CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[samhocking]

Last several weeks of delays had nothing to do with Freeman. The Chair had to eventually tell Jackson to stop adding more evidence after 7 weeks and telling the panel not to take it into account unless it related to the charge lol

 

[fmk_RoI]

Long-running award-winning fan-favourite epic saga the Freeman Show set for return to our screens:

Almost two years after it started, the much-delayed hearing is scheduled to resume on Friday, when both parties will deliver their closing submissions, with a decision expected in March.

Tricky Dr Dicky had requested yet another delay, this time so that he could save the world from the ravages of the pandemic:

But in the saga's latest twist, Dr Freeman's lawyers wrote to the MPTS last week, arguing for another delay after he was asked by the NHS practice in Lancashire where he now works to help administer Covid-19 vaccinations. In correspondence seen by the BBC, they explained their client had a "strong commitment to continue his Covid work". It added: "We write to request an adjournment… to allow him [Dr Freeman] to undertake the duties that the practice wish him to. We strongly believe that the Covid crisis position should take precedence."

The good doctor's Jesus complex, however, was laughed off the stage:

The MPTS also opposed the request, telling Dr Freeman's lawyers that they did not consider an adjournment "proportionate or in the interests of justice". "While it is undoubtedly important that Dr Freeman carries out his professional obligations to participate in the Covid-19 vaccination programme… it is entirely possible and not unfair for closing submissions to be delivered effectively by both parties in his absence," the MPTS added in its response.

 

[samhocking]

Delaying for what? That is the question. No new facts and evidence can be added by ether side now or argued relating to the charges because it's moved to the impairment stage. Freeman can call witness testimony and submit evidence he's not impaired to practice (I assume from his current boss at East Lancs NHS the last 11 months or so) & GMC can do the the same to say he hasn't addressed them and the facts to have him warned/suspended etc.
Statute of limitations is a non-event. If UKAD have a cycling team under investigation 21 years later, they can Freeman too.

 

[samhocking]

According to Telegraph Sara Britcliffe the Conservative MP for Hyndburn wrote to MPTS asking for adjournment so Freeman could carry on working. Interesting.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The GMC 's tl;dr:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1352569911936212992

View: https://twitter.com/seaningle/status/1352569911936212992

Have they produced enough evidence to prove that? My money's on no.

 

[samhocking]

Hard to tell what Jackson is focusing on really as his submission is spread across various heresay & anecdotal evidence, perhaps not even evidence at all of the charge reading it at face value. He appears to use Professor Gruden's observation/opinion of a riders testosterone level (I assume he looked at the teams quarterly testosterone results submitted to UCI) being 'elevated' at the same time period Freeman ordered Testogel, but ends the same submission saying the alleged rider is not possible to identify for reasons too deeply buried. So is that the rider with elevated levels? If so, what is buried, you have the rider, you have the steroidal module of his biological passport to refer at WADA to prove it easily, what's too deeply buried to prove? That suggests to me that neither the level was elevated enough to be a doping violation or high-enough to be medical malpractice. It's clearly not enough to worry the biological passport, WADA or UCI anyway!

Jackson also uses various other anecdotes such as Freeman was an ambitious Dr who lied to protect his status in the medical team, threatened by others ethics and didn't object to Nicole Cooks coach doing IV recovery. My understanding is Fabio was brought in precisely because the older riders complained the team didn't do IV recovery, so why Freeman would object to something coming down from we assume Steve Peters & Brailsford is all a bit subject to what is actually there to object to from both a medical and ethical view by Freeman? This was February 2011 yet Jackson implies all related to an order in May 2011. All we know is Fabio described the IV protocol as a black box with normal stuff. Who knows, as doping goes what that might be, it's all appearing very far removed from anything tangible when there's also plenty of opposing anecdotal evidence Freeman was protecting himself from Peters & Sutton too with the fabricated email etc.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Freeman Show goes on hiatus, again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1354381988904448004

View: https://twitter.com/seaningle/status/1354381988904448004

 

[Libertine Seguros]

