Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

No_Ta_Doctor

joe2019 said:

No_Ta_Doctor said:

Destroying a laptop (or at least the hard drive) should be pretty much standard practice when disposing/recycling it.

Not sure 'handing it to experts' counts as 'disposing/recycling it;

It had already been examined by UkAD in 2017 though.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

darkhairedlord said:

I dont know why he is bothering to go.

Go where, to the tribunal? Presumably he wants to continue working as doctor.

It still feels like cow level of excuses at the moment. We haven't got to dead twin brother level.

His actions at the time suggest that he was trying to maintain plausible deniability, when stacked on top of one another they are no longer plausible.

david37

Rich have you read the times today, your constant poo pooing of what are now facts makes you look again like an apologist for cheating. "move along, nothing to see here"

I agree the whole Dallas / Dynasty style of the whole thing is great watching though.

RichN95.

david37 said:

Rich have you read the times today, your constant poo pooing of what are now facts makes you look again like an apologist for cheating. "move along, nothing to see here"

No, what does it say? Has someone found some actual doping?

neonriver

RichN95. said:

david37 said:

Rich have you read the times today, your constant poo pooing of what are now facts makes you look again like an apologist for cheating. "move along, nothing to see here"

No, what does it say? Has someone found some actual doping?

As no other news outfit has anything, the times own Twitter feed has nothing and the rest ofTwitter is dead quiet I’d guess no

blazing_saddles

david37 said:

Rich have you read the times today, your constant poo pooing of what are now facts makes you look again like an apologist for cheating. "move along, nothing to see here"

I agree the whole Dallas / Dynasty style of the whole thing is great watching though.

Paywall man, so tell us, what's new?

I thought the Clinic would have been onto this big news by now, but nobody has posted a sausage today.
Yesterday all they seemed to discuss was confusing emails.

larkim

Surprised to see this not re-emerging?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56367117

darkhairedlord

larkim said:

Surprised to see this not re-emerging?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56367117

Does he get a golden Fukc-off to keep his mouth shut or slip in the shower?

ddraver

Did it not emerge when you posted it?

MrsR

"Taking all those factors into account and bearing in mind the breadth of Dr Freeman’s dishonesty and the number of people he had pulled into it (Ms Meats, Dr Peters & Mr Sutton), the Tribunal found his conduct incapable of innocent explanation".

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."

Damning.

Team Sky and British Cycling doctor Freeman has just been found guilty of purchasing Testogel "knowing or believing" it would be given to a rider to aid their athletic performance.

rick_chasey

So who was the rider?

MrsR

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

The reference is to an "unnamed rider" in the tribunal report.

yorkshireraw

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

Sutton. He likely still chucks his leg over a bike, and was needing help with his leg over elsewhere. Plus he's a nasty type and has form with doping.

Clearly I haven't heard of the evidence and Freeman has absolutely not helped himself, but can't believe he'd have chucked mud at Sutton if there wasn't something in it, given how SS had previously behaved towards him.

bompington

Am I the only one who can't hear "testogel" without unwanted mental images of smearing gunge all over the ... you know ...

TheBigBean

Cycling team doctor ordering testosterone usually only has one explanation.

MrsR

yorkshireraw said:

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

Sutton. He likely still chucks his leg over a bike, and was needing help with his leg over elsewhere. Plus he's a nasty type and has form with doping.

Clearly I haven't heard of the evidence and Freeman has absolutely not helped himself, but can't believe he'd have chucked mud at Sutton if there wasn't something in it, given how SS had previously behaved towards him.

"Mr Sutton, a credible witness, says the testogel was not for him.

There are no medical notes to suggest that, in 2011, he had any need of Testogel or testosterone generally".

The MMPTS rejected Freeman's claim that the testosterone was for Sutton.

Worth reading the tribunal report now it is out to dispense with speculating.

MrsR

bompington said:

Am I the only one who can't hear "testogel" without unwanted mental images of smearing gunge all over the ... you know ...

No idea what you mean. Must be a gender-based thing?

MrsR

He will almost certainly be struck off. Will be interesting to see if he appeals.

RichN95.

therobertscollection said:

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

The reference is to an "unnamed rider" in the tribunal report.

