CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[samhocking]

Is that confirmed it will finish then? I haven't followed it recently tbh.

Freeman's High Court appeal is still set for this month or next month as far as I know. His erasure is not yet in force because its pending the outcome of his appeal, which can only be rejected after a full High Court hearing. Looks like there are about15 grounds being appealed relating to the truth/honesty of Sutton's evidence and denial. The hearing is due to take 2-3 days.

If rejected, UKAD can pursue their 2 charges and GMC obviously then get to erase Freeman from the register. If accepted, then UKAD would drop their 2 charges unless they have further evidence not yet given to MPTS tribunal which seems unlikely as both British Cycling & UKAD were claimants together with the GMC. I'm not sure what happens with his suspension, I assume the panel has to reevaluate his fitness to practice having removed the 3 main charges.

 

[samhocking]

I spoke too soon. The Judge has adjourned the appeal indefinitely with no future date due to how a transcript was worded by GMC it seems. Weird! GMC objected to the court using their own video evidence instead.

 

[King Boonen]

I spoke too soon. The Judge has adjourned the appeal indefinitely with no future date due to how Sutton's transcript was worded by GMC it seems. Weird! GMC objected to the court using their own video evidence of Sutton instead.

Mod hat on:

The link you have provided makes no mention of Shane Sutton and says that the GMC's objection was to the request from Freeman's lawyers that the judge be allowed to listen to an audio recording of the first disciplinary hearing before the appeal.

Graham Small, partner at JMW Solicitors which is representing Freeman, said: "The written transcript of the disciplinary simply did not convey the overt hostility displayed towards our client. It’s unusual for a High Court Judge to adjourn an appeal, but in this case it’s necessary."

JMW Solicitors LLP made a request for an audio recording of the first disciplinary hearing to be heard by the judge just before the appeal happened but the General Medical Council objected to this application, thus delaying the process.

This is not "how Sutton's transcript was worded by GMC", it is a transcript of the whole disciplinary hearing. Either provide a different link that backs up this argument or refrain for making misleading posts.

 

[samhocking]

I think you can add 1 + 1 together King to know that 'did not convey the overt hostility displayed towards our client' is Sutton. Clearly a stenographer doesn't record behaviour and that is the issue for JMW. Who else in the tribunal with a billion live tweets from various journalists was hostile to Freeman? Come on, this is just nitpicking, we all know the grounds of the appeal because O'Rourke said it would be based on Suttons evidence and behaviour and GMC refusing his affidavit!

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

This isn’t a discussion, your link does not support your assertions.

 

[samhocking]

I believe it perfectly supports it and anyone reading the word 'hostility in relation to this tribunal knows there was only one person that could be. I've omitted the word Sutton, but this is just stupid when the entire clinic is about assertions and linking them to riders names anyway!

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

You still haven’t explained how the GMC are involved in wording the transcript.

if you have a problem with other posts in the clinic then please report them.

 

[samhocking]

There's nothing to explain. JMW said the transcript didn't convey the hostility - not me! I highly doubt they do their own, so it's GMCs, MPTS, who else is there writing it down?

 

[gillan1969]

Sam....Sutton didn't order the testogel and Sutton didn't destroy and lose laptops. Sutton may have lied repeatedly however we know that Freeman did lie repeatedly....this is all about Freeman/BC/Sky/SDB/Wiggins (and assorted other riders)...Sutton's a bit player

 

[King Boonen]

There's nothing to explain. JMW said the transcript didn't convey the hostility - not me! I highly doubt they do their own, so it's GMCs, MPTS, who else is there writing it down?

Wording implies it's not a direct transcript. If it's a direct transcript it's completely unnecessary to attach ownership to it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

High Court cancels season 94 of The Freeman Show
Hopes that series will be picked up by others with UKAD favourite

Does this mean that Wiggins' mythical lawsuit against Lawton will now proceed? Or have we all given up on that and just accepted it was a delusion put forward by the militant propaganda wing of BC?

 

[samhocking]

BC are claimants FMK so I doubt it!

 

[yaco]

As I predicted at the beginning, Freeman has been charged by UKAD with possession of a prohibited substance as a support person - In saying that, it seems pointless for UKAD to reinstitute proceedings, as Freeman no longer has a doctor's licence so he'll never work again in a sporting setting.

 

[samhocking]

Will be interesting what direction it goes in next. For substance possession to be prohibited under a WADA context it obviously must be connected to an athlete as defined in the code, but so far GMC was happy it wasn't for Sutton and not much more given as to any athlete(s). Freeman might just accept the two charges it makes no difference to his day job now anyway.

 

[gillan1969]

Will be interesting what direction it goes in next. For substance possession to be prohibited under a WADA context it obviously must be connected to an athlete as defined in the code, but so far GMC was happy it wasn't for Sutton and not much more given as to any athlete(s). Freeman might just accept the two charges it makes no difference to his day job now anyway.

quite, and we can speculate endlessly as to it being them all....lols...love it

Perhaps we could start with those who had sudden changes in fortune when at Team Sky............................

 

[fmk_RoI]

The end is nigh! The Freeman soap opera draws to a much-ignored conclusion!

Richard Freeman won’t defend himself against anti-doping charges

Decision leaves panel to press ahead with ruling that could amount to first doping ban for actions of a staff member during tenure of Sir Dave Brailsford at Team Sky and British Cycling

 

[samhocking]

Will be interesting what UKAD attempt to persuade the panel with for the 2.6.2 charge given the medical tribunal outcome, but needs evidence of a connection between Dr and Athlete or Dr and in/out of competition event. 2.5 Tampering was the other charge iirc.

 

[yaco]

It's been explained that under the WADA Code, you only have to prove prohibited substances are in your workplace to prove a charge - The tampering charge is more problematic.

 

[samhocking]

Simply possession without evidence of the context wouldn't be a proven violation imo. Clearly athlete support persons such as a Team Dr in a cycling team will be prescribing, storing and handling prohibited substances for e.g. injured riders, prescriptions, TUEs, prescribing to sick staff etc routinely. In the case of Freeman who was also contracted an in-house GP at British Cycling his possession could be for non-athlete persons too as came out in the tribunal, he ran a staff clinic. We already know there was a medical store of triamcinolone on the site and that's perfectly inline with WADA code because it's the context of that possession with connection to an athlete that decides if having it stored is a violation or not, not possession/ordering of the substance itself.

2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance and/or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person

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 that 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 or other acceptable justification.

From the GMC, what was the evidence they found that the possession was in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training? That would be the violation of 2.6.2, possession alone, wouldn't according to the wording.

 

[yaco]

It is simple - You are not allowed to have prohibited substances under the WADA Code at a workplace which has athletes who are WADA compliant - What the Doctor stores in their private practice is a separate issue.

 

[samhocking]

It is simple - You are not allowed to have prohibited substances under the WADA Code at a workplace which has athletes who are WADA compliant - What the Doctor stores in their private practice is a separate issue.

Clearly you are allowed possession, the rules for 2.6.2 only makes it a violation when support person's possession is 'in connection' to an athlete. What was the connection and to what athlete? All sports teams Dr will have prohibited substances in the work place, it's kind of part of the job as part of the medical support team.

I can find no mention of workplace either, simply when athlete connection is in competition or out of competition / training.

 

[gillan1969]

Clearly you are allowed possession, the rules for 2.6.2 only makes it a violation when support person's possession is 'in connection' to an athlete. What was the connection and to what athlete? All sports teams Dr will have prohibited substances in the work place, it's kind of part of the job as part of the medical support team.

I can find no mention of workplace either, simply when athlete connection is in competition or out of competition / training.

lols...in other news...team doctor caught with doping products...

 

[samhocking]

lols...in other news...team doctor caught with doping products...

Anti-doping is a legal matter, words matter. You cannot simply be guilty of something because you think they are, you have to prove it and the code clearly uses the word 'athlete' so it's not other news, it's unclear how UKAD will convince the panel there's an athlete connected without an athlete imo.

 

[ManicJack]

Anti-doping is a legal matter, words matter. You cannot simply be guilty of something because you think they are, you have to prove it and the code clearly uses the word 'athlete' so it's not other news, it's unclear how UKAD will convince the panel there's an athlete connected without an athlete imo.

I'd fight it if I were him.

 

[samhocking]

I wouldn't think any ADRV will make much difference to him personally, he's returned to his old career anyway so he neither needs to work in sport or be a GP to do it.