Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

RichN95.

phreak said:

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?

They don't have to be confident. This isn't a doping hearing, it's a medical tribunal.

The GMC present one story, Freeman presents another. Sutton says Freeman's isn't true and because of this Freeman has lying in the past they go with the GMC story. Maybe neither story is true, but in his position Freeman shouldn't be buying testogel regardless

It's worth noting that a journalist who could have testified to illustrate that Sutton had lied too refused to appear as a witness.

salsiccia1

gweeds said:

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

Why? Rider X (or staff member X with a disfunction ) says to doctor 'I need this', and doctor says 'OK, I'll get it for you' why would anyone else know about it if they choose not to say? Perhaps the 'good' Doctor had a private arrangement on the side, which was easier to cover with the Sutton story than admit the truth.

It's fair enough, on the balance of probabilities it was likely for a rider, but it doesn't mean BC or Sky were in on it.

larkim

But if you were a rider who wanted it, and you were in a setup which was flatly and publicly opposed to it, why would you go via the team doctor to arrange it?

I'm still in the Sky/BC are / were clean camp, but there's some uncomfortable questions unanswered.

salsiccia1

Good point. I think we'll never know as I don't think it's likely that anyone's going to own up to requesting it.

RichN95.

larkim said:

But if you were a rider who wanted it, and you were in a setup which was flatly and publicly opposed to it, why would you go via the team doctor to arrange it?

I'm still in the Sky/BC are / were clean camp, but there's some uncomfortable questions unanswered.

And then why would the doctor have it sent to the team HQ? The panel brushed this off as a 'mistake', as though doing something dodgy via official channels is as simple as making a typo.

gweeds

salsiccia1 said:

gweeds said:

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

Why? Rider X (or staff member X with a disfunction ) says to doctor 'I need this', and doctor says 'OK, I'll get it for you' why would anyone else know about it if they choose not to say? Perhaps the 'good' Doctor had a private arrangement on the side, which was easier to cover with the Sutton story than admit the truth.

It's fair enough, on the balance of probabilities it was likely for a rider, but it doesn't mean BC or Sky were in on it.

Why? Because if watching this sport for decades has shown me one thing, it’s that management generally know.

blazing_saddles

gweeds said:

salsiccia1 said:

gweeds said:

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

Why? Rider X (or staff member X with a disfunction ) says to doctor 'I need this', and doctor says 'OK, I'll get it for you' why would anyone else know about it if they choose not to say? Perhaps the 'good' Doctor had a private arrangement on the side, which was easier to cover with the Sutton story than admit the truth.

It's fair enough, on the balance of probabilities it was likely for a rider, but it doesn't mean BC or Sky were in on it.

Why? Because if watching this sport for decades has shown me one thing, it’s that management generally know.

In which case, this is for you:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dave-brailsford-should-be-suspended-following-freeman-verdict-says-dcms-member/

I burst out laughing at the sheer brass. Gotta love our saintly politicians.

TheBigBean

When compared with the strict liability that athletes face, it seems quite a fair process given a cycling doctor has been rumbled in possession of testosterone.

Harry182

"Note to self -- Ask Dr Freeman about timing my dosage."

RichN95.

gweeds said:

Why? Because if watching this sport for decades has shown me one thing, it’s that management generally know.

Which makes it interesting that the first people he lied to was Sky management, specifically Steve Peters.

salsiccia1

I see Dan Roan has crawled out from under his rock to revel in it.

TheBigBean

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test, I find it hard to believe that they all became so saintly that when a cycling doctor was caught in possession, the most likely explanation for it involved the coach's sex life.

RichN95.

TheBigBean said:

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test, I find it hard to believe that they all became so saintly that when a cycling doctor was caught in possession, the most likely explanation for it involved the coach's sex life.

And this is the crux of the matter. This decision is based on the most likely explanation, as you say. It's not based on any real evidence. Neither sides' story has anything to support it. Freeman put his alternative story and Sutton denied it, so they discarded it. None of this is proof of anything. Freeman just didn't put up a better story.