 

[gillan1969]

Hard to tell what Jackson is focusing on really as his submission is spread across various heresay & anecdotal evidence, perhaps not even evidence at all of the charge reading it at face value. He appears to use Professor Gruden's observation/opinion of a riders testosterone level (I assume he looked at the teams quarterly testosterone results submitted to UCI) being 'elevated' at the same time period Freeman ordered Testogel, but ends the same submission saying the alleged rider is not possible to identify for reasons too deeply buried. So is that the rider with elevated levels? If so, what is buried, you have the rider, you have the steroidal module of his biological passport to refer at WADA to prove it easily, what's too deeply buried to prove? That suggests to me that neither the level was elevated enough to be a doping violation or high-enough to be medical malpractice. It's clearly not enough to worry the biological passport, WADA or UCI anyway!

Jackson also uses various other anecdotes such as Freeman was an ambitious Dr who lied to protect his status in the medical team, threatened by others ethics and didn't object to Nicole Cooks coach doing IV recovery. My understanding is Fabio was brought in precisely because the older riders complained the team didn't do IV recovery, so why Freeman would object to something coming down from we assume Steve Peters & Brailsford is all a bit subject to what is actually there to object to from both a medical and ethical view by Freeman? This was February 2011 yet Jackson implies all related to an order in May 2011. All we know is Fabio described the IV protocol as a black box with normal stuff. Who knows, as doping goes what that might be, it's all appearing very far removed from anything tangible when there's also plenty of opposing anecdotal evidence Freeman was protecting himself from Peters & Sutton too with the fabricated email etc.

all the hurly burly...but of course the most simple explanation is cycling team doc buys PEDs for rider...and...er...that's it

 

[samhocking]

We'll see what happens. I'd say GMC have now just altered their charge for 3rd time during this tribunal so even they don't seem confident. Adding an unknown layer of 'Sleepers' I think Simon Jackson is trying to solve this as a Criminal lawyer (which he is) rather than Medical lawyer like O'Rourke (which she is).

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Dr Richard Freeman charged by UK Anti-Doping with two violations of rules

The BBC has learned ex-British Cycling and Team Sky chief doctor Richard Freeman has been charged by UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) with two violations of anti-doping rules.

www.bbc.com

Freeman ... has now been charged by UKAD with

• "possession of a prohibited substance" and
• "tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control".

A charge of tampering would cover an attempt to subvert any aspect of doping control, including an investigation.

 

[yaco]

Posted long ago that it was possible for UKAD to charge Freeman under the WADA Code for having possession of a prohibited substance as a support person.

 

[samhocking]

Posted long ago that it was possible for UKAD to charge Freeman under the WADA Code for having possession of a prohibited substance as a support person.

They just need to prove it was ordered for an athlete now to fall under WADA code. The tampering charge was always coming before May, UKAD could hardly let that hang in the public without attempting to charge him for that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Posted long ago that it was possible for UKAD to charge Freeman under the WADA Code for having possession of a prohibited substance as a support person.

And since they're also charging him with telling porkies, all they really have to do is prove that he's a lying liar and then they don't have to go further with who the drug is for as the onus is on him to show there's an innocent explanation.

 

[samhocking]

And since they're also charging him with telling porkies, all they really have to do is prove that he's a lying liar and then they don't have to go further with who the drug is for as the onus is on him to show there's an innocent explanation.

Other way round fmk. Burden of proof is still on the prosecution to prove 2.6.2. Freeman's already admitted to the tampering charge to MPTS. By proving 2.6.2 UKAD can then prove he's a lying liar though and that tampering charge also can be an ADRV. If they can't he's already said it was for Sutton who is a non-athlete.

 

[Parker]

The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.

I see Matt Lawton has come alive about this after months of silence about the GMC case that he refused to give evidence to. My guess he knows that one isn't going the way he wants so has pressurised UKAD to keep it going.

This won't end here though. There's still Judge Rinder, the Mystery Gang and The Thursday Murder Club to investigate.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.

