So basically Sutton isn’t as big a prick as we thought… 🙂

It’s not so much Sutton’s doping or therapeutic use. The fact is that a coach in possession of a banned performance enhancing substance is liable to a four year ban for a doping violation. The regulations don’t just cover athletes testing positive in a urine test. A coach (in another sport) is currently serving a ban for such an offence. No wonder he’s on the offensive.

I don’t view the jiffy bag as particularly interesting. The substance NAC or flumicil is readily available (paracetamol antidote), but patches of testosterone is in a different league. Administration error. Posted to the wrong address. Of course of all the addresses one could choose to post to incorrectly….

It’s close….

‘You can’t handle the truth’

Prof. Walker-Smith.

The co-author of the Wakefield Autism/MMR paper? That Walker Smith?

The case against him was quashed as the GMC had failed to determine whether W-S was complicite or just stupid when he collaborated/allowed his research to be misused by Wakefield. It’s not a particularly damning “bright light” to shine into the shady goings-on at the GMC, is it?

The article that Paton links to is over 2 years old.

It has since been established that Freeman lied, and had in fact put pressure on the supplier to say that hey had sent it in error

I suppose Freeman’s only strategy in the face of the evidence is to claim that he was bullied into lying for the ‘monster’ that is Shane Sutton. Hence the all-out offensive on Sutton’s character in the tribunal, and as noted above, perhaps an attempt to provoke him into some sort of outburst which supports this premise.

Whether the tribunal will view being bullied as sufficient excuse for Freeman’s established behaviour – ordering testosterone patches and then trying to cover it up – is another matter.

PS. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the inference is that he didn’t really have erectile problems, and the testosterone was meant for an athlete.

Yes, sort of. But it also has implications if the tribunal doesn’t believe the testosterone was for Sutton.

“the GMC had failed to determine whether W-S was complicite or just stupid”

Oh no it wasn’t. I suggest you read the judgement if you think that.

“not a particularly damning”

Yes it is. It shows the flawed reasoning of the panel, the arbitrary nature of the charges and the chilling effect of politically motivated charges. Some quotes from the judge:

“It is puzzling that any charge was brought”

“On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors”

“There is no appeal against the finding, but if, which I doubt, the omission amounted to professional misconduct, it could not have amounted to serious professional misconduct.”

“To reach the decision it did, the panel had to find that his view was outwith the spectrum of reasonable medical opinion and did not do so.”

“For the reasons given above … the panel’s conclusion .. was not merely flawed, but wrong.”

“numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur”

GMC are a bunch of shysters, I reported them to Professional Standards.

Does seem odd though that Dr Freeman used to specialise in that area of medicine including sexual dysfunction, and Shane Sutton has a much younger wife…..

https://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2019/1114/1090835-adverse-psychological-reaction-behind-freeman-no-show/

Poor chap.
At least Steve Peters can answer some questions.

If anyone’s interested, both Sean Ingle of the Guardian and Dan Roan (BBC) are live-tweeting the Steve Peters session. In a nut-shell, Richard Freeman suffers from bipolar disorder, and Steve Peters helped him out a few times when things went pear-shaped. He doesn’t believe that the Testogel was for Sutton because Sutton would have told him about it.

He thinks ordering a banned substance to give to an athlete on the BC account makes no sense because of the very obvious paper trail – he could simply have written himself a private subscription and got it from Asda (he’d have had to pay for it himself mind, rather than BC footing the bill). He thinks Freeman ordered it for his own personal use.

https://twitter.com/seaningle

https://twitter.com/danroan

Its not complicated. To win they have to beat the cheats, so they basically have to cheat themselves.

He thinks ordering a banned substance to give to an athlete on the BC account makes no sense because of the very obvious paper trail – he could simply have written himself a private subscription and got it from Asda (he’d have had to pay for it himself mind, rather than BC footing the bill). He thinks Freeman ordered it for his own personal use.

You could flip that – if it was for an athlete we’d all assume he’d be more careful how it was ordered, ie he’d probably get it from a private subscription if that was an option. The success of the athlete brings him far more wealth than the testogel costs. So ordering it via BC (while still aiming to cover it as far as poss) makes it easier later to say it was for personal use – his, Sutton’s, anyone really except for the athletes. “Of course I wouldn’t be so stupid” etc.

Right. Because that’s worked really well.

In a nut-shell, Richard Freeman suffers from bipolar disorder,

Irony that his brief was most upset when Peters brought up this private medical issue, whereas it was perfectly OK for her to talk about Sutton having erectile dysfunction, using Viagra and Cialis etc etc.

If anything, Freeman being bipolar is far more potentially relevant in terms of his testimony and alleged behaviour, hence the QC being not happy.

I don’t view the jiffy bag as particularly interesting. The substance NAC or flumicil is readily available (paracetamol antidote)

Rather assumes that it really was fluimucil in there. Is that known to be true ?

Rather assumes that it really was fluimucil in there. Is that known to be true ?

It’s not known to be untrue. Opinions however…….

If anyone’s following this, I thought the evidence from Phil Burt, the ex head physio at British Cycling was desperately sad. If you step back and consider that for all his faults, Richard Freeman is a vulnerable human being with mental health issues, the reported behaviour of Sutton is just awful.

What really got me was this – lifted from the Guardian report:

“Richard was in the corridor and Shane Sutton said: ‘The doc looks like he’s losing weight – I’ve got him where I want him,’” Burt said.

That’s just despicable and indefensible. A really horrible way to treat another human being:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/15/richard-freeman-subject-constant-attrition-shane-sutton-tribunal-british-cycling

Peters was insinuating the testosterone was ordered by Freeman for his personal use.

This is quite possible and Peters seems a reliable and responsible witness, but it does play neatly into conspiracy theories about doping and cover-ups at BC.

Possibly the best point he made was that, if it were intended for doping – they would hardly get it delivered to the **** velodrome.

The other thing I took from Peters’ testimony was that he regards Freeman as a liability and a mess.

That Sutton behaved the way described is awful but hardly surprising based on what we already knew about his character.

Since this is a professional tribunal, I’m puzzled why Freeman is reluctant to discuss his alleged bipolar disorder – as it would appear to be an extenuating circumstance, to the layman.

Peters was insinuating the testosterone was ordered by Freeman for his personal use.

This is quite possible and Peters seems a reliable and responsible witness, but it does play neatly into conspiracy theories about doping and cover-ups at BC.

I think, maybe naively, he was taken in by Sutton’s openness about some things, and didn’t really consider that maybe he was devious enough to be selective about what he discloses. The last few days suggest that Sutton is quite sensitive about any slight on his masculinity, so it’s not outlandish to think he wouldn’t have told Peters about using testosterone, if he was.

From there I guess the idea that Freeman was ordering for himself seems reasonable, but you have to wonder, if that was the case, why would Freeman not simply have said just that? It doesn’t really make much sense.

I don’t think Peters much likes either of them based on his evidence, but his opinion sort of digs everyone out of the hole they’re in: Sutton keeps his Ozzie stud mystique intact, Freeman has ordered for personal use rather than as a PED and everyone’s sort of okay. I’m not saying that’s his conscious intent, but it does work out that way.

I’ve always thought the idea that a drug intended for use as an illegal performance enhancer for a rider would be ordered openly from the official BG Cycling supplier and sent to the velodrome was bizarre. It would just be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Oh, as far as the bipolar diagnosis being public goes, my guess would be that this is a man fighting for his career and wary of the stigma of mental illness derailing any hope he has going forward of resurrecting his life as practicing doctor after, say, some sort of suspension.

why would Freeman not simply have said just that?

I also wondered this, thought perhaps that’s even more of a professional no-no than facilitating doping or being crap at paperwork?

Where are all the STW doctors when we need some insight into the GMC disciplinary process?

Frustrating that the process isn’t really there to answer the questions we want answered. I think it was on the Cycling Podcast they suggested this could get picked up by UKADA once the tribunal is done.

Google says that the GMC regs basically say that doctors shouldn’t prescribe for themselves or people close to them – family / partners etc I assume – unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary. Otherwise they should go to their GP like anyone else (all paraphrased). So self-prescription not a good look for someone desperately trying to save their career.

Then again, being bullied into prescribing testosterone for your boss ain’t great either. You have to think that in the end it’s going to boil down to who the tribunal chooses to believe unless some more concrete evidence emerges. Either way, it seems unlikely that Freeman is going to emerge as a practicing doctor. Maybe it’s a question of a suspension of his licence versus an outright permanent ban.

People eh.

I guess UKAD would get involved if the charge that Freeman obtained testosterone knowing that it could possibly be administered to an athlete were upheld. It’s probably why the allegation exists in that form in the first place. There doesn’t seem to be any specific rider here, just a notional possibility.

Marginal gains? Doping? Something else? Whatever it is there’s something rotten at the heart of the support and Sutton’s right in the middle of it.
And where is Brailsford? Not heard a peep from him.

Whatever it is there’s something rotten at the heart of the support and Sutton’s right in the middle of it.

So you have some insider knowledge of Sutton’s embarrassing condition?

“And where is Brailsford? Not heard a peep from him.”

He has his mind on other things.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2019/09/13/sir-dave-brailsford-reveals-has-had-surgery-prostate-cancer/

Presumably he either wasn’t asked to appear – or declined on health grounds.

Also quite possible that he wasn’t directly involved with Freeman’s work.

“And where is Brailsford? Not heard a peep from him.”

Hadn’t he disappeared off to Sky by that point? I know there was a “connection” of staff and resources for a while but that got stripped out and Dave B went off to be full time Sky while SS got promoted to be in charge of Team GB.

And anyway, if he’s not been asked to give evidence, there’s no reason for him to say anything.

Sir Dave normally presents the trophies at our club awards night, and as I’m nominated this year for one* I could ask him for you during the presentation?

*Crash of the Year 🙄