Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

24567…23

Comments

  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    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)

    Set the narrative Rich, are you sure you don’t get paid for this?
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    If dan roan is having a W nk then Wiggins must be glued to the toilet.
  • ridgerider
    ridgerider Posts: 2,851
    RichN95 wrote:
    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.

    Let's not forget the basics here...all the doctor has to do is tell the truth, and then we will all be the wiser.

    It's not difficult.
    Half man, Half bike
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    Ridgerider wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    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.

    Let's not forget the basics here...all the doctor has to do is tell the truth, and then we will all be the wiser.

    It's not difficult.

    Just so long as that truth fulfills certain folk's wishes, otherwise for them it ain't the truth and they will remain none the wiser.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    Ridgerider wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    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.

    Let's not forget the basics here...all the doctor has to do is tell the truth, and then we will all be the wiser.

    It's not difficult.
    Agreed. Although doctors are constrained by doctor patient confidentiality.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Ridgerider wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    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.

    Let's not forget the basics here...all the doctor has to do is tell the truth, and then we will all be the wiser.

    It's not difficult.

    Just so long as that truth fulfills certain folk's wishes, otherwise for them it ain't the truth and they will remain none the wiser.

    Yeah, not wishing to pre-judge the outcome, but whichever way it goes it seems very unlikely to change anyone's opinions on it...
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    The problem is really that this comes down to one person's word against another, both of whom have shown a tendency for dishonesty when confronted with their mistakes.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • wildpig
    wildpig Posts: 39
    RichN95 wrote:
    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)

    Ah yes, the obvious scenario of course
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    I think what we will find is that there is a lot less ambiguity in medical practice than in cycle racing. Freeman's defending his integrity not blurring lines about bike racers. Ii don't think the panel will be influenced by the drama of the peloton
  • amrushton
    amrushton Posts: 1,253
    edited February 2019
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
  • Beatmaker
    Beatmaker Posts: 1,092
    Poor guy, keeps getting ill just before he is due to appear at a hearing.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Beatmaker wrote:
    Poor guy, keeps getting ill just before he is due to appear at a hearing.
    He should get a prescription for that ...
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    Does seem to lose track of dates and times...did anyone send him a reminder ?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    Does seem to lose track of dates and times...did anyone send him a reminder ?
    Yes - in a jiffybag ...
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    For once, the Clinic makes for far more informative and mature reading than this place.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    amrushton wrote:
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
    The defendant isn't obliged to turn up - this isn't a criminal case. And adjournments are fairly normal - there's not much point him turning up for one.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    For once, the Clinic makes for far more informative and mature reading than this place.
    I dunno, it's more informative for sure but there's quite a lot of conspiracy theories mixed in as well.
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    RichN95 wrote:
    amrushton wrote:
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
    The defendant isn't obliged to turn up - this isn't a criminal case. And adjournments are fairly normal - there's not much point him turning up for one.

    Surely the GMC can just suspend his license ?
  • ridgerider
    ridgerider Posts: 2,851
    I'm glad he is not my doctor. He does not give a very good impression of himself.
    Half man, Half bike
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    For once, the Clinic makes for far more informative and mature reading than this place.
    I dunno, it's more informative for sure but there's quite a lot of conspiracy theories mixed in as well.

    There will always be conspiracy theories. 'Tis the Clinic after all said and done.
    However, here folks haven't even bothered to surmise as to possibilities why Freeman didn't turn up, or why there was an adjournment. They chose to go straight to rather tasteless health comments and assumed the worst.

    Meanwhile, in the Clinic, the consensus was that because the charges relate to record keeping of individual patients treatment and therefore likely to be discussed, an application had been put forward for the whole or majority of the hearing to be in private.
    Hence the adjournment and also why he didn't need to attend.

    Seems reasonable and informative to me.
    Anyway, I guess we will find out. If not today, then next week.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    amrushton wrote:
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
    The defendant isn't obliged to turn up - this isn't a criminal case. And adjournments are fairly normal - there's not much point him turning up for one.

    Surely the GMC can just suspend his license ?
    On what grounds? You can't suspend a doctor for ordering medicine.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    RichN95 wrote:
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    amrushton wrote:
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
    The defendant isn't obliged to turn up - this isn't a criminal case. And adjournments are fairly normal - there's not much point him turning up for one.

    Surely the GMC can just suspend his license ?
    On what grounds? You can't suspend a doctor for ordering medicine.

    for non attendance at a tribunal
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    amrushton wrote:
    hearing adjourned apparently. Defendant failed to turn up but his Barrister has submitted a request for adjournment
    The defendant isn't obliged to turn up - this isn't a criminal case. And adjournments are fairly normal - there's not much point him turning up for one.

    Surely the GMC can just suspend his license ?
    On what grounds? You can't suspend a doctor for ordering medicine.

    for non attendance at a tribunal

    For Gawd sake.
    Like I said above: Clinic 1 Bike Radar 0.

    Unless you know for a fact why he wasn't there.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:

    for non attendance at a tribunal
    He's not obliged to turn up. This isn't a criminal case.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    Now delayed until next week.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freeman ... next-week/
    In his absence, he is represented by lawyer Mary O'Rourke QC, who, on Wednesday, immediately requested the tribunal go into private session so she could make the application for the 48-hour adjournment. On Friday morning a further preliminary application was tabled, though it has not been revealed if it's another request for adjournment or another matter.
    Either way, while the adjournment was granted within a couple of hours, it is expected to take the three-person tribunal panel at least a whole day to examine this latest submission, which involves legal argument. Both the GMC, who have brought the case to the independent tribunal service, and Freeman's representatives were invited to submit documents to be read on Thursday and used in session on Friday.

    It is expected that the tribunal will still be considering this matter well into Monday, meaning the hearing proper - which sees the GMC set out its case against Freeman before he presents his defence - can only get going on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning at the very earliest.

    Freeman is not required to attend his tribunal in person. It is not clear whether he will appear later in the tribunal, but for now he is being represented by O'Rourke, a prominent QC with high-profile experience in the field.

    Hopefully our readers are more able than the numpties currently posting under the article.
    If, both as the article and Rich have pointed out, he doesn't have to attend, it is extremely unlikely that the adjournment application was because made because he was claiming to be too ill to attend, no?

    Bound to be about what will be heard in public and in camera, I would say.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    RichN95 wrote:
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:

    for non attendance at a tribunal
    He's not obliged to turn up. This isn't a criminal case.

    We know it's not a criminal case. It's the GMC calling him to account.

    If was a medical doctor and there was a GMC tribunal I'd turn up first time.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    SpecialGuestStar wrote:

    for non attendance at a tribunal
    He's not obliged to turn up. This isn't a criminal case.

    We know it's not a criminal case. It's the GMC calling him to account.

    If was a medical doctor and there was a GMC tribunal I'd turn up first time.
    His lawyers were asking for an adjournment, for whatever reason. The prosecution would be unlikely to oppose it. The tribunal would agree. This is not unusual.

    There's no point in Freeman turning up to watch lawyers doing mundane lawyer stuff for five minutes.

    This is how real legal procedure works - it's not like A Few Good Men or LA Law.

    Back in my old job I sat through three different patent hearings. Not once did either party turn up. Given the media attention on this, there's a good chance Freeman will only turn up to give evidence (if at all).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • specialgueststar
    specialgueststar Posts: 3,418
    Same old same old. Reminds me of the Lance believer's
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,816
    So, the actual tribunal case looks set not to start for some considerable time.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/47204410

    The tribunal has resumed in private legal argument, which is set to continue for the rest of the week.

    Sources at the GMC and MPTS say it is now likely the case will not be completed within the four weeks initially allocated and will need to be adjourned and re-listed for later in the year, depending on availability of the panel and lawyers.

    Freeman's renowned barrister Mary O'Rourke is understood to have various other cases arranged for several months following this one, possibly preventing any resumption until next year.

    But of course he should still go there and wait. Maybe take a tent? :roll:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    However, here folks haven't even bothered to surmise as to possibilities why Freeman didn't turn up, or why there was an adjournment. They chose to go straight to rather tasteless health comments and assumed the worst.
    Or rather - we didn't jump to baseless assumptions or make any sweeping statements regarding the Doctors guilt or innocence - we just wrote a couple of jokes very loosely based around the publicly known points in the case - whether that's tasteless or just a cr4p joke depends on the recipient - personally I just put it in the cr4p joke pile.

Categories