CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 52 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
WADC:The comment explaining that: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.
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.
A support person can have possession. The code clearly uses the condition 'in connection with an athlete' so it's not a violation of 2.6.2 if the possession is in connection to a non-athlete (Sutton)! Why do you think Freeman is challenging it at MPTS so avidly, but not the charge of tampering he's already admitted to at MPTS. No WADA code applies to a GP carrying prohibited substances when the connection is for a non-athlete, that's a GMC issue, and which has now been through MPTS tribunal without a connection found to an athlete it seems. GMC's QC even said there are no athletes and they didn't intend to find an athlete as part of the MPTS tribunal at the very beginning and during submission. He did however say the athlete being discussed can't be named for reasons too deeply buried (whatever that means).
UKAD are now back to where they were after their jiffybag investigation concluding with the TGel order found on BCs accounts was passed to GMC, but as was their intention, GMC have now waded through medical records for them, because they have carte blanche ability to under the medical act beyond simply the jiffybag allegation and only able to investigate Wiggins medical records. UKAD didn't, but now have what they don't ordinarily have the power to look at.
GMC seem to have concluded they believe the order was intended for John-Lee Augustyn because his blood valued dropped and increased around the time of the order. Is it related to him suffering avascular necrosis perhaps? We don't know, but a lot was discussed in private session on a riders blood values and he's the only rider with the 5 DNF in a row O'Rourke discussed in her closing submission, then let go by Team Sky.

2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Personnel In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by an Athlete Support Personnel Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.
 
Last edited:
A support person can have possession. The code clearly uses the condition 'in connection with an athlete' so it's not a violation of 2.6.2 if the possession is in connection to a non-athlete (Sutton)! Why do you think Freeman is challenging it at MPTS so avidly, but not the charge of tampering he's already admitted to at MPTS. No WADA code applies to a GP carrying prohibited substances when the connection is for a non-athlete, that's a GMC issue, and which has now been through MPTS tribunal without a connection found to an athlete it seems. GMC's QC even said there are no athletes and they didn't intend to find an athlete as part of the MPTS tribunal at the very beginning and during submission. He did however say the athlete being discussed can't be named for reasons too deeply buried (whatever that means).
UKAD are now back to where they were after their jiffybag investigation concluding with the TGel order found on BCs accounts was passed to GMC, but as was their intention, GMC have now waded through medical records for them, because they have carte blanche ability to under the medical act beyond simply the jiffybag allegation and only able to investigate Wiggins medical records. UKAD didn't, but now have what they don't ordinarily have the power to look at.
GMC seem to have concluded they believe the order was intended for John-Lee Augustyn because his blood valued dropped and increased around the time of the order. Is it related to him suffering avascular necrosis perhaps? We don't know, but a lot was discussed in private session on a riders blood values and he's the only rider with the 5 DNF in a row O'Rourke discussed in her closing submission, then let go by Team Sky.
Well, UKAD has issued a charge of possession against Freeman, so they must feel it was for an athlete and moreover they can prove it an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Your mention of Sutton is a 'red herring' - If it was for Sutton, then Freeman orders and then dispenses the product from his GP practice - In relation to the tampering charge you seem to have some private information, so we will see what happens.

The bottom line is I suggested long ago, the most realistic way for UKAD to be involved in the Freeman/Sky/British Cycling allegations was to issue a charge against Freeman of having a prohibited substance at the premises of British Cycling.
 
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.
He is reported to have accepted the second charge - being a liar - and is only challenging the first, possession. All he's left with on the lies charge is mitigation - his mental health woes - but UKAD can argue that his lies are nothing to do with depression and everything to do with saving his skin. If they succeed in that then any "acceptable justification" (which does not have to be TUEs) he offers on the first charge, well all UKAD have to do is claim it's part of a pattern of behaviour established by the second charge and as such can't be believed. In which case, "Hello naughty step, let's get to know one and other, I'm going to be parked here a while, it seems." So, that's the real question that's left to the panel: sad or bad?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: yaco
It will be interesting how UKAD play it. Freeman has admitted to tampering with UKADs investigation within the MPTS tribunal, but at that time also said the order was for Sutton not an athlete and not a doping matter, but UKAD couldn't determine who it was for and why it went to GMC to try and find out using their powers of the medical act to work with.
Freeman's said the lie was to appease Peters shock & disappointment in him at the time seeing the order and then repeated that lie to UKAD to be consistent (I assume). However, he has since explained the reason he lied was because he feared Peters sacking if he knew the truth Sutton had bullied him to order it and if Sutton knew Peters knew it was ordered for himself, Sutton would sack Freeman anyway.

