Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Shane Sutton accused of 'absolutely lying' by former team-mate over denial of knowledge of doping

Dr Richard Freeman medical tribunal due to conclude in May 2021

Former British Cycling technical director Shane Sutton was “absolutely lying” when he told parliament that he had no knowledge of doping, according to a former team-mate. Appearing at Dr Richard Freeman’s medical tribunal, Czech rider Kvetoslav Palov said there were rumours Sutton had been given £10,000-worth of performance-enhancing drugs during the 1987 season when the two men were riding for the ANC-Halfords team.

Freeman’s fitness-to-practice case centres on the ordering of banned testosterone patches while he was working for British Cycling.

Freeman denies “knowing or believing” that these were intended for use by an athlete and says he was bullied into ordering them for Sutton to treat erectile dysfunction. Sutton denies this.

In 2016, Sutton – who was also second in command to Sir Dave Brailsford at Team Sky – told a digital, culture, media and sport select committee into doping in sport that he had no personal experience of being around any doping, either as a rider or coach.

“Anyone who has been in and around pro cycling for so long and isn’t aware of anyone taking drugs is absolutely lying,” said Palov, who the Guardian reports was called as a witness by Freeman’s defence team.

The Czech said that during the 1987 Tour of Britain, he and Sutton had used a toilet at a McDonald’s in Edinburgh that had, “syringes all over the place from bike riders”.

He said he had also heard a rumour that team helper Angus Fraser had, “spent £10,000 on drugs for Shane Sutton,” that season.

Under cross-examination, Palov conceded he had not visited the toilets in question “with Sutton” and that it may not have been a McDonald’s – “It could have been a different restaurant.”

However, he denied making a false statement.

“Everybody in that peloton who started that race would have used that toilet,” he said. “Shane would have been there as well. I am not saying we went in there holding hands. My point was that anyone saying they had no [experience] of drug use was absolutely not true.”

The tribunal also heard this week from Tony Cooke, the father of former Olympic champion Nicole Cooke, who said he had provided UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) with evidence Sutton had used drugs.

Cooke said he provided the name of an ex-teammate of Sutton’s who wished to go on record as having witnessed Sutton using performance enhancing drugs, along with anecdotal evidence to support that.

He said he left a meeting with Ukad feeling his evidence would “not be followed up”.

Freeman’s tribunal is due to conclude in May.

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
philtregear | 3 years ago
1 like

Let us assume SS had ED. What is the common treatment? Viagra. This is obtainable via the internet or one's own GP. If RF did provide tetesterone to SS that is unethical and unprofessional. The possibility that SS may have lied in the past is irrelevant. The bigger picture is just how dodgy Brailsfords claims now look. I hope that someone will kiss and tell on team sky/ British cycling. If that is RF then at least he will be released from his self created purgatory.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to philtregear | 3 years ago
2 likes

If we assume that SS wanted testosterone for another purpose but needed a cover story, then is it plausible that he claimed to have ED and a reason why other treatments wouldn't be possible?

Viagra is available OTC but isn't always the right thing. Testosterone, other drugs and therapy are often needed, depending on the root cause (innuendo not intended). Men are often bad at taking such things to a GP, so SS might have been quite plausible as an informal patient to RF.

Possible truths include:

1. RF did order the drugs for SS and he did have ED
2. RF ordered for doping purposes and SS was part of it
3. SS duped RF into ordering for a doping purpose that RF did not know of
4. RF ordered for doping and SS is innocent

If no 2 is right, and I were in RF's shoes, given all that he has admitted, I'd be making sure I didn't go down alone.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to TheBillder | 3 years ago
1 like

Except most of that's cobblers. 
Testosterone was one of the earliest methods of doping and its relatively easy to text for. 
Teatostrone for ED has been throughly debunked as pretty much useless outside of a few testosterone related issues. 
The whole thing stinks - if Sutton had Freeman that terrified why on earth didn't he get him to order something useful?

We know Freeman is a liar or supremely incompetent due to his own remarks about testosterone and  the stupid laptop incidents. 
There may well be something going on between the 2 of them but it strains credulity that it's ED and testosterone related. 
The ED story seems created specifically to cause maximum embarrassment to Sutton who appears to be a quintessential "jock". 

Avatar
Velovoyeur | 3 years ago
5 likes

This trial is about Dr Freeman's ability to practice medicine. Look at the facts:

1. He doesn't keep medical records, keeps losing laptops (that aren't backed up anyway) and feels it necessary to physically destroy his old computers.

2. He has already been found guilty of 18 of the 22 charges.

3. He is a sports doctor who doesn't know about the effects of testosterone.

4. He has difficulty with facts and the truth.

 

What has Shane Sutton's history and alleged erectile dysfunction got to do with all of the above?

Why is this case still ongoing?

 

Avatar
Gkam84 replied to Velovoyeur | 3 years ago
2 likes
Velovoyeur wrote:

What has Shane Sutton's history and alleged erectile dysfunction got to do with all of the above?

Why is this case still ongoing?

Suttons history and ED has everything to do with it, that is what the whole trial surrounds, if he has ED and wanted the testosterone, that is far less dodgy that what it might have been for. The whole reason that Suttons past is being questioned at the moment is his refusal to participate after throwing his little hissy fit and walking out previously. He has denied having ED, same as he's denied doping or knowing anything about doping in the past.

He's a liar, that's why they have called witnesses to show he's a liar. Sutton is a c**t, end of.

Velovoyeur wrote:

2. He has already been found guilty of 18 of the 22 charges.

I was under the impression that he's not been found guilty of anything yet, he may have pled guilty, but nothing has been decided yet. Almost all of those 18 charges are very minor and are unlikely to lead to him being struck off or found unfit to practice.
 

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I think you're joking on this point - but it is getting this farcical.   Its usually the work of a few hours max to prove a witness is unreliable - not this constant stream of slander.

It's only a stream of slander if untrue. I haven't heard anything that rings as untrue when levelled at Sutton.

Avatar
SKH replied to Velovoyeur | 3 years ago
1 like

The 18 charges he simply admitted to, no evidence was given by either side on those. If the main charge (and so the 4 re. Testogel) are not proved/agreed by the panel, the other 18 related charges will not be enough for the panel to recomend he isn't fit to practice. He'll get a temporary suspension or allowed to carry on practicing with some conditions set he has to abide to. Probably simply evidence of his record keeping each month now he's working back in NHS East Lancs.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
3 likes

Make it stop!   Can someone explain to me why smearing Sutton (who isnt on trial here and cannot defend himself) seems to be the entire direction of the case.

Whether Sutton is/was a doper or not this seems like the equivalent of parliamentary priviledge where Freemans team are the MP's who can make allegations with no comeback.

This is clown car justice.  -  What is the legal bearing of a medical tribunal anyway - anyone know?

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
0 likes

I think the gist of this for Freeman is that he ordered the testosterone, which is obviously a dodgy thing to have around any athletic organisation, because Sutton asked him to treat ED.

Sutton says he does not have ED, so Freeman must have ordered it for another purpose. Freeman says he doesn't know of another purpose, so perhaps Sutton wanted it for that other purpose. Sutton says he knows of the purpose but has never experienced it in his long career through an iffy period in cycling.

So Freeman needs to paint Sutton as a liar if the ED defence is to, er, stand up.

The way this is going, I expect Sutton may be asked to prove a lack of ED in court.

On the truth... Only one of the two can be telling it. But that's an upper limit on the number.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to TheBillder | 3 years ago
0 likes
TheBillder wrote:

I expect Sutton may be asked to prove a lack of ED in court. On the truth...

I think you're joking on this point - but it is getting this farcical.   Its usually the work of a few hours max to prove a witness is unreliable - not this constant stream of slander.

Avatar
SKH replied to Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
0 likes

Sutton doesn't medically require ED for him to have bullied Freeman to order Testogel to treat it, he just needs to have said he has it and bullied Freeman to order it under that pretence. In fact Freeman interestingly said a while back, Sutton's ED was more a matter of him having unrealistic expectations he felt needed to be addressed or something to that effect. Given the 'many conquests' boasts Sutton is also said to have boasted about while at BC (a couple even part of his resignation) it is simply a bully doing what a bully does to get whatever he wants.

Avatar
SKH replied to Secret_squirrel | 3 years ago
1 like

Simply Freeman needs to convince the panel Sutton is not trustowrthy in his denial by showing witness evidence proving he's not trustworthy, same as GMC have tried with Freeman. There's only two people involved here and that's Freeman & Sutton and no direct evidence of the main 4 charges and so the ultimate charge of not being fit to practice.

Latest Comments