You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's times like these when I think cases like this ought to be held behind closed doors...
Seems free and easy compared to proper court. Freeman's brief saying she had some random witness to Sutton injecting, but not producing them (according to BBC). No wonder he lost it.
It’s times like these when I think cases like this ought to be held behind closed doors…
Totally agree with this, the press should report on the outcome, not the process!
Reading the report he appears to be taking an Armstrong approach - stating how many tests he has had and not failed - instantly makes him sound guilty.
Does look like it should be done behind closed doors.
Also, the irony of a body (GMC) that will censure or even strike off a doctor for breaches of patient confidentiality allowing one to blab about Shane Sutton's alleged erectile dysfunction in a public hearing.
Excellent stuff, he's (Sutton) proving all those allegations about him were true.
I hope he comes back for more.
Quite. The GMC is peculiar; you can be struck off for having a brusque bedside manner or publishing academic research people don't like, but receive no sanction for sexually abusing your patients or giving the records of 1.6 million patients to Google.
Mr Sutton was a witness, so if you think he's being made to look guilty then his contempt for the process would appear justified.
Yes these things should be private, along with police and teacher (and probably others) misconduct hearings.
In a public session before Sutton gave evidence, Miss O'Rourke said the defence's case is that Sutton is a "habitual and serial liar" as well and "a doper, with a doping history".
After that I wouldn't have given evidence, just gone home.
Freeman behind a screen?
Will we actually find out who was cheating ?
The GMC is peculiar
MPTS, surely?
/pedantry
Yes these things should be private, along with police and teacher (and probably others) misconduct hearings.
Yeah, nothing for us poor little plebs to be concerned about, let them just brush it all under the carpet behind closed doors.
you can be struck off for [ ] publishing academic research people don’t like
..such as?
After that I wouldn’t have given evidence, just gone home.
Poor Shane 🙁
He might be a Grade A weapon but he's not on trial, merely a witness. I can understand why the defence would wish to discredit him professionally, but to air his private life in public is going too far I think. It's no wonder he's angry.
Nurses disciplinary is held behind closed doors but transcripts are published
But Shane isn't a witness as in a bystander who saw some one run out of a building. He is at the verge of the case. The defence is that Sutton asked the drugs to be offered for himself. Surely true or not the defence have the right to make the claim.
Well they are trying to make him angry enough to spill the beans on actually just who the drugs were for. If not to keep his end up.
He might be a Grade A weapon but he’s not on trial, merely a witness. I can understand why the defence would wish to discredit him professionally, but to air his private life in public is going too far I think.
Agreed, and it's not as if they've produced actual evidence to discredit him. The defence approach to Sutton appears to be:
*Someone else anonymously told us you were injecting testosterone.
*Lots of rumours say you were a doper. Have we got any actual evidence, well no, but that Lance bloke passed every drug test and just look at him!
*There's a file in the Daily Mail's secret vault which suggests you told fibs. We can't get the file, but someone said it was there, so there you go.
*<Loudly in direction of reporters> You can't get it up, mate!
And this isn't someone who has made any actual allegations against her client, just someone who has been dragged into Freeman's latest version of events as to why he had a stackload of testogel land on his desk, and had the temerity to deny it.
I wonder if it is a tactic to try to encourage people who haven't yet come forward or agreed to give evidence to do so?
Well they are trying to make him angry enough to spill the beans on actually just who the drugs were for. If not to keep his end up.
Fortunately it didn't work 😉
I wonder if it is a tactic to try to encourage people who haven’t yet come forward or agreed to give evidence to do so?
I think it was more about giving him the stage to demonstrate that he's an out-of-control bully, which he pretty much did. It'll be interesting to see what Steve Peters has to say.
I think it was more about giving him the stage to demonstrate that he’s an out-of-control bully, which he pretty much did.
The opposite IMHO. It seemed like he was being bullied, a neutral would probably sympathise with him.
His response to being accused of bullying was to call Freeman 'spineless', demand that he look him in the eye and then storm out. But I guess it's a judgement call. Personally I wouldn't speak to someone I called a 'friend' like that, let alone one with well documented mental health issues.
Fwiw being asked difficult questions isn't 'bullying', it's being asked difficult questions. I suspect most people would agree that he maybe could have handled it better. Anyway, I guess it'll all come out in the wash and what you, I, or anyone else thinks won't make one iota of difference.
It wasn't for Shane Sutton, the truth will come out eventually and the whole Sky/Inneos thing will be blown apart. It's their own fault for pretending they are whiter than white.
I was listening to a podcast on drugs cheating the other day and the presenter said two things that stuck with me.
If someone late in there sporting career suddenly has a dramatic improvement, that's a bigger sign of drug cheating than any biological passport and also there's always a narrative to explain that performance. He got cancer and changed shape, he lost the weight, we were better a putting more food on the course and he suddenly learned to train better.
The opposite IMHO. It seemed like he was being bullied, a neutral would probably sympathise with him.
His responses in the Culture, Media & Sport "jiffybag" enquiry were exactly the same. Aggressive, demanding, questioning why that was relevant, evasive, denials.
Again, he wasn't being bullied, he was simply being asked questions he didn't want to answer.
" It’ll be interesting to see what Steve Peters has to say."
"Dr Steve Peters, who was head of medical at British Cycling and Team Sky, told the Sunday Times he and a British Cycling colleague were on site when the package arrived and that they questioned Freeman over it. It was established that the supplier had sent it by mistake and it was returned, something which he had confirmed with Freeman. Peters was, he said, satisfied that it was “an administrative error”."
Sutton came across as a git. Again. Like all the other times he’s has come across as a git. In all the other enquiries and exposés we’ve had. In fact he’s so much of a git he can’t even keep a lid on it for a day when the spotlight wasn’t even meant to be on him. What a Git.
Quite. The GMC is peculiar; you can be struck off for having a brusque bedside manner or publishing academic research people don’t like,
Examples please
*..such as?"
Prof. Walker-Smith. Decision overturned when the appeal was heard by a grown up judge.
From Jiffy to Stiffy was the best quote I saw. Mary O’Rourke, Freeman’s QC has form in this style of witness treatment.
The bedside manner is Mr Al-Fallouji. There were many other salacious allegations but none that affected patient safety and it isn't the NPTS's job - or competence - to prosecute criminal allegations.
That's a general theme that's emerged recently; insufficient evidence to prosecute nurses, paramedics, doctors, teachers, police - and sportsmen - through the criminal courts so use a kangaroo court instead.
“Dr Steve Peters, who was head of medical at British Cycling and Team Sky, told the Sunday Times he and a British Cycling colleague were on site when the package arrived and that they questioned Freeman over it. It was established that the supplier had sent it by mistake and it was returned, something which he had confirmed with Freeman. Peters was, he said, satisfied that it was “an administrative error”.”
I meant more in the sense that Peters may well be asked whether he believes that Sutton was a bully and, specifically, whether he believes that he may have bullied Freeman. He's an interesting guy Steve Peters, very calm, emotionally intelligent. He used to work as a clinical psychologist at Broadmoor, so he knows a bit about odd personality traits, disorders etc.
so use a kangaroo court instead.
Don't you mean professional standards organisation? You don't have to be a criminal to breach professional standards.
I quite often read the reports of the nurses disciplinary hearings. Scrupulously fair, quasi legal. No wichhunts
Sutton's non-denial denial told us all we need to know about his own alleged doping.
His responses on the testosterone were IMO indicative of someone with something to hide - and particularly the text message sent to Freeman: “Be careful what you say, don’t drag me in, you won’t be the only person I can hurt.”
Will we actually find out who was cheating ?
I don't think so.
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.
However I don't think that was asked directly in the proceedings?
Pedant alert - Steve Peters was at Rampton rather than Broadmoor
True.
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.....
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.
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:
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 ****ing 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.
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 🙄