Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester
Comments
-
Personally I am very disappointed with the Asylum's lack of interest in the saga.
Apart from one bloke who seems to have a hard on for every trivial tidbit that gets printed, the only other donkey nibbling on Dr Freeman's carrot is Cyclingnews itself.
Which will come as even less of a surprise to folks than the actual decision.
(of course I am going to go ahead and assume that it will trigger another Roan rehash of old innuendos and phrases like: "cloud of suspicion" , "lies in tatters" and my personal favourite, "most damning - scandal to engulf the sport in Britain.")"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.0 -
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.1 -
hes not fit for practice for a number of reasons. one of them was the tribunals opinion he acquired T to dope a rider.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.
The GMC's qualified professional opinion is that there was doping activity at BC. And the head doc was involved.
the fact that no one has been caught cheating doesn't alter that.
0 -
Cheers, I kind of mean behind the scenes too.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.0 -
Nice try complete bull of course. They simply decided it was more likely it was to dope an "unnamed rider" than that is was used to keep Sutton going like the Duracell bunny. They were investigating Freeman not BC.david37 said:
hes not fit for practice for a number of reasons. one of them was the tribunals opinion he acquired T to dope a rider.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.
The qualified professional opinion is that there was doping activity at BC. And the head doc was involved.
the fact that no one has been caught cheating doesn't alter that.
3 -
You forgot "drug of choice" and "questions to answer" (forgetting that it's his job as a journalist to find the answers)blazing_saddles said:Personally I am very disappointed with the Asylum's lack of interest in the saga.
Apart from one bloke who seems to have a hard on for every trivial tidbit that gets printed, the only other donkey nibbling on Dr Freeman's carrot is Cyclingnews itself.
Which will come as even less of a surprise to folks than the actual decision.
(of course I am going to go ahead and assume that it will trigger another Roan rehash of old innuendos and phrases like: "cloud of suspicion" , "lies in tatters" and my personal favourite, "most damning - scandal to engulf the sport in Britain.")"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Err that's what ive written. The facts are simplePross said:
Nice try complete bull of course. They simply decided it was more likely it was to dope an "unnamed rider" than that is was used to keep Sutton going like the Duracell bunny. They were investigating Freeman not BC.david37 said:
hes not fit for practice for a number of reasons. one of them was the tribunals opinion he acquired T to dope a rider.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.
The qualified professional opinion is that there was doping activity at BC. And the head doc was involved.
the fact that no one has been caught cheating doesn't alter that.
They concluded Freemans activities were in part an attempt to dope a rider
Freeman WAS part of the BC organisation. The unknown rider / riders presumably part of it too. How can you possibly, with any credibility, separate the BC doctor, the rider AND BC.
sure no rider has been sanctioned for attempting to dope. that isn't the GMC remit.
You're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalallalalallalaicanthearyoulalalalalalala.
0 -
Your simple facts contain the word presumably.david37 said:
Err that's what ive written. The facts are simplePross said:
Nice try complete bull of course. They simply decided it was more likely it was to dope an "unnamed rider" than that is was used to keep Sutton going like the Duracell bunny. They were investigating Freeman not BC.david37 said:
hes not fit for practice for a number of reasons. one of them was the tribunals opinion he acquired T to dope a rider.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.
The qualified professional opinion is that there was doping activity at BC. And the head doc was involved.
the fact that no one has been caught cheating doesn't alter that.
They concluded Freemans activities were in part an attempt to dope a rider
Freeman WAS part of the BC organisation. The unknown rider / riders presumably part of it too. How can you possibly, with any credibility, separate the BC doctor, the rider AND BC.
sure no rider has been sanctioned for attempting to dope. that isn't the GMC remit.
You're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalallalalallalaicanthearyoulalalalalalala.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
yes intentionally to give you hope and a get out nothing to see here clauseblazing_saddles said:
Your simple facts contain the word presumably.david37 said:
Err that's what ive written. The facts are simplePross said:
Nice try complete bull of course. They simply decided it was more likely it was to dope an "unnamed rider" than that is was used to keep Sutton going like the Duracell bunny. They were investigating Freeman not BC.david37 said:
hes not fit for practice for a number of reasons. one of them was the tribunals opinion he acquired T to dope a rider.yorkshireraw said:
The Tribunal's aim was to assess whether he was fit to practise. Clearly they have found he isn't.focuszing723 said:
Yes, fair points. I think it does stink a bit too when somebody is left out on a limb when clearly it's success is down to being run as a cohesive team. I probably don't have enough insight to make a judgement on that though. Actually on any of it to be honest.yorkshireraw said:Whether he was trying to dope a rider or not, his judgement and organisation seem seriously impaired. You wouldn't have confidence in going to him with a potential serious medical issue.