WADC:

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 comment explaining that:

Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine autoinjector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons shortly prior to applying for and receiving a determination on a TUE.]

So, yes, the doc can carry banned substances, but it's up to him to offer acceptable justification if challenged, it's not down to the ADO linking the product to an athlete.

 

[yaco]

The possession charge won't go anywhere without any link to someone. Doctors can have drugs. Most cycling doctors have and emergency supply for injuries.

I see Matt Lawton has come alive about this after months of silence about the GMC case that he refused to give evidence to. My guess he knows that one isn't going the way he wants so has pressurised UKAD to keep it going.

This won't end here though. There's still Judge Rinder, the Mystery Gang and The Thursday Murder Club to investigate.

A support person can't have possession of a banned substance at their sporting workplace under the WADA Code, while of course, doctor's have a range of substances at their general medical practice - Anyway, I think the first charge will stick because you have documentary evidence, unless Dr Freeman can pull 'a rabbit from the hat' and come up with a number of TUES . The second charge will be harder to prove.

 

[samhocking]

WADC:The comment explaining that:So, yes, the doc can carry banned substances, but it's up to him to offer acceptable justification if challenged, it's not down to the ADO linking the product to an athlete.

A support person can't have possession of a banned substance at their sporting workplace under the WADA Code, while of course, doctor's have a range of substances at their general medical practice - Anyway, I think the first charge will stick because you have documentary evidence, unless Dr Freeman can pull 'a rabbit from the hat' and come up with a number of TUES . The second charge will be harder to prove.

A support person can have possession. The code clearly uses the condition 'in connection with an athlete' so it's not a violation of 2.6.2 if the possession is in connection to a non-athlete (Sutton)! Why do you think Freeman is challenging it at MPTS so avidly, but not the charge of tampering he's already admitted to at MPTS. No WADA code applies to a GP carrying prohibited substances when the connection is for a non-athlete, that's a GMC issue, and which has now been through MPTS tribunal without a connection found to an athlete it seems. GMC's QC even said there are no athletes and they didn't intend to find an athlete as part of the MPTS tribunal at the very beginning and during submission. He did however say the athlete being discussed can't be named for reasons too deeply buried (whatever that means).
UKAD are now back to where they were after their jiffybag investigation concluding with the TGel order found on BCs accounts was passed to GMC, but as was their intention, GMC have now waded through medical records for them, because they have carte blanche ability to under the medical act beyond simply the jiffybag allegation and only able to investigate Wiggins medical records. UKAD didn't, but now have what they don't ordinarily have the power to look at.
GMC seem to have concluded they believe the order was intended for John-Lee Augustyn because his blood valued dropped and increased around the time of the order. Is it related to him suffering avascular necrosis perhaps? We don't know, but a lot was discussed in private session on a riders blood values and he's the only rider with the 5 DNF in a row O'Rourke discussed in her closing submission, then let go by Team Sky.

2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Personnel In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by an Athlete Support Personnel Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance which is prohibited Out-of Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

 

[yaco]

A support person can have possession. The code clearly uses the condition 'in connection with an athlete' so it's not a violation of 2.6.2 if the possession is in connection to a non-athlete (Sutton)! Why do you think Freeman is challenging it at MPTS so avidly, but not the charge of tampering he's already admitted to at MPTS. No WADA code applies to a GP carrying prohibited substances when the connection is for a non-athlete, that's a GMC issue, and which has now been through MPTS tribunal without a connection found to an athlete it seems. GMC's QC even said there are no athletes and they didn't intend to find an athlete as part of the MPTS tribunal at the very beginning and during submission. He did however say the athlete being discussed can't be named for reasons too deeply buried (whatever that means).
UKAD are now back to where they were after their jiffybag investigation concluding with the TGel order found on BCs accounts was passed to GMC, but as was their intention, GMC have now waded through medical records for them, because they have carte blanche ability to under the medical act beyond simply the jiffybag allegation and only able to investigate Wiggins medical records. UKAD didn't, but now have what they don't ordinarily have the power to look at.
GMC seem to have concluded they believe the order was intended for John-Lee Augustyn because his blood valued dropped and increased around the time of the order. Is it related to him suffering avascular necrosis perhaps? We don't know, but a lot was discussed in private session on a riders blood values and he's the only rider with the 5 DNF in a row O'Rourke discussed in her closing submission, then let go by Team Sky.