This is a medical hearing. The knowledge of doping or cycling is minimal.

webboo

TheBigBean said:

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test,

I thought it was easy to test for Testosterone didn’t Floyd Landis get caught for it.

RichN95.

webboo said:

TheBigBean said:

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test,

I thought it was easy to test for Testosterone didn’t Floyd Landis get caught for it.

Which to be fair is five years before the Freeman events

gweeds

Tony Doyle on BBC saying ‘cycling is in tatters and doesn’t keep how it recovers from this’

Has he seen any cycling news in the last 25 years?

RichN95.

gweeds said:

Tony Doyle on BBC saying ‘cycling is in tatters and doesn’t keep how it recovers from this’

Has he seen any cycling news in the last 25 years?

Is this the same as when the DCMS said Sky's reputation was in tatters before they won the next 4 GTs and Froome won the Velo d'Or?

TheBigBean

webboo said:

TheBigBean said:

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test,

I thought it was easy to test for Testosterone didn’t Floyd Landis get caught for it.

He over did it. There used to be two tests, and they mainly used the ineffective one that looked at some ratio. Cyclists could therefore dope to some limit or other without being caught.

blazing_saddles

I suggest folks get a bag of popcorn and watch the new Cyclingnews Clinic channel; "Guess the Rider".
First up was John Lee Augustyn, but he didn't last long.
All though he ticked the " he failed to finish five races in a row. “ box Rich mentioned, ( he DNF'd dozens) he then failed by only having 1 race day after the testosterone gel was acquired. Plus he was South African.
Next up was Jeremy Hunt, who got closer with three DNFs, but two of those were Flanders and The Hell of the North!
Finally, we got that well known Brit: Kurt Asle Arvesen.

Brilliant stuff.

brundonbianchi

The whole thing is a Joke. I reckon Dave Brailsford Will have some questions to answer.

Lanterne_Rogue

gweeds said:

Tony Doyle on BBC saying ‘cycling is in tatters and doesn’t keep how it recovers from this’

Has he seen any cycling news in the last 25 years?

25?

My own instinct is that compared to most cycling scandals it's likely to be small beer, though the optics are pretty bad. Enough riders have been pinged for testosterone to know that it's unlikely to have been used in competition, and leaving an audit trail right to HQ doesn't seem likely for an outfit as obsessed about minor detail as Sky / British Cycling if there really was a serious program going on.

I'm intrigued by what was going on though - but doubt we'll ever really know unless the recipient stands up.

RichN95.

blazing_saddles said:

I suggest folks get a bag of popcorn and watch the new Cyclingnews Clinic channel; "Guess the Rider".
First up was John Lee Augustyn, but he didn't last long.
All though he ticked the " he failed to finish five races in a row. “ box Rich mentioned, ( he DNF'd dozens) he then failed by only having 1 race day after the testosterone gel was acquired. Plus he was South African.
Next up was Jeremy Hunt, who got closer with three DNFs, but two of those were Flanders and The Hell of the North!
Finally, we got that well known Brit: Kurt Asle Arvesen.

Brilliant stuff.

The thing is that there isn't 'a rider'. This is not a rider that was the proven recipient, otherwise the GMC case would have mentioned it. In reality this is a rider that the GMC case focused on behind closed doors. It also shows the GMC's lack of knowledge of doping is done as it focuses on a rider with low Testo.

salsiccia1

Lanterne_Rogue said:

My own instinct is that compared to most cycling scandals it's likely to be small beer, though the optics are pretty bad. Enough riders have been pinged for testosterone to know that it's unlikely to have been used in competition, and leaving an audit trail right to HQ doesn't seem likely for an outfit as obsessed about minor detail as Sky / British Cycling if there really was a serious program going on.