Hopefully he can move on from the whole thing and get some help, his mental state must have been a worry for his family / friends.
Does he get stuck with his QCs bill, or will he have professional insurance that would cover that?
It's just all a bit odd.
The reasons, motivations or orders he was given to do what he did aren't the main concern for this process - although if he is subject to influence when making patient decisions that is another reason he's not fit to practise.
The qualified professional opinion is that there was doping activity at BC. And the head doc was involved.
the fact that no one has been caught cheating doesn't alter that.
They concluded Freemans activities were in part an attempt to dope a rider
Freeman WAS part of the BC organisation. The unknown rider / riders presumably part of it too. How can you possibly, with any credibility, separate the BC doctor, the rider AND BC.
sure no rider has been sanctioned for attempting to dope. that isn't the GMC remit.
You're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalallalalallalaicanthearyoulalalalalalala.0 -
There is a difference between the two statements - they didn't conclude it was an attempt to dope, simply that it was more likely to be for a rider than for Sutton's impotence. Not the same thing. And also it is just on balance of probability which is a lower standard of proof than in court.
FWIW I agree it is pretty dodgy... Unless UKADA takes it up we probably won't get anything conclusive though.
Still seems weird to me that they would order doping products so brazenly to the head office in the first place, given they are supposed to be super organised and sneaky etc.0 -
They clearly do think it's an attempt to dope a rider or riders either at Sky or BC even if technically the statement is open to other interpretation.
That doesn't mean they are right of course and we are free to agree or disagree - it doesn't appear they have any relevant information that isn't in the public domain.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
What I still don't get is whether the "unnamed rider" has ever come forwarded or if they are just a BMA construct because they felt Sutton was a credible witness. If that is the case then it's just a wild guess but if a rider did come forward I don't understand why they haven't also gone to UKADA. It feels like they've just done what they consider to be an Occam's Razor approach.0
-
That's my assumption - cycling plus testosterone patches probably means doping. The Sutton sex life excuse must sound fanciful especially as he denied it - to be fair I do think that some of the stories about Sutton's character make Freeman's explanation a little more believable to those who follow cycling.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Pross said:
What I still don't get is whether the "unnamed rider" has ever come forwarded or if they are just a BMA construct because they felt Sutton was a credible witness. If that is the case then it's just a wild guess but if a rider did come forward I don't understand why they haven't also gone to UKADA. It feels like they've just done what they consider to be an Occam's Razor approach.
If a rider existed then there would be some details about what went on and the 'unnamed rider' would actually be a 'redacted rider'. But it seems that the unnamed rider is the same as a teenage boy's 'unnamed girlfriend' who goes to another school.
People are demanding that Freeman tell the truth, but there's a good chance he already has. His story came down to his word against Sutton's, and seeing as Freeman had already admitted to dishonesty charges they were never going to side with him.Twitter: @RichN950 -
“The verdict of the panel confirms British Cycling’s own findings that he had failed in his duties as a doctor and supports our decision to refer him to the GMC for further investigation.
“The finding that the 2011 delivery of testosterone gel was intended for the illegal enhancement of a rider’s performance is extremely disturbing. We leave any further action in respect of this to UK Anti-Doping, whose work will have our wholehearted support.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20210312-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-statement-on-the-Dr--Freeman-tribunal-00 -
Rich read the carefully worded response by BC. this is now a very carefully managed exercise in managing the fall out and thus far, a text book case.RichN95. said:Pross said:What I still don't get is whether the "unnamed rider" has ever come forwarded or if they are just a BMA construct because they felt Sutton was a credible witness. If that is the case then it's just a wild guess but if a rider did come forward I don't understand why they haven't also gone to UKADA. It feels like they've just done what they consider to be an Occam's Razor approach.
If a rider existed then there would be some details about what went on and the 'unnamed rider' would actually be a 'redacted rider'. But it seems that the unnamed rider is the same as a teenage boy's 'unnamed girlfriend' who goes to another school.
