Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

British Cycling medical supplier refused to cooperate with UK Anti-Doping

Dr Richard Freeman was responsible for ordering medical supplies when banned substance was delivered to National Cycling Centre ‘in error’

A medical supplier that sent a banned substance to the National Cycling Centre refused to co-operate with UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) or British Cycling’s own investigation. Oldham-based Fit 4 Sport Ltd supplied testosterone patches in 2011, but while it was claimed in March that they were sent in error, the firm did not respond when Ukad requested written proof.

Dr Steve Peters – who was head of medical at British Cycling and Team Sky at the time – said he and a British Cycling colleague were on site when the package arrived.

Using testosterone is banned at all times under the world anti-doping code and so Peters questioned Dr Richard Freeman who was responsible for ordering medical supplies.

Freeman said the supplier had sent the package by mistake and it was subsequently returned. Sportsmail reports that Freeman also requested written confirmation from the company that this was the case and then showed the email to Peters.

However, when British Cycling requested a paper trail, complete with delivery notes, the company refused to respond. It is understood that Ukad investigators were met with a similar lack of response.

Earlier this month, Ukad closed its investigation into the Jiffy bag delivered to Sir Bradley Wiggins at 2011 Criterium du Dauphine, saying its efforts were hampered by a lack of medical records at British Cycling. Freeman, who ordered that package, resigned from British Cycling last month because of ill health.

British Cycling said on Monday night that it would terminate its relationship with Fit 4 Sport. Chief executive Julie Harrington, explained: “As part of our own internal investigation we invited Dr Freeman and our national medical supplier, Fit 4 Sport, to contribute and we were disappointed we didn't get any co-operation. We will be reviewing our supply partner.”

It has been reported that Ukad and the General Medical Council (GMC) are both still looking at the delivery of the testosterone patches as part of ongoing investigations.

The news comes in the wake of an interview with Shane Sutton in the BBC documentary Britain's Cycling Superheroes: The Price of Success in which the Team Sky consultant and former technical director of British Cycling reflected on Wiggins controversial use of therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) by saying that "finding the gains might mean getting a TUE."

While Sutton  followed that up by asserting that Team Sky had always operated with the rules, David Millar – appearing in the same documentary – expressed his belief that it had been “gaming the system.”

At least two British cyclists appear to agree with Millar. Paralympian Jody Cundy told The Guardian: “I don’t care who it is, if they are fiddling the system they are cheating, I can’t stand cheats. It annoys the hell out of me because you’re doing something to beat somebody without having to put in the same effort.

“So, whether it be GB riders or other nations, to see people who are working the system is disheartening. To know there are people that do that 100% but then have extra things going on in the background, because they’ve got a signed piece of paper saying they can take X, Y and Z and whatever drug. If that’s the attitude people are taking to medical things then it’s a good job he [Sutton] has gone.”

Katie Archibald, Olympic gold medallist in the Team Pursuit, hoped Sutton’s words had been misinterpreted: “That sounds outrageous and it is something that I struggle to believe has been true practice. I naively want to hope that there’s been some sort of manipulation or mistranslation. That’s completely against the ethics of the sport.”

She added: “Attaching a term like ‘marginal gains’ to that sort of practice is also quite distressing, because it’s almost a trademark British Cycling phrase, isn’t it? Certainly nobody in my squad would attach that practice to the phrase marginal gains.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 7 years ago
2 likes

If the item was sent back then are the investigators trying to insinuate that the order, a singular one at that out of many thousands, was in fact deliberately ordered by someone within BC? 

If the intention was to cheat then why wouldn't the package be accepted by the intended recipient, why would you carelessly ask for an item you knew to be banned and have it delivered in with the general mail/deliveries?

Selling banned substances (in competitive sport) isn't unlawful unless they are specifically listed as such in law, so surely BC would have their own order list (if not then why are you asking the middle man for same?) and who made the order at their end and exactly what was ordered? if this tallies up with what was received (and sent back) then that means the person ordering is bang to rights because it wouldn't be on your system to order in the first instance as a banned product, if the actual order made by BC shows another product then where is the problem, it's clearly a picking error.

The middle man  takes the order and puts it through, unless the products on the list are illegal to use then he has done nothing wrong, if the supplier sends out the wrong product how can he account for that aside from giving a credit back to BC and send the wrongly picked product back which he did.

So, simply check who made the order at BC and what was on that order and bingo, you have the answer.

Avatar
philtregear replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 7 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

If the item was sent back then are the investigators trying to insinuate that the order, a singular one at that out of many thousands, was in fact deliberately ordered by someone within BC? 

If the intention was to cheat then why wouldn't the package be accepted by the intended recipient, why would you carelessly ask for an item you knew to be banned and have it delivered in with the general mail/deliveries?

Selling banned substances (in competitive sport) isn't unlawful unless they are specifically listed as such in law, so surely BC would have their own order list (if not then why are you asking the middle man for same?) and who made the order at their end and exactly what was ordered? if this tallies up with what was received (and sent back) then that means the person ordering is bang to rights because it wouldn't be on your system to order in the first instance as a banned product, if the actual order made by BC shows another product then where is the problem, it's clearly a picking error.

The middle man  takes the order and puts it through, unless the products on the list are illegal to use then he has done nothing wrong, if the supplier sends out the wrong product how can he account for that aside from giving a credit back to BC and send the wrongly picked product back which he did.

So, simply check who made the order at BC and what was on that order and bingo, you have the answer.

I think your comment highlights the very poor governance that must have existed at BC to allow this to have happened at all

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
0 likes

Males with PTSD can take testosterone...

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
2 likes

Fit 4 Sport? I think the clue is in the name.

Is there any situation where a company called Fit 4 Sport should be selling hormone replacement treatments? Assuming there isn't, then it's not hard to work out why they are not forthcoming in providing proof that they were indeed distrbuting medication that is banned in pretty much all sports. 

This is where UKAD needs a bit more clout. When I talk about smoking guns, this is a beauty. if doping was illegal, the powers that be could raid Fit 4 Sport, obtain sales records for the period in question and very quickly have proof of any illegal products being sold to BC / Sky etc. 

Alas they don't have any clout. 

 

Avatar
rtop replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
0 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Fit 4 Sport? I think the clue is in the name.

Is there any situation where a company called Fit 4 Sport should be selling hormone replacement treatments? Assuming there isn't, then it's not hard to work out why they are not forthcoming in providing proof that they were indeed distrbuting medication that is banned in pretty much all sports. 

This is where UKAD needs a bit more clout. When I talk about smoking guns, this is a beauty. if doping was illegal, the powers that be could raid Fit 4 Sport, obtain sales records for the period in question and very quickly have proof of any illegal products being sold to BC / Sky etc. 

Alas they don't have any clout. 

 

Jimmy - although UKAD don't have any clout to look at it from this angle and have no power over fit4sport - the police and the MHRA certainly do. It is a very serious offence to supply controlled goods without a license ()which f4s don't have), and assuming f4s suppliers are overseas, they have also imported controlled substances. if the police, home office and mhra follow this up then it is very likely that the directors of fit4sport will end up in prison.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
0 likes

I read something interesting on a MMA forum regarding testosterone patches. A fighter was claiming that if you apply them to the scrotum area then the effects are not very detectable.

Not having an knowledge in this area I've not a clue if it's true or not but test patches would usually be easily detected?

Avatar
Edsonytic replied to Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
0 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I read something interesting on a MMA forum regarding testosterone patches. A fighter was claiming that if you apply them to the scrotum area then the effects are not very detectable.

Not having an knowledge in this area I've not a clue if it's true or not but test patches would usually be easily detected?

This is highly unlikely to be true since the metabolism of topical testosterone will not change according to where it is abosrbed through.

It is more likely that this individual has a fast metabolysm which helps him to avoid detection (normal half-life of testosterone is about an hour which is quite low) and is incorrectly attributing non-detection to his unusual practices.

If you're interested in knowing more about the topic you can read in here:

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
0 likes

I heard that Jaguar once sponsored Team Wiggins and some cars with MOTORS were delivered!!!

Avatar
Natrix replied to alansmurphy | 7 years ago
1 like

alansmurphy wrote:

 some cars with MOTORS were delivered!!!

 

They must have struggled to get them in the jiffy bag yes

Avatar
mattsccm | 7 years ago
1 like

Quite possibly not in the interests of the supplier to be helpful so to expect otherwise is silly.  I didn't say good but logical.

As for the objections, surely its equally daft to object to anything legal. If its banned its wrong. If its not banned it is ok. It cannot be anything else or it would be banned. 

Its the same as the speed limit. The law says 70 so thats fine. The cleverness of the law may be arguable but thats a differemt point all together. 

I see no difference in legal TUEs or swapping bikes halfway through a TT just to suit the terrain. Not in the spirit of the event but not banned so ok.

Avatar
philtregear | 7 years ago
0 likes

next up....... blood bags!!!

Latest Comments