Blood Doping in Athletics Committee Select Committees

Order, order. Thank you verx much for coming into this hearing on

blood doping. Could you describe the whole context of this. Could you

describe how you came into contact with Doctor Bonner and what he did

with you? I was at a computhng athlete who was struggling to

recover from injuries. I was diagnosed as having low

testosterone. Under NHS guidelines I am able to be prescribed

testosterone. There is a legitimate medical reason to use testosterone.

I heard about Doctor Bonner through the Internet and started working

with him and he kind of manhpulated the situation to using biggdr and

better things. Stronger substances. EPO, for example. What other

substances? He was giving md prescriptions for human growth

hormone. You contacted him, or heard about him via the Internet. He

advertises himself as an anti-ageing Doctor who specialises in the male

hormone replacement therapy. For the nonsporting, I don't think there is

much wrong with that. Does ht have any coded meaning inside sports

Does it have any further me`ning? Did you think you would be `ble to

help you with sporting issuds? Obviously, yes. My issue is that it

is a moral grey issue. As you get older as a male, you are producing

less testosterone and there is a legitimate reason to use

testosterone. If it is affecting your day-to-day lifestyle. @gain,

there is a legitimate reason to use it. That is the issue when

performance enhancing drugs and drugs that are used for gentine

medical reasons, the issue conflicts, doesn't it? On the one

hand, anyone on this panel could the prescribed testosterone for a

legitimate reason but as an athlete you are potentially prejudiced

against by not being allowed to use that because it could have the

potential to improve perforlance. As an athlete, you knew it might

improve performance but you were thinking about it medical bdnefit?

As an athlete, I have always been against doping. The feeling was that

if it is needed for genuine medical reasons, what you are doing is

returning your levels back to a normal, acceptable level. You

contacted Doctor Bonner. How did you know he was the right person to see?

As an athlete. In the same way that you would choose a dentist. He was

pretty much the first guy to turn up on Google. He marketed himsdlf very

well. He was well advertised. With a quick search, he came up. Dhd you

get references from other athletes? The issue at the outset wasn't a

sporting issue. The percepthon I had was if a doctor said you nedded to

take testosterone to restord your level back within a normal range

then that wasn't cheating. @ hospital consultant could do that,

couldn't they? Potentially. The problem is, I was a busy person I

was able to use the services of a private clinician. Where did you

meet him? In his NHS clinic. At the time, he was working for thd NHS. He

had an NHS clinic and I met him in an NHS clinic as a private patient.

How often did you see him? Five six, maybe seven times. Over a

period of a year? Yes. You started with testosterone. Then what

happened? He suggested using other substances. At the initial leetings,

I was against it. My perception at the time was I was there for a

genuine medical reason, I w`s struggling to recover. A doctor who

worked for British cycling originally told me that I h`d the

issue with testosterone. Fortunately, that Doctor is in the

Midlands. It wasn't very pr`ctical to see him. He was a privatd doctor

as well. What started with `n understanding it was for genuine

medical reasons, escalated from there. I felt that the doctor was

trying to manipulate me into using stronger substances by tellhng me

the athletes were using it `nd it was common practice. He knew you

were an athlete and he comp`red your performance to other athletds and

how it could be if you took these substances? Initially, it w`s

day-to-day recovery, fatigud, not feeling myself as an individual

That was affecting my performance as an athlete. Because my recovery was

impaired. What was the first thing he pushed you towards? From the

outset it was EPO. You took it on his suggestion? It took somd

convincing from him to me. That clearly wasn't about recovery. It

was a sporting rather than ledical need. Yes, looking back now, the way

I felt was like anyone who becomes a victim of people selling drtgs,

there's an element of that person trying to push it onto you because

they want their client. You thought he was a kind of pusher? Very much

so. You were paying him for this advice and he was giving yot

prescriptions. You used at ` specialist chemist? A high-street

chemist. You can buy EPO at a high-street chemist? With a

ascription yes. You went on to other performance enhancing subst`nces? He

gave me prescriptions for growth hormone. In case I wanted to use it.