People are demanding that Freeman tell the truth, but there's a good chance he already has. His story came down to his word against Sutton's, and seeing as Freeman had already admitted to dishonesty charges they were never going to side with him.
Note the positioning of BC today against the bad old days, an indication of where its different, where there have been improvements; why we can trust this totally different BC from the old BC.
there is a referral to UKAD which they are supporting (do they have much choice). It doesn't matter that a doping infraction may be proved under UKAD rules, unless of course your mantra is "it aint doping unless you're caught"
If that is seriously your position (which it seems to be from your posts) then nothing is going to change your point of view; though BC doesn't appear to be brazening it out this time.
The damage has been done. BC knows it, UK Sport knows it. Every other cycling federation in the world knows it and the Aussies can feel vindicated in their distrust.0 -
Worthy of Dan Roan.david37 said:
The damage has been done. BC knows it, UK Sport knows it. Every other cycling federation in the world knows it and the Aussies can feel vindicated in their distrust.
Hilarious stuff.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.3 -
Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?david37 said:The damage has been done. BC knows it, UK Sport knows it. Every other cycling federation in the world knows it and the Aussies can feel vindicated in their distrust.
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
He's just on a wind up as usual.salsiccia1 said:
Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?david37 said:The damage has been done. BC knows it, UK Sport knows it. Every other cycling federation in the world knows it and the Aussies can feel vindicated in their distrust.
0 -
Maybe, but I'm genuinely interested to know what people think went on, seeing as there's so little to go on.Pross said:
He's just on a wind up as usual.salsiccia1 said:
Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?david37 said:The damage has been done. BC knows it, UK Sport knows it. Every other cycling federation in the world knows it and the Aussies can feel vindicated in their distrust.
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
What doesn’t seem to have been mentioned is that ex Dr Freeman has a diagnosis of bi polar disorder. It is possible that if he was in the depressed phase of a cycle he may have been feeling paranoid and persecuted. Given his relationship with Sutton he might have ordered the Testosterone with a view to dropping Sutton in it to get back him. However if he was manic and grandiose he may have thought ordering the Testosterone might be away making British cycling unbeatable.
I doubt that he would be able to use being ill as a defence as his behaviour in ordering illegal drugs might be considered a risk for his future practice.
0 -
Why the hell would he do that and risk putting his own reputation on the line?webboo said:What doesn’t seem to have been mentioned is that ex Dr Freeman has a diagnosis of bi polar disorder. It is possible that if he was in the depressed phase of a cycle he may have been feeling paranoid and persecuted. Given his relationship with Sutton he might have ordered the Testosterone with a view to dropping Sutton in it to get back him. However if he was manic and grandiose he may have thought ordering the Testosterone might be away making British cycling unbeatable.
I doubt that he would be able to use being ill as a defence as his behaviour in ordering illegal drugs might be considered a risk for his future practice.0 -
I’m just speculating here but I said if he was ill. Bi polar is classed as a psychosis because people lose their grasp on reality when ill and do lots of bizarre things as well behaving in a very risky way.0
-
That seems to be jumping at straws rather than a more logical answer.webboo said:I’m just speculating here but I said if he was ill. Bi polar is classed as a psychosis because people lose their grasp on reality when ill and do lots of bizarre things as well behaving in a very risky way.
0 -
Is that an eggcorn as it should be grasping at straws. Anyhow no one else seems to have come up with anything that’s looking like the answer.focuszing723 said:
That seems to be jumping at straws rather than a more logical answer.webboo said:I’m just speculating here but I said if he was ill. Bi polar is classed as a psychosis because people lose their grasp on reality when ill and do lots of bizarre things as well behaving in a very risky way.
0 -
Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0
-
It's obvious that the entire organisation of British Cycling and TeamSky was constructed on, and followed for more than a decade an elaborate and comprehensive programme of illegal PEDs for all riders at all levels.
Their only weakness was a reliance on getting their illegal PEDs delivered to HQ. They really should not have relied on that apprentice admin person to get it wrong.
My name is Dan Roan, Sports Editor, BBC News. Good night.1 -
Doesn't seem that way.0
-
ok so now we've got denial and a presented reason fro the doping doctors actions. he had mental health issues.
nice and very topical.
0
