CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[fmk_RoI]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1372523755533180929

View: https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1372523755533180929

 

[fmk_RoI]

Doctor who? Richard Freeman struck off British medical register

Richard Freeman can no longer work as a doctor after his long-running tribunal concluded with him being struck off the UK medical register on Friday.

The former Team Sky and British Cycling medic was working at an NHS practice in Blackburn, helping with the COVID-19 vaccinations roll-out, when the tribunal delivered its damning initial verdict last week.

However, he will soon have to stop that work as he will be ‘erased’ from the medical register and stripped of his licence to practise medicine

Coming next on the Freeman Show: will the good doctor ask for a second opinion and appeal the decision?

Also: the spin-off show, UKAD Vs Freeman

 

[samhocking]

Kind of inevitable the second the affidavit was stopped by GMC in the beginning. High Court is the only way Sutton's story is going to come out.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1372955523646156803

View: https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1372955523646156803

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I'm not a number, I'm a free man
Live my life where I want to
You'd better scratch me from your black book
'Cause I'll run rings around you

 

[TheSpud]

And if we date the start of all this to Varnish standing up to Sutton then you can also add in the Brexit referendum, three Prime Ministers and the whole of the Trump presidency. Westworld, Fleabag and the Crown hadn't even started when this began. And Game of Thrones fans were eagerly anticipating the release of the sixth book in the series. They're still waiting, so we can't really complain, now can we?

on a serious point - after each GE the constituents of parliamentary committees are re-elected. This takes time, and will potentially shift their focus when they are finally formed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

after each GE the constituents of parliamentary committees are re-elected. This takes time, and will potentially shift their focus when they are finally formed.

"On behalf of Muse Enterprises I'd like to welcome you to to 2017. On your left you'll find Hurricane Ophelia , on your right a pregnant Khloe Kardashian. Please don't touch the Brexit, you could screw up the timeline."

 

[samhocking]

It really all dates back to 2012 and UKAD opening their investigation into Linda McCartney team and Shane Sutton as Manager. That's why O'Rourke begins her case at the 2012 night of the long knives reading out the details of Brailsford interview asking him if he has a past of doping & Sutton says yes and asks Brailsford for help because he's currently under a UKAD anti-doping investigation himself. That ends any active involvement between Team Sky & Sutton, but obviously Sutton takes over from Brailsford at British Cycling at Deloittes recommendation iirc to prevent an ADRV in Team Sky damaging UKSport.
By 2015/16 UKSport & British Cycling have been provided enough information about Suttons behaviour as British Cycling director (some of it by Freeman, Burt & Varnish of course). It's all of that, that was going to form the Daily Mail's big story into British Cycling & Sutton. You can imagine Testogel being ordered on tax payers money to fuel Sutton's sexual appetite could have been wrapped up in that too ultimately, but just the behaviour of Sutton was damaging enough and that was within the relatively controlled setting of his employment tribunal not held in public.

We heard Freeman just last week explaining to Daily Mail's Harris, how there was a surge in Testosterone abuse around 2010-2012 in males for the purpose of sexual performance, that is not simply general chat with Harris imo, that's getting to the actual story of Sutton. Freeman within the tribunal even described Sutton's need for Testosterone was in his head, not so much physical. You can imagine headlines like 'Tax Payer paid for Sutton's Sexual Performance/Conquests with prohibited drugs'. Sutton then sold UKAD & Daily Mail Jiffygate to control to prevent his own complete fall, now ostracised by both British Cycling & Team Sky.

O'Rourke's appeal to the High Court now very likely given her recent statement will be for Sutton's Affidavit, the DCMS documents she says Damian Collins didn't share, more details into UKAD investigation into Sutton also hidden by UKAD. Given they've spent £500K investigating what is Sutton's lies and DCMS too, the story is potentially very damaging for UKAD & DCMS and will be interesting how wide the judge will allow O'Rourke to take this.

 

[Parker]

It really all dates back to 2012 and UKAD opening their investigation into Linda McCartney team and Shane Sutton as Manager. That's why O'Rourke begins her case at the 2012 night of the long knives reading out the details of Brailsford interview asking him if he has a past of doping & Sutton says yes and asks Brailsford for help because he's currently under a UKAD anti-doping investigation himself.

Is this correct? For a start I don't imagine the UKAD ever did any investigating as it was a small team long before the statute of limitations. They have better use of their money. Also Sutton wasn't a DS (Sean Yates was). He was the coach at Welsh Cycling at the time, who admittedly had some sort of feeder arrangement with LMcC

 

[samhocking]

UKAD effectively said Management turned a blind eye to riders potentially being able to dope. (Pretty standard practice for those years i would think)..
Sutton was DS, but there's a few accounts he ran the operational side in terms of rider management. There is some FOI docs out there. UKAD have a portal you can view all the FOI requests into it. Quite interesting some of it.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

UKAD effectively said Management turned a blind eye to riders potentially being able to dope. (Pretty standard practice for those years i would think)..
Sutton was DS, but there's a few accounts he ran the operational side in terms of rider management. There is some FOI docs out there. UKAD have a portal you can view all the FOI requests into it. Quite interesting some of it.

As TheHog would have said:
show the links!

 

[samhocking]

As TheHog would have said:
show the links!

UKAD's portal only publishes the past 3 years of FOI requests. You can no longer access even all the ones made at the time of jiffygate as too old now. There's only been one Linda McCartney one made in last 3 years, but it only asks for an update on any progress. You can request them though, anyone can.

 

[fmk_RoI]

For a start I don't imagine the UKAD ever did any investigating as it was a small team long before the statute of limitations.

Even if they did, would they confirm or deny such an investigation was ongoing or had taken place, let alone release detailed information arising from it?

 

[samhocking]

Well it looks like we won't have to worry about the FOIs. Cyclingnews have finally done it and begun telling the real hidden story about Shane Sutton and Linda McCartney exactly as Wiggins implied in 2018 and O'Rourke was trying to take Freeman's tribunal towards!

UKAD failed cycling by bungling its handling of a historic doping allegation denied by Shane Sutton

Potential witnesses were never contacted, notes were not taken during crucial meetings, and so the unresolved allegations persisted

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[fmk_RoI]

Remembering how this all began.

I got an email from an anonymous source before any of this came out. About [Simon] Cope, about the injection, about what had happened. I was pursuing that. The information was slightly wrong in that it said it was 2012 and I know that Cope wasn’t with the team that year. That completely skewered me in trying to pin it down and the circumstances of it.

I was also told it was during the race. But if he had done that at this particular point in the race, he would have needed a TUE. Otherwise he wouldn’t have got away with it. I thought, look, that’s not plausible, he would have needed a TUE.

So I had this information, and then of course Fancy Bears came out and it showed he had a TUE. Then it started making sense. Then I knew the information I had was authentic. It was just the year that was out.

Not long afterwards, Matt Lawton published his piece. I wasn’t the slightest bit put out. I was absolutely thrilled it was out in the public domain. That someone had done it. I wasn’t in the slighted bit put out that I wasn’t the one who was able to bring it home. That was an important piece of journalism that Matt did.

You have to wonder how many hacks Sutton touted his story around before Lawton picked it up and ran with it.

 

[F_Cance]

British Cycling and UK Anti-Doping face questions over traces of steroid in prominent rider’s 2010 test

British Cycling and UK Anti-Doping are the subject of inquiries by the World Anti-Doping Agency into a 2010 incident when a member of the British cycling team p

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[F_Cance]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375870996079607808

View: https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1375870996079607808

 

[MartinGT]

UKAD and British Cycling face questions over 2010 doping control of ‘prominent track rider’

Rider reportedly returned traces of metabolite of nandrolone ahead of Track World Cup in Australia

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[fmk_RoI]

The 2010 test:

The Sunday Times reports that UKAD met with the rider in question, while British Cycling reportedly privately tested the rider together with two other riders from the same discipline. All three riders reportedly returned negative tests.

A rider with at least two team-mates? Well that rules out Jessica Varnish and Victoria Pendleton in the women's team sprint. And leaves the men's team pursuit squad of Luke Rowe, Jason Queally, Andy Tennant, Ed Clancy, and Steven Burke. Or - couldn't possibly be, could it? - the team sprinters Chris Hoy, Matthew Crampton, and Jason Kenny.

 

[samhocking]

Described as a trace amount though for a naturally occurring substance if it's nandrolone. Threshold is 2, lab can detect 0.2. Sounds like just Lawton digging a WADA lab sent UKAD the trace as is normal and they looked further into it.

 

[MartinGT]

Yet when it was a trace with contador he was hung drawn and quartered

 

[Parker]

The 2010 test:A rider with at least two team-mates? Well that rules out Jessica Varnish and Victoria Pendleton in the women's team sprint. And leaves the men's team pursuit squad of Luke Rowe, Jason Queally, Andy Tennant, Ed Clancy, and Steven Burke. Or - couldn't possibly be, could it? - the team sprinters Chris Hoy, Matthew Crampton, and Jason Kenny.

It says two riders from the same discipline. It doesn't say they were competing at that event.

If you want to play guess the rider, let's first up rule out Luke Rowe who is not a prominent track rider (I never knew did track)
Then think about why the journalist has said 'prominent track rider' and not 'Olympic medallist' which is better headline. So let's rule them out.
So we are left with Tennant and Varnish. Seeing as past stories are believed to been provided by Shane Sutton as some sort of vengeance, I know where my money is.

 

[samhocking]

Yet when it was a trace with contador he was hung drawn and quartered

Clen isn't a threshold substance because it doesn't occur naturally. Any amount is an AAF, you can't have a permitted trace amount.

 

[MartinGT]

Clen isn't a threshold substance because it doesn't occur naturally. Any amount is an AAF, you can't have a permitted trace amount.

But the amount in his system was below the threshold tested and could have been ingested as he said.

 

[samhocking]

But the amount in his system was below the threshold tested and could have been ingested as he said.

That's a different matter. He AAF because any amount has to be dealt with as such under WADA code. Nandrolone you are allowed to have upto a threshold and not have an AAF from the lab, simply notification a trace exists.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It's important that people do not lose track of the real issue here and allow themselves to be distracted:

'Any allegation that an NGB may be testing their athletes in private, in a non-accredited lab, for the purposes of screening for a prohibited substance should be investigated thoroughly.’