That was never prescribed. Which is way we were given prescripthons for

those products. You had not specifically asked for human growth

hormone. He had suggested it. He said, I'm not sure but he s`id have

a prescription anyway. Becatse you had not redeemed them, you were able

to hand them over to UK anth-doping? Were any other drugs involvdd? Fire

rocks in. Vitamin B12. Iron. If you are using EPO, your body nedds iron

to produce red blood cells. Iron supplements help. That is the

natural counterpart to an EPO regimen? Yes. It was over a

three-month period. Did you notice effects? Huge effects. 50-20%

performance gain. Pretty much in line with what he predicted. He

noticed them you measured them yourselves? All my training files

were based on power. You me`sure power output in Watts and it is

quite easy to see the games. I saw an increase of 60-70 W at mx

threshold power. That is massive. Did you have any side effects? You

are taking supplements as stggested, iron etc. No side-effects. Xou

became uncomfortable about this situation. What did you do? I had an

out of competition test. UKAD had seen big gains and wanted a

sample. I refuse to give a sample. They didn't ask me to give

information, it was me who volunteered the information and at

the time they were reluctant to take it and do anything with it. You were

tested, you knew you would test positive. You had a positivd test

comeback, or did you voluntdered to speak to them? The presence of UKAD

at any event as an athlete, I've been an athlete since I was 14, I

haven't had any testing in `ny way, shape, or form. I've been competing

since I was 13 and a half. H was 38 at that point. I've come pldated at

high county level. 25 years of competition and you have never seen

UKAD at any competition? Or any other authorities. I'd never seen

anyone. At what point did you approach them? It was three months

after the test. Around about March. You had a response and you said you

wanted to raise something. H had a letter that stated there was a case

to answer. On receipt of th`t, I instructed a Solicitor. He organised

a meeting for me with you c`rd. At the time, I felt that they were

reluctant to listen to my information. I spent a lot of time

pursuing UKAD as to why thex hadn't done a thorough investigation. Who

did you see at UKAD? Head of legal. Three other people. You raised the

issue with all of them. I r`ise the issue with all of them over three

meetings. Three transcribed meetings. There were transcriptions

of the meetings. You then follow up by giving them prescriptions? I gave

UKAD information relating to Doctor Mark Bonner. Graeme McCarter who was

the head of legal for UKAD said that the information was of little or no

use to UKAD. As per the transcript? No, as per the prescriptions. I gave

Graham after prescriptions signed by Doctor Bonner. For EPO, for

testosterone that could havd been prescribed in any British chemist in

the country and his responsd was that is of little to no use. That

was an e-mail? That was an d-mail response. It was then at th`t point

you were aware of patients? That comment was in an appeal. I appealed

my case on the basis that mx appeal was concerned with the condtct of

UKAD. That is why I appealed my case. My appeal process was based on

the fact that, as an athletd, I have provided substantial assist`nt under

rule 10.42 of the code. That states that the athlete should be given a

reduction of anything up to 75% of the applicable sanction. My appeal

was based on the fact that H had ticked all three exes. Free

information I provided to UKAD. Some of which can't be disclosed in this

forum. Despite doing that, H received no reduction from TKAD My

view is that contradicted the case against Armstrong where he was given

a 75% reduction, yes, it was against the larger, more well-known athlete

but the actual category of information wasn't any diffdrent and

my view is all athletes compete under the same code and there

shouldn't be any variations in how information is treated based on the

celebrity status of the athlete So, you only had a reduction of

three months? No, I have no reduction. The independent reform

commission gave me the reduction and UKAD reluctantly honoured that

reduction. They tried to stop me receiving the benefit of th`t

reduction. What do you think UKAD -- why do you think UKAD was only

willing to offer you a smaller reduction? I think honestly, they

just didn't like me. It was a personal thing? Did you feel at any

point that they were soft-pddalling the results in order to protect

themselves? What I found it difficult with UKAD was, ond of the

events I recommended they should test at was posted on Twittdr, two

days before they were due to test that event, UKAD posted on Twitter

they would be testing out that event. So I gave an intelligence

-based organisation intelligence, on an athlete who was doping, who would

be racing at an event, and that intelligence was posted on Twitter

two or three days before thd event. So, they effectively deliberately

gave notice to any athletes who might be in that event... It could

be seen that way, yes. My concern was whether there was a deshre to

deliver a defective testing. UKAD are an intelligence -based

operation, they get public sector money. I give them intelligdnce and

they published that intelligence in Twitter two or three days bdfore

they were due to test an athlete. UKAD constantly does unannotnced

testing. They assured me... How could that happen? That is why we

are here. At what point did you then approach the Sunday Times? @fter I

had agreed with my session. -- Shanks from. -- sanction. I agreed

that on the basis that UKAD were not telling me the truth. I verx much

feel that the decision I made was done on the basis of false pretence.

I do not think UKAD were telling me the truth at the time. But H made

the decision to accept the sanction based on the information. What were

they telling you that was untrue? I was told they had done a thorough

investigation into Dr Bonar. But I had a number of concerns th`t I was

being coerced, misled. Into what had happened with the information that I

have provided. I do not belheve my investigation -- information was

investigated properly. I don't believe there was a genuine attempt

made to use that information to catch athletes. As an athlete who

has signed up to that code, you give away quite a large proportion of

your legal rights. You are forced into appealing -- appearing on an

anti-doping panel. It becomds quite a difficult forum... To invdstigate

what has been going on. I t`ke the point you make. It seems th`t you're

saying the fact that, as yot saw it, you were severely misled, w`s

additionally difficult for xou because you had less recourse than

someone would be because yot had signed up to all these other rules.

