Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

focuszing723

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

gsk82

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't say any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter?

The current BC management are more than happy to throw the previous management under the bus to boost their own CVs

RichN95.

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

focuszing723

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

That doesn't answer the question and sounds like PR rebuttal.

david37

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Marion Jones was only busted because her husband dobbed her in. Would she have not been a drug cheat without that?

Mate you're an apologist and enabler of drug cheats.

salsiccia1

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

focuszing723

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

Genuine question, why aren't they being open and transparent so there is no ambiguity?

Stop. Why do I care?

Concentrate on what you can control.

david37

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

I know that freeman ordered T
I know he wants me to believe it was a mistake. There is no reason why I should other than his word
I know GMC think he was lying and ordered it to dope a rider. I know this because after much evidence that's there conclusion
I know that we can't know what freeman's treatment of wiggins was because someone stole his laptop
I know we can't know why the whole jiffy bag saga happened the way it did because no one can remember
I know the whole thing stinks and that freeman is considered a drug cheat. Based on the evidence.

you tell me why the drug cheat freeman didn't do what he has been found guilty of

show me how he didn't buy the drugs for a rider
show me the evidence you have that the Qualified professional GMC didn't have


ok sweetie get your denial centric bull shit past that.

Show me the money! Show me the money!

Presumably you have evidence that the GMC didn't. Presumably you have evidence that BC don't

salsiccia1

focuszing723 said:

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

Genuine question, why aren't they being open and transparent so there is no ambiguity?

I don't know. Maybe there's nothing more to be open and transparent about, other than what's already in the public domain. But I genuinely don't know, same as everyone else on here.

I see some posters hammering BC and Sky but I don't know if they've articulated what they think actually went on and why they think that. I may have missed it though.

johngti

So you think it’s wiggins that was doping? You seem to have taken this a bit personally

salsiccia1

david37 said:

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

I know that freeman ordered T
I know he wants me to believe it was a mistake. There is no reason why I should other than his word
I know GMC think he was lying and ordered it to dope a rider. I know this because after much evidence that's there conclusion
I know that we can't know what freeman's treatment of wiggins was because someone stole his laptop
I know we can't know why the whole jiffy bag saga happened the way it did because no one can remember
I know the whole thing stinks and that freeman is considered a drug cheat. Based on the evidence.

you tell me why the drug cheat freeman didn't do what he has been found guilty of

show me how he didn't buy the drugs for a rider
show me the evidence you have that the Qualified professional GMC didn't have


ok sweetie get your denial centric bull censored past that.

Show me the money! Show me the money!

Presumably you have evidence that the GMC didn't. Presumably you have evidence that BC don't

So, you've summarised what we already know. And it does whiff. But what do you think was actually going on? A big program involving top-to-bottom? A rogue doctor and one or two dodgy riders? Who do you think was involved?

salsiccia1

BTW if you look at my previous posts, you'll see I think something dodgy was going on. But I've no evidence of that other than what's public domain and my personal opinion. So I don't think I've been indulging in denial-centric bullshit.

RichN95.

david37 said:

I know that freeman ordered T
I know he wants me to believe it was a mistake. There is no reason why I should other than his word
I know GMC think he was lying and ordered it to dope a rider. I know this because after much evidence that's there conclusion
I know that we can't know what freeman's treatment of wiggins was because someone stole his laptop
I know we can't know why the whole jiffy bag saga happened the way it did because no one can remember
I know the whole thing stinks and that freeman is considered a drug cheat. Based on the evidence.

To go through the things you 'know'

1. Everyone knows that
2. I don't think he ordered it by mistake
3. MTPS decided that that was the most likeliy explanation based on there being no evidence to support Freeman after Sutton (apparently now a credible witness and not the toxic pariah of 2016) denied it. It's a decision based on the most likely, not the proven. As for the 'much evidence', what was actually presented? None of it seems to have been reported.
4. We know he was treated at some point with Triamcinolone because the UCI had given permission for it.
5. It's because packages regularly get couriered to teams.
6. He may be considered a drug cheat by some, but beyond buying a box of testogel no-one knows anything about it apart from the recipient.

What you actually know is very little. What you believe is is a different matter.

david37 said:

show me how he didn't buy the drugs for a rider
show me the evidence you have that the Qualified professional GMC didn't have

Show me how he did
Show me evidence that they did have. This is a probability based decision, not an evidence based one.

blazing_saddles

focuszing723 said:

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

Genuine question, why aren't they being open and transparent so there is no ambiguity?

By they you mean BC?
Surely it would be because the process is still ongoing.

salsiccia1

blazing_saddles said:

focuszing723 said:

salsiccia1 said:

david37 said:

RichN95. said:

focuszing723 said:

gsk82 said:

Has anyone at any point said it was for a rider, other than the GMC charge sheet?

I didn't see any disagreement in BC's statement that I posted in relation to that matter.

I was a statement for the media, to counter their ambiguous reporting . If it wasn't then I look forward to them and UKAD uncovering the 'unnamed rider' definitively and beyond reasonable doubt.

