Freeman Medical Practitioner Tribunal .Manchester
Comments
-
The Guardian reporting that Freeman is set to appeal against being struck off:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/21/richard-freeman-launching-appeal-struck-off-team-sky-british-cycling0 -
I think this thread would be the more appropriate topical spot to drop off your post, so here it is:
I am surprised that the BBC have picked up on The Times piece .gsk82 said:I couldn't find the British cycling are all on drugs thread. I was surprised it hadn't been mentioned.
They must have found themselves in quite a quandary, given their love for all things involving doping and British Cycling, but with Dame Sarah being disabled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/57054880"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I'll prob get shot down in flames for this but I've never understood why there was an individual pursuit event for Storey's class of disability.
I can't see how she is at a disadvantage vs. the standard Olympic pursuiters in an event that requires no bunch riding or particularly technical bike handling. Maybe for the first few seconds of the event before they go onto the tri bars, but not sure that's enough to justify the event at the para-games.0 -
yorkshireraw said:
I'll prob get shot down in flames for this but I've never understood why there was an individual pursuit event for Storey's class of disability.
I can't see how she is at a disadvantage vs. the standard Olympic pursuiters in an event that requires no bunch riding or particularly technical bike handling. Maybe for the first few seconds of the event before they go onto the tri bars, but not sure that's enough to justify the event at the para-games.
I've thought the the same. The average person's cardiovascular system is far more of a 'disability'. But if people want to race, let them race.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The fact she is also capable of winning against able-bodied elite athletes suggests you are right.yorkshireraw said:I'll prob get shot down in flames for this but I've never understood why there was an individual pursuit event for Storey's class of disability.
I can't see how she is at a disadvantage vs. the standard Olympic pursuiters in an event that requires no bunch riding or particularly technical bike handling. Maybe for the first few seconds of the event before they go onto the tri bars, but not sure that's enough to justify the event at the para-games.0 -
Part of me thinks spending billions on elite disability sport would be better spent on providing more participatory opportunities.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
She has ridden at least one World Cup that I’m aware of in the team pursuit iirc. Think it was ColumbiaPross said:
The fact she is also capable of winning against able-bodied elite athletes suggests you are right.yorkshireraw said:I'll prob get shot down in flames for this but I've never understood why there was an individual pursuit event for Storey's class of disability.
I can't see how she is at a disadvantage vs. the standard Olympic pursuiters in an event that requires no bunch riding or particularly technical bike handling. Maybe for the first few seconds of the event before they go onto the tri bars, but not sure that's enough to justify the event at the para-games.0 -
Remember this from Mr Roan, back in March?
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.
Well while the WADA's investigation confirmed that UKAD shouldn't have allowed BC to use a private lab for testing, in summery, it says this:
"The report from Wada makes clear the results of the testing carried out by British Cycling were all negative and notes the negative results from Ukad's own extensive testing of British Cycling athletes at that time,"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/58974838
So, it turned out to be yet another swing and a miss from Desperate Dan."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.1 -
He was still on the Today programme this morning, claiming it was further proof of systematic doping in BC.blazing_saddles said:Remember this from Mr Roan, back in March?
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.
Well while the WADA's investigation confirmed that UKAD shouldn't have allowed BC to use a private lab for testing, in summery, it says this:
"The report from Wada makes clear the results of the testing carried out by British Cycling were all negative and notes the negative results from Ukad's own extensive testing of British Cycling athletes at that time,"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/58974838
So, it turned out to be yet another swing and a miss from Desperate Dan.0 -
Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence0
-
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all1 -
You're not allowed to use private (non WADA) testing for fairly obvious reasons.r0bh said:
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all0 -
Is that you Dan.TheBigBean said:
You're not allowed to use private (non WADA) testing for fairly obvious reasons.r0bh said:
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all0 -
What obvious reasons are those, aside the reasons already established?TheBigBean said:
You're not allowed to use private (non WADA) testing for fairly obvious reasons.r0bh said:
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all
Given that WADA have attached no blame to BC, perhaps they could do with your help.
The fault, if any, appears to sit with UKAD's legal department and a lack of documentation."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
If an athlete fails a drugs test it shouldn't be private, it should be shared with the authorities."British Cycling collected samples from elite riders and screened these samples for the androgen and anabolic steroid nandrolone," said the investigation's report.
"Contrary to the rules laid down by the World Anti-Doping Code and the relevant International Standard, the samples were collected by British Cycling staff rather than doping control officers, analysed by a non-Wada-accredited laboratory, and provided by the athletes on the basis that Ukad would never know the results."0 -
They asked a WADA lab but they refused.TheBigBean said:
You're not allowed to use private (non WADA) testing for fairly obvious reasons.r0bh said:
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all
Back in the early 2010s it was all the rage. Remember the likes Ashenden and Damsgaard being brought in to run internal testing. Back then Sky were asked why they weren't doing it. And the MPCC screen for cortisol levels. Where's the outrage at that.
I think BC acted sensibly. They got spooked by a trace amount of nandrolone and wanted to check if this was a problem elsewhere. It wasn't. That seems like good internal auditing to me.Twitter: @RichN950 -
TheBigBean said:
If an athlete fails a drugs test it shouldn't be private, it should be shared with the authorities.
"British Cycling collected samples from elite riders and screened these samples for the androgen and anabolic steroid nandrolone," said the investigation's report.
"Contrary to the rules laid down by the World Anti-Doping Code and the relevant International Standard, the samples were collected by British Cycling staff rather than doping control officers, analysed by a non-Wada-accredited laboratory, and provided by the athletes on the basis that Ukad would never know the results."
I don't see how WADA have the right to stop anyone doing their own medical tests. They were only looking at nanodrolone levels which occurs naturally in the body.Twitter: @RichN950 -
But none of the athletes failed a drugs test.TheBigBean said:If an athlete fails a drugs test it shouldn't be private, it should be shared with the authorities.
0 -
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.RichN95. said:
They asked a WADA lab but they refused.TheBigBean said:
You're not allowed to use private (non WADA) testing for fairly obvious reasons.r0bh said:
In what way were the rules breached?TheBigBean said:Breaching the rules is rarely an example of excellence
Of all the BC "scandals" this seems like the biggest nothing burger of them all
Back in the early 2010s it was all the rage. Remember the likes Ashenden and Damsgaard being brought in to run internal testing. Back then Sky were asked why they weren't doing it. And the MPCC screen for cortisol levels. Where's the outrage at that.
I think BC acted sensibly. They got spooked by a trace amount of nandrolone and wanted to check if this was a problem elsewhere. It wasn't. That seems like good internal auditing to me.0 -
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.Twitter: @RichN950 -
It's interesting to look at the language used in these supposed doping scandal.
'Potential wrongdoing', 'Unnamed rider', 'Unidentified rider', 'Mystery package'.
It's all very vague and supported by very little, but invites you to fill the blanks with your own prejudices.
Twitter: @RichN950 -
I think the correct course of action would be to stay within the rules. The reluctance of labs to get involved at the time was indicative that it wasn't the right approach.RichN95. said:
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.0 -
TheBigBean said:
I think the correct course of action would be to stay within the rules. The reluctance of labs to get involved at the time was indicative that it wasn't the right approach.RichN95. said:
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.
Source? We don't know why the WADA labs refused.TheBigBean said:
I think the correct course of action would be to stay within the rules. The reluctance of labs to get involved at the time was indicative that it wasn't the right approach.RichN95. said:
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.
They also haven't all agreed it was a mistake since BC were given the go ahead from UKAD.
You are just making stuff up.
From the last century:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-nandrolone-may-be-in-food-chain-1119790.html
UK SPORT is investigating the possibility that recent cases of positive nandrolone tests among athletes have risen up through the food chain.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
TheBigBean said:
.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.
No they don't. WADA have only said their was 'potential wrongdoing', while BC have pointed out the WADA 'attached no fault' to them and said they had authorisation to do it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The report is only 8 pages long. It's not particularly interesting, doesn't really suggest doping, but does suggest a lack of competence at the time where no one covers themselves in glory.
The reason no action is being taken is because it was a long time ago, new safeguarding measures have been introduced and the person at BC has left. In other words, they wouldn't and couldn't do it again.0 -
Source = the report.blazing_saddles said:TheBigBean said:
I think the correct course of action would be to stay within the rules. The reluctance of labs to get involved at the time was indicative that it wasn't the right approach.RichN95. said:
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.
Source? We don't know why the WADA labs refused.TheBigBean said:
I think the correct course of action would be to stay within the rules. The reluctance of labs to get involved at the time was indicative that it wasn't the right approach.RichN95. said:
So if there is a potential for rogue nandrolone tests, you think the correct action is to sit around and cross your fingers?TheBigBean said:
The conclusion is that BC, WADA and UKAD all think they weren't acting sensibly. They breached the rules which as I said above is rarely an example of excellence.
Like I said, at the time lots of teams and groups were doing their own testing.
All parties seem to have agreed it was a mistake, so I'm not sure why you are fighting the cause.
They also haven't all agreed it was a mistake since BC were given the go ahead from UKAD.
You are just making stuff up.
From the last century:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-nandrolone-may-be-in-food-chain-1119790.html
UK SPORT is investigating the possibility that recent cases of positive nandrolone tests among athletes have risen up through the food chain.0 -
BC01 asked KCL if it would analyze the samples collected as part of the Nandrolone Study. KCL denied the request and told BC01 that as a WADA-accredited laboratory, KCL was “not allowed to screen athletes” and therefore “could only accept samples from competing athletes if they follow the official WADA guidelines”.
BC01 forwarded the reply from KCL to a colleague and said, “this will be a problem which I’d [been] warned might happened. I’m asking around re other labs”.0 -
Those then in charge at UKAD – including the UKAD employee who received the 12 January 2011 email - uniformly claim they would never have entertained an arrangement with British Cycling where UKAD would not have received the results of the sample analysis. That said, one UKAD employee interviewed by Operation Echo opined that UKAD should never have agreed to the Nandrolone Study.
Allowing British Cycling to privately analyze samples of their most elite athletes for a Prohibited Substance, at a non-WADA accredited laboratory, even if the results were to be shared with UKAD, would be inconsistent with UKAD’s obligation under the World AntiDoping Code (the “Code”) to vigorously pursue all potential doping violations.
The Nandrolone Study raises questions as to British Cycling’s compliance with the then applicable (2009) UK National Anti-Doping Policy, and UKAD’s ability to administer that policy. 4 However, this issue falls outside the scope of this investigation and is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of UKAD.
To be fair, BC may still think they did nothing wrong, but would be daft.0 -
TheBigBean said:BC01 asked KCL if it would analyze the samples collected as part of the Nandrolone Study. KCL denied the request and told BC01 that as a WADA-accredited laboratory, KCL was “not allowed to screen athletes” and therefore “could only accept samples from competing athletes if they follow the official WADA guidelines”.
BC01 forwarded the reply from KCL to a colleague and said, “this will be a problem which I’d [been] warned might happened. I’m asking around re other labs”.
And in they end the used a lab recommended by UKAD with their full approval.
It seems the whole thing was parties acting in good faith but not to the letter of WADA's Code even if they didn't break the intent of the relevant part.
It's also notable that there are three allegations. All against UKAD not BC. And two are dismissed - one as not being true and the other as not being an offence.
Twitter: @RichN950 -
TheBigBean said:
To be fair, BC may still think they did nothing wrong, but would be daft.
They didn't do anything wrong. At every step of the way they had approval from the authorities (UKAD)Twitter: @RichN950