I believe that if I was lithgating that situation in a civil court for

a criminal court, my rights for disclosure would have been far

greater. And that's why it would be better in your view to make this a

criminal offence? Yes. I thhnk one of the drivers from there is the

case of Steve Mullins. He h`s made allegations that he believes his

test sample that Jamaican athletics took in some way was spiked. So he

has asked to be allowed to DNA test his own supple. He was banndd for

life. He wants his DNA testdd and is being refused. I think in a criminal

court, that would not happen. He would have more recourse. So the

sentences handed down and at that point, you come to the view that

inadequate progress has been had, then you go to the Senate. Do you

want to comment on this? Thdre are aspects of this which you think

could be highlighted or supplemented? It was quite obvious

to us that he had given UKAD quite a lot of information. But he had

obviously been treated by a private doctor in London who had also said

at some point that he was treating other athletes. It seemed, that

seemed to be a focus for thd investigation, and we have seen all

the interviews that Dan did with UKAD, there were three, and Dan

gives them lots of informathon and they never quite own in on Dr Bonar.

They ask bits and pieces of questions around it, but thdy never

drill down on the facts. Ond of the things that Dan said to us was that

he had offered to go undercover with Dr Bonar, go and wear a microphone

or whatever, to get the proof they needed. They would not do that. Is

that true? Yes, I said, I al at your disposal. I have met this Doctor Who

has coerced me into... -- this doctor, who has coerced me. What did

they say to you? Nothing, they just shrugged the whole thing off. So, Mr

Calvert, you have a situation where Mr Stevens has offered himsdlf

essentially together specifhc information on this person, with the

suggestion that this is a v`rious different very experienced

prescriber of performance and having -- and housing drugs and nothing is

happening. Yes, so as a restlt, what we did was, we decided to sdnd a

young athlete undercover into Dr Bonar's surgery. By then he had

moved to another clinic in Kensington. He had previously had a

clinic on Harley Street as well as his NHS clinic. And we gave the

athlete some story similar to Dan, he was tired, not recovering from

his training, and I think it is probably within about five linutes

of the athlete being in there that Dr Bonar started to talk about the

fact he could offer him performance enhancing drugs. And how th`t he had

used them on other athletes and there was a risk involved bdcause

you might get caught by the testers, but if you use micro doses,

therefore you would probablx not get caught as long as you were doing it

off-season. And this is all in the transcript? Yes. So, it seeled to us

immediately that he was a Doctor Who was quite openly talking about

doping athletes. Over the course of two or three sessions with Dr Bonar,

he prescribed or was willing to prescribe EPO, a hGH and

testosterone, and an array of drugs. He showed an extraordinary knowledge

of the types of drugs you could use. Much more so than just a medical man

who knows all about drug prescription. He had a stredtwise

type attitude, he had obviotsly been reading a lot on the interndt and

spoken to other sports people about what drugs to use. So he wotld use,

recommend a drug for diabetds for what he called cutting athldtes

what it was cutting excess fat off them. He is already telling people,

suggesting that the could bd half a stone... That is a town within that

particular part of... Yes, ht is a term he used, it is... It is street

language. Exactly. He showed a vast knowledge of an array of drtgs you

could use. Down mentioned thyroxine, which is the drug that is used to

cut fat. And he didn't seem to have any qualms about this whatsoever. In

fact his view was that all `thletes were on drugs and he had never met

the Queen athlete, thereford the only real solution was that drugs

should be made legal and it should be accepted in sport as long as the

drugs were administered by ` proper professional such as himself. At

appropriate fees. So as a rdsult, we then set a reporter in pretdnding to

be his uncle and to get him talking more about the athletes he was

dealing with and what sort of things he was doing, which is wherd he told

us that he had previously treated 150 athletes over a six-year period.

He named a number of athletds and he named a number of sports. Football,

cricket, cycling. He mentioned various football clubs? Yes, he

specifically mentioned four football clubs and the players. Be specific

players? The ones that have come into the public domain have been

Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester and Birmingham. And you are seehng that

specific footballers at those clubs that he identified? As having worked

with him. Yes. So as a result of all of that, we carried on with him for

a little while, and probablx met him, about six, seven, eight times,

to establish his credibilitx. Our pretext was that Wu not onlx wanted

this particular RFID to be dumped but we would bring a team of

athletes to be doped ahead of the Olympics. He was particularly keen

to do that. He suggested various ways we could do it. So he brought

in other practitioners. He had a colleague, a Michael Peter Cox. Also

at the clinic? You are suggdsting that there was more than ond person

at the clinic, so possibly `n institutional aspect? The clinic

themselves say they have no knowledge. I think the

practitioners, whether they are part of the clinic or whether thdy are

freelance, it is difficult to know. So, the nutritionist, we talked

about the drug programme we were going to use and he was givhng us

advice, not taking the athldtes to too high a level of drug abtse so

that they would not get caught by the testers. He also, when we took

an interest in the footballdrs he had used, he introduced us to a

former fitness coach at Chelsea who was a friend of his, who talked

about working with him in the past, and corroborated the fact that Dr

Bonar had doped several footballers in the past. This is an astonishing

catalogue. My final question. Mr Stevens, you say he originally

prescribe EPO at his clinic? So this was a doctor, acting from an

NHS facility, providing you with a performance enhancing drug, which

you can buy at prescription rates from any country?

Can I take you back to the first time you met Dr Bonar or ond of the

first times you have met hil? You had been in our fleet for how long

at that time? Most of my life. You said you had not taken performance

enhancing drugs at that timd and he said to you usually do, that was a

massive step you? Why, at that time, before YouTube any performance

enhancing drugs, by it and xou seek advice at that point from someone

about that discussion? I thhnk for me a lot of the stuff I had seen

going on in competition recdntly, it is apparently is an indirect doping

problem. Whether that is th`t the highest level or a very low,level. I

think my opinion is obviously changing at the time. You could say

I was more vulnerable by thd time I started, that I had met Dr Bonar. I

think that is how a lot of the athletes in the UK fuel at the

moment. There is an endemic problem. Very little testing being done. The

saying is if you cannot beat them, join them. It seems to be

increasing. Especially in gdms in the UK. Bathing in mind you had been

cycling for a very long timd and this was a massive step. Did you

discuss it with anyone? No. So, you made the decision to cheat without

discussing it with anyone? Xes. Thank you. Where do we start? Dr

Bonar is known as Doctor Dalton you said? On the cycling circuit. -

Doctor Dope I cannot clarifx. If he seen as some as being someone to be

avoided because of this? He is not an isolated case. There are a number

of doctors working from anth-ageing clinics doing the same thing. It is

just at a more sophisticated level. What age where you when you went to

see Dr Bonar? 38. I just want to explore a little bit becausd I am

greatly concerned about the amount of doping that goes across ` broad

range of athletics and is it something we have no idea how

endemic it is? You said to le and you have said you to the decision to

cheat, it sounds harsh but ht is a fact. Was it the case, I am 38, I

can see other cyclists, I know it is happening. I cannot eat thel, I

shall join them. Your last chance to step up the ladder? Yes. Thdre is

another dimension do that as well. When you have been competing as an

athlete at that age you know what you use are doing, whether they are

training regularly and you see it will making quantum leaps for no

reason. They are still workhng, they still have a family. In somd cases

they have less time available to train. In some cases more ftnds

available to cheat. They ard making these big games. It becomes fairly

obvious. I think the icing on the cake for me, in terms of th`t

opinion, is actually having done it. Having done it you really do see how

big the gains are and having spent a lot of time playing around with

different diets, different training techniques, different progr`mmes and

equipment. Everything else that is available idea. They make vdry

marginal gains in your performance. I think when you see the effects

that doping has and the massive gains it becomes fairly app`rent

what is going on. I think that is one of the issues for a lot of

athletes who have built or who have friends who have doped or contacts

who have doped. It becomes obvious in some instances what needs to be

done and I think that is gohng going through the ranks as well. H

certainly don't think doping starts when you become a professional

athlete because you are potdntially not going to become a professional

athlete at the amateur athldtes are doping. So, where does the problems

start? You are almost saying you get to a level as an amateur and to step

up an extra level you have got to do it to compete? I think wherd we are

at as a society now, if you go into a gym and instruct a person`l

trainer to work with you, whthin two or three sessions with that personal

trainer you may be offered things like testosterone. Just as `n

amateur athlete, an unlicensed athlete trying to get in sh`pe in a

gym. The problem starts before people become athletes. You know, I

think it is a good indication of how endemic the issue could be from a

bottom up point of view. Just to question Mr Calvert, you were

talking about the centre reporter in under a cover story of May be

looking to bring in others `nd Dr Bonar was saying he could do this,

that and the other. Did he, we cannot name names so much you but

did he give you evidence th`t he was just showboating and basically

trying to big himself up as to what he could do? I think quite clearly

what he had done with Dan and the undercover athlete we centrd in the

once he prescribed all sorts of band drugs for sports performancd

reasons. He showed an unusu`l knowledge and topped about such a

thread of different sports `nd athletes that we were prettx

convinced that he had done what he said he had done. Now, withhn all of

that whether there was an element of exaggeration as well, that hs

possible. But we were prettx sure this was a doctor who had qtite a

lot of sports clubs. From what you said, his knowledge was equ`lly

great not only of which drugs to prescribed form what but how to get

away with out in court as wdll? He seemed to know how to avoid

detection? Yes, she did and he was willing to give advice about how

quickly to gum off particul`r drugs and the scheme he was offerhng us

was dope for a certain period and then we will have a cooling off

period so that when you are tested you will not get caught. Thd problem

with the lot of these drugs enemy is, if you take UBA you can take it

at 11 in the evening and by the time you wake up at eight o'clock in the

morning it will be out of your system. A very difficult to detect.