I think it's unnamed as there isn't any evidence of any doping just speculation. From the summing up it seems the GMC honed in on one rider who in summing up was described as having low testosterone and "The rider fell out of the programme but he didn’t put the work in and wasn’t up to it." and "There is nothing to suggest that was getting performance assistance, he failed to finish five races in a row. “

So the story is Sky doped him rather than just dropping him and hiring someone else

And they supported this story because Shane Sutton "a credible witness" said the other one wasn't true.

gweeds

I find it hard to believe no-one else in team management knew about this.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

Who was the royal racist?

Great Media Mysteries of the 21st century.

david37

Ha What do you say now Rich 🤑

if it looks like poo, it smells like poo it is poo.

david37

I wish they'd asked about Jiffy bags

bobmcstuff

RichN95. said:

therobertscollection said:

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

The reference is to an "unnamed rider" in the tribunal report.

I think it's unnamed as there isn't any evidence of any doping just speculation. From the summing up it seems the GMC honed in on one rider who in summing up was described as having low testosterone and "The rider fell out of the programme but he didn’t put the work in and wasn’t up to it." and "There is nothing to suggest that was getting performance assistance, he failed to finish five races in a row. “

So the story is Sky doped him rather than just dropping him and hiring someone else

And they supported this story because Shane Sutton "a credible witness" said the other one wasn't true.

Surely Sky rider who got dropped around that time after DNF 5 races in a row would be easy enough to track down?

RichN95.

david37 said:

Ha What do you say now Rich 🤑

if it looks like poo, it smells like poo it is poo.

I say that it seems an odd decision from the snippets of the decision I have seen. But this isn't a criminal court, there is no presumption of innocence, just the balance of probabilities. No evidence is needed. Both sides tell their story and the panel decide which one they like the best. It's a high stakes edition of Would I Lie To You?

One story was Sutton bullied him into ordering it for his love life. The other that Freeman, acting alone, got it for an unnamed/unspecified rider.

Sutton said the first was not true, but there was no denial from any rider so they chose the second

MrsR

RichN95. said:

david37 said:

Ha What do you say now Rich 🤑

if it looks like poo, it smells like poo it is poo.

I say that it seems an odd decision from the snippets of the decision I have seen. But this isn't a criminal court, there is no presumption of innocence, just the balance of probabilities. No evidence is needed. Both sides tell their story and the panel decide which one they like the best. It's a high stakes edition of Would I Lie To You?

One story was Sutton bullied him into ordering it for his love life. The other that Freeman, acting alone, got it for an unnamed/unspecified rider.

Sutton said the first was not true, but there was no denial from any rider so they chose the second

Precisely, medical tribunals are concerned solely with the practitioner's fitness to practice.

bompington

therobertscollection said:

bompington said:

Am I the only one who can't hear "testogel" without unwanted mental images of smearing gunge all over the ... you know ...

No idea what you mean. Must be a gender-based thing?

Ever so slightly.

RichN95.

therobertscollection said:

Precisely, medical tribunals are concerned solely with the practitioner's fitness to practice.

Absolutely. And he's admitted most of the charges, which in medical terms were probably more serious. There is nothing here that proves there was doping, just that the panel didn't believe his alibi because a 'reliable witness' who stormed out during cross examination said it wasn't true.

phreak

rick_chasey said:

So who was the rider?

Indeed. I don't see how they can be confident that he's definitely got the testosterone in order to dope a rider without knowing who that rider is. Surely the two would go hand in hand?

salsiccia1

therobertscollection said:

RichN95. said:

david37 said:

Ha What do you say now Rich 🤑

if it looks like poo, it smells like poo it is poo.

I say that it seems an odd decision from the snippets of the decision I have seen. But this isn't a criminal court, there is no presumption of innocence, just the balance of probabilities. No evidence is needed. Both sides tell their story and the panel decide which one they like the best. It's a high stakes edition of Would I Lie To You?

One story was Sutton bullied him into ordering it for his love life. The other that Freeman, acting alone, got it for an unnamed/unspecified rider.

Sutton said the first was not true, but there was no denial from any rider so they chose the second

Precisely, medical tribunals are concerned solely with the practitioner's fitness to practice.

Absolutely. And whilst it doesn't look good, it's not proof of a rider doping.