Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester

yorkshireraw

RichN95. said:

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

No footballers or Tennis players were harmed in the making of this programme.

bobmcstuff

davidof said:

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

Except this was small quantities of testosterone, not enough to be used as part of a realistic doping program on its own, and ordered officially to head office through a reputable supplier, not dodgy imports.

Either they were ordering loads more testosterone using more covert methods (for doping) and then ordered one small quantity to head office from a reputable supplier by accident, or it was a one off (and who really knows why).

I guess people have already made their mind up on which one they think it was.

bobmcstuff

No_Ta_Doctor said:

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.

AFAIK you can't get a TUE for testosterone in cycling, can you?

That's why Boardman quit, he had low testosterone and wasn't allowed to treat it (I believe in other sports being able to treat low testosterone may be allowed)

webboo

I thought Boardman could have applied for TUE for Testosterone but felt it would be the Testosterone winning rather than him if he suddenly improved.

bobmcstuff

webboo said:

I thought Boardman could have applied for TUE for Testosterone but felt it would be the Testosterone winning rather than him if he suddenly improved.

No - not according to this interview: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,380917,00.html

He says he obtained verbal clearance from the governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, to receive the treatment, and bought the medicine, but his application was turned down at the end of 1998 after the Festina scandal.

"I presented two dossiers from individual specialists and a bone scan. They said it was no problem. I got it organised and they turned me down because of what had been going on. They said that if I wanted the treatment I would have to stop cycling."

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff said:

davidof said:

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

Except this was small quantities of testosterone, not enough to be used as part of a realistic doping program on its own, and ordered officially to head office through a reputable supplier, not dodgy imports.

Either they were ordering loads more testosterone using more covert methods (for doping) and then ordered one small quantity to head office from a reputable supplier by accident, or it was a one off (and who really knows why).

I guess people have already made their mind up on which one they think it was.

I don't know how much they'd need to give one athlete a temporary boost - say if he had lowish testosterone in the build up to a big race.

I would guess that most people who don't discount Sky doping a rider or riders don't think it was a Discovery / USPostal style team doping programme but something address a specific weakness in 1-2 star riders that maybe they justified to themselves as addressing a health issue or helping them recover from hard training.

david37

bobmcstuff said:

davidof said:

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

Except this was small quantities of testosterone, not enough to be used as part of a realistic doping program on its own, and ordered officially to head office through a reputable supplier, not dodgy imports.

Either they were ordering loads more testosterone using more covert methods (for doping) and then ordered one small quantity to head office from a reputable supplier by accident, or it was a one off (and who really knows why).

I guess people have already made their mind up on which one they think it was.

there was a lot more testosterone in there than the micro traces of salbutomol found in the Contador case though.

blazing_saddles

david37 said:

bobmcstuff said:

davidof said:

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

Except this was small quantities of testosterone, not enough to be used as part of a realistic doping program on its own, and ordered officially to head office through a reputable supplier, not dodgy imports.

Either they were ordering loads more testosterone using more covert methods (for doping) and then ordered one small quantity to head office from a reputable supplier by accident, or it was a one off (and who really knows why).

I guess people have already made their mind up on which one they think it was.

there was a lot more testosterone in there than the micro traces of salbutomol found in the Contador case though.

Contador didn't have any micro traces of Salbutamol.

takethehighroad

Genuine question, but what does a doctor do once they've been struck off?

Its not like they would wander down Maccys, but then they've got medical skills that they're not allowed to use any more?

yorkshireraw

takethehighroad said:

Genuine question, but what does a doctor do once they've been struck off?

Its not like they would wander down Maccys, but then they've got medical skills that they're not allowed to use any more?

He's 61 or so. Obviously don't know his financial position or what the tribunal has cost him (do Doctors have insurance that would cover legal costs for stuff such as this?) - but guess he could just retire if he's earned decent money and got a pension waiting for him. He's probably also not in the right place mentally to be going back to a regular job.

He is appealing though I think, although given what he's admitted to you'd imagine that isn't going to be successful.

ddraver

(he looks good for 61 eh?)

yorkshireraw

ddraver said:

(he looks good for 61 eh?)

Skimming off Shane's stash.

gsk82

Who's the other co-owner of Ineos if Radcliffe is only a co-owner (per the BBC article)

dish_dash

gsk82 said:

Who's the other co-owner of Ineos if Radcliffe is only a co-owner (per the BBC article)

Andy Currie and John Reece both own 20% of Ineos each. Radcliffe owns the rest.

gweeds

2012 LEGACY KLAXON

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1375870996079607808

RichN95.

So what? Don't lots of teams do their own testing? They were praised for doing it.

This story seems to be that a track rider had trace amounts of nandrolone in a sample (but at legal levels) and BC checked other riders at UKAD's suggestion in case there was a contamination issue.

blazing_saddles

RichN95. said:

So what? Don't lots of teams do their own testing? They were praised for doing it.

This story seems to be that a track rider had trace amounts of nandrolone in a sample (but at legal levels) and BC checked other riders at UKAD's suggestion in case there was a contamination issue.

Yup.

BC were "spot checking" riders when and where they least expected it, in the run up to London.
Fact.

Anyhow, here is Dan Roan speculative, joining the wrong dots exercise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56552228

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) has launched an investigation after it emerged that the sample of a British Cycling rider contained traces of the steroid nandrolone after a test in late 2010.
Back in late 2010, Ukad is understood to have told British Cycling that one of their riders' samples had contained a low level of nandrolone, possibly on the basis that it could be because of a health issue or a contaminated supplement.
The inquiry will focus on why British Cycling then conducted its own private testing of riders after the positive test. Wada's code appears to compel Ukad - not a governing body such as British Cycling - to undertake such an investigation.

When contacted, Ukad said it could not confirm or comment on individual test results, but in a statement a spokesperson said: "We are working with Wada to investigate claims relating to private testing carried out by British Cycling in 2011.

Testing, investigation, no difference: it's all the same thing to Roan.

Pross

I like the way that even though Roan and Harris mention that it is UKAD that is being investigated but managed to imply BC is at fault.

I suspect Harris is going to be disappointed at where his "huge story" goes and how many people care. If he wants to make his name in this country there is only one sport where there are huge stories.

david37

well one things for sure some people here don't care. didn't get sanctioned nothing could possibly be dodgy.

Pross

david37 said:

well one things for sure some people here don't care. didn't get sanctioned nothing could possibly be dodgy.

Didn't get sanctioned as within legal levels so what's to sanction? But you knew that.

blazing_saddles

david37 said:

well one things for sure some people here don't care. didn't get sanctioned nothing could possibly be dodgy.

Yes, traffic is very slow in the Cake Shop today.

larkim

Just for some clarity:-
- do we know that the nandrolone test outcome was within legal limits? I thought there was some issue with it being a "threshold" finding?
- is there actually any problem with a team conducting testing of their own riders for their own purposes? I get that testing "officially" for UKAD / WADA purposes shouldn't / mustn't be done by in house / non-accredited labs, but is it actually an offence to test your team members?
- if you are allowed to test your riders, what are you supposed to do if a test displays an adverse result? Self-declare to UKAD / WADA or cross fingers / hope the OOC testers don't turn up? Or just quietly fire the rider?
- do we have any sense of who the rider might or might not be?

Pross

Who knows but selling it as a "huge story" is stretching things a bit. I suspect WADA will take a look and determine it was all above board but even if not it would be UKAD that's in the wrong.

blazing_saddles

larkim said:

Just for some clarity:-
- do we know that the nandrolone test outcome was within legal limits? I thought there was some issue with it being a "threshold" finding?
- is there actually any problem with a team conducting testing of their own riders for their own purposes? I get that testing "officially" for UKAD / WADA purposes shouldn't / mustn't be done by in house / non-accredited labs, but is it actually an offence to test your team members?
- if you are allowed to test your riders, what are you supposed to do if a test displays an adverse result? Self-declare to UKAD / WADA or cross fingers / hope the OOC testers don't turn up? Or just quietly fire the rider?
- do we have any sense of who the rider might or might not be?

Can I ask, but I am guessing the "issue with the threshold finding" you refer to came from the Sunday Mail article?
Just to be clear, the word "unusual" was carefully chosen for it's ambiguity, as it could also mean trace amounts.
They were unable to use the word trace, as the entire article falls apart if they did.
None of what they claim applies, would.

And yes, teams can run internal testing schemes. In fact it was quite commonplace around this time.

RichN95.

There was a huge difference in tone between the reports in the Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Times

The Mail on Sunday was 'This is a bombshell that will rock sport to it's very foundations'

The Sunday Times almost apologetic. 'I'm not sure what the story is here but I want keep my source happy'

larkim

Just to preserve my personal sense of reputation, I did not read the Mail!

The threshold stuff came from that reputable (!) journalist, Mr D Roan...

pblakeney

larkim said:

Just to preserve my personal sense of reputation, I did not read the Mail!

The threshold stuff came from that reputable (!) journalist, Mr D Roan...

That defence is flawed. 🤣

stage_hunter

Pross said:

I like the way that even though Roan and Harris mention that it is UKAD that is being investigated but managed to imply BC is at fault.

I suspect Harris is going to be disappointed at where his "huge story" goes and how many people care. If he wants to make his name in this country there is only one sport where there are huge stories.

I don’t think he’s going to go there is he!

No_Ta_Doctor

I was under the impression, possibly mistakenly, that pro teams weren't allowed to test riders, as they could use this to check when it was safe for a doped rider to race and to monitor glow time etc. I have no idea whether that applied to governing bodies as well.

That BC apparently contacted UKAD with their findings would suggest either that they just wanted stricter and more frequent testing to ensure they were clean, or that there was a massive conspiracy and they were asking UKAD to make it all go away.

The former seems much more plausible than the latter.

johnboy183

I’m guessing that nothing startling/shocking/revelatory has come from the Spanish Fuentes interview?