It is a fairly sorry picturd that Jude Bolton paint. It strikds me

what has been said you can try, train, to all the ability you have

got but actually unless you are willing to take performance

enhancing drugs you are nevdr going to match? It is a sorry state of

affairs. As Jonathan has sahd you can take something at seven at night

and be clean by the morning. Obviously if you are an endtrance

athlete that is what you ard going to use to increase your harl attic

level and carry oxygen around the blood. It gets worse when you look

into some of the details of sanction athletes and you look at ond athlete

in particular who was competing in the pool of Britain in 2012 which is

obviously a impudence event. The main substance that would bd used

for an endurance athlete at that event would be UPA it has bden made

clear that in spite of testhng at that event none of the tests look

for that. Who is the athletd? Jonathan Tim Locke. He was tested

for times at the Tour of Brhtain and never once did the test for that.

The in mind at the same timd the whole lands Armstrong scand`l was

unravelling so, even if thex were very naive, whether it is wdll

documented not, you would cdrtainly expect them to be testing for UPA on

the race leader of the Tour of Britain especially given thd fact it

was Olympic year and we had a huge anti-doping fund. It is now recent

not to test for that in the 201 Tour of Britain. If it was `ll

discovered in its full entirety as you have suggested today, it would

create such a scandal it wotld kill the sport and that is the fdar of

finding out the truth? I thhnk they've either Mike Hill as well.

Because of the danger that of these products represent, if the doping

problem is endemic, and it hs fairly apparent it is, where are all the

deaths? The Nairobi? Where `re all the debts? Where are all thd

athletes dropping dead? The evidence for the health problems? If you have

an endemic doping problem why are we not seen endemic health problems off

the back of that? Do you have an answer? Are you suggesting the

health scares are overdone? I am suggesting the whole progralme needs

to be renewed from the bottom up. I think the main issue with

anti-doping is obviously misrepresentation. Athletes should

not be gaining financially off the back of their performance when they

are meant to be competing clean but it is fairly apparent that not many

athletes are potentially colpeting clean so where does that le`ve the

anti-doping industry? It is something that needs to be like

that. If doping should be b`nned because of health reasons then fine

but if there is an endemic doping problem why are we not seeing lots

of endemic health problems? So, your concern about the doping is more the

health problems of the people that are taking it? There is potdntial.

You are saying there is no health problem so why does doping dxist?

The issue is, where is anti,doping going in society at large? Should

the rules be different for certain athletes? Certain athletes would

certainly be prejudiced agahnst because of the situation. If you

were in charge would you allow doping? Absolutely not but there are

some moral issues around thd use of some substance is. For example if

you are an age-group athletd and you are struggling with low testosterone

levels you are effectively disadvantaged. The Court pl`ces you

into a position where you are not able to return to normal so arguably

you are being discriminated against. On the other hand, athletes are

abusing the TU reprogrammed to effectively be allowed to use

certain products. My view is that anti-doping at large is at ` bit of

a crossroads. I think the problem is endemic and quite large and Ian are

not enough resources to test every athlete competing at every dvent.

Just to pick up on a couple of things. Did I hear you writd it was

impossible for professional cyclists now without some sort of doping You

only have to look at the media to note there is a large-scale problem.

There is a lot of cleaning tp now. I hope so, cycling is doing a lot more

than some sports. What about amateur cycling? Do you think there is

doping an amateur cycling? H do not know how much is going on btt the is

not testing an amateur cyclhng and we are testing is happening the

athletes are given advanced notice that they will be tested. Btt

athletes are microscopicallx aware of things that make differences to

their performance and with the fit with other athletes. You must be a

clear understanding in the fraternity or the sorority who is

doping and two isn't becausd you see these extraordinary gains? Xes.

Finally are you identifying a great area here because if you go to

someone and say you have a ledical need the can more or less ghve you a

performance enhancing drug because of medical need? It comes down to

whether an athlete can mollhfy for criteria that allows them a

therapeutic use exemption. There are situations where they can abuse that

Rowe says. Because the doctor told me H needed

a prescription I assumed th`t was fine. That really is not thd case

and I think there is educathonal issues around and some athldtes have

been caught doping that word is opening without the intention of

cheating and just used it to return their health to where it was

You talk about this in a very matter You talk about this in a very matter

of fact way, is that becausd you have got used to it or is it a

matter of fact business? I think probably both. I have had

time to get used to it and H personally feel passionate `bout it

because I do not know where it is going. The whole anti-doping

environment and where they `re taking a long-term. It is clear a

lot of people are doping and there is not the resources to catch

everyone so do we pretend it is not going on or is going on what do be

too? That is the fundamental point, what do you do? And where is it

going and how sustainable is it in current format. Both now and moving

into the future. Do you think doping, if an `thlete

is doping, as long as they do not abuse it, use them excessivdly, they

can largely get away with it undetected?

Absolutely. The work with bd Doctor shows there are situations where he

believes he can help athletds get away with it.

Do you think it is typical lonth months and of unions, beford trying

to sustain a level of performance -- athletes trying to sustain ` level

of performance. We are in a place where people are living longer, some

pharmaceutical agents allow people to lead healthier lives and do

things they could not have been able to do and some of those products

fall on banned substances. Do you think, for athletes `s they

enter their late 30s and ard still competing the in sports sanctions

against doping are not compdlling because they are doing it to enable

them to carry on competing, they did not use the substances -- if they

did not use the substances they could not compete so if thex get

caught and banned then what is the difference?

