Will we have to wait until Team Sky is a DNF?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freeman-tribunal-risks-being-delayed-until-next-year/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freeman-tribunal-risks-being-delayed-until-next-year/
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
So is that you quietly walking back the "NEW EVIDENCE!!!" scaremongering you indulged in last week?samhocking said: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.
fmk_RoI said:So is that you quietly walking back the "NEW EVIDENCE!!!" scaremongering you indulged in last week?samhocking said: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.
The deaths of almost 100 doctors while under GMC investigation over the past decade has raised questions about the stress and fear associated with the process. Clare Dyer reports on the regulator’s moves to soften its harsh image. But is it going far enough?
Mary O’Rourke QC recalls the time a doctor threatened to jump out of a seventh floor window at the General Medical Council’s building while she was defending him on misconduct charges. The consultant paediatrician, who was in his mid-60s, displayed Asperger’s traits and had had recurrent depressive episodes, anxiety, obsessional tendencies, and thoughts of suicide. All three psychiatrists who prepared reports for his case agreed that he was unfit to take part in the proceedings and unfit to practise medicine then or at any time in the future. But the GMC refused to let him take himself off the medical register voluntarily. That took a trip to the High Court, which branded the refusal “irrational.”
Dan Roan for the BBC: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.
Tom Cary in the Telegraph:Freeman's renowned barrister Mary O'Rourke is understood to have various other cases arranged for several months following this one, possibly preventing any resumption until next year.
That delay could affect whether UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) is able launch a new investigation should fresh evidence emerge. Ukad concluded its investigation into British Cycling and Team Sky 15 months ago.
Freeman allegedly ordered the testosterone, which is banned for use by athletes at all times, to Manchester's National Cycling Centre from Oldham-based medical supplier Fit4Sport Ltd in May 2011.
The statute of limitations for prosecuting anti-doping cases was eight years in 2011. The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) extended that until 10 years in 2015 but it is likely the shorter statute of limitations will apply in this case.
First up, the Statute of Limitations: today, it's ten years, introduced in the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. Before that, the 2009 Code applied, and there the Statute of Limitations was eight years.The situation is complicated by confusion over the statute of limitations. In 2015, the World Anti-Doping Agency revised its code, extending the statute of limitations from eight years to 10. However, it is unclear whether the new or the old code would apply in this case.
A Ukad spokesperson told Telegraph Sport last week that the new 10-year statute of limitations would apply. But other sources believe that has not yet been tested.
If the old code applies, Ukad may have only until May – eight years after the batch of Testogel was ordered from Oldham-based supplier Fit4Sport – to push for any sanctions.
So, for UKAD, if they feel Freeman has a case to answer, there is little to stop them from initiating that case even after the eight year Statute of Limitations expires.VII. THE EIGHT-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE CODE WAS SUSPENDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF HIS DOPING AND OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS
In its initial notice letter to Mr. Armstrong, which was incorporated into its charging letter USADA specifically informed Mr. Armstrong that USADA was seeking the disqualification of Mr. Armstrong’s competitive results from August 1, 1998, onward. Mr. Armstrong could have, but did not, challenge USADA’s assertion that the eight year statute of limitations found in the World Anti-Doping Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s conduct. The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s fraudulent concealment of his doping. In asserting anti-doping rule violations and disqualifying results older than the eight year limitation period found in Article 17 of the Code, USADA is relying on the well-established principle that the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitation defense has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct.
As I have said before, when it comes to ghost written books - and Freeman's was ghosted, by Andrew Holmes - the person whose name is on the cover has very little to do with the writing of the book. Most ghosted memoirs are based on a couple or three interviews with the subject, the ghost then going off and padding those interviews out to 300-something pages.Robert5091 said:One has to wonder though how many of those almost 100 doctors had a book published whilst under investigation.
Once again The Boy Who Cried 'I Ain't Afraid Of No Wolf, Cause There Ain't One' tries to switch discussion of Freeman's potential ADRV to something no one is yet contemplating seriously, a rider being sanctioned.samhocking said:For UKAD, they might need to re-analyse samples of any named athletes who received Testogel I assume, so might be concerned in that regard SoL removes some freedom.
Robert5091 said:"Nothing suggests anyone knows what was in the jiffybag."
Well, Freeman obviously does and Burt who put the stuff in the jiffy bag, though strangely Burt claims not to know what it was he put in the jiffy bag (see http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fre...treating-bradley-wiggins-and-team-sky-riders/ ).
Should there be a paper trail for what was sent, it would be "enlightning", but as everything seems to have been on Freeman's disappearing laptop, we'll never get to know.
Though interestingly, Freeman said, "We started recording them in 2012, and between 2012 and 2014 over 275 medications were sent overseas ..."
Why start in 2012 and for a team with marginal gains and all the other bs, why all the extra trips from the UK to the continent when there are chemists in Europe?
(edit - of course! 2012 - SDB's "dark night of the soul" and the new anti-doping policy.)
Which seems a lot of bs to my, admittedly, un-GP-trained thinking.Freeman also told the select committee that the experience of the Scottish skier Alain Baxter, who had lost out on an Olympic medal because he had taken Vick containing a banned substance, had made them wary of buying medicines over the counter. “It was very important to be sure that any medicines sent to the team on tour were appropriate and from a reliable source,” he wrote.
Which part of it is BS? Given strict liability, people need to know what they are ordering. Medicines in one country are not always the exact same in another country. If you can afford to buy from a trusted supplier and ship it, you will do that, the same as some teams pay to have supplements tested for contamination.Robert5091 said:I assume you're refering to -
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...iggins-doctor-british-cycling-mystery-package
Which seems a lot of bs to my, admittedly, un-GP-trained thinking.Freeman also told the select committee that the experience of the Scottish skier Alain Baxter, who had lost out on an Olympic medal because he had taken Vick containing a banned substance, had made them wary of buying medicines over the counter. “It was very important to be sure that any medicines sent to the team on tour were appropriate and from a reliable source,” he wrote.
yaco said:Sam - Think you inadvertently answered my question - You state the IOC has retested 500 samples from the 2012 Olympics - My estimation tells me there were about 10,000 athletes at the 2012 Olympic Games.
Preliminary legal argument on Richard Freeman’s MPTS hearing now expected to run into next week. Was supposed to begin on Feb 6 and scheduled to finish on March 5. Farcical.
The MPTS are kicking the ball into next week:Former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman's tribunal has been postponed again while the panel of judges continues to hear 'preliminary legal argument', the medical practitioners' tribunal service has confirmed.
The hearing was meant to start at the MPTS's Manchester base on February 6 but was immediately adjourned when Dr Freeman's legal team made a private application to the tribunal.
The nature of that application is unknown but it is thought to be related to Dr Freeman's mental health and the two parties have been arguing the matter for 10 days.
'Please be advised that the preliminary legal argument being made in the hearing of Dr Freeman will continue throughout this week. This means that we do not expect a decision on the application until sometime next week.'