• 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 35 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Hi all. A long time since I posted around here, but wondering if you can help me understand this tribunal more clearly?

I only dipped into this yesterday, so I've missed points. But from what I can make out the GMC charge is that Freeman was doping a rider, and Freeman's defense is that, no, he ordered the testosterone to treat Sutton's erectile dysfunction?

Sutton, meanwhile, was a witness for the GMC, trying to undermine that defense?

So I'm a bit confused by the tenor of the comments here, which seems to imply that Freeman and his lawyers are the good guys fighting for truth? Surely if Freeman wins on this point it undermines the case for Sky doping with the testosterone, as they'll be accepting it was for Sutton's bits?

If anyone can explain what is going on here, and who we should be cheering for, I'd appreciate it!
 
I now think it’s a double act between Freeman and Shane to feign conflict, shout a lot and exit pursued by a bear, leaving the tribunal unable to conclude on doping. Yes the test turned up but ...

Freeman may sacrifice his medical career but perhaps it was going down the pan anyway (look how Shane got in the message about him supposedly turning up .... ‘unprepared’). He’s of retirement age anyway, I think, and the two of them could get a bung from the boss if they keep the smoke and mirrors act going for another year or two.
 
Hi all. A long time since I posted around here, but wondering if you can help me understand this tribunal more clearly?

I only dipped into this yesterday, so I've missed points. But from what I can make out the GMC charge is that Freeman was doping a rider, and Freeman's defense is that, no, he ordered the testosterone to treat Sutton's erectile dysfunction?

Sutton, meanwhile, was a witness for the GMC, trying to undermine that defense?

So I'm a bit confused by the tenor of the comments here, which seems to imply that Freeman and his lawyers are the good guys fighting for truth? Surely if Freeman wins on this point it undermines the case for Sky doping with the testosterone, as they'll be accepting it was for Sutton's bits?

If anyone can explain what is going on here, and who we should be cheering for, I'd appreciate it!

Cheer for GMC. Both Freeman and Sutton are ***. Freeman ordered illegal drugs and pushed people to cover it up and if the texts that Sutton hasn't actually denied are true he knew about it. An arrogant ass like Sutton was always gonna come out swinging when hearing he couldn't get it up so I assume that was designed to drag the case into farce. And as for Sutton we didn't need this tribunal to know he's a ***
 
To make it even more confusing, there was this passage in the CN story yesterday:

“I am prepared to take a lie detector test. Who is lying? The guy who isn’t prepared to look his friend in the eye. This is a guy who came to hospital when I had bleeding on the brain when he had no reason to. To me he is a bloody good doctor and a friend,” Sutton said of Freeman.

I totally don't get that statement, but no one seems to have pointed out how little sense it makes. He describes Freeman as a good doctor and his friend, right after saying Freeman is a liar. And that passage is followed by:

"I’ve spent two days waiting to come up here. I’ve come and told the truth. I’ve taken your bullying, your gutter tactics in the press. You've accused me of all kinds of things. I’m going to leave now. I don’t need to go through this *** fight," Sutton was reported as saying, attacking Freeman, who was sat near him but behind a screen after being deemed to be a vulnerable witness.

"The head of BC wanted him out, he turned up to work several times drunk, he was like a Scarlet Pimpernel. I had two critical cases when I couldn’t get hold of him."

"You’re spineless individual," Sutton directed at Freeman.

Hello? Sutton describes Freeman as a good doctor, then says he came to work drunk. Either CN totally misquoted Sutton, or Sutton is insane, and CN didn't point that out.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I read all that and wondered WTF is going on.

And it seems an odd thing to do as a double act to deflect attention - why not just admit to what Freeman claimed?
Probably because what Freeman is claiming isn't true, and his legal team are taking advantage of Sutton's volatile personality.

Ew. I can't believe I'm defending Shane f-ing Sutton. That's how messed up this has gotten.
 
MASSIVE Damage. Win at all costs.
Aye, but let's not think Peters is the hero today. He's the one saying you can't entertain the thought that the Testogel was for an athlete as that hangs a cloud over too many good people. Years ago, a British judge, Lord Denning, using a similar line to keep the Birmingham Six in gaol, saying it was an appalling vista to imagine the police fitted them up. For a man who has preached the need to get your emotional side under control by spanking the monkey, you'd imagine he'd be rational and not make such an emotive judgement. But then, given his lack of curiosity when Freeman claimed Sutton told him to order the Testogel, perhaps this is the norm with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MartinGT
There is a major problem with instapundity like that: it misses what is actually being said.

Freeman's testimony today looks like it's causing more damage to British Cycling as an institution than any one individual (with the possible expectation of the indirect damage this is doing to Brailsford).
Yes, Wise One. It's been great fun watching British Cycling getting flushed down the toilet.
 
Serious question here: Freeman Peters suggests that there are two alternatives for the Testogel order, either it was for Freeman's personal use, or it was for Sutton's personal use.

What that means is that goods for personal use were being ordered on the BC credit card (well, accounts payable department or whatever). In normal organisations, you'd expect an employee to have to first of all have permission to do this, and to then recompense their employer for the expense. If this happened in this case, the audit trail would be clear and we'd know whose personal use the Testogel was for. Thing is, we don't. So it wasn't declared as personal use.

Not being declared for personal use doesn't mean it was for a rider. It could be a case of a very lax expenses policy. In which case, British Cycling licence holders should be asking questions about how their money was spent. And HMRC should be asking questions about whether BIK has been properly declared by BC staffers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheSpud
Serious question here: Freeman suggests that there are two alternatives for the Testogel order, either it was for Freeman's personal use, or it was for Sutton's personal use.

What that means is that goods for personal use were being ordered on the BC credit card (well, accounts payable department or whatever). In normal organisations, you'd expect an employee to have to first of all have permission to do this, and to then recompense their employer for the expense. If this happened in this case, the audit trail would be clear and we'd know whose personal use the Testogel was for. Thing is, we don't. So it wasn't declared as personal use.

Not being declared for personal use doesn't mean it was for a rider. It could be a case of a very lax expenses policy. In which case, British Cycling licence holders should be asking questions about how their money was spent. And HMRC should be asking questions about whether BIK has been properly declared by BC staffers.

Why do you assume it was paid for with a BC card? We know Freeman was running a private clinic part time from the site. He could use his own business credit card.
 

TRENDING THREADS