Rollthedice said:
thehog said:
From Dan Roan on Twitter, just released:
REVEALED: UKAD claimed its ‘jiffy-bag’ investigation had been “hindered” and may have even been “potentially compromised" by British Cycling’s failure to report doping allegations sooner in highly critical letter sent after UKAD halted its inquiry. Details below;
Unf*****belivable to think that these guys are still employed, knighted, dominating international cycling and generally walking around free.
This is so bad on so many levels that I won't bother to write about it, too much disgusting work. One thing though, if you want to load your men with tons of kenacort and testo obviously you don't want to keep any records. I suspect they were so dumb that they kept some and then they had to nuke all to get rid of them. And of course toss Geert Freeman's laptop in the Aegean Sea.
UK Sport should have been fully aware of the situation regarding medical record-keeping at British Cycling as described by UKAD in the leaked letter, now in the public domain, since appropriate and evidence-based medical support was (and is) a requirement of funding. If BC has been treated just like any other NGB, UK Sport’s ‘head of performance’ and their team of ‘performance advisors’ will have evaluated this as part of their continual assessment and monitoring of British Cycling’s World Class Programme.
In the relevant assessment and monitoring document section dealing with sports medicine support, you are asked to provide evidence that:
“Appropriate documentation and processes are in place to maintain necessary privacy/confidentiality compliance”
In the section dealing with injury and illness you are asked to provide evidence that:
“Medical records are effectively managed and where necessary comply with IF requirements”
This is from the section dealing with anti-doping:
• "Athletes understand the principle of strict liability
• Athletes and staff receive regular training to ensure their knowledge of anti-doping procedures, including whereabouts, is up-to-date
• Knowledge of the risks associated with supplement use is universal
• There is a dominant belief in your WCP that its goals are achievable without infringing the world anti-doping code
• Staff are skilled at counselling vulnerable athletes and are able to spot high risk behaviour”
Of additional relevance to the ‘bullying culture’ now identified not only in cycling, but also in recent or on-going investigations within swimming, gymnastics, canoeing, equestrian, rowing, bobsled, etc., etc., there is an extensive section dealing with ‘The Mood in the Camp’. Here’s a key exemplar:
“Wherever your WCP operates (office, training venues, training camps, competitions) it creates a dynamic, support environment conducive to the pursuit of excellence”
And another:
“Issues and concerns are discussed in an open and supportive manner that also respects the need for confidentiality”
And these:
“Athletes and staff are asked their views of the WCP on a regular basis”
“You have a range of methods by which perceptions can be expressed: surveys, 360-feedback, appraisals, event de-briefs, open meetings, etc.”
Returning to where this post began and the issue of medical record keeping, UK Sport currently appears to reject FOI requests relating to the allocation of funding and the assessment and monitoring of a sport’s WCP. An investigative journalist might like to look into this, asking whether the apparent ‘medals at all costs’ approach taken by UK Sport includes being 'not sufficiently inquisitive', effectively turning a blind eye to medical practices and procedures that, in unscrupulous and unethical hands, would enable, facilitate and support doping. Whilst there is no suggestion or implication of wrong-doing, If you don’t keep records, and UK Sport has perhaps never questioned this, who really knows what’s going on?