CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If he didnt have anything to hide, surly he would just show up. Clear his name and the name of Sky / BC.

If he does have something to hide, he will surly be under immense pressure from whoever are the guilty parties.

I don't think this is always true (there's a huge amount of evidence that it isn't) and I certainly don't think it's true for someone who suffers from mental health problems.

The MPTS chair said:

There is likely to be a further application on Friday morning which would require legal arguments and it may well be that they would be heard in private

It sounds like new evidence has come to light. Nothing to do with Freeman's health or not being there. In fact the chair also confirms:

Both parties - Freeman and the GMC - have been invited to submit documents to the tribunal panel, which will be read through on Thursday ahead of reconvening on Friday morning.

I don't know why you quoted me, your post seems to have nothing to do with mine.

Tribunals are public, at the moment it's just as likely an application will be for part or all of it to be held in private. I assume this would also require legal arguments.

 

[samhocking]

Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.

 

[MartinGT]

Looks like it and I would say you're right KB that some of it maybe done in private.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.

Or they intend applying to have the whole thing heard in private, the media kicked out.

You never have had the sharpest Occam's razor when it comes to things like this...

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.

That's fine, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Your point about him not being there goes to my point about his mental health and the idea that if you have nothing to hide you'll be there doesn't sit right with me.

Whether it's new evidence or not I don't think we can speculate. Considering the charges relate to record keeping and treating patients I think it was fairly obvious that patient information is likely to be discussed. I'm guessing that this happens a lot and as such they clear the room regularly in tribunals. This may be why it's expected to last a month. If that's the case, I would assume that this wouldn't require a further application and that it is therefore more likely the request is for the whole or majority of the hearing to be in private.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.

That's fine, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Your point about him not being there goes to my point about his mental health and the idea that if you have nothing to hide you'll be there doesn't sit right with me.

Whether it's new evidence or not I don't think we can speculate. Considering the charges relate to record keeping and treating patients I think it was fairly obvious that patient information is likely to be discussed. I'm guessing that this happens a lot and as such they clear the room regularly in tribunals. This may be why it's expected to last a month. If that's the case, I would assume that this wouldn't require a further application and that it is therefore more likely the request is for the whole or majority of the hearing to be in private.

to stretch the goodfellas analagy further....

"a motherf**ker! I almost had him, I almost had him. Ya stuttering pri*k ya. Frankie, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes, Henry. You may fold under questioning"

Its kind of obvious...the good doctor will fold under questioning...as we would say him in my line of work...'don't let them near the client'...or for criminal lawyers...'don't let him in the wirtness box'

either nobody (when I say nobody I mean SDB) trusts the good doctor...or the good doctor doesn't trust himself

all we do know is that one day he'll blow

 

[Robert5091]

Could Sky/Comcast/BC be trying to get the doc/riders interactions done in private as some sort of corporate "trade secret" (i.e. training & dietary methods) and as well as doc/patient confidentiality?

Due to the docs mental health, is it possible to get him removed as a doctor? He does seem a troubled man.

Edit - would Freeman have signed a NDA as well? "What a legal web we weave ..."

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Wiggins legal battle with Lawton & DCMS begins once Testogate is over a dicky bird tells me ; )

Him Sam, do you ever frequent football forums during the transfer window? It usually goes like this, my high up source at the club tells me x is signing on Monday, or my source, my good mate, who knows high up people at the club tells me Y is signing on Tuesday or, my best mate, who is my source but supports A tells me B is signing on Wednesday. And then there is, I was standing in the queue at Greggs yesterday and I heard this guy saying we're signing A, B, X, Y and Z on Thursday, but I can't reveal my source. Do you like sausage rolls and vanilla slices??

Not sure you realise 'dicky bird' is Cockney Rhyming Slang for 'nothing', ie no word. Too subtle outside Bow Bells maybe?

No, 'dicky bird' means 'word': 1 2 3 4

Your sarcastic dig seems misplaced, and your initial comment would be totally meaningless if 'dicky bird' were to mean what you seem to think it does: "Wiggins legal battle with Lawton & DCMS begins once Testogate is over a nothing tells me ; )". I think the idiom you were looking for was, "a little bird (an anonymous source) tells me," although we all would have had a better chance of knowing what you meant if you had used some punctuation.

 

[fmk_RoI]

we all would have had a better chance of knowing what you meant if you had used some punctuation.

I thought the meaning was abundantly clear: "Oh dear, the Freeman hearings are about to begin, I had better attempt to cause a distraction. 'Quick! Look over there! It's a tenuous Wiggins story you've been showing no interest in for ages now!'"

Where I am confused is in the way The Boy Who Cried 'Nope, That Ain't No Wolf, It's A Cute Little Dicky Bird' has done a reverse ferret and become the 'Oh! My! God! They're Bringing In A Wolf!!!' Boy, even before things have got under way.

As said before: it's set to be a long, slow month. It'll make Game of Thrones seem fast paced.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

what was in the bag then, a mirror and a returned ring???? :lol:

We've all done the bad break up where we take the about-to-be-x's credit card and order a FedEx to send the ring back in a Jiffy bag but ... what trick have I been missing with the mirror?

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Was a complete quote so there is the context of Martin's & your conversation, nothing meant by it, sorry.

I'm simply conveying my opinion that it sounds like new evidence or patient information has been discussed by Freeeman's QC and the panel in private (we assume because related to someones personal medical treatment) and that's why both sides are now invited to submit further documents to the chair on Thursday to reconvene on Friday in light of this new information. Technically, Freeman doesn't have to be there remember. His QC is allowed to represent him. It's not necessarily anything to do with Freeman personally, or his health, why the chair adjourned is all.

Or they intend applying to have the whole thing heard in private, the media kicked out.

You never have had the sharpest Occam's razor when it comes to things like this...

FMK. The Chair already said the tribunal is most likely not going to be held in public? Seems pretty obvious someones Erectile Dysfunction or other personal medical matters are going to be the focus of Freeman's witness statements as discussed by Ziegler in The Times yesterday again (although without the Sutton reference now).

 

[fmk_RoI]

There's something dreadfully Freudian about one man's obsession with another man's cigar. An armchair diagnosis would probably start looking in the book under T.

 

[samhocking]

Does it matter? If you're discussing private medical conditions and the press/public are there, it will adjourn in private. If O'Rourke has submitted a request for private tribunal due Freeman's alleged mental health, it's going to be in private too. The Chair said Freeman's tribunal was mostly not going to be public and clearly it's not Freeman's choice what is and isn't public, it will be The Chairs.

 

[Robert5091]

Looks like Cycling News have employed a comedian for the live reporting
http://live.cyclingnews.com/

And in the latest development, Dr Richard Freeman's tribunal has been put on hold once more. It will start up again next week. Team Sky have had terrible luck hiring doctors when it comes to controversy. First it was Leinders, and now Freeman is under investigation. There plenty of doctors out there to choose from guys...

Eh... there's radio DJ, Dr Fox, Dr Dre, Dr Doogie Howser, Dr Pepper, Dr Quinn Medicine Woman, and of course Dr Who.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re:

Looks like Cycling News have employed a comedian for the live reporting
http://live.cyclingnews.com/

And in the latest development, Dr Richard Freeman's tribunal has been put on hold once more. It will start up again next week. Team Sky have had terrible luck hiring doctors when it comes to controversy. First it was Leinders, and now Freeman is under investigation. There plenty of doctors out there to choose from guys...

Eh... there's radio DJ, Dr Fox, Dr Dre, Dr Doogie Howser, Dr Pepper, Dr Quinn Medicine Woman, and of course Dr Who.

Sky will be hoping their doctor gets off like Dr Fox.

 

[Robert5091]

So, we have to wait to hear whether the whole thing will be behind closed doors (my bet, because of Sky's & BC's legal pressure) or just certain days. I'm also betting Freeman won't be seen in Manchester until Martinmas at the earliest.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Re:

So, we have to wait to hear whether the whole thing will be behind closed doors (my bet, because of Sky's & BC's legal pressure) or just certain days. I'm also betting Freeman won't be seen in Manchester until Martinmas at the earliest.

Close the competition for "Best Gratuitous Mention of an Obscure Religious Observation of the Year" now.

 

[Robert5091]

Did I win?!

 

[samhocking]

The media and Twitter are very silent since Thursday? Even Dan Roan hasn't tweeted yet another link to his Dr Freeman BBC interview for over 72 hours now?

 

[Robert5091]

The media and Twitter are very silent since Thursday? Even Dan Roan hasn't tweeted yet another link to his Dr Freeman BBC interview for over 72 hours now?

If it's all behind closed doors we won't hear anything until it's all over. Put the popcorn back in the cupboard!

 

[samhocking]

Yes, although it sounds like the tribunal hasn't begun yet. Dan Roan reported this evening that MPTS will continue hearing private legal argument for the remainder of the week and there will have been at least 8 days of legal argument before the case actually begins.

Looking at the MPTS guidance documents, it appears both sides are within a step called 'Preliminary legal arguments' that can happen if either GMC's or Freeman's representative have any arguments about whether the MPTS should receive certain documents, or that the hearing should be held in private.

 

[Robert5091]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ayed-amid-concerns-delays-UK-Anti-Doping.html

The medical hearing for former Team Sky and British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman is in danger of descending into farce amid concerns that delays could prevent UK Anti-Doping from acting on any new evidence.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service hearing was due to start last week, having been allocated 20 days in Manchester from February 6.

But an initial application for a 48-hour adjournment by Freeman's legal team has been followed by further preliminary legal application that the MPTS now expect to continue for the remainder of this week.

That means it could be day nine before the tribunal that centres on an allegation that Freeman ordered the banned drug Testosterone for an athlete in May 2011 formally begins, making it most unlikely that a conclusion will be reached by March 5.

If the tribunal is only part-heard, it would then be a case of reconvening and that becomes difficult logistically with lawyers, as well as witnesses, potentially booked up later in the year. Indeed there are concerns that the hearing may not be concluded this side of Christmas.

Any date beyond May this year would be a potential problem, not least for UKAD when the statute of limitations for an alleged doping offence in May 2011 was eight years.

You all laughed and mocked when I wrote Freeman would not be seen until Martinmas (November 11), well seems I might be right! :lol:

 

[MartinGT]

https://twitter.com/jeremycwhittle/status/1095237800021184512

 

[Robert5091]

MP Damian Collins (he of the committee that investigated the infamous jiffy bag)
https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1095091476785188866

It is disgraceful that delaying tactics are holding up the work of this important medical tribunal into Dr Richard Freeman’s work for British Cycling and Team Sky https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2019/02/11/medical-tribunal-dr-richard-freeman-case-danger-not-completed/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw … via @TelegraphSport

I might revise my guess to Martinmas 2020 ... if at all.

BC & Sky's lawyers are questioning every punctuation and probably claiming all the requested documents were on the docs missing laptop.

 

[samhocking]

All the preliminary evidence will already have been submitted to the tribunal parties by both GMC & O'Rourke. They now appear, from that, to be held up within a pre-hearing hearing stage called 'Preliminary legal argument'.

This is where they are stuck at in MPTS Trbunal Process:

Preliminary legal arguments
If you or the GMC identifies a legal issue which needs to be addressed at the hearing
(for example, arguments about whether the medical practitioners tribunal should
receive certain documents, or that the hearing should be held in private), this will
need to be considered by the medical practitioners tribunal at the start of the
hearing as a preliminary legal argument. You should inform your GMC contact and
the MPTS as soon as you identify a preliminary legal argument you intend to raise.

The party raising the issue (known as the applying party) must produce a skeleton
argument. A skeleton argument is a document that sets out the main points you
want to make to the medical practitioners tribunal in support of the application you
are making. The applying party must send their skeleton argument to the
responding party by the deadline specified in the case management directions you
will have received.

The responding party must then produce a skeleton argument in response, and send
it to the applying party by the deadline specified in the case management directions.