Its highly suspicious honourablegeorge but it is not proof of doping
personally I believe team sky were doping but thats neither here nor there.
Just returning to Brad I saw him riding up the Col de Pailheres in the bus on Stage 14 of the 2007 tour, then seeing the exit of the entire team on the Aubisque on Stage 16.
tjagain
Its highly suspicious honourablegeorge but it is not proof of doping
personally I believe team sky were doping but thats neither here nor there
We're in agreement then, in that we've both seen enough to believe that it's true, but are both aware that it hasn't been proven yet.
Seriously? The team doctor was found guilty of knowingly ordering dope for athletes. But the team weren’t doping?
He could have been buying it for someone else. I mean, this is a pretty shady area so there's probably a lot of dealing going on all over the place. And even if he was helping someone on the team doesn't mean it was a team decision. From what I've read it can be an individual decision. Also possible that athletes themselves weren't aware it was illegal or were convinced it wasn't. There are still lots of theoretical possibilities here.
Loads of theoretical possibilities, and one glaringly obvious one.
Nobody who has any serious involvement in pro cycling could be unaware of what testosterone gel is used for.
What i can't understand in this whole case, is why has none of the riders or staff that were/are still at either Team Sky (now Ineos)/British Cycling ever come forward to defend either Dr Freeman or the team, and deny that there was ever any doping going on.
By staying silent it feels like all are guilty and hoping it will all pass over before they get implicated.
If I was a clean rider from one of these teams I'd be shouting from the rooftops that I'd never seen or been involved in doping, as I wouldn't want my reputation tarnished.
Or maybe there has been some serious institutional doping going on.
You have answered your own question.
Presumably they are all waiting for all his tribunals to finish so they can see how many beans he spills before they stake their reputation on a statement that could later be proven false.
Maybe they'll be able to say:
"I never met Dr Freeman", or failing that
"I met him but he never treated me for anything" or failing that
"He was my doctor but I never used any bad drugs" or failing that
"He was my doctor and he helped me with my TUEs but never anything illegal"
Even if I never doped I'd want to position myself as far away from him as possible. If it later turns out I was lying by saying I didn't know him when I (demonstrably) did, then that looks so much worse.
If I was a clean rider from one of these teams I’d be shouting from the rooftops that I’d never seen or been involved in doping, as I wouldn’t want my reputation tarnished.
Much easier to just let one guy take the fall for it. Whatever "it" happens to be and right now "it" could be institutionalised doping to "oops, I ordered this by mistake, let's cover it up quick" to "Shane bullied me into ordering this cos he can't get it up".
Anyway, you just end up with the "Well [b]I[/b] never saw anything..." knowing full well that means nothing - that avenue of defence has been used countless times in the past and either no-one believes it anyway or it later exposes a contradiction in the stories somewhere down the line.
I am surprise he was permanently removed from the register for this.
I am surprise he was permanently removed from the register for this.
I suspect it's not the offences he committed alone but the amount of time he then spent trying to weasel out of them - they're sending a message about the standards to which a doctor is expected to adhere
nothing to lose now
If I was a clean rider from one of these teams I’d be shouting from the rooftops that I’d never seen or been involved in doping, as I wouldn’t want my reputation tarnished.
You've not had any media training have you?
Issuing a denial of dodgy activity would just associate your name with the dodgy activity in question.
@NewRetroTom no I definitely haven't. I never really thought about implication by denial.
If I was a clean rider from one of these teams I’d be shouting from the rooftops that I’d never seen or been involved in doping, as I wouldn’t want my reputation tarnished.
You say that but then there was that American chap who was adamant he was clean "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof..." and all that sort of chat. Turned out he was a wee bit on the juice.
Loud protestations of innocence probably draw more scrutiny that keeping your head down, innocent or not.
But yeah, a doctor ordered some testosterone, and the supposed recipient says it wasn't for him... It's not actual evidence of team sky doping (yet), people are adding 2 and 2 and coming up with DRUGS! When the route to finding against any member of that team for doping probably still hasn't been started...