This is where I keep coming back to. Enough people have been through the BC/Sky mill, and some of them won't be happy with their experiences. Add that to the number of people gunning for them over the years, and you'd think there would be at least a few people willing to dish dirt if there was any. Can you imagine, for example Vicky Pendleton not saying something about a programme if there was one?
And that's not a knock on VP, she had a torrid time and wasn't well looked after, and was right to talk about her experiences. But why would she and others complain about the culture and not doping shenanigans if there were any? The jiffy bag and this ruling are the only real pointers to something untoward (I'm not including TUEs or Tramadol as they were pretty common in the peloton and not against the rules).

One thing that clouds everything is the state of Freeman's mental health. I doubt he even knows himself what is true or not.

To me, what we do know points to something between a doctor and one or two riders, and not something systemic in BC/Sky, though as with all pro sports I'd never put my house on anything being fully above board.

RichN95.

As someone said this isn't a story about doping, it's a story about people falling out. Specifically Sutton wanting to destroy Freeman for not supporting him in the Varnish affair. Journalists will hide behind protecting their sources but the source for both the Jiffy bag and the Testo is Sutton trying to hurt Freeman.

specialgueststar

Freeman= fall guy as I see it. The lengths Sky went to distance themselves from doping .Then the lengths they went to distance from Freeman. Stinks. He got burnt

salsiccia1

specialgueststar said:

Freeman= fall guy as I see it. The lengths Sky went to distance themselves from doping .Then the lengths they went to distance from Freeman. Stinks. He got burnt

Why would Freeman take the fall for Sky? He doesn't work for them any longer, his career is in tatters, and he's admitted to 18 of the other 22 GMC charges. What benefit to him is there in contesting this one?

gweeds

Lanterne_Rogue said:

gweeds said:

Tony Doyle on BBC saying ‘cycling is in tatters and doesn’t keep how it recovers from this’

Has he seen any cycling news in the last 25 years?

25?

My own instinct is that compared to most cycling scandals it's likely to be small beer, though the optics are pretty bad. Enough riders have been pinged for testosterone to know that it's unlikely to have been used in competition, and leaving an audit trail right to HQ doesn't seem likely for an outfit as obsessed about minor detail as Sky / British Cycling if there really was a serious program going on.

I'm intrigued by what was going on though - but doubt we'll ever really know unless the recipient stands up.

That’s a fair point.

Listening to the various news
channels talking about this today it’s interesting how it’s being spun as ‘is cycling just how much you can get away with’.

If only 5% of this media interest was pointed at football.

david37

RichN95. said:

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.

so nothing to see here then? really?

it was all a mistake, he lost his notes, he doesn't recall what was in a Jiffy bag, the GMC don't know about cycling.

you're in denial and you're justifying your position.

david37

webboo said:

TheBigBean said:

What confuses me about all of this is that it seems to be widely accepted that five years before most cyclists were taking testosterone. Given the lack of any meaningful test,

I thought it was easy to test for Testosterone didn’t Floyd Landis get caught for it.

it was easy with Floyd though he rampaged away from a peloton eyes bulging and looked like he was going to deck someone at the end. Best days entertainment ive ever seen. He might as well have had a flashing neon sign. Brilliant

blazing_saddles

salsiccia1 said:

Lanterne_Rogue said:

My own instinct is that compared to most cycling scandals it's likely to be small beer, though the optics are pretty bad. Enough riders have been pinged for testosterone to know that it's unlikely to have been used in competition, and leaving an audit trail right to HQ doesn't seem likely for an outfit as obsessed about minor detail as Sky / British Cycling if there really was a serious program going on.

This is where I keep coming back to. Enough people have been through the BC/Sky mill, and some of them won't be happy with their experiences. Add that to the number of people gunning for them over the years, and you'd think there would be at least a few people willing to dish dirt if there was any. Can you imagine, for example Vicky Pendleton not saying something about a programme if there was one?
And that's not a knock on VP...............

You should have stopped here when you were ahead.
No doubt in my mind she would have blabbed, because it would have furthered her hard done by narrative.
VP had no interest in BC aside from what it could do for VP.