CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 51 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
Long-running award-winning fan-favourite epic saga the Freeman Show set for return to our screens:
Almost two years after it started, the much-delayed hearing is scheduled to resume on Friday, when both parties will deliver their closing submissions, with a decision expected in March.
Tricky Dr Dicky had requested yet another delay, this time so that he could save the world from the ravages of the pandemic:
But in the saga's latest twist, Dr Freeman's lawyers wrote to the MPTS last week, arguing for another delay after he was asked by the NHS practice in Lancashire where he now works to help administer Covid-19 vaccinations. In correspondence seen by the BBC, they explained their client had a "strong commitment to continue his Covid work". It added: "We write to request an adjournment… to allow him [Dr Freeman] to undertake the duties that the practice wish him to. We strongly believe that the Covid crisis position should take precedence."
The good doctor's Jesus complex, however, was laughed off the stage:
The MPTS also opposed the request, telling Dr Freeman's lawyers that they did not consider an adjournment "proportionate or in the interests of justice". "While it is undoubtedly important that Dr Freeman carries out his professional obligations to participate in the Covid-19 vaccination programme… it is entirely possible and not unfair for closing submissions to be delivered effectively by both parties in his absence," the MPTS added in its response.
 
Last edited:
Delaying for what? That is the question. No new facts and evidence can be added by ether side now or argued relating to the charges because it's moved to the impairment stage. Freeman can call witness testimony and submit evidence he's not impaired to practice (I assume from his current boss at East Lancs NHS the last 11 months or so) & GMC can do the the same to say he hasn't addressed them and the facts to have him warned/suspended etc.
Statute of limitations is a non-event. If UKAD have a cycling team under investigation 21 years later, they can Freeman too.
 
Hard to tell what Jackson is focusing on really as his submission is spread across various heresay & anecdotal evidence, perhaps not even evidence at all of the charge reading it at face value. He appears to use Professor Gruden's observation/opinion of a riders testosterone level (I assume he looked at the teams quarterly testosterone results submitted to UCI) being 'elevated' at the same time period Freeman ordered Testogel, but ends the same submission saying the alleged rider is not possible to identify for reasons too deeply buried. So is that the rider with elevated levels? If so, what is buried, you have the rider, you have the steroidal module of his biological passport to refer at WADA to prove it easily, what's too deeply buried to prove? That suggests to me that neither the level was elevated enough to be a doping violation or high-enough to be medical malpractice. It's clearly not enough to worry the biological passport, WADA or UCI anyway!

Jackson also uses various other anecdotes such as Freeman was an ambitious Dr who lied to protect his status in the medical team, threatened by others ethics and didn't object to Nicole Cooks coach doing IV recovery. My understanding is Fabio was brought in precisely because the older riders complained the team didn't do IV recovery, so why Freeman would object to something coming down from we assume Steve Peters & Brailsford is all a bit subject to what is actually there to object to from both a medical and ethical view by Freeman? This was February 2011 yet Jackson implies all related to an order in May 2011. All we know is Fabio described the IV protocol as a black box with normal stuff. Who knows, as doping goes what that might be, it's all appearing very far removed from anything tangible when there's also plenty of opposing anecdotal evidence Freeman was protecting himself from Peters & Sutton too with the fabricated email etc.
 
Last edited:
Hard to tell what Jackson is focusing on really as his submission is spread across various heresay & anecdotal evidence, perhaps not even evidence at all of the charge reading it at face value. He appears to use Professor Gruden's observation/opinion of a riders testosterone level (I assume he looked at the teams quarterly testosterone results submitted to UCI) being 'elevated' at the same time period Freeman ordered Testogel, but ends the same submission saying the alleged rider is not possible to identify for reasons too deeply buried. So is that the rider with elevated levels? If so, what is buried, you have the rider, you have the steroidal module of his biological passport to refer at WADA to prove it easily, what's too deeply buried to prove? That suggests to me that neither the level was elevated enough to be a doping violation or high-enough to be medical malpractice. It's clearly not enough to worry the biological passport, WADA or UCI anyway!

Jackson also uses various other anecdotes such as Freeman was an ambitious Dr who lied to protect his status in the medical team, threatened by others ethics and didn't object to Nicole Cooks coach doing IV recovery. My understanding is Fabio was brought in precisely because the older riders complained the team didn't do IV recovery, so why Freeman would object to something coming down from we assume Steve Peters & Brailsford is all a bit subject to what is actually there to object to from both a medical and ethical view by Freeman? This was February 2011 yet Jackson implies all related to an order in May 2011. All we know is Fabio described the IV protocol as a black box with normal stuff. Who knows, as doping goes what that might be, it's all appearing very far removed from anything tangible when there's also plenty of opposing anecdotal evidence Freeman was protecting himself from Peters & Sutton too with the fabricated email etc.
all the hurly burly...but of course the most simple explanation is cycling team doc buys PEDs for rider...and...er...that's it
 
We'll see what happens. I'd say GMC have now just altered their charge for 3rd time during this tribunal so even they don't seem confident. Adding an unknown layer of 'Sleepers' I think Simon Jackson is trying to solve this as a Criminal lawyer (which he is) rather than Medical lawyer like O'Rourke (which she is).
 
Freeman ... has now been charged by UKAD with
  • "possession of a prohibited substance" and
  • "tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control".
A charge of tampering would cover an attempt to subvert any aspect of doping control, including an investigation.
 
Posted long ago that it was possible for UKAD to charge Freeman under the WADA Code for having possession of a prohibited substance as a support person.
They just need to prove it was ordered for an athlete now to fall under WADA code. The tampering charge was always coming before May, UKAD could hardly let that hang in the public without attempting to charge him for that.
 
Posted long ago that it was possible for UKAD to charge Freeman under the WADA Code for having possession of a prohibited substance as a support person.
And since they're also charging him with telling porkies, all they really have to do is prove that he's a lying liar and then they don't have to go further with who the drug is for as the onus is on him to show there's an innocent explanation.
 
And since they're also charging him with telling porkies, all they really have to do is prove that he's a lying liar and then they don't have to go further with who the drug is for as the onus is on him to show there's an innocent explanation.
Other way round fmk. Burden of proof is still on the prosecution to prove 2.6.2. Freeman's already admitted to the tampering charge to MPTS. By proving 2.6.2 UKAD can then prove he's a lying liar though and that tampering charge also can be an ADRV. If they can't he's already said it was for Sutton who is a non-athlete.
 
The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.

I see Matt Lawton has come alive about this after months of silence about the GMC case that he refused to give evidence to. My guess he knows that one isn't going the way he wants so has pressurised UKAD to keep it going.

This won't end here though. There's still Judge Rinder, the Mystery Gang and The Thursday Murder Club to investigate.
 
Reactions: pastronef
The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.
WADC:
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.
The comment explaining that:
Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine autoinjector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]
So, yes, the doc can carry banned substances, but it's up to him to offer acceptable justification if challenged, it's not down to the ADO linking the product to an athlete.
 
The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.

I see Matt Lawton has come alive about this after months of silence about the GMC case that he refused to give evidence to. My guess he knows that one isn't going the way he wants so has pressurised UKAD to keep it going.

This won't end here though. There's still Judge Rinder, the Mystery Gang and The Thursday Murder Club to investigate.
A support person can't have possession of a banned substance at their sporting workplace under the WADA Code, while of course, doctor's have a range of substances at their general medical practice - Anyway, I think the first charge will stick because you have documentary evidence, unless Dr Freeman can pull 'a rabbit from the hat' and come up with a number of TUES . The second charge will be harder to prove.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY