Dr Freeman can still be charged by UKAD as an athlete support person having prohibited substances at their workplace - UKAD may already be preparing the charge sheet.
Reactions: fmk_RoI
It's not actually prohibited for a Doctor to order prohibited substances and store them unless intended for an athlete for doping. Remember they function as an on the road GP, so have to store and have access to prohibited medication for injury, ooc, TUE, prescription, emergency etc. Not forgetting there's over 60 staff and riders and staff families etc on the road at a 3 week race all being treated by the Team doctor too who will be their GP no different to large companies that have on-site GP you visit at work. WADA code clearly allows for that. Obviously this is why the entire case for GMC is focused on a staff/rider. If it was against the rules to order it and store it, UKAD can already charge Freeman anyway using WADA code and Peters & Burts witness statements Freeman would have to prove as false.
At the moment, they have Shane Sutton in the building and their entire case appears to rest on proving Shane Sutton didn't need a months course of 30 Testogel to get an erection and he didn't ask Freeman to order it for him. It's hardly looking likely, GMC will have anything to hand back to UKAD if that is their strongest hand. They might be playing a weird game of holding back all this evidence of a rider, but it would seem it rests with Sutton and if Sutton denies everything the burden of proof will be entirely on GMC to find evidence of what they are claiming has happened. If Sutton denies, GMC can't even claim Freeman broke any GMC rules either, because they won't even have a statement Freeman administered anything to anyone - rider or staff then.
Sam - Read through the Wada code - An athlete support person must not have banned substances at their workplace for athletes who compete under the WADA Code - There has been at least one case in which an athlete support person has been sanctioned - Read Stephen Dank.
ClassicomanoLuigi
It's hardly looking likely, GMC will have anything to hand back to UKAD if that is their strongest hand. They might be playing a weird game of holding back all this evidence of a rider, but it would seem it rests with Sutton and if Sutton denies everything the burden of proof will be entirely on GMC to find evidence of what they are claiming has happened
Think SamHocking is right, based on what I've read about these proceedings, much ado about not much new. Unless, the inquisitors are holding something back, or someone shockingly goes 'nuclear option' by revealing everything. Improper prescription or supply of a drug by a physician... in this case there is no plausible reason why testosterone would be needed at a velodrome... then the path stops there, for lack of substance
So Sutton denies it, this could be fun
42x16ss
Would be interesting if Sutton lifts the lid on what actually happened out of his own self image.
brownbobby
they have Shane Sutton in the building and their entire case appears to rest on proving Shane Sutton didn't need a months course of 30 Testogel to get an erection
Haven't they heard of Viagra?
MartinGT said:
It does seem a bit odd to me that they would throw Sutton into the equation, someone with a relatively (within the cycling world) high public profile and prone to speaking his mind.....wouldn't it have been a safer bet to just say it was for some random backroom staff member, or even a relative of a random backroom staff member and then hide behind the whole medical confidentiality thing.....
View: https://twitter.com/Greghenderson1/status/1189275966205546496?s=20
Where is Moore et al on all of this? All keeping quiet for now, waiting to see if there is still gravy on that boat.
yaco said:
And Freeman claims it was for a senior staff member - Sutton. That would therefore not be against WADA code.
Sutton denies it.
brownbobby said:
MPTS have to throw Sutton into the equation as that is the only person O'Rourke said she wants to cross-examine. GMC have nobody as witness other than the expert witness Dr to show the panel that Sutton didn't need a treatment of Testogel.
On a complete wild tangent, it's not beyond the realms of possibility given Freeman was Witness to Jess Varnish bullying and it was Freemans statement that essentially got Sutton sacked, that there is a lot of personal tension between them too and perhaps Sutton was bullying Freeman for testogel in 2011. Remember, Sutton is an ex pro from probably the peak era of Testosterone abuse in cycling before EPO and at the time in question in 2011 was trying for a baby with his wife half his age iirc. One of the long-term side-effects of cyclists abusing testoserone is no sperm production anymore (where the wives tale, cycling makes you impotent comes from partly). Taking a month of Testogel could reverse that and/or address any erectile dysfunction too.
All of this makes sense if it's actually true that the stuff was for Sutton...which was kind of my point.....
It's against the WADA Code .
2.6.2 Allows Athlete Support Persons to be in possession of prohibited in and out of competition substances under numerous circumstances, so long as they are not connected to an athlete, a competition and training. Ordering, storing and prescribing prohibited substances clearly has to happen for both athletes and other athlete support personnel the Doctor is acting as a GP for both on the premises and on the road.
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of Competition in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.13
So Freeman didnt have anything to do with riders?
King Boonen
Substance, not doctor. Sam's right, and I suspect again, despite BC/Sky's amazing attention to detail everywhere else, there will be a surprising lack of a paper trail around this...
Yes. It's the connection of the prohibited substance with the rider that would be an issue. The connection of a prohibited substance to a support person wouldn't break any WADA code.
Other situations a Team Doctor can order, store and administer prohibited substances within the rules are: Illness, Injury, TUE, Emergency etc.
This is why BC having a store of Triamcinolone went no further with UKAD or WADA because it's not against WADA code to have it in their possession unless connected to an athlete directly. In fact there are numerous legal ways to use Triamcinolone in and out of competition too, so storing it would be expected, it's used for injury all the time and riders are busting up themselves all the time, so treatment would be pretty routine, no differently to that rider going to hospital and having a Triamcinolone injection under provision of the hospital doctor instead to aid their recovery, stop swelling, get back to work again etc.
Reactions: MartinGT
hang on testosterone patches help you get it hard?
I'll have some of that please.....saying that the wife is 7 months pregnant with out second baby so it would be me on my lonesome and I doubt my arm/hand would manage it
Funny how BC chose today to launch the new track bike. Just a big coincidence I expect...
Teams have to launch the Olympic bikes before the first World Cup. Generally it's around this time. You would want to leave it to the last second obviously, they all do.
No, they don't.
From https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulations/11-jo-20180403-e_english.pdf?sfvrsn=864a0364_24
The equipment to be used during the Olympic Games must comply with the UCI regulations, and particularly with Article 1.3.006.
For track races, any equipment used at the Olympic Games must have been commercially available – in accordance with article 1.3.006 – at the latest on January 1st of the year of the Olympic Games and may therefore not be in development phase (prototype). In addition, the equipment must have been previously used in the year preceding the Olympic Games in an event included in the list as defined in the UCI Track Equipment Registration Procedure.
The UCI shall register any equipment to be used during track races at the Olympic games and reserves its right to communicate about such equipment.
Letter sent by David Lappartient to national federations on the 4th September 2019
http://www.uec.ch/resources/Olympics%20EuroGames/ALL_NF_Equipment_Olympics%20Online%20Registration%20Form_ENG_04Sep2019.pdf
Minsk, Glasgow, Hong Kong or Cambridge would all have been acceptable launches.
gillan1969
hahaha...they've got you hook line and sinker...cycling doctor caught with PEDs but its not for the riders....I presume you were also inclined to give Rumas the benefit of the doubt.....you guys...
Craigee
Just on the new British bike launch. Can you buy these bikes from a bike shop? Pretty sure this is one of the UCI rules.
Craigee said:
They have to be made available (I think there is a window within which this has to happen) but the UCI don't care how many, what the price is or how difficult they make it for people to buy.