So it comes down to Augustin. Has Augustin told GMC the testogel was for himself, has GMC assumed due to Augustins blood levels the order was for him and UKAD believe GMCon this, or has UKAD simply added the charge of possession anyway due to statute of limitations meaning Augustins samples might need to be analysed before May deadline when they'll be incinerated?
 
The Freeman Show continues, it's not done yet! From Ingle in the Guardian:
Friday’s verdict does not yet mark the end of the tribunal. It will sit again for three days next week to assess whether Freeman licence to practice is impaired - and then again in April to deliberate on whether he should lose his doctor’s licence or face any other punishments for his behaviour.

Freeman will also face two UK Anti-Doping charges related to ordering banned testosterone, including possession of a prohibited substance and tampering.

A charge of tampering covers an attempt to subvert any aspect of doping control, including an investigation. Freeman is understood to have contested part of the charges, and has requested a hearing.
Honestly, WandaVision pulled off a better ending, this is getting into Lord of the Rings territory.
 
what does that even mean "knowing or believing", what else would you need banned substance for

"hey i need testogel"
"why?"
"eeeh, you know im a big fan of DJ Testo" badum,tss

thank you, ill be here all week

anyway, Raul Alarcon should get additional 4 year ban
 
ok...i'm not sam but i will do my best.......obv no one cares if the dr may still practice or not
or gets pinged by UKAD

what we need to know is who the testo was for? how much else was ordered and is
yet hidden ? then we will know what's to be seen...


Mark L
Long time no hear Mark.

Not sure we'll ever find out what the full story is around those testogels
 
Reactions: JosefK
WRT joining the dots and ID'ing the rider the T-gel was for, two Tweets from Sean Ingle during the summing up in February are being used by some to single out the South African rider John-Lee Augustyn. The Tweets:

View: https://twitter.com/seaningle/status/1360181336435261443

Not finishing five races in a row suggests a road rider, not a trackie. If you dispute this please give a reason. For now, let's work with the probability it is a roadie, not a trackie.

Did JLA DNF five races in a row? Referring to CQ, I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing two DNFs at the end of 2010 and then no racing until July 2011 and a third consecutive DNF. Three is not five and July 2011 is after the Testogel was received at the medal factory. Have CQ missed races?

The other point here is "the programme." JLA is a Saffie, isn't he? Was he on British Cycling's podium programme? If it's not the podium programme what does "the programme" refer to (and bear in mind it comes from someone denying any doping was going on, so it's not that programme).

If less than five consecutive DNFs meets the five-in-a-row criteria in Ingle's Tweets and if not being on the BC podium programme meets the criteria in Ingle's Tweets are there any other riders to consider. Could be

Try Kurt Asle Arvesen, who DNFed three times in a row in 2011 (Paris-Roubaix, Amstel, ATOC). Or Serge Pauwels who DNFed three times across May, June and July 2011 (which puts him past the point the Testogel was ordered). Neither of them seem likely culprits, given "the programme" comment.

But what about Jeremy Hunt? DNF at the Ronde, Roubaix and ATOC. Followed (not quite consecutively) by a DNF in Luxembourg and preceded (not quite consecutively) by a DNF in Paris-Nice. Was he on the podium programme and does his retirement in 2012 count as falling out if he was?

So, Inspector Cluseau confidently pointing the finger at a Saffie notwithstanding, could it be that there's a Brit who better fits the frame?
 