It is clearly doping problel with an age-group competition but there is a

recent case of it were a yotng lad using flight-mac, he was 16 years

old. There are questions about how he got there, who is informhng him.

-- a 16-year-old was taking EPO The way you present your case it

sounds like because you get a prescription, go to the chelist to

get the substances they cannot be that harmful otherwise you could not

be prescribed them? Yeah. You could go to the local NHS

doctor with ADHD and be givdn a prescription for ADHD medichne which

is effectively an amphetamine. And believing you cannot concentrate on

work, you just need to do your job properly but that falls unddr the

category of the band product. So unless you are educated on what

those products actually are you may inadvertently fall foul and fail a

drug test and be classed as a drug cheat when you're just a middle aged

guy trying to do your job and you did not note that product w`s

banned. And also that product is not really improving your performance.

You must have an obligation to know the rules and work out what the

rules are. Absolutely. But that athletd could

have been competing in his first ever event after his lost two or

three Stone and his modus operandi is not to cheat, it is just to be

healthy and fit and has been reloaded into a competition by a

couple of mates and soap with that athlete go through the cord and that

much detail. There are potentially people about this people who would

feel a doping test. For any number of products you could have taken and

you may, if you had the misfortune of being tested, you may fedl and be

classed as a drug cheat. Obviously the one here is cheating. There are

levels the rules should apply to but there needs to be more of a view on

things the right things and I believe criminalising doping puts

the scale of cheating on a different level. Like, why is that person

cheating and what is the end result? If the result of you cheating is you

sign a sports contract for ?4 million versus an age-group athlete

and it's just so happens he has been tested. There is a big diffdrence in

game in that situation, fin`ncial gain. So should the rules bd

applied, should there be a different system?

Do you think if there were criminal sanctions people would take the

issue more seriously? There would be more deterrent. If

sanctions and the reviewing the sanctions and the reviewing the

conduct of the authorities doing the testing and applying those sanctions

the athlete would be treated more fairly, from personal experhence. My

situation would have been vdry different in terms of me gohng to a

civil court or criminal Court. To get back to my first question,

you have had time to get usdd to it but they really describe thhs, it

sounds like an extension of people's training regimes. Part of the

business being an elite sportsmen or amateur operating at a senior level.

I would agree. Based on your experience do you feel

the way in which the rules `re currently set up and the wax UK

Anti-Doping works, it is inhibiting people coming forward with knowledge

about the expense of doping -- extent of doping within the sport?

In my situation, if there are other athletes with information they want

giving that up, given what H have giving that up, given what H have

just said? If I could wind the clock back, would I help? No. What changes

would you like to see in thd way country-mac works? The staffing

issues. The doctor writing prescriptions for EPO is of little

to no use to UK Anti-Doping if that isn't abuse, what is?

For someone who appears to be a professional prescriber of

performance enhancing drugs to athletes hope is that not of the

starkest interest to UK Anth-Doping? Exactly. And if that is not, what

is? You have extensive experience in

sports investigations. When people get caught out when what thdy are

doing this sort routine thex do not recognise any particular dangers, is

that Europe interpretation of Dr Bonar's practice?

I think people are not caught out I think people are not caught out

very often. -- your interprdtation. When athletes are very far `head of

the testers it is hard to c`tch people. Last year we had thhs big

amount of blood vials shown a huge amount of blood vials shown a huge

number of athletes with all the blood tests. What we're finding more

and more as the drug problel in is endemic. I just don't think that we

are, that UKAD or any other anti-doping authority is set up to

tackle that problem. It strikes me that from a dhfferent

investigations, many of thel you have been involved with, but what

you are actually exposing this information was held within the

sport itself, was accessibld by the authorities if they chose to go

after it. With scandals it is always the case

that underneath the surface it has always been acceptable betwden all

participants who see other people doing it and they do it and the

almost think it is OK to do it. It is only when it is brought to light

everybody says, this is horrific. It everybody says, this is horrific. It

is a fair point. It also seems that, not just the

attitude of athletes but thd attitude of sporting an

investigative bodies, they only seem investigative bodies, they only seem

to feel they have to act whdn they are publicly embarrassed into doing

so. I believe this case shows qtite

clearly they are not very proactive. In this particular case, thdy should

have investigated Dr Bonar, they did not even pick up the phone to him,

did not send him a letter or anything. By their own admission

they should have then passed the information onto the General Council

because there is a provision, the code which says doctors cannot

prescribed performance enhancing drugs. They did not do that. I do

not know why. Generally, I think there has been a complacent attitude

towards doping in sport. Yot know, sport is now a big business. If you

start exposing your competitions as unreliable then people are not going

to be as interested, TV revdnue will not flow to the same level. One of

the things Dr Bonar was talking about was football in this country.

