Sky - gaming the system?

[David Martin]

Kimmage is bitter and is, in his own words on that interview, stating conjecture as fact based on his 'gut instinct'. ANd feeling a little aggreived when his rather abrasive style gets a poor response.

There is a perfectly clear and verifiable explanation for the flumicil, how it is sourced and used. I don't see how that can be construed as spin. The issue of granting the TUE's is separate and there are now clear policies. Check the timelines for when the team started and when policies were put in place.  I don't know of any organisation that starts ground up with all the correct policies in place.

For some people there is nothing that Sky can do to be seen as clean.

[Hot Flatus]

Kimmage is bitter and is, in his own words on that interview, stating conjecture as fact based on his 'gut instinct'. ANd feeling a little aggreived when his rather abrasive style gets a poor response.

Some of what Kimmage says is conjecture, and that is because he has been asked by the interviewer so to do. With regards to Kimmage being bitter, maybe he is, but that has no bearing on whether what he says is actually true. I'm surprised at somebody such as yourself, who makes great play of science and evidence, is now trying to use emotion as an argument. You can't have it both ways, David. Besides which, the tactic you are employing is trying to devalue the message by denigrating the messenger.

There is a perfectly clear and verifiable explanation for the flumicil, how it is sourced and used. I don't see how that can be construed as spin.

And all of that hinges on the content of the package containing Fluimucil.

As yet Sky have produced no evidence that it was, because surprise surprise there are no records kept.  Again, you cant have it both ways, David. There is no evidence to prove or even suggest that the content of the package was Fluimucil. It's pure conjecture.

Despite the courier remembering the exact circumstances and packaging of the package, it took many weeks before Sky suggested what was in the package. The courier remembered all of the details of the package and it's delivery, bar the contents, and yet Brailsford tried to suggest that the courier didn't even go to the Dauphiné, and when corrected tried to suggest that Wiggins had already left the race when the courier arrived, until video evidence showed this to be untrue. Why didn't Brailsford just ask the courier? The courier remembered everything.

Mind you, Wiggins didnt even remember that he'd ever had an injection until the Fancy Bears hackers reminded him, so perhaps all this Kenacort that Sky's doctor used on team staff has affected their memories.

If Sky can get so many of the simple, verifiable details wrong, so wrong that they look like lies, how can we have any confidence whatsoever about their statements on the contents of the package.

For some people there is nothing that Sky can do to be seen as clean

In itself, that statement is of no value. People who believe that Sky can do nothing to be seen as clean do so because they think Sky are abusing PEDS. Of course, that belief only emerged when Sky riders started producing performances that were highly out of character. And when the inevitable questions were asked, answers were given that were inconsistent. What we have now is the beginning of the meat on the bones.

People were saying similar things as you about Armstrong, right up until he actually confessed. Armstrong didn't suddenly become a doper the moment he confessed. He always was a doper. The lack of concrete evidence didn't make him clean.

Of course, there are also some people for whom Sky can never be seen as dirty. These people have to examine their own motivations and ask themselves that if they replaced the word 'Sky' with the word ' Astana', would they be quite so willing to dismiss the concerns of just about everybody who has commented -including the Head of UKAD, the Parliamentary Committee, a bunch of confessed dopers AND David Walsh- quite so glibly...

Frankly, David, you believe what Sky are saying because it's what you want to believe.

[toontra]

Kimmage is bitter and is, in his own words on that interview, stating conjecture as fact based on his 'gut instinct'. ANd feeling a little aggreived when his rather abrasive style gets a poor response.

There is a perfectly clear and verifiable explanation for the flumicil, how it is sourced and used. I don't see how that can be construed as spin. The issue of granting the TUE's is separate and there are now clear policies. Check the timelines for when the team started and when policies were put in place.  I don't know of any organisation that starts ground up with all the correct policies in place.

For some people there is nothing that Sky can do to be seen as clean.

You would really have to have watched the whole select committee hearing to get a measure of how disturbing the "discrepancies" appear.  Cope looked out of his depth and was very unconvincing regarding the "package" - you almost felt sorry for him!  He admitted the whole thing was inexplicable (including his own behaviour in not asking questions) and felt he was being made a scapegoat.

But far more damning IMO was the evidence from the UKAD chair.  She certainly was of the belief that this went far further than "procedural errors" and again said many aspects of what they had investigated so far were (again) "inexplicable" and deeply disturbing.  Strong words from someone who didn't strike me as someone prone to hyperbole.  She was choosing her words extremely carefully, but you had the sense that she would like to say a lot more!

And as for Freeman's absence - that spoke louder than either of the two witnesses.  I've yet to hear when/how he will be giving his evidence.

[David Martin]

Where is Kimmage coming from and why?

There are significant gaps in the record keeping that have been identified as procedural fails. We have more nudge, nudge wink wink for events that happened 6 years ago.  I would be far more concerned if in the absence of specific written records, everyone had the same neat story.

Failure to update the central medical records is in itself concerning, but is not evidence of wrongdoing (except for failure to keep proper records).

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 'Belief' is not hard evidence. 'inexplicable' is not evidence of wrongdoing. For someone like Sky to be doing something illicit you would think they would do a better job of covering things up.

I've not seen any evidence that they were abusing PED beyond the boundaries of the rules. There is  lots of innuendo.  The silence of SKy is taken to be damning when in fact they were asked to remain silent during the investigation.

Has anyone verified that Freemans laptop was reported stolen? Has anyone asked whoever was handling the medicine store at BC what was in that package?  Lots of gaps, a credible and testable (to some extent) set of explanations (does Freeman have a license to prescribe in Berlin? Is that formulation only available in Germany?)

In Freeman I see a medic who has learned and is familiar with certain approaches in treatment. One tends to stick with the tools one knows work, so he uses Kenacort for much of his practice. He is keen to see the athletes progress so ushes the boundaries with the TUE's and Kenacort is his effective therapy of choice.  A bit of an IT dinosaur, but respected for his practice and indeed treats many of the staff as well. 

BTW I had a steroid injection in my shoulder a few years back. I don't know what that drug was. Could have been Kenacort, probably something else. Doesn't surprise me that Brailsford didn't know what he had been given - it didn't matter much at the time as you trust the doctor and unless you are a pharmacologist, the names are so much alphabet soup.)

[Hot Flatus]

For whatever reason, you aren't viewing this with a critical eye, David. Perhaps you feel that you can't countenance the possibility that the Sky 'marginal gains' mantra is just bullshit. Perhaps, you are just playing the contrarian and trying to defend the increasingly indefensible as an intellectual challenge.  You certainly aren't trying to ask any key critical questions, and are blithely dismissing or ignoring some hard facts that point to attempts at cover up, blatant lying, and a complete lack of openness and transparency.

[drgannet]

A good, pertinent article from Mr INRNG http://inrng.com/2017/03/sky-tue-epistemology-known-unknowns/#more-30604

[David Martin]

55 doses over 4 years for a doctor whose private practice is predominantly the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries? It appears that Dr Freeman has been mixing different business streams with his ordering.
There is a comment that there are no records of the prescriptions for these drugs. That is incorrect. There are records but they are not accessible due to patient confidentiality for those that were treated.

[David Martin]

For whatever reason, you aren't viewing this with a critical eye, David. Perhaps you feel that you can't countenance the possibility that the Sky 'marginal gains' mantra is just bullshit. Perhaps, you are just playing the contrarian and trying to defend the increasingly indefensible as an intellectual challenge.  You certainly aren't trying to ask any key critical questions, and are blithely dismissing or ignoring some hard facts that point to attempts at cover up, blatant lying, and a complete lack of openness and transparency.

I would disagree. It is easy to countenance anything you don't like as spin etc. It is easy to take a bunch of observations and draw whatever narrative you want through them, with more or less credibility. It is a mistake to presume that because you consider one narrative to lack credibility that the alternative must be more true.

What we know is:
1. A package was taken somewhat naively from BC/Sky medical in Manchester to the Dauphine.
2. it was claimed it contained Flumicil, a drug used as a decongestant in treating cyclists.
3. Flumicil is not available in UK. It is not available on prescription in France as the doctor does/did not have prescribing rights in France. It is alleged that the formulation was sourced from Berlin where it was available in the correct formulation and the doctor was authorised to purchase it.
4. Dr Freeman had three separate practices - Team Sky, BC and a private practice. He specialised in musculoskeletal issues and treated a number of patients, including members of team sky and BC staff.
5. He was familiar with and used corticosteroids as part of his practice. These can also be used as an anti allergy treatment.
6. he obtained TUE and treated BW with corticosteroids as has been recorded.
7. The events around the Dauphine happened 6 years ago. It is reasonable to expect some confusion over precise details in that timeframe.
8. The laptop theft should be verifiable from the Greek authorities. Whether it was the only repository of BW medical records for that time period or not remains in doubt.
9. Freeman appeared to mix the three strands of his professional life with little separation between them. I am surprised there was not a stricter policy and oversight.
10. There is no evidence of the administration route of any of the compounds. There are multiple administration routes, some of which are banned without a TUE and others of which are fine.

The Sky narrative is that it was a growing organisation and they were learning as they went, putting in place new stable door bolts in many cases. (requiring 2 doctors for TUE, better recording of information). I don't consider this to be 'PR fluff' as it is verifiable fact that can be checked as to when and how those policies were put into place. It is part of the growing pains of any organisation, experience is what you get just after you needed it.

There is a narrative of realising that things were not ideal on board and managing the issues away through improved process, hoping that the issues raised were not serious.
There is no evidence that that there was illicit activity - poor practice yes, but not illicit activity.  Therefore there is no evidence for disbelieving the Sky narrative.

The alternative narrative suffers from overreading into events and into what can be explained by incompetence. There is no strong evidence to believe it. Without the missing records and knowledge of the package from party directly involved then there is no strong evidence to believe Sky's narrative.

So we are in a state of not proven and leaning towards whichever way the prejudices lie. I'm quite happy with the benefit of the doubt and an amount of incompetence in a realtively new and inexperienced setup. I work with very smart people and we still make screwups, everyone does if they are entering into new areas. There is a clear and verifiable evidence that there has been a recognition that performance in certain areas was poor and a subsequent development in proces.

I don't think Sky handled it as well as they could have done, but once the incident had occurred they were in a no-win situation.

Personally I think the benefit of the doubt rests with Sky but that it is essentially unproven. Others prefer to see it as some master doping plot. If anything it was a Freeman/Wiggins pushing the boundaries (whether Wiggins fully understood the pharmaceutical options or not). I'm sure Wiggins thought it was above board and within the rules.

So in summary, yes I do consider this with a critical mind, one which refuses to jump to conclusions which are not fully supported. I retain a skepticism for drawing any narrative through the facts, however well it may fit with our prejudices. Which does sound like a bit of a cop out. Sometimes things do look strange in hindsight, but that is how the hand played out.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

You are missing some other data points.

Sky hired a doctor that systematically doped riders in Rabobank. Sky team folk had been employed by Rabobank while doping occurred. The Rabobank doctor was fired by Sky only when the Rabobank doping was publicly proven.

[Hot Flatus]

David, you are being very selective in your evidence, and waving away inconsistencies far too easily.

We've discussed Wiggins's claim never to have had an injection (other than vaccinations) before and IIRC you attempted to say that it was a simple confusion due to the book having been ghost written.

Let's think about that for a moment. Wiggins writes a page in a section about doping, essentially a massive refutation of the accusations of doping made against him. In it he makes a key assertion that he'd never had an injection.

In fact what he meant to say was that he'd had loads of injections of a massive classic PED 3 days before every major stage race....but the ghost writer confused that with "never had an injection". Come on.

When the package story surfaces, Brailsford tells us it wasn't for Wiggins, it was for Pooley. Pooley contradicts that. Brailsford then tells us Wiggins had already left the Dauphiné when Cope arrived so it wasnt administered post race. Video evidence contradicts that.

You are discounting this as incompetence due to the incident occurring a few years previously. That is very selective and convenient incompetence, David, and you are ignoring the fact that Cope didn't contradict it even though he knew it was untrue. It was left out there as fact, and only rescinded when other people disproved it. Interestingly, Cope remembered the tiniest details about the package, the exact location in the building where he picked it up from and what it was wrapped in. But he didn't remember exactly where he went in France until Pooley reminded him, and he didn't remember whether Wiggins was still at the race until somebody else disproved Brailsford's claim.

Even the nature of the product doesn't add up. Wiggins needed Fluimucil during a race, and it took 4 days for it to be delivered at a cost of £600 and only got there when it was too late to be of any use to Wiggins in the race.

It is literally unbelievable, which is why we are seeing several sessions of Sky being interrogated by a Comittee of MPs, and the Head of the UK Anti-doping organisation and the head of the Parliamentary committee giving a damning assessment of Team Sky's account. Off the back of this, WADA are considering banning Kenacort because they belive it to have been abused.

Perhaps, David, given that you feel Sky are being misjudged, you should contact Team Sky and offer to attend the next Parliamentary committee and explain to the MPs and UKAD why they are so wrong to doubt Team Sky.

[mattc]

You are missing some other data points.

Sky hired a doctor that systematically doped riders in Rabobank. Sky team folk had been employed by Rabobank while doping occurred. The Rabobank doctor was fired by Sky only when the Rabobank doping was publicly proven.

What is a "data point" ??

These facts are not evidence in this case - they're just history at best. More mud, that's all.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Occam's Razor might be usefully applied here.

[mattc]

Occam's Razor might be usefully applied here.

Relevance?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

If Sky is doping, that explains the difficulty that Sky has in presenting evidence that they are not doping.

If Sky is not doping, they are doing a remarkably poor job of presenting evidence and consistent testimony to back up their assertions.

Sky had access to appropriate knowledge regarding doping without testing positive. They also had easy access to dope and (allegedly) a method to deliver dope to riders without records being kept. Means, motive and opportunity all seem to apply.

[Whitedown Man]

The Cycling Podcast - which for months has gone out of its way to present a balanced view - pretty much concludes "guilty" this week.

[toontra]

The whole purpose of record-keeping post-Armstrong was to avoid suspicion of doping.  Sky, of all teams, must have been acutely aware of this.  Sky's lack of record keeping, as presented to the select committee last week, was so shocking it bordered on illegality and is likely to prompt a GMC investigation, and yet some people are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in spite of all the evidence (or lack of it). They are in danger of appearing as apologists for doping.

[Hot Flatus]

Of course, lack of records equals lack of definitive proof either way, of innocent use of the drugs or of abusive use of the drugs.

It seems strange that an open, transparent, and squeaky clean team like Sky, who were already raising overt suspicion in 2011 with the Froome miracle transformation from nowhere to podium, would overlook an obvious opportunity to gather evidence that any use of a classic PED was legitimate.

Of course a dirty team, like Astana, would ensure that there was no paper trail.

[toontra]

Of course a dirty team, like Astana, would ensure that there was no paper trail.

Precisely.

[mattc]

You are missing some other data points.

Sky hired a doctor that systematically doped riders in Rabobank. Sky team folk had been employed by Rabobank while doping occurred. The Rabobank doctor was fired by Sky only when the Rabobank doping was publicly proven.

Sky had access to appropriate knowledge regarding doping without testing positive.

.... which leads you to conclude guilt.

But it isn't evidence, it's not a "data point" and it proves nothing. Ex-dopers are not automatically guilty of anything LWAB suspects them of!

(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

[citoyen]

in a UK court ... Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

The standards that Sky are required to adhere to are clearly set out in WADA and UKAD regulations. UK courts don't come into it.

I believe LWaB's previous comments about Sky's use of TUEs relate to these standards.

[Hot Flatus]

Read this:

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/03/commentary-team-skys-clarification-documents-leave-much-still-unclear/

[IJL]

5. He was familiar with and used corticosteroids as part of his practice. These can also be used as an anti allergy treatment

This type of steroid is very commonly used for joint injections and most GP surgery will have a healthy stock.  We don't have any special systems for accounting for our stock but I would have expected any professional sports team to be able to account for every vial of a medication open to such abuse.

Its use in asthma is rare, in fact I have only discovered it can be used for asthma in the last few days, in the past I have given intravenous steroids to asthmatics (hydrocortisone) but most of those people had such severe symptoms that they were in A&E resus rooms.

In the past Kenalog has been used for allergies and hayfever, this is becoming ever less common, a dose of kenalog will often get rid of hayfever symptoms for a whole summer but the potential side affects are fairly dramatic and hard to justify.  I work at a surgery of 10,000 patients and we have about 5 people who are so disabled by hayfever symptoms that they still have Kenalog but its given with a very frank warning about what it can do.


As to gaming the system, of course they were, the surprise is that the TUE was approved and that the whole TUE system is so secretive.  Make it public and none of this would have happened.

[sojournermike]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Sky's whole marketing demeanor and 'business style' approach is absolutely aligned with an expectation that they would keep records. I am required to retain records, emails, hours worked for charging purposes etc. The business relies on this data to function. That is how Sky portrayed themselves and it was manifestly not the case (or the records have been hidden).

2. Although previous convictions are not allowed to influence the verdict in the UK, they do influence sentencing. Are we there yet?

[mattc]

in a UK court ... Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

The standards that Sky are required to adhere to are clearly set out in WADA and UKAD regulations. UK courts don't come into it.

So are ex-dopers always guilty in those regs? Interesting.

[Whitedown Man]

(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)

True in most circumstances, but by no means all