Feb 27, 2021
173
175
530
WRT joining the dots and ID'ing the rider the T-gel was for, two Tweets from Sean Ingle during the summing up in February are being used by some to single out the South African rider John-Lee Augustyn. The Tweets:

View: https://twitter.com/seaningle/status/1360181336435261443

Not finishing five races in a row suggests a road rider, not a trackie. If you dispute this please give a reason. For now, let's work with the probability it is a roadie, not a trackie.

Did JLA DNF five races in a row? Referring to CQ, I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing two DNFs at the end of 2010 and then no racing until July 2011 and a third consecutive DNF. Three is not five and July 2011 is after the Testogel was received at the medal factory. Have CQ missed races?

The other point here is "the programme." JLA is a Saffie, isn't he? Was he on British Cycling's podium programme? If it's not the podium programme what does "the programme" refer to (and bear in mind it comes from someone denying any doping was going on, so it's not that programme).

If less than five consecutive DNFs meets the five-in-a-row criteria in Ingle's Tweets and if not being on the BC podium programme meets the criteria in Ingle's Tweets are there any other riders to consider. Could be

Try Kurt Asle Arvesen, who DNFed three times in a row in 2011 (Paris-Roubaix, Amstel, ATOC). Or Serge Pauwels who DNFed three times across May, June and July 2011 (which puts him past the point the Testogel was ordered). Neither of them seem likely culprits, given "the programme" comment.

But what about Jeremy Hunt? DNF at the Ronde, Roubaix and ATOC. Followed (not quite consecutively) by a DNF in Luxembourg and preceded (not quite consecutively) by a DNF in Paris-Nice. Was he on the podium programme and does his retirement in 2012 count as falling out if he was?

So, Inspector Cluseau confidently pointing the finger at a Saffie notwithstanding, could it be that there's a Brit who better fits the frame?
Who is it? Come on now..don't be a tease :D :p:D
 
The 5 races in a row and then leaving 'the program' will be related to leaving UCI's Medical Programme I think, because the context of all this was Jackson was debating riders Testosterone & Iron levels dropping and implying Freeman ordered the Testogel to address this level and increase it and their performance (microdosing them).

Every 3 months the WT & PCT teams must submit to the UCI their riders Testosterone and Iron level as part of wider health checks. JLA DNF'd 5 races before ending at Sky and so that UCI program at Sky ended then too as it would have been taken over by his next team he signed for.

There is one race he did finish in-between the 5 DNF in a row, but we don't know of any smaller races he might have DNF before or after the 2011 last San Sebastian DNF or if O'Rourke simply meant 5 DNFs in 6 races, but clearly her main argument was - if you were doping a rider, why would he then leave this team and therefore their UCI program if his performance had been increased and DNF issues resolved by doping, which clearly hadn't happened?

Important to keep in the back of you mind, Sky were actually submitting more than they needed to to UCI at this time I believe. I can't remember the context or where I read this, but will try and find out. I vaguely remember they wanted to do more than the minimum and UCI allowed that because the blood checks are added to ADAMS too.
 
Last edited:
I don't think GMC truly believe any rider was taking it, because they didn't decide to challenge Freeman the order hadn't been destroyed as he described.
They begun 2 years ago with Freeman had ordered it to microdose a rider and used the UCI's blood records to identify riders with a period of low testosterone it would seem. None of that has made it into the tribunals verdict statement whatsoever today! All that has really been said is they have no reason not to believe Sutton saying it wasn't for him and don't believe Freeman order it for him. For GMC, having a rider isn't required, all they wanted to do was tip the balance of probability away from the order being for Sutton as Freeman has maintained.
 
Last edited:
Important to keep in the back of you mind, Sky were actually submitting more than they needed to to UCI at this time I believe. I can't remember the context or where I read this, but will try and find out. I vaguely remember they wanted to do more than the minimum and UCI allowed that because the blood checks are added to ADAMS too.
Submitting more ... did they also offer $100k to buy a blood testing machine?

Stick to concrete, Sam, rather than trying to ‘find out’. The media is binary; the house of cards is wobbling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts