Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

specialgueststar

Dr Richard FREEMAN
Medical practitioners tribunal – New
Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairmentHearing not yet held
Summary of outcomeHearing not yet held
Type of case Misconduct
Hearing date from06 Feb 2019
Hearing date to 05 Mar 2019
Location of hearing St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number 2854524
Area of practiceManchester
Pre hearing information
Allegation
The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that, on 16 May 2011, Dr Richard Freeman ordered for delivery from Fit4Sport Limited to the Manchester Velodrome 30 sachets of Testogel. It is further alleged that, at the time of the order, Testogel was (and remains) prohibited on the World Anti-Doping Agency List of Prohibited Substances and Methods. It is further alleged that on 18 May 2011, Dr Freeman made untrue statements, in that he denied making the order and advised that it had been made in error.

The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that, on a date in October 2011, Dr Freeman contacted an individual at Fit4Sport Limited requesting written confirmation that the order had been sent in error, returned and would be destroyed by Fit4Sport Limited, knowing that this had not taken place. It is further alleged that, on a date in October 2011, Dr Freeman showed the email to others knowing that its content was untrue.

The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that during an interview with UK Anti-Doping on 17 February 2017, Dr Freeman made untrue statements in that he stated that Testogel had been ordered for a non-athlete member of staff and had been returned to Fit4Sport Limited.

It is alleged that Dr Freeman’s conduct as set out above was dishonest. It is further alleged that his motive for placing the Order was to obtain Testogel to administer to an athlete to improve their athletic performance. It is further alleged Dr Freeman’s motive for his actions, in respect of the untrue statements and communications with Fit4Sport Limited, were to conceal his motive for placing the order.

The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that, when Team Doctor for athletes at British Cycling Federation and Tour Racing / Team Sky, Dr Freeman inappropriately provided medical treatment that did not constitute first aid to non –athlete members of staff. It is further alleged that Dr Freeman failed to inform three patients’ GPs of medication prescribed and reasons for prescribing.

The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that, in his role as Team Doctor for athletes at British Cycling Federation and Tour Racing / Team Sky, Dr Freeman failed to maintain an adequate record management system. It is further alleged that his management of prescription-only medication (‘POM’) was inappropriate.

The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that Dr Freeman failed to ensure that the records on a laptop, which was stolen from him on the evening of 27 / 28 August 2014, could be retrieved.

Allegations
This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.

Decisions
All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.

Journalists
If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings
In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.

gsk82

Oh dear

Dan Roan is suddenly back on cycling for the BBC I noticed.

salsiccia1

gsk82 wrote:

Oh dear

Dan Roan is suddenly back on cycling for the BBC I noticed.

Probably wanking himself into a frenzy as we speak

shockedsoshocked

gsk82 wrote:

Oh dear

Dan Roan is suddenly back on cycling for the BBC I noticed.

Pardon my ignorance, what's Dan Roan got to do with it?

tangled_metal

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Oh dear

Dan Roan is suddenly back on cycling for the BBC I noticed.

Pardon my ignorance, what's Dan Roan got to do with it?

He's just a d1ckhead, know nothing sports reporter for BBC who, iirc, jumps on the bandwagon with every accusation about drug or other cheating in cycling. Area of specialism is how sky / BC / Chris Froome is cheating.

I think that's probably what he's got to do with it but others will clarify it better.

argyllflyer

I wish Dan Roan's next movement to be a hedgehog. Tiresome creature.

smithy21

Dan did some fine work following the Leicester City helicopter crash as well. He’s an absolute weapon.

tailwindhome

Yeah.
Dan Roan's the issue.

ridgerider

Regardless of Roan, it's a pretty damming charge sheet for the doctor. Let's hope they manage to focus on the facts this time.

specialgueststar

Ridgerider wrote:

Regardless of Roan, it's a pretty damming charge sheet for the doctor. Let's hope they manage to focus on the facts this time.

This is the General Medical Council. It will certainly be 'factual'.

Roan on R4 this morning. Didn't hear it

specialgueststar

[*]The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that, when Team Doctor for athletes at British Cycling Federation and Tour Racing / Team Sky, Dr Freeman inappropriately provided medical treatment that did not constitute first aid to non –athlete members of staff

Will Brailsford get a name check? I

RichN95.

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

[*]The tribunal will further inquire into the allegation that, when Team Doctor for athletes at British Cycling Federation and Tour Racing / Team Sky, Dr Freeman inappropriately provided medical treatment that did not constitute first aid to non –athlete members of staff

Will Brailsford get a name check? I

Maybe. More likely Sutton though. But quite possibly both.

carbonclem

So, rumours were that it was for a staff member who had personal issues, as I recall? However this has been denied by said individual, so logical assumption is that it must have been for an athlete?

It looks like an unproveable scenario that should see the Doctor struck off id guess, and will leave another unanswered question, same as the jiffy bag.

salsiccia1

What happened to Wiggins and his sinister jiffy bag details? Might there be a link?

specialgueststar

Wiggins and others had more patches on them than a Yorkshire vets inner tube

Maybe Brailsford thought it would make his hair grow

Mad_Malx

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Wiggins and others had more patches on them than a Yorkshire vets inner tube

Maybe Brailsford thought it would make his hair grow

Testosterone is responsible for hair loss (in genetically primed individuals). Clearly Brailsford wanted to maintain his Dr Evil pate.

orraloon

Now, if I was up to dodgy stuff with banned substances and that, I would definitely order said under my own name for delivery to my operating base, cos nobody would ever find out. Who needs subterfuge?

bompington

orraloon wrote:

Now, if I was up to dodgy stuff with banned substances and that, I would definitely order said under my own name for delivery to my operating base, cos nobody would ever find out. Who needs subterfuge?

It certainly seems like something funny was going on: but, as loon says, it seems a bit unlikely to be the funny stuff that a lot of people think.

RichN95.

CarbonClem wrote:

So, rumours were that it was for a staff member who had personal issues, as I recall? However this has been denied by said individual, so logical assumption is that it must have been for an athlete?

I'm not sure the person in question is going to publicly admit that he couldn't get a boner.

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Now, if I was up to dodgy stuff with banned substances and that, I would definitely order said under my own name for delivery to my operating base, cos nobody would ever find out. Who needs subterfuge?

It certainly seems like something funny was going on: but, as loon says, it seems a bit unlikely to be the funny stuff that a lot of people think.

Basically it seems that in 2011 Sky were still very much a work in progress and Freeman was working not only for both BC and Sky but also running a private practice all out of the same office with no delineation. The private practice involved banned substances given to non-athletes for such problems as getting an erection and losing weight to look good on TV. Such clients may have included BC/Sky management.

Then fast forward six years there's a falling out with various parties and one spreads whatever little incriminating evidence he has to tabloid style journalists, omitting key details.

This is a story of vanity and broken friendships more than doping. (And probably more interesting but less scandalous)

specialgueststar

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Now, if I was up to dodgy stuff with banned substances and that, I would definitely order said under my own name for delivery to my operating base, cos nobody would ever find out. Who needs subterfuge?

It certainly seems like something funny was going on: but, as loon says, it seems a bit unlikely to be the funny stuff that a lot of people think.

Basically it seems that in 2011 Sky were still very much a work in progress and Freeman was working not only for both BC and Sky but also running a private practice all out of the same office with no delineation. The private practice involved banned substances given to non-athletes for such problems as getting an erection and losing weight to look good on TV. Such clients may have included BC/Sky management.

Then fast forward six years there's a falling out with various parties and one spreads whatever little incriminating evidence he has to tabloid style journalists, omitting key details.

This is a story of vanity and broken friendships more than doping. (And probably more interesting but less scandalous)

That's going to get a few open mouth s at the tribunal

Doesn't sound like the action s of a doctor at the top of his game bought into a team that at the time stated their objectives as 1. giving the pills and thrills a wide berth

I'm trying to read between the lines. Are you saying a macho mysoginist coach could not get a lob on ? Is that what you're saying ?

carbonclem

One assumes a coach could prove it wasn't him, mate, if he subsequently fathered a child late in life?

specialgueststar

CarbonClem wrote:

One assumes a coach could prove it wasn't him, mate, if he subsequently fathered a child late in life?

That sounds like more evidence for the prosecution to me ie performance enhanced

MissedTheBreak

This is right near my office, may have to pop across if it remains open to the public!

Mad_Malx

Even if a non-athelete did come forward and say it was their stash, surely the assumption will be that they have been paid to take the heat off Sky.

specialgueststar

MissedTheBreak wrote:

This is right near my office, may have to pop across if it remains open to the public!

I'll meet you there. I've got some bits and pieces in the safety deposit in the basement. I bet SKY have too

RichN95.

CarbonClem wrote:

One assumes a coach could prove it wasn't him, mate, if he subsequently fathered a child late in life?

Surely that would show that it worked. Maybe Freeman gave him the stuff and told him to 'Go and have a baby'.

carbonclem

RichN95 wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

One assumes a coach could prove it wasn't him, mate, if he subsequently fathered a child late in life?

Surely that would show that it worked. Maybe Freeman gave him the stuff and told him to 'Go and have a baby'.

Yes I guess it cuts both ways

gsk82

bompington wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Now, if I was up to dodgy stuff with banned substances and that, I would definitely order said under my own name for delivery to my operating base, cos nobody would ever find out. Who needs subterfuge?

It certainly seems like something funny was going on: but, as loon says, it seems a bit unlikely to be the funny stuff that a lot of people think.

Hiding in plain sight

RichN95.

Double post

RichN95.

What is interesting about this is that the main controversies - the testogen delivery, the Wiggins TUEs and the jiffy bag - all take place within a very short window of about a month in 2011.
It's almost as though either the source of these stories had access to information but was then shut out, or a senior staff menber had undue influence over Freeman which was then stopped. Or both.