Well, UKAD has issued a charge of possession against Freeman, so they must feel it was for an athlete and moreover they can prove it an Anti-Doping Tribunal - Your mention of Sutton is a 'red herring' - If it was for Sutton, then Freeman orders and then dispenses the product from his GP practice - In relation to the tampering charge you seem to have some private information, so we will see what happens.

The bottom line is I suggested long ago, the most realistic way for UKAD to be involved in the Freeman/Sky/British Cycling allegations was to issue a charge against Freeman of having a prohibited substance at the premises of British Cycling.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Anyway, I think the first charge will stick because you have documentary evidence, unless Dr Freeman can pull 'a rabbit from the hat' and come up with a number of TUES . The second charge will be harder to prove.

He is reported to have accepted the second charge - being a liar - and is only challenging the first, possession. All he's left with on the lies charge is mitigation - his mental health woes - but UKAD can argue that his lies are nothing to do with depression and everything to do with saving his skin. If they succeed in that then any "acceptable justification" (which does not have to be TUEs) he offers on the first charge, well all UKAD have to do is claim it's part of a pattern of behaviour established by the second charge and as such can't be believed. In which case, "Hello naughty step, let's get to know one and other, I'm going to be parked here a while, it seems." So, that's the real question that's left to the panel: sad or bad?

 

[samhocking]

It will be interesting how UKAD play it. Freeman has admitted to tampering with UKADs investigation within the MPTS tribunal, but at that time also said the order was for Sutton not an athlete and not a doping matter, but UKAD couldn't determine who it was for and why it went to GMC to try and find out using their powers of the medical act to work with.
Freeman's said the lie was to appease Peters shock & disappointment in him at the time seeing the order and then repeated that lie to UKAD to be consistent (I assume). However, he has since explained the reason he lied was because he feared Peters sacking if he knew the truth Sutton had bullied him to order it and if Sutton knew Peters knew it was ordered for himself, Sutton would sack Freeman anyway.

So it comes down to Augustin. Has Augustin told GMC the testogel was for himself, has GMC assumed due to Augustins blood levels the order was for him and UKAD believe GMCon this, or has UKAD simply added the charge of possession anyway due to statute of limitations meaning Augustins samples might need to be analysed before May deadline when they'll be incinerated?

 

[fmk_RoI]

MPTS chair Neil Dalton to Dr Freeman: "The tribunal had found that you, Dr Freeman placed the order, and obtained the Testogel, knowing or believing it was to be administered to an athlete to improve their athletic performance. The motive ... was to conceal a conduct."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370314035518914560

View: https://twitter.com/seaningle/status/1370314035518914560

Well, gosh. Freeman's QC will really be turning on the Violet Elizabeths now.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The Freeman Show continues, it's not done yet! From Ingle in the Guardian:

Friday’s verdict does not yet mark the end of the tribunal. It will sit again for three days next week to assess whether Freeman licence to practice is impaired - and then again in April to deliberate on whether he should lose his doctor’s licence or face any other punishments for his behaviour.

Freeman will also face two UK Anti-Doping charges related to ordering banned testosterone, including possession of a prohibited substance and tampering.

A charge of tampering covers an attempt to subvert any aspect of doping control, including an investigation. Freeman is understood to have contested part of the charges, and has requested a hearing.

Honestly, WandaVision pulled off a better ending, this is getting into Lord of the Rings territory.

 

[Jacques (7 ch)]

The Freeman Show continues, it's not done yet! From Ingle in the Guardian:Honestly, WandaVision pulled off a better ending, this is getting into Lord of the Rings territory.

Don’t worry, Sam will be along to tell us there’s nothing to see here any minute now.