And if UKAD can't make something stick, it never existed right?

Genuine question: what do you think went on, and why do you think that?

Genuine question, why aren't they being open and transparent so there is no ambiguity?

By they you mean BC?
Surely it would be because the process is still ongoing.

Anything other than a sackcloth and ashes confession of terrible wrongdoing is failing to be open and transparent to many.

david37

Lets just accept that some of you are so invested in a clean BC that nothing but nothing less than a confession on Oprah Winfrey along with a signed confession that no undue pressure was brought to bear willl be enough.

I actually feel sorry for you.

in another culture you'd be suicide bombers

andyp

Lol.

andyp

I'm going to come round and blow up anyone who doesn't believe the Milan-San Remo is a better race than Strade Bianche.

blazing_saddles

david37 said:

Lets just accept that some of you are so invested in a clean BC that nothing but nothing less than a confession on Oprah Winfrey along with a signed confession that no undue pressure was brought to bear willl be enough.

I actually feel sorry for you.

in another culture you'd be suicide bombers

Says the guy who thought the last confession made on Oprah was bogus.

johngti

david37 said:

Lets just accept that some of you are so invested in a clean BC that nothing but nothing less than a confession on Oprah Winfrey along with a signed confession that no undue pressure was brought to bear willl be enough.

I actually feel sorry for you.

in another culture you'd be suicide bombers

That testosterone was yours, wasn’t it. No wonder you’re upset.

And you didn’t answer. If you’re that certain that it was wiggins, say so.

salsiccia1

david37 said:

Lets just accept that some of you are so invested in a clean BC that nothing but nothing less than a confession on Oprah Winfrey along with a signed confession that no undue pressure was brought to bear willl be enough.

I actually feel sorry for you.

in another culture you'd be suicide bombers

Again, and I'm genuinely interested to know, do you think BC/Sky were involved in a systematic doping program?

DeVlaeminck

Is anyone confident it wasn't for Wiggins ? Is anyone confident it was ?

Personally I can't see that there is enough in the public domain to rule out either possibility or a few others. Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say you don't know.

phreak

DeVlaeminck said:

Is anyone confident it wasn't for Wiggins ? Is anyone confident it was ?

Personally I can't see that there is enough in the public domain to rule out either possibility or a few others. Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say you don't know.

I would suggest that "I don't know" is the only logical position at the moment, as heaven knows, the tribunal certainly didn't provide much evidence to go on.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck said:

Is anyone confident it wasn't for Wiggins ? Is anyone confident it was ?

Personally I can't see that there is enough in the public domain to rule out either possibility or a few others. Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say you don't know.

As far as I remember, the quantity (30 sachets) isn't enough to be used for a realistic doping program so there would have to be a lot of other deliveries that we don't know about. Although if you're of the opinion that this is a part of a systematic doping operation then that is probably your working assumption anyway.

No_Ta_Doctor

I'm firmly in the "I don't know" camp.

I trust neither Freeman nor Sutton. I'd be very interested to see the contents of the sworn affidavit the Mail has.

My suspicion is that Sky/BC significantly oversold their organisational culture (e. g. "attention to detail") and that this has come back to bite them, as it inevitably makes any shenanigans look like a structured organisation driven program. This is pretty common in organisations that are rife with management-speak, disruptive approaches etc.

I don't think it requires a stretch of the imagination to believe any one of several scenarios might be true. That Freeman ordered the testogel for Sutton, for whatever reason, that Freeman ordered it for a rider, for either nefarious or medical reasons (though not wanting to go through TUE for some reason) , or that Freeman ordered it for someone else entirely, for reasons dodgy enough to get him struck off if discovered.

The one thing that's clear in all of this is the level of personal animosity involved. Sutton's grudge-bearing doesn't make him the most reliable witness, but Freeman's demonstrable lies don't give him any credibility either.

Pross

For me if BC and / or Sky were running a doping programme I would be surprised if Testosterone would be their drug of choice. I thought they were supposed to have some new experimental wonder drug not something riders were getting caught using in the 80s.

blazing_saddles

I can't even begin to entertain the idea that BC were running a systematic doping programme, albeit that 2011 was pretty early in our association.

So, it's a categorical no, from me in regards of BC.

Obviously, I am less certain about Sky, but am still very sceptical, given the managerial overlap.

yorkshireraw

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.

This is it for me - if Freeman is going to name a name (in this case Sutton) - why name the one guy you're scared of and who is known as an aggressive bully?

The only reason to name Sutton is because it's true surely. Otherwise if you're lying when you name Sutton, why not just name any old long forgotten rider, or just say you ordered it for yourself in a moment of weakness, and then immediately regretted it and c0cked up the cover up etc.

davidof

It reminds me a bit of Patrice Ciprelli who ordered industrial levels of POE from China "for his own use" :-)

RichN95.

For those of you young enough to remember what a real doping scandal looks like then Dr Fuentes has given a big interview to Spanish TV to be broadcast next Sunday. I don't speak Spanish so no idea of the content of this clip

https://twitter.com/LoDeEvole/status/1373750790934892546