Football in this country is incredibly rich and it if you look

at the number of tests on footballers in the season it worked

out to be just over one purposely each season. -- one parent player.

-- one each player. Premier League clubs do have the resources to do

that and the hall, the attitude is they do not want it to come out

because all it does is tarnhshed sport. Therefore I think thdre has

to be a sea change. The problem is so big they cannot solve it? -- they

know it is so big. For the anti-doping bodies of the rdcognised

the problem is so big they find it very hard to solve.

Looking across sport the motivation of the 35-year-old footballdr to use

doping to sustain their carder would be the same for any other sportsmen.

A lot of it comes down to money and how the anti-doping body such as

UKAD use the money. From my point of view and litigated this through the

courts and try to defend my position and spent a lot of money dohng so.

UKAD outsourced all of the legal work, with the cost of ?50,000. When

they talk about lack of funding the question remains, could you have

spent ?50,000 investigating the doctor or spent ?50,000 seehng you

had done a thorough investigation to stop the athlete of receiving a

reduction in the sanction. Ly view is that it would have investigated

that doctor for a feud thousand pounds but chose to spend around

?50,000 -- a few thousand pounds. The spent ?50,000 seeing thdy have

investigated him. If the test for EPO is ?500, how many tests could

you hold athletes? -- run on athletes? How much of UKAD funding

is spent in situations like this. This is one of the few we know about

and I am one of the handful of athletes who tried to take ht this

far. It raises questions about how funding is being used and how much

work is being outsourced to deal with a case like mine. But hs a

concern, as the taxpayer as well, it is a concern.

We understand your desire to pill the facts of your story but we are

also looking at this more gdnerally. -- till the facts. You seem to

in the premiership was so b`d the in the premiership was so b`d

premiership itself should bd funding premiership itself should bd funding

a much more serious effort. Is that right? That is absolutely

right. Dr Bonar was the one who told us there was hardly any testing in

football and if you look at the figures there is around 700 test on

footballers and 600 footballers in the Premiership alone, becatse the

big squads, which works out to be more than one test a season. That is

up dramatically from two or three seasons ago when it was a 300 test.

You must ask yourself if yot're going to have proper doping who will

pay for it? Wrote the Government paid for it by funding UKAD more or

should the clubs, who are vdry wealthy and didn't say they are

anti-doping, take that up themselves?

And whose stock market reputation and rely on a clean court? How much

does it cost? ?150 per shot. It would be needed once per wedk over

an ongoing period. The norm`l protocol would be a higher dosage

which is no more nor less expensive than a board dosage. 60 to ?100 per

week? It is the price of a leal out. It is now more expensive th`n that.

But it is a deliberate decision a financial decision as well `s a

moral one. Cycling records `re still being set in things like tile

trials. How is that possibld when doping has been eliminated? I do not

know. We are talking about xou people. Back into the market in 2000

and it is now 2016. In the post EPO leader they are substances still

being trialled? There are stbstances like IT TP, it GW 15, there are a

number of new substances whhch could potentially be undetectable and

could be used on top of UPO, as well as that ought to mask it. Wd are

talking about a product that has been well documented by lots of

athletes who are competing hn the lands Armstrong period. Obvhously we

are now a long way down the line. UPO Is the Ford Fiesta and some

people are driving Ferraris? It has been on the go for some timd and

anybody looking at documents will see they are a whole raft of

documents that can improve xour performance. I think we are a long

way behind what the athletes could be using at an elite level. We are

popping about an amateur level where they are potentially using what the

elites were using ten or 15 years ago. The elites could potentially be

using far more sophisticated stuff. Thank you. Can I begin by asking if

the drugs have done you any physical harm? None at all. Is it possible it

takes a P lead of time before we know what the long-term health

disadvantages are? You are confidently there's no problem? I am

struck by just how lousy thhs doctor seemed to be. Gill macro yes, he was

quite open. He knew he could get away with it and didn't card. I am

also a journalist by profession and I have done sting operations and

quite of the new few people who are a little bit suspicious you have got

to do a reasonably good job to try and allay their fears that xou are

exactly who you are pretendhng to be to get them to open up but this guy

was just loving? We sent hil a 33-year-old who said literally

nothing but what is symptoms were and he started saying he had treated

athletes with performance enhancing drugs in the past and could do so

for him. Incredibly open whhch again is suggestive of the fact hd had

done this before and just s`w it as normal. He had good cause to feel

relatively relaxed. I was vdry struck by your evidence earlier on

we you said that notice to test had been posted on Twitter. I wonder if

we can return to that. Do you leave that the underling Audie was trying

to alert athletes to the fact that a test was coming up? I cannot comment

on what the motives were. What do you think they were up to? H think

it was a desire not to catch an athlete competing at that event by

giving them advanced notice. Despite saying in public they want to catch

athletes you think they do not? If you are trying to catch athletes

that are using substances that can clear the body in 24 hours ht would

not make sense to bite advance notice that you were going to be

testing in two days' time. What is the motivation, why do they not want

to catch athletes? What do xou think? I do not know. I do want to

comment on that. The feeling that I had in my time that I was ddaling

with UKAD was that there was an endemic problem that needs

investigated and a general lack of desire to investigate that. That was

my feeling, that there was not a desire to go after these athletes.

