was, he himself claims to have introduced anti-doping to the FA, in European golf, in football at Bolton, to active riders at British Cycling.
I wasn't aware of those claims (I did read your previous post that made me aware of them). It makes his reported testimony in that article even more suspect.
 
Again, this has very little to do with what I posted. I've not made any assumptions about his ordering of potential doping products and whether he would attempt to hide that or not. Please don not quote my posts if your post is not related.
I'm not saying it is, simply widening the lense onto the context re. the ordering itself knowing or not knowing it's a PED while knowing it's for a rider or for Sutton and the paper trail created unnecessarily either way.
 
Then don't quote the post, especially when you detail problems with an assumption I didn't make. Quote the post that makes that assumption.
Fine, but I was addressing your belief Freeman's claim is ridiculous by surrounding that with the actual order trail. Without context nearly everything could be seen as ridiculous, we don't agree, but it's only a forum and you can click ignore rather than keep replying after all.
 
Fine, but I was addressing your belief Freeman's claim is ridiculous by surrounding that with the actual order trail. Without context nearly everything could be seen as ridiculous, we don't agree, but it's only a forum and you can click ignore rather than keep replying after all.
If you invent a strawman argument I'm going to reply, becuase users in the past have used their own strawmen arguments as evidence that something is correct. If it isn't a strawman, and as you claim it's an assumption then you should be able to show where it's come from, please show the source. Here is Freeman's claim, from the article FmK posted:

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."
It doesn't need you to reframe anything. He claims he wouldn't have known testosterone could be used to dope cyclists. That is the claim I think is ridiculous. The only framing required is Freeman's background in sports medicine, which has been supplied and can easily be referenced. I've pointed out I'm basing this on the article, so a transcript showing this a misrepresentation would be fine and would actually further the discussion.
 
I didn't invent anything, it's all been said in the tribunal re. the order and paper trail, so certainly no strawman argument, I'm just not agreeing with your belief Freeman's words (probably taken out of context by Lawton anyway) must be be ridiculous based on the fact the order is so very visible and recorded, it really is almost like he didn't think he was actually doing anything wrong until Burt intercepted it and took it to Peters. If we now assume, it really was for Sutton, Freeman's lack of evasive measures to hide his ordering might mean it really wasn't for an athlete. It's just an opposing view, I'm not quoting you to create strawman arguments whatsoever, you even say this is your belief, so...this is mine!
 
I really don't see why the order trail is relevant to this discussion, it's a separate discussion. It has nothing to do with whether this claim is ridiculous based on Freeman's past experience:

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."
Do you think Freemen would not have known testosterone could be used to dope cyclists?
 
KB: could I just stress that, contrary to the false claims of others, that quote of the tribunal chair asking Freeman about testosterone comes from PA reporting of the tribunal, not Matt Lawton. Among the media outlets to use the PA report is the Guardian. Matt Lawton - the chief architect of this whole calumny for some, so you can perhaps understand why they would seek to falsely attribute things to him - works for the Times.
 
KB: could I just stress that, contrary to the false claims of others, that quote of the tribunal chair asking Freeman about testosterone comes from PA reporting of the tribunal, not Matt Lawton. Among the media outlets to use the PA report is the Guardian. Matt Lawton - the chief architect of this whole calumny for some, so you can perhaps understand why they would seek to falsely attribute things to him - works for the Times.
Thanks. I'm happy to take that quote at face value unless someone can show it's been taken out of context. I'm unsure if any transcript is available at the moment, and don't have time to dig into it, but I'm planning to look when it's available/I do have time. If it's accurate, I don't see how anyone could believe anything else Freeman is saying.
 
PA is still only being given the public discussion of the day, they don't include what was discussed in private just before they then continue in public. That's all I mean by context. I'd say over 50% of the tribunal time has been in private in and out of public viewing continually.

Anyway sounds like GMC have told the press they are unlikely to finish the tribunal this year, so until next year lol!
 
Freeman suffering from PTSD?
Dr Richard Freeman may have been left with post-traumatic stress disorder following Shane Sutton’s outburst at his fitness-to-practise tribunal last November, a psychiatrist told the hearing on Wednesday. Prof Don Grubin added that the long-running saga, which is set to run into a third year, was having a severe effect on Freeman’s mental health.
On the one hand, this looks like yet more theatrics from Freeman's QC, on the other hand we have to remember there's a real human being at the centre of this case, with real problems. So, pause before you make up your mind.

The QC, though, may have scored an OG:
On the penultimate day of this hearing window, Grubin was questioned by Dr Freeman’s QC, Mary O’Rourke, over the circumstances that led her client to order the testosterone. Freeman’s evidence is that he did not order the drugs until some weeks after Sutton allegedly bullied him. Grubin said he did not think bullying was likely to have been “the trigger” for Freeman’s actions. “He withstood that,” Grubin said. “Then something happened some weeks later that led to him prescribing it. My view is that it’s a stretch to say the bullying that took place some weeks before was the trigger for it.” Grubin also disagreed with another psychiatrist, Dr Max Henderson, who told the tribunal last week that the doctor’s bipolar disorder made him especially vulnerable. Grubin said he believed Freeman may have been in a hypomanic episode, which led him to behave “impetuously” and exercise “poor judgment”.
 
Grubin is effectively GMC's expert witness FMK, clearly he won't completely agree with Henderson, but like Grubin, Henderson also concluded there was no single event of bullying that triggered the order being placed, so really just debating an opinion on why the order was placed at all. Interestingly Grubin does say he believed Freeman wanted to fit into BCs culture of prescribing to staff members and like Henderson, afaik hasn't opinionated the order not being for Sutton either.

"My view is that it's a stretch to say the bullying that took place some weeks before was the trigger for it."

Professor Grubin then described the factors that would have led to Dr Freeman's decision to place the order.

"There's the general atmosphere around prescribing in the team. When he came in it was just accepted you would prescribe for staff, for family. He carried on with that.

"There's his mental state. He also talked about his desire to fit in. And then of course there was the more general relationship between him and Shane Sutton. So all of that would combine. What I don't see is that the fact he had been bullied was a final contributor."
 
Last edited:
The MPTS are proud to announce that the Freeman Show has been recommissioned and will be back on your screens in the new year:
The tribunal will reconvene on January 22 and will sit again from January 25-27, in order to complete the 'facts' stage of the process, where Freeman and his defence team dispute the allegations tabled by the GMC.

The tribunal is expected to deliver a decision on the facts on March 2. After that, the hearing will move to the 'impairment' phase, where the doctor's fitness to practice is assessed in light of the findings. Both sides can still call witnesses at this stage before the process concludes with a decision regarding any punishment.

The tribunal will reconvene for this for three days from March 17-19, before another four-day session six weeks later, from May 4-7.

In theory, that will bring the process to an end, but it has sailed past every deadline set so far, and more twists and turns can't be ruled out.
That's all folks!
 
Terrible for Sky. now Sutton is implicated in doping
They were employing a list of dirty people experienced in performance enhancing
Leinders, Sutton, Julich, Siutsou then Freeman orders some Gels
 
Terrible for Sky. now Sutton is implicated in doping
They were employing a list of dirty people experienced in performance enhancing
Leinders, Sutton, Julich, Siutsou then Freeman orders some Gels
SIUTSOU???????????
Siutsou tested positive 3 years after. THREE years after leaving Sky. what I mean is, you are right about the rest, leinders, julich, testogels. but SIUTSOU? how can Sky have anything to do with a FUTURE positive? tell me, when Pantano tested positive in 2019 with Trek, did anyone said it´s terrible for IAM Cycling where he raced until 2016?
 
Reactions: 42x16ss and fmk_RoI
Terrible for Sky. now Sutton is implicated in doping
They were employing a list of dirty people experienced in performance enhancing
Leinders, Sutton, Julich, Siutsou then Freeman orders some Gels
Sutton's alleged doping has been discussed in a few books for several years 70kmph. iirc Walsh covered some of what was given as witness evidence in Seven Deadly Sins back in 2013. Like Lionel Birnie's Magic Bus articles following Team Sky in 2011 with quite detailed explanations by Freeman as he obtains a TUE for Uran's breathing issues, there isn't a lot of new news covered in the Tribunal related to any doping other than more meat on Suttons. My impression is O'Rourke has been held back from more of it coming out on Sutton due to him not returning to be questioned though.
 
Reactions: pastronef
SIUTSOU???????????
Siutsou tested positive 3 years after. THREE years after leaving Sky. what I mean is, you are right about the rest, leinders, julich, testogels. but SIUTSOU? how can Sky have anything to do with a FUTURE positive? tell me, when Pantano tested positive in 2019 with Trek, did anyone said it´s terrible for IAM Cycling where he raced until 2016?
Its indicative of doping culture, so for example Landis didn't suddenly begin doping after he leaves Postal he just was never caught until he switch teams
 
Its indicative of doping culture, so for example Landis didn't suddenly begin doping after he leaves Postal he just was never caught until he switch teams
Requires an amount of assumption to fill the gaps for me. Deal in the facts, rather than an assumption you know what they are from unrelated events/timelines and it's usually closer to the truth, but I don't come at it from the sport is still primarily doping illegally against the rules, I think they're primarily enhancing performance without breaking the rules now.
 
Now it's all looped back around to UK Sport - whose investigation of Jess Varnish's original revelations was so inept it didn't even involve interviewing key personnel - and we're now being told they failed to investigate a whistleblower's allegations that Shane Sutton wasn't just a bully, but also corrupt:
The Guardian has also seen an email from UK Sport’s legal adviser to a member of its governance team and the performance adviser responsible for British Cycling, which recommended the whistleblower be given a “standard response” back. “Hi guys, if Shane Sutton is still employed by British Cycling can you liaise with the sport on this one,” read the email. “I’ll send the UKS standard response – ie ‘queries like this should be addressed to the sport in the first instance, UK Sport is not a regulator …’”
 
Sutton was sacked 2 months after Freeman / Burt whistleblowing to UK Sport though. I'd say although not public, their whistleblowing to UKSport about Sutton's corruption probably set the tone for his dismissal once bullying and all the other charges were put to him re. Varnish etc and he had to resign over.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY