[ad_1]
Just over four months before the start of the Olympics, British sport has suffered possibly its most serious doping scandal.
Is it really that bad? After all, Richard Freeman is not a household name. He quit cycling four years ago. He is a doctor, not an athlete. The delivery of testosterone around which this saga revolves was made almost a decade ago. Team Sky is gone, taken over by Team Ineos. British Cycling has made reforms and claims to be a very different organization from the days when its former doctor held the keys to the drug store at the national velodrome.
But the severity of the devastating guilty verdict handed down on Friday morning by the panel after a remarkable two-year medical tribunal that has done lasting damage to the sport’s reputation should not be underestimated.
Consider how much glory British cycling enjoyed, both on the road and on the track, in the years when Freeman helped some of the country’s best cyclists achieve unprecedented success: 24 medals at the 2012 and 2016 Olympics and six Tour de France victories between 2012 and 2016. 2018.
Consider the cloud of suspicion that sadly now stains that golden age, unfair as it may be to horsemen who are completely innocent.
Think of the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money given to a national government body accredited by the UK Sport funding agency as a model setup. And the half a million pounds spent in court so overdue, without even taking into account the legal costs of the General Medical Council (GMC).
And then there is the moment. The fact that the Testogel was delivered to the velodrome one year before London 2012.
After a hearing that sometimes turned into a sham, with the admission of an elaborate cover-up, a chaotic medical record-keeping, ignorance of ground rules, a destroyed laptop, drugs poured down a sink, erectile dysfunction claims, viagra stocks, disputes between staff and an irate key witness storming in the middle of evidence As Freeman lent evidence behind a screen due to his stress and mental health issues, remember the grim ending: that the former senior doctor in the sport has been convicted of a doping offense.
Let’s recall the professionalism and excellence that we were told was behind the rise of cycling as Team GB’s so-called ‘medal factory’, the driving force behind the country’s status as an Olympic and Paralympic superpower in successive Games.
And don’t forget the accolades and honors accruing to those Freeman worked with at British Cycling and Team Sky: Sir Dave Brailsford, once hailed as a British sports guru and the architect of the country’s cycling revolution, Dr. Steve Peters. , one of the biggest names. in sports medicine, and Brian Cookson OBE, who became the sport’s most powerful figure as president of the international cycling federation, the UCI.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of any of them in relation to this or any other case. But there are still questions to be answered.
Not least, which rider was Freeman helping fool? Was it just one?
And given the attention to detail and thoroughness that British Cycling and Team Sky were once famous for, how realistic is it to believe that no one else knew what Freeman was doing? How credible is it that he was the rogue operator that some in the sport now perhaps conveniently portray?
Former shadow sports minister Clive Efford has already called for Brailsford, who now heads Team Ineos, to be suspended, pending an investigation.
Efford is a member of the select committee for DCMS, which just three years ago criticized British Cycling’s “unforgivable” failure to maintain medical records, and accused Team Sky of “crossing the ethical line” in a damning report. It’s a reminder that Friday’s verdict was only the latest, albeit the most damning, scandal that has gripped the sport in Britain.
Former Team Sky technical director Shane Sutton, for whom Freeman insisted he acquired the drug to treat a medical condition, something Sutton denied, told the BBC that it is “absolutely ridiculous” that “people are asking for the head. from Dave, “and insisted that neither he nor Brailsford knew anything about testosterone.
Peters, who was immediately alerted to the delivery of the notorious drug on the day he arrived at the velodrome in May 2011, told the court that he did not feel the need to tell Brailsford about it, even though it was not until five months. then. that Freeman provided him with an email that appeared to show that it had been sent in error.
We now know that Freeman was lying about that, of course. He admitted the cover-up. But many will wonder how an elite sports team that prided itself on leaving nothing to chance acted as it did.
Indeed, if UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) had been alerted to the delivery in 2011, and had investigated Freeman’s claims that it was an innocent mistake, this perhaps could have been cleared up long ago.
Brailsford and Peters have yet to comment on the verdict, but Ineos issued a statement criticizing Freeman and insisting that he did not believe any cyclists had used or attempted to use testosterone. It’s unclear what exactly Ineos believes Freeman did to cycling’s doping drug of choice, after he handed it over to the sport’s headquarters.
Maybe it would have helped if Brailsford had been asked to testify in court. In her final recap last month, Freeman’s QA Mary O’Rourke described the head of Team Ineos as “the missing specter in these procedures.”
In the end, of course, GMC didn’t need to call Brailsford. But now comes the sequel. Freeman could appeal, while he waits to find out if he will now be eliminated. You may decide to reveal more to the media. And still faces two counts of Ukad.
Nearly three years ago, in the only rebroadcast interview Freeman has given since this saga began, the doctor told me that he would “clear everything up” after the case was over, but promised “there was nothing wrong.”
After the verdict that I feared cycling, the security it gave me is now in tatters. And sadly for British sport, this saga is still far from over.