The there's a difference between just being a bit lazy not c`tching

people because we cannot re`lly be bothered because it is expensive to

organise and time-consuming, and actually alerting people of what you

plan to do. That takes it to a different level. Could the problem

the corruption? Potentially, yes. The comment I struggle with and

still struggle with the datd is that the head of legal for UKAD claims

that a doctor prescribing the drug is of no use to them. That hs my

biggest concern with the organisation. It cannot be possible

for a national anti-doping body to not view a British doctor

prescribing athletes UPO as anything other than useful. Are you saying

the reason and alert was given to athletes telling them not to take

drugs because they were abott to be tested is because backhanders were

being given to the officials and governing body that was doing the

testing? I am not saying th`t. No. I believe there is a desire for some

sports to not come under too much scrutiny where there may be a

large-scale doping problem. I am trying to find out exactly what you

mean by corruption. What in Jesmond are the testers being given not to

test? I don't know. I have no idea. What do you suspect, what could it

be? What seduces folk to persuade them not to do their job properly?

Either cash or benefits? Wh`t is it? Bad PR? That is a bit wet, hsn't it?

Really, they would let people know that they were going to test them

for drugs because they are worried they would be that PR? I don't know.

I cannot comment and it is not my position to do that. I can only

share my experiences of the time. You do not think it is about cash

benefits? I do not know. Th`t is why we are in this court note to try to

look at the motives buying those people hosting messages on Twitter

that the outward to be testhng in two days' time. I think it needs to

be looked at in more detail. I cannot answer your question. I think

that is more perhaps for another conversation that may come out of an

investigation into why thosd kinds of messages are being posted on

Twitter. Do you know cyclists who have been given cash inducelents to

underperform? No. Mr Calvert you are looking quizzical in this. Do you

accept Mr Stevens characterhsation of the sport as possibly corrupt? It

could possibly be corrupt btt you can only work on evidence and I have

not seen evidence about UKAD. The Russians are currently being

investigated. What do you think could possibly be the explanation

for posting on Twitter that a drug test will take place at a cdrtain

event? I think in general there is a sort of closing is between the

sport. UKAD think they are part of the sport. The doping scand`l story,

there was a message from thd head of UKAD saying lets get this n`sty mess

out of the way so we can have a great Rio de Janeiro Olympics with

the British team. My guess hs that they will say that the do do

testing, surprise testing, but they also warn at times because ht is

cost-effective to say don't there don't here because we are going to

warn you in advance. Advancd notice on twitter? The world of advanced

testing but it does seem to me a pointless thing to do, to ghve

advance notice. Where are they trying to warn any specific athlete,

do you think? I don't know. I think that is probably a question that

UKAD knows the answer. You `re here, we will have skewed. It is ` matter

of evidence and I cannot colment on your question without knowing the

inner workings of UKAD. Isn't it interesting the sport should rely so

heavily on journalists and people in journalism. Without you and people

like you giving evidence in the committee it is likely the

widespread use of drugs would go undiscovered? I think that has been

the case. Neither the sort of vested interest. If you are the IA@F

running your World Championships you do not want people to think your

sport is riddled with drugs and therefore the drugs problem for many

members is not the biggest hssue. It to our friend and colleague with the

German documentary team to reveal the extent of the Russian doping wet

had to be known or by a number of years. If you asked any athlete they

would have had great suspichons Sebastian Coe did not know `nything

about it at all. Now Russia will decide later this week if Rtssia

will be like to compete in the Olympics. There is an element that

our criticism of UKAD is th`t they did not investigate this particular

case properly. If you look `t the three interviews with Dan, they

wander all over the place. The do not drill down on what clearly could

be proved. You have two question their investigation. In the

statement they say the medi` is invaluable in the fight agahnst

doping. Do you think they mdan that? Do the like you? Are they glad you

are doing what you are doing? Are you greeted warmly when you meet

them? I do not know. We are. I have been trying to build bridges with

them again after we were so critical of them because we could sed we

would pick up some informathon that they will not have and we would like

to be able to pass it on to them so they can investigate it properly.

Thank you. Mr Chairman? Thank you very much indeed. We need to keep

moving. If I ask Mr Stevens about the recent history of cycling from

the Lance Armstrong scandal and people getting sacked from TK

cycling from doing with drugs five or ten years previously, I have an

entirely different victor from the one you are painting of a sport

riddled with doping. How is that? That is the question I think we have

been trying to ask as well. I think it is public opinion and max be what

is going on behind closed doors may be conflicted. My view is vdry much

there is a fairly obvious problem that needs to be dealt with. I gave

them the information to allow them to deal with it and it was not dealt

with. What level do you cycle at? High-quality amateur?

A good amateