• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
GMC inquiry leads to medical tribunal for Richard Freeman. Maybe the DCMS report will actually get a scalp, in the end.
British Cycling has been told to expect a medical tribunal involving its former doctor that could have serious consequences for the sport, The Sunday Telegraph understands.

The governing body is said to have been informed that Richard Freeman is likely to face a General Medical Council tribunal in connection with a delivery of testosterone patches to the team headquarters in 2011.
It continues:
UK Anti-Doping may need to examine any fresh evidence that may emerge during a tribunal, given the rules relating to the possession of banned substances by athlete support personnel.

The slow moving "accident" of the doc falling under a bus. Is Mike Morgan helping hm too? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's nothing to defend yet? I know the GMC already completed their investigation into Freeman which started in March and completed last month or whenever it was. All i'm saying is, if all GMC & UKAD have after that, is a GMC medical tribunal for Freeman, there's not much going on in terms of doping. Nothing has changed in terms of riders being involved and won't be if it's a GMC tribunal after an 8 month investigation by UKAD & GMC.

perhaps no one has identified the fire yet sam but the smoke just keeps on billowing and billowing..... :D

Been smoking like this for 20 years now though and nada in terms of concrete doping like is typical in cyclings past. Perhaps that's why I'm not a believer in anything being in this story, or bored?
 
There could be something in the story - Posted at the time of the 'Jiffy Bag' scandal that it would be hard to lay any charges, let alone convictions because of the lack of documentation and that the only chance was Dr Freeman - In saying that if GMC make a negative finding that doesn't necessarily flow throw to UKAD - Finally I expect 'high standards' with NON AAF cases - A guess is not good enough.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/o...testosterone-patches-ordered-Team-Sky-HQ.html
Dr Steve Peters, formerly head of medicine at British Cycling but still the psychiatrist at Team Sky, told the Sunday Times the patches had been sent in error and were returned to the supplier. Freeman told UK Anti-Doping officials that they were not for use by riders.

'I was with a colleague when the order arrived and it was immediately brought to our attention,' Peters said. 'Dr Freeman, responsible for ordering medical supplies, explained that the order had never been placed and so must have been sent in error. He contacted the supplier by phone and they confirmed this. I asked Dr Freeman to repack and return it to the supplier, and to make sure they provided written confirmation that it was sent in error and had been received.

'That confirmation arrived and was shown to me by Dr Freeman. I was satisfied that this was simply an administrative error and it wasn't necessary to escalate it further and so (then British Cycling performance director) Dave Brailsford was not made aware.'

To date a copy of the confirmation document shown to Peters has not been made public.

So if the GMC has got Fit4Sport to talk and has the paperwork, the doc is s****ed. If not, it's business as usual.
 
Originally, it was Fit 4 Sport refused to cooperate with British Cycling to confirm the letter stating they had sent the Testosterone in error. Matt Lawton then later confirmed Fit 4 Sport had cooperated with UKAD and I thought Sapstead confirmed this is what happened and why the Testosterone story went no further as the letter got confirmed.
However, since GMC got involved after UKAD closed the case against Freeman in March, it now seems the story is now the Testosterone was actually ordered on purpose and/or received on purpose, but Freeman's need for the Testosterone was not for riders but some other purpose and this would therefore be against GMC principles and of course Fit 4 Sport are not a licenced medicine supplier either.
I might have my wires cross, but wasn't Viagra alleged to be in the package too suggesting Freeman was treating someone privately with testosterone and viagra?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Originally, it was Fit 4 Sport refused to cooperate with British Cycling to confirm the letter stating they had sent the Testosterone in error. Matt Lawton then later confirmed Fit 4 Sport had cooperated with UKAD and I thought Sapstead confirmed this is what happened and why the Testosterone story went no further as the letter got confirmed.
However, since GMC got involved after UKAD closed the case against Freeman in March, it now seems the story is now the Testosterone was actually ordered on purpose and/or received on purpose, but Freeman's need for the Testosterone was not for riders but some other purpose and this would therefore be against GMC principles and of course Fit 4 Sport are not a licenced medicine supplier either.
I might have my wires cross, but wasn't Viagra alleged to be in the package too suggesting Freeman was treating someone privately with testosterone and viagra?

Hence why Freeman may be in trouble with UKAD as an athlete support person - The rules are clear that an Athlete Support person must not have prohibited substances at their workplace.
 
Is there a WADA rule for that? All cycling doctors would have Corticosteroids within their workplace for example. Is it not simply the prohibited substance has to be in relation to an athlete to be against the rules as per the WADA code below covering Support Staff:

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 rule seems to suggest possession of prohibited substance in competition is an offence, but possession of a prohibited substance out of competition would need to be in connection with an Athlete, a compeition or training athletes? So if Freeman was ordering for someone not an athlete, it's not a WADA sanctionable offence, but would be a GMC issue and why GMC are opening a medical tribunal for him.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Is there a WADA rule for that? All cycling doctors would have Corticosteroids within their workplace for example. Is it not simply the prohibited substance has to be in relation to an athlete to be against the rules as per the WADA code below covering Support Staff:

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 rule seems to suggest possession of prohibited substance in competition is an offence, but possession of a prohibited substance out of competition would need to be in connection with an Athlete, a compeition or training athletes? So if Freeman was ordering for someone not an athlete, it's not a WADA sanctionable offence, but would be a GMC issue and why GMC are opening a medical tribunal for him.

And or course UKAD might need to follow carefully how it is proved in the tribunal that the testosterone was possessed by Freeman for other persons than athletes. Of course in case they found out it was ordered by and delivered to Freeman intentionally.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Originally, it was Fit 4 Sport refused to cooperate with British Cycling to confirm the letter stating they had sent the Testosterone in error. Matt Lawton then later confirmed Fit 4 Sport had cooperated with UKAD and I thought Sapstead confirmed this is what happened and why the Testosterone story went no further as the letter got confirmed.
However, since GMC got involved after UKAD closed the case against Freeman in March, it now seems the story is now the Testosterone was actually ordered on purpose and/or received on purpose, but Freeman's need for the Testosterone was not for riders but some other purpose and this would therefore be against GMC principles and of course Fit 4 Sport are not a licenced medicine supplier either.
I might have my wires cross, but wasn't Viagra alleged to be in the package too suggesting Freeman was treating someone privately with testosterone and viagra?

Interesting to note that British Cycling are 'co-complainants' giving rise to the GMC case. Would part explain the story that Freeman was found to have ordered the patches intentionally but not for riders, hence the reason UKAD thought it was not something to be dealt with under their jurisdiction but of interest to the GMC.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
samhocking said:
Originally, it was Fit 4 Sport refused to cooperate with British Cycling to confirm the letter stating they had sent the Testosterone in error. Matt Lawton then later confirmed Fit 4 Sport had cooperated with UKAD and I thought Sapstead confirmed this is what happened and why the Testosterone story went no further as the letter got confirmed.
However, since GMC got involved after UKAD closed the case against Freeman in March, it now seems the story is now the Testosterone was actually ordered on purpose and/or received on purpose, but Freeman's need for the Testosterone was not for riders but some other purpose and this would therefore be against GMC principles and of course Fit 4 Sport are not a licenced medicine supplier either.
I might have my wires cross, but wasn't Viagra alleged to be in the package too suggesting Freeman was treating someone privately with testosterone and viagra?

Interesting to note that British Cycling are 'co-complainants' giving rise to the GMC case. Would part explain the story that Freeman was found to have ordered the patches intentionally but not for riders, hence the reason UKAD thought it was not something to be dealt with under their jurisdiction but of interest to the GMC.

yup...the hapless Freeman...the only pro doc in cycling history to order PEDS but not for his riders.... love it :D :D

In other news, I really did get £10m from some Nigerian guy :lol:
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
There's nothing to defend yet? I know the GMC already completed their investigation into Freeman which started in March and completed last month or whenever it was. All i'm saying is, if all GMC & UKAD have after that, is a GMC medical tribunal for Freeman, there's not much going on in terms of doping. Nothing has changed in terms of riders being involved and won't be if it's a GMC tribunal after an 8 month investigation by UKAD & GMC.

perhaps no one has identified the fire yet sam but the smoke just keeps on billowing and billowing..... :D

Been smoking like this for 20 years now though and nada in terms of concrete doping like is typical in cyclings past. Perhaps that's why I'm not a believer in anything being in this story, or bored?

Sam, I respect your effort on behalf of Sky but I have to observe that you’re working very hard for someone who’s bored and thinks there is nothing to see here?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
samhocking said:
Originally, it was Fit 4 Sport refused to cooperate with British Cycling to confirm the letter stating they had sent the Testosterone in error. Matt Lawton then later confirmed Fit 4 Sport had cooperated with UKAD and I thought Sapstead confirmed this is what happened and why the Testosterone story went no further as the letter got confirmed.
However, since GMC got involved after UKAD closed the case against Freeman in March, it now seems the story is now the Testosterone was actually ordered on purpose and/or received on purpose, but Freeman's need for the Testosterone was not for riders but some other purpose and this would therefore be against GMC principles and of course Fit 4 Sport are not a licenced medicine supplier either.
I might have my wires cross, but wasn't Viagra alleged to be in the package too suggesting Freeman was treating someone privately with testosterone and viagra?

Interesting to note that British Cycling are 'co-complainants' giving rise to the GMC case. Would part explain the story that Freeman was found to have ordered the patches intentionally but not for riders, hence the reason UKAD thought it was not something to be dealt with under their jurisdiction but of interest to the GMC.

When I see these type of events my immediate thought is fraud - Reckon there's been more than one doctor/sports scientist whose ordered substances for other uses - Have a slack admin system and its achievable.
 
Re: Re:

yaco
When I see these type of events my immediate thought is fraud - Reckon there's been more than one doctor/sports scientist whose ordered substances for other uses - Have a slack admin system and its achievable.

There was, if I remeber correctly, insinuations that Simon Cope's alleged travels around the UK were "expenses padding".

Surely, if the doc was not ordering testosterone for riders, then he would not want it any where near BC/Sky? :confused:
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
yaco
When I see these type of events my immediate thought is fraud - Reckon there's been more than one doctor/sports scientist whose ordered substances for other uses - Have a slack admin system and its achievable.

There was, if I remeber correctly, insinuations that Simon Cope's alleged travels around the UK were "expenses padding".

Surely, if the doc was not ordering testosterone for riders, then he would not want it any where near BC/Sky? :confused:

Maybe that was his mistake...he meant to order them to be delivered to his home address, but they came to his work address instead...

I made that mistake once, ordered some new Zipp wheels, should have come to my work address to avoid my wife knowing i was spending her housekeeping money on bike parts again, but they came to my home when she was in :eek:

I had to forge a letter from Wiggle explaining that what i really ordered was zip ties, not Zipp wheels :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Robert5091 said:
yaco
When I see these type of events my immediate thought is fraud - Reckon there's been more than one doctor/sports scientist whose ordered substances for other uses - Have a slack admin system and its achievable.

There was, if I remeber correctly, insinuations that Simon Cope's alleged travels around the UK were "expenses padding".

Surely, if the doc was not ordering testosterone for riders, then he would not want it any where near BC/Sky? :confused:

Maybe that was his mistake...he meant to order them to be delivered to his home address, but they came to his work address instead...

I made that mistake once, ordered some new Zipp wheels, should have come to my work address to avoid my wife knowing i was spending her housekeeping money on bike parts again, but they came to my home when she was in :eek:

I had to forge a letter from Wiggle explaining that what i really ordered was zip ties, not Zipp wheels :D


Your 3 scoops up Ventoux suggest she overturned your life time ban? Sr. Morgan, nao eh? :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Robert5091 said:
yaco
When I see these type of events my immediate thought is fraud - Reckon there's been more than one doctor/sports scientist whose ordered substances for other uses - Have a slack admin system and its achievable.

There was, if I remeber correctly, insinuations that Simon Cope's alleged travels around the UK were "expenses padding".

Surely, if the doc was not ordering testosterone for riders, then he would not want it any where near BC/Sky? :confused:

Maybe that was his mistake...he meant to order them to be delivered to his home address, but they came to his work address instead...

I made that mistake once, ordered some new Zipp wheels, should have come to my work address to avoid my wife knowing i was spending her housekeeping money on bike parts again, but they came to my home when she was in :eek:

I had to forge a letter from Wiggle explaining that what i really ordered was zip ties, not Zipp wheels :D

Post of the Day! :lol:
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Freeman has maintained throughout and with his Dan Roan interview that he can explain what happened to clear this all up, but hasn't been able to say anything while the case was reviewed by GMC since March.

Sounds like Trump's "my tax-returns are under audit" excuse. :rolleyes:
There's also the 55 vials of triamcinolone in BC's stash that's a problem.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
It's not illegal under WADA rules to have a billion vials of Triamcinolone out of competition. Most team doctors will
use it to treat injured riders. That's it's most common use cycling. In Tennis they even inject the players with it on live TV lol!

The discussion is about an athlete support person having banned substances on premises and how this can lead to an AFF - Triamcinolone is not part of the discussion.
 
It was a reply to Robert5091 saying the triamcinolone stored is a problem. It's basically not, because it's not a WADA violation to store it or use it out of competition from his surgery in the velodrome.

In terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone (if that's the case), that isn't against WADA rules either, but could be under GMC's if unlicenced for example. As we know, it has to be linked to an athlete out of competition to be against WADA code 2.6.2:

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.

GMC is a medical, not anti-doping body. They may well have power to link the testosterone to an athlete, but we don't even know how/why/if the testosterone got ordered yet, letalone any athletes involved. From Freemans comments he seemed confident it was simple to explain. We wait for next year to find out if it is.
 

TRENDING THREADS