CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Mod hat on:

Thanks. The article being pulled makes it tricky as we obviously have no idea why it was pulled. I know very little about libel laws so I don't really want to do the whole, "I'm not a lawyer but *insert uninformed nonsense here*", so I'll just say that posters should take into account these situations when they post. Of course, that requires they know that the article was pulled which I'm assuming you didn't until you looked for it. The protections that are afforded to the forum providers may not cover the forum users, that's something I would urge everyone to consider.

Robert Dineen knows why it was pulled: see Twitter https://twitter.com/robertdineen/status/1077235373602947073?s=19

Whatever the reason, there is no reference to Freeman's MPTS witness statement in it, or ED. Both of which seem to come from Sam's imagination.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Oh and look! Someone right now is asking Dineen about this. Who knew this forum had so many lurkers from the provisional wing of BC's PR department: https://twitter.com/Maeda_I_W/status/1085871087236173825?s=19

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Mod hat on:

Thanks. The article being pulled makes it tricky as we obviously have no idea why it was pulled. I know very little about libel laws so I don't really want to do the whole, "I'm not a lawyer but *insert uninformed nonsense here*", so I'll just say that posters should take into account these situations when they post. Of course, that requires they know that the article was pulled which I'm assuming you didn't until you looked for it. The protections that are afforded to the forum providers may not cover the forum users, that's something I would urge everyone to consider.

Robert Dineen knows why it was pulled: see Twitter https://twitter.com/robertdineen/status/1077235373602947073?s=19

Whatever the reason, there is no reference to Freeman's MPTS witness statement in it, or ED. Both of which seem to come from Sam's imagination.

I'm referring to the Times saying what they believe Freemans witness statement will be? The rest is obvious, not imagination.

Freeman, 57, said yesterday he was preparing a witness statement for the tribunal. He has previously denied all doping charges and any wrongdoing.

It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems. When the delivery was opened by another staff member, he returned it to the supplier.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Mod hat on:

Thanks. The article being pulled makes it tricky as we obviously have no idea why it was pulled. I know very little about libel laws so I don't really want to do the whole, "I'm not a lawyer but *insert uninformed nonsense here*", so I'll just say that posters should take into account these situations when they post. Of course, that requires they know that the article was pulled which I'm assuming you didn't until you looked for it. The protections that are afforded to the forum providers may not cover the forum users, that's something I would urge everyone to consider.

Robert Dineen knows why it was pulled: see Twitter https://twitter.com/robertdineen/status/1077235373602947073?s=19

Whatever the reason, there is no reference to Freeman's MPTS witness statement in it, or ED. Both of which seem to come from Sam's imagination.

Published it in error - yeah right. Did he accidentally get that statement from Freeman/his legal team, wrote a few thousand words on it, get signed off by legal or even worse make the entire thing up from nothing?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Published it in error - yeah right. Did he accidentally get that statement from Freeman/his legal team, wrote a few thousand words on it, get signed off by legal or even worse make the entire thing up from nothing?

Given the inventiveness of his last book that is a question I have already asked.

 

[samhocking]

King Boonen. I'll delete my posts I think, now I know The Telegraph seems to have deleted it for legal reasons (thanks FMK)
Personally, all I've done is take The Times story where Freeman claims the testosterone was for Sutton and The Telegraphs now deleted story they believed Freemans witness statement would say to MPTS it's for erectile dysfunction of a BC staff member and assumed Freeman will remain with Sutton like he said 2 years ago and recently anyway it seems? But Times have deleted the source, so I think I better delete my linking two and two together.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

King Boonen. I'll delete my posts I think, now I know The Telegraph seems to have deleted it for legal reasons (thanks FMK)
Personally, all I've done is take The Times story where Freeman claims the testosterone was for Sutton and The Telegraphs now deleted story they believed Freemans witness statement would say to MPTS it's for erectile dysfunction of a BC staff member and assumed Freeman will remain with Sutton like he said 2 years ago and recently anyway it seems? But Times have deleted the source, so I think I better delete my linking two and two together.

I think it would be better if everything was left as is, it's a very clear example of Sam's tactics, for all too see and judge. And it might encourage others in future to include links when making serious allegations.

 

[samhocking]

Tactics? What are you on about? There's two newspaper articles (with links), one claims Testosterone order was for Sutton before Xmas and another from last couple of days claims Freemans witness statement will be for a staff members erectile dysfunction. It's hardly tactical. Assumption both papers are talking about the same member of BC staff perhaps, but a pretty tame assumption by clinic standards. I've seen much worse allegations here without links even by yourself.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Tactics? What are you on about? There's two newspaper articles, one claims Testosterone order was for Sutton before Xmas and another from last couple of days claims Freemans witness statement will be for a staff members erectile dysfunction. It's hardly tactical. Assumption both papers are talking about the same memebr of BC staff perhaps, but pretty tame by clinic standards.

A Distortion. The article claimed the exact opposite.

 

[samhocking]

No it didn't. The Times article clearly claims:

"It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems"

Which matches what I say. Freeman is said to have told UKAD's enquiry 2 years ago it was for Sutton and it's come up again last few days it was for Sutton.

"Sutton was specifically named by Freeman as being one of the recipients of the patches, the existence of which only came to light when officials from UK Anti-doping (UKAD) visited the National Cycling Centre as part of its investigation"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

No it didn't. The Times article clearly claims:

"It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems"

Which matches what I say. Freeman is said to have told UKAD's enquiry 2 years ago it was for Sutton and it's come up again last few days it was for Sutton.

Oh Sam. You deserve an Oscar.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

No it didn't. The Times article clearly claims:

"It is believed that he may tell the tribunal, which starts in Manchester on February 6, that he intended to prescribe the testosterone privately to a non-athlete staff member with erectile dysfunction problems"

Which matches what I say. Freeman is said to have told UKAD's enquiry 2 years ago it was for Sutton and it's come up again last few days it was for Sutton.

Oh Sam. You deserve an Oscar.

Sorry hit submit before adding this. Whicj would have been ~2 years ago.

"Sutton was specifically named by Freeman as being one of the recipients of the patches, the existence of which only came to light when officials from UK Anti-doping (UKAD) visited the National Cycling Centre as part of its investigation"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Back in the days of LA, David Walsh and Pierre Ballester used the contents of USPS's medicine cabinet in order to highlight cycling's problematic dependency on pharmaceuticals

Walsh and Ballester, in LA Confidentiel, procured the drugs manifest of one team from the 2000 Tour. It listed one hundred twenty-six products. Six hundred and eighty-four individual packages were detailed, which the authors calculated to amount to seven thousand four hundred and twenty-two individual doses. The 2001 manifest for the same team, which the authors also procured, covered one hundred and nineteen different products. Seven hundred and ninety packages were detailed, which the authors calculated to amount to eight thousand, three hundred and thirty-four doses. This is for a team of nine riders in a twenty-one day race. Do the math on the daily doses yourself.

Walsh and Ballester were minded to recall a comment from Daniel Delegove, the presiding judge at the Festina trial in 2000. Looking at the all the evidence he had heard about the use of drugs in cycling, Delegove declared: "These are not racers, they are cycling test tubes."

By the time it came to writing Inside Team Sky Walsh seemed to have forgotten this tactic, never asked the question, instead trusted the team medics he spoke to. He was almost back to his pre-LA days, back to Inside the Tour de France where he sang the praises of ONCE doc Nicolás Terrados. Given what we now know was in that medicine cabinet - and what we're still discovering was in it - one woders what he would say today. That he trusted Sky too much? Or trusted USPS too little?

 

[samhocking]

Walsh stitched himself up. He fell for Fancy Bears & Jiffy Story, now seeks redemption. He just dug himself into an even deeper hole. Why he broke Journalism's first rule until proven is beyond me.

 

[Robert5091]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...cling-widen-net-probe-Dr-Richard-Freeman.html

British Cycling have invited former riders to contact them with any concerns over the serious allegations against Richard Freeman, the ex-team doctor for both the Olympic team and Team Sky.
...
Allegations made by the General Medical Council against Freeman and published by the MPTS last week have prompted British Cycling performance director Stephen Park to write to all riders who were a member of the elite squad in 2011.

'I'm writing to all riders who were on the Great Britain Cycling Team programme in 2011 following recent news you may have seen regarding Dr Richard Freeman,' said Park, who signed the email 'Sparky'.

'Of particular interest to the media are allegations relating to a delivery of Testogel in 2011 and, specifically, that it was obtained with the intention that it would be administered to an athlete to improve performance.

'Therefore, in the interests of our ongoing duty of care to you, I wanted to get in touch. I am always happy to hear from any rider who has represented the GB team but if you would like to discuss British Cycling's approach to the MPTS process, please let me know.'

If you've taken a banned substance, let me know! Umm ...

 

[fmk_RoI]

When all the BC Prgramme riders deny the testosterone was for threm we'll be left with the obvious conclusion: the dope was for a Sky rider. The radical wing of BC's PR department will then probably suggest it was a freigner, to boot.

Ain't no tainted gold here, bro. Look elsewhere.

 

[samhocking]

Well at least 2008's medals are past Statute of Limitations now. Lets see if 2012's get through IOC ITA. So far so good, 4 years to go ; )

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

When all the BC Prgramme riders deny the testosterone was for threm we'll be left with the obvious conclusion: the dope was for a Sky rider. The radical wing of BC's PR department will then probably suggest it was a freigner, to boot.

Ain't no tainted gold here, bro. Look elsewhere.

If the media does reach that conclusion it will get pinned on a former foreign rider who has already faced accusations. My guess is someone like Appollonio

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Well at least 2008's medals are past Statute of Limitations now. Lets see if 2012's get through IOC ITA. So far so good, 4 years to go ; )

I love how low the bar has fallen with the provincial wing of British Cycling's PR department, from ethically pure to can't catch us. But, of course, as the LA saga showed, the Statue of Limitations is not as immobile as people think...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Richard Freeman, the former Team Sky and British Cycling doctor who will face serious allegations at a medical hearing that begins in Manchester this week, is expected to be quizzed on whether he ordered medication for staff members without their knowledge.

Central to a case that could be an embarrassment for the gold medal laden British cycling team and, even worse, tarnish the 2012 London Olympics, Freeman will be asked about a 2011 delivery of testosterone gel to the Manchester HQ of British Cycling and Team Sky.

Source

More:

Sportsmail understands British Cycling and Team Sky staff, past and present, will be called as witnesses to confirm if they were aware that Freeman had ordered medication for them. If they deny knowledge, it leaves open the question of who the drugs were for.

One of the charges laid against Freeman is that 'his motive for placing the order was to obtain Testogel to administer to an athlete to improve athletic performance'.

And the important part slow learners need to pay attention to:

Any new evidence that emerges could trigger a fresh UKAD investigation, with the agency still able to charge Freeman with an anti-doping rule violation if the evidence justifies it. There are strict regulations around support and medical staff and the possession of banned substances, and the fact Freeman has left cycling, having quit his post at British Cycling in 2017 rather than give evidence to an international investigation conducted by the governing body, is irrelevant.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Meanwhile, David Walsh has this to say: "David Walsh: We may now get the truth about the tainting of British cycling"

 

[yaco]

No news here - Have posted since the beginning of the 'Jiffy Bag Scandal' that the most probable chance of a charge would be Freeman as an athlete support person - Anyway we watch with interest.

 

[samhocking]

The only charges from GMC I can see the MPTS upholding (assuming Sutton continues saying it wasn't for him) will be record keeping malpractice with no backup of his laptop, not updating 3 patients GP doctors records for treatment and depending on validity of the email shown to Peters, made untrue statements as a Dr to another Dr.

There is no charge or allegation from GMC Freeman ordered from an unlicensed medical wholesaler, so it looks like Fit4Sport was licenced back then as they are now to sell prescription medication.
Technically, it's not actually against WADA Code for a doctor to order and store testosterone either. It only becomes an ADRV for Freeman, if proved to be intended for an athlete or held by the Dr during a competition event period. The 5 month delay returning it, if true, is a delay, but there's no crime for delay itself I assume.

Assuming either the Testogel wasn't for an athlete/no athlete will admit it and no staff admits they have erectile dysfunction, I can't see the athlete charge being upheld unless a rider admits it, which is highly unlikely. Freeman will continue saying it's for senior staff and Sutton so it's just one word against another, so can't be upheld on that.

The only thing in Freemans favour perhaps is UKAD have confirmed his laptop was stolen and they have seen a copy of the Greek police report. So if Freeman claims there were records for the staff treatments, he can only be charged with medical records malpractice anyway for not backing up the laptop and not using British Cycling's computers.

 

[yaco]

The only charges from GMC I can see the MPTS upholding (assuming Sutton continues saying it wasn't for him) will be record keeping malpractice with no backup of his laptop, not updating 3 patients GP doctors records for treatment and depending on validity of the email shown to Peters, made untrue statements as a Dr to another Dr.

There is no charge or allegation from GMC Freeman ordered from an unlicensed medical wholesaler, so it looks like Fit4Sport was licenced back then as they are now to sell prescription medication.
Technically, it's not actually against WADA Code for a doctor to order and store testosterone either. It only becomes an ADRV for Freeman, if proved to be intended for an athlete or held by the Dr during a competition event period. The 5 month delay returning it, if true, is a delay, but there's no crime for delay itself I assume.

Assuming either the Testogel wasn't for an athlete/no athlete will admit it and no staff admits they have erectile dysfunction, I can't see the athlete charge being upheld unless a rider admits it, which is highly unlikely. Freeman will continue saying it's for senior staff and Sutton so it's just one word against another, so can't be upheld on that.

The only thing in Freemans favour perhaps is UKAD have confirmed his laptop was stolen and they have seen a copy of the Greek police report. So if Freeman claims there were records for the staff treatments, he can only be charged with medical records malpractice anyway for not backing up the laptop and not using British Cycling's computers.

You answered your question in the second paragraph, but then go on to contradict it - Any athlete support person is not allowed to have prohibited substances at their workplace under the WADA Code - Whether UKAD get to this stage is still probably doubtful.

 

[samhocking]

The WADA code at the time technically allows possession, so long as not for an athlete. As Freeman claims it's for staff, it will require MPTS tribunal to have evidence that wasn't the case in order for GMC to pass back to UKAD to open an ADRV allegation against Freeman and/or athlete.

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.