The doc gave a written statement to the DCMS - see http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/combatting-doping-in-sport/written/49391.pdf - but did he get interviewed?
So Freeman's breakdown at the same time was a coincidence.macbindle said:I'm not an advocate of the argument that if Freeman had nothing to hide why did he have a breakdown. Plenty of people with nothing to hide have breakdowns. You know nothing about Freeman's mental state prior to the furore.
But....I think it's pretty clear that Wiggins toes did not stay on the right side of the ethical line, and it wouldn't take a huge leap of faith to think that his entire body was nowhere near it.
It was business as usual. For it not to be so would require Wiggins to be an exception, an outlier. I struggle to regard him as such.
and showing up and stropping around the Manchester velodrome straight after getting away with testifying.Mamil said:We know nothing of Freeman's mental state during the furore either. There is no proof that he actually did suffer from any mental health condition or episode.
The point isn't whether or not he actually had a real breakdown, but rather that he completely dodged having to give an explanation, and having to respond to questioning. Everything about his conduct surrounding the incident stinks to high heaven - the hiding, the alleged shocking lack of record-keeping, the stolen laptop,the errant scripts, the writing of a book despite being unable to answer some simple questions in person, etc. These are not the actions or explanations of an innocent doc working solely on the straight and narrow, or a man determined to defend his good name.
Either Freeman was grossly negligent and then embarrassed by this, yet still somehow capable of leading the medical team for multiple Tour winners, or he was doping his riders. I know which explanation makes far more sense to me.
It was reported by HLN but is behind a paywall. Half the story is already true in relation to head of Daily Mail Sport quitting and then giving Wiggins a job. The court case who knows. We wouldn't know anything until it closes anyway most likely.Mamil said:Freeman was able to give his written answers at his own leisure, with minimal pressure. There was no scrutiny or cross-examination. Most of what he wrote comes across as either incredibly naive or outright fiction. Hardly rigorous, forthright testimony.
How is it that such a large, despised company as the Daily Mail is in court, but none of the other media have reported this? How is it that only Saint Wiggles is in the know? Until I see verification of these claims from other sources, I am leaning heavily towards Wiggo making stuff up...as usual. We will see.
Wiggins seems to be claiming Lawton paid for the Whistleblower to say there was Triamcinolone in the package after two other sources saying something different. That would be a breach of PCC code of ethics. If that is breached by Lawton then Wiggins can take it further with DCMS I would think.Mamil said:HLN have reported nothing. They have simply published an interview with Wiggins in which he made a number of unsubstantiated claims. The end.
If the Mail and Lawton were in court in relation to one of the biggest sports stories of 2017 it would be significant news in the UK, not merely given a mention, with no follow or take up, in a Belgian newspaper. There would be no reason for any such legal proceedings to be suppressed. The fact is that right now there aren't any. Either Wiggo is getting ahead of himself, or he is straight out making things up.
All we know is that Clayton left the Mail for a good job at TalkSPORT, and has given Wiggins a role there. There could be any number of reasons for either decision - none have been given.
As it stands all we have is Wiggins shooting his mouth off, as usual. Still waiting for him to produce anything of substance after more than 12 months.
Besides, even if Wiggins' allegations are remotely accurate, where is the issue? Of course the Mail paid Sutton for his info, that's how the media works. And of course some Sky minions refuted what he claimed and said the package contained something else. So what? Where is the journalistic crime here? If Wiggins truly believes that Lawton went so far as to bribe Sutton to make a knowingly false statement, then good luck proving that.
Would depend if Lawton told Clayton he was paying the Whistleblower to change his statement against PCC ethics or just paying a sum for the story as told. From what Wiggins says, Lawton did get two other sources to confirm the whistleblowers and neither say it was Triamcinilone. One story was actually in regards to the whistleblower.Robert5091 said:If Lee Clayton was Lawton's boss at the Daily Mail, has he not some responsibility for Lawton's actions?
UKAD.Mamil said:Interviewed by whom? The BBC doesn't count. Who in a position of authority was able to interview him?
Despite proclaiming authoritatively on this subject, you do seem to be spectacularly uninformed. Quelle surprise.I cooperated with UK Anti-Doping in the form of two three-to-four hour interviews with them, as well as something in the region of 200 written answers to various questions they asked throughout the investigation.
UKAD summary of its cycling investigation into the package delivered to Team Sky in June 2011 - 15/11/2017
Throughout the course of its investigation UKAD has interviewed 37 individuals, including current and former employees of British Cycling and Team Sky (riders, medical professionals and other staff), and been provided with and reviewed a voluminous amount of documentation.
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.macbindle said:
Let's turn to the topic of the book now, shall we? The ghost written book. Do you have any idea just how much of the donkey work the typical ghost is required to do in a ghosted memoir? Do you have any idea how little time the average ghost gets to interview the subject before going off and putting words in the subject's mouth? A couple of interviews over a couple of days is often as much as the typical ghosted memoir is made up of.Mamil said:Everything about his conduct surrounding the incident stinks to high heaven - the hiding, the alleged shocking lack of record-keeping, the stolen laptop,the errant scripts, the writing of a book despite being unable to answer some simple questions in person etc. These are not the actions or explanations of an innocent doc working solely on the straight and narrow, or a man determined to defend his good name.
And yet there is no pride at stake in the nationally-biased DCMS enquiry by which you set such great store.Mamil said:I certainly didn't. There is rarely any rigour in these nationally-based enquiries. Well there's often not much in the international ones either, so you can hardly expect any different when a nation is self-policing and there's pride and $$$ at stake.
They were political theatre. A bunch of toothless tiger-sharks sniffing blood in the water and trying to look more powerful than they really are.macbindle said:The DCMS hearings did not exactly give the impression of a whitewash. They were after Team Sky's guts.
Person A has a panic attack on Monday. On Tuesday, is Person A required to stay at home, avoiding work colleagues believing that his mental health crisis has caused them an unacceptable level of embarassment and that he should become an agoraphobic recluse? Or do we live in a more normal world where Person A is actually encouraged to return to work and get on with life?Craigee said:and showing up and stropping around the Manchester velodrome straight after getting away with testifying.