CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 53 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?
JLA crashed in stage 3 of the Vuelta that year and abandoned didn’t he? It’s a long time ago. Would also seem strange to link that to testosterone levels.
 
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.
I'm not 'finding out' anything, I've definitely read what I claim and remembered precisely because I was surprised UCI were allowing the team to submit more rider data to the bio-passport than the UCI required as part of the minimum quarterly mandatory examinations.
 
JLA crashed in stage 3 of the Vuelta that year and abandoned didn’t he? It’s a long time ago. Would also seem strange to link that to testosterone levels.
I think O'Rourke's point was the rider left the UCI medical program because he was let go by the team. He didn't improve, that's for sure, he didn't even race the next season until July 2011 and San Sebastian and that was a DNF too. He never races again and left Team Sky that season. According to O'Rourke/Freeman this was because he hadn't put in the effort. He was however later diagnosed with avascular necrosis caused by a crash in 2007.
 
Quote re. additional testing in collaboration with UCI & WADA was here from Sky's The Limit

Steve Peters:
“The UCI said ‘you don’t need to be that rigorous; [Palfreemans proposed Team Sky Internal Testing Program] and if you’re that rigorous it’s extremely costly and it won’t pick up any more data than the biological passport’.

“It wasn’t that we rejected Roger’s plan or that we wriggled out of it. That’s so far from the truth.

“Roger was perfectly happy with the system we put in place instead, where we do take extra tests but we do it in collaboration with the UCI and WADA”.
There is another reference to this additional testing elsewhere, but I can't find it it's too long ago and probably where this quote originates from anyway and irc was simply UCI explaining what Peters is here.
 
As I thought. So basically we will never know who.
I think GMC will be happy they managed to charge him without having to worry about finding any riders and UKAD will be happy they can at a minimum, charge him for tampering (which he's already admitted anyway) .

If UKAD now wants to get to the bottom of the story and find the mystery rider, they need to go right back to Jess Varnish, Sutton's sacking over her, Matt Lawton and obtain Sutton's Affidavit O'Rourke continually demanded from Daily Mail Editors safe alleging it's Suttons signature to protect Daily Mail from defamation claims by Freeman, Brailsford & Wiggins over jiffygate. She wouldn't be continually demanding it (even the closing submission says she's disappointed GMC would not obtain it using Section 35A) if it's going to harm Freeman's image and neither would Freeman want her to unless it would help his credibility imo.
 
Reactions: MartinGT
They don't have the power of the medical act like GMC do. Rather absurdly, it's the GMC who decide if the Defence can use the medical act to obtain documents under Section 35A, but why would they ever want to help the defence as the prosecution? That side of it is only in GMCs favor I think, so that chance of getting to the bottom of Jiffygate is also gone now, unless Freeman gets to appeal to the High Court. Freeman is 61 years old though, if he needs to work for another 4 years it might be worth appealing, if he can retire, I wouldn't blame him for just getting on with his retirement instead, he doesn't need a licence or to work in cycling anyway, why fight?
 
They don't have the power of the medical act like GMC do. Rather absurdly, it's the GMC who decide if the Defence can use the medical act to obtain documents under Section 35A, but why would they ever want to help the defence as the prosecution? That side of it is only in GMCs favor I think, so that chance of getting to the bottom of Jiffygate is also gone now, unless Freeman gets to appeal to the High Court. Freeman is 61 years old though, if he needs to work for another 4 years it might be worth appealing, if he can retire, I wouldn't blame him for just getting on with his retirement instead, he doesn't need a licence or to work in cycling anyway, why fight?

The issue with going to appeal is that, from a medical perspective, he's admitted the major charges. The punishment will be the same . Dishonesty is big thing with them. This doping issue is largely for the media. Going to the High Court would oblige Lawton to give evidence and release the affidavit but is there the will to do it.
 
I think GMC will be happy they managed to charge him without having to worry about finding any riders and UKAD will be happy they can at a minimum, charge him for tampering (which he's already admitted anyway) .

If UKAD now wants to get to the bottom of the story and find the mystery rider, they need to go right back to Jess Varnish, Sutton's sacking over her, Matt Lawton and obtain Sutton's Affidavit O'Rourke continually demanded from Daily Mail Editors safe alleging it's Suttons signature to protect Daily Mail from defamation claims by Freeman, Brailsford & Wiggins over jiffygate. She wouldn't be continually demanding it (even the closing submission says she's disappointed GMC would not obtain it using Section 35A) if it's going to harm Freeman's image and neither would Freeman want her to unless it would help his credibility imo.
Sam...there isn't a mystery rider...it's riders...and it will not have just been testo "patches"....unless of course you think that Capone was just a tax dodger....
 
lols...doctor dopes riders but after sam and parker join its all about a journo.......meanwhile wiggins and froome will be feeling a little bit less secure about their legacy...which is a justice of sorts
Both GMC themselves and the press use the singular term to dope a rider. Not riders. O'Rourke in her summing up also only used the term rider. It may well be more than one rider, but the charge was rider.
 
lols...doctor dopes riders but after sam and parker join its all about a journo.......meanwhile wiggins and froome will be feeling a little bit less secure about their legacy...which is a justice of sorts
We've gone from rotten apples to lone wolves and nothing's really changed., has it? The response is always the same: move along now.

As for this obsession with the journo, the one we've been so reliably informed for so long by some round here that's going to be sued by Wiggins (can you hear that tick-tock-tick-tock noise in the background? That's the clock running down on that happening): I'm not getting it. Freeman's QC achieved her objective in part by outing Sutton as the source of Lawton's Jiffy-Bag story. For sure, having the affidavit with his signature on it would be the icing on the cake but all it would be would be full proof that Sutton's the source. A journalist getting an anonymous source to sign a statement saying this is what they said is good practice, nothing more. But hey, if some want to obsess about this, let em. It doesn't change anything.
 
Going to the High Court would oblige Lawton to give evidence and release the affidavit but is there the will to do it.
Wouldn't that depend on what - if any - appeal was admitted? An appeal is not a do over, it is not a fresh hearing of the evidence. It is quite a narrow process.

Perhaps the Clinic's legal service team would like to identify exactly what the nature of Freeman's High Court appeal would be, rather than just state authoritatively that it would leave a journalist with no choice but to publicly give up his source.
 
Doesn't history suggest patches are generally what you would order to dope though to control the dosage? e.g. Landis said to have used Androderm patches? Microdosing
We've gone from rotten apples to lone wolves and nothing's really changed., has it? The response is always the same: move along now.

As for this obsession with the journo, the one we've been so reliably informed for so long by some round here that's going to be sued by Wiggins (can you hear that tick-tock-tick-tock noise in the background? That's the clock running down on that happening): I'm not getting it. Freeman's QC achieved her objective in part by outing Sutton as the source of Lawton's Jiffy-Bag story. For sure, having the affidavit with his signature on it would be the icing on the cake but all it would be would be full proof that Sutton's the source. A journalist getting an anonymous source to sign a statement saying this is what they said is good practice, nothing more. But hey, if some want to obsess about this, let em. It doesn't change anything.
Daily Mail is a cash 4 stories news source fmk - wake up man! Even Wikipedia banned the public using their journalism as credible information sources. Microsoft browser security software even blocked their website at one point claiming it was a fake news site! The whole thing is just hungry football journalists now. Just look at them all patting each other on the back yesterday at how great their work has been and thanking each other. It's all ***, Sutton sold them a lie, they investigated nothing, UKAD simply found an order of testgoel invoiced openly on BC's accounts and that's about all that came out of jiffygate! For all we know the gel could be for Freeman himself. In fact replace 'rider' for 'Freeman' in MPTS's Verdict and you realise there is no link to the charge other than they don't believe Freeman, they believe Sutton a little more though, so went with it. Long way to go, hopefully DCMS v2 going in for a second attempt might do a better job of actually pulling everyone into the room involved. Journalists, Affidavits, Sutton & Freeman to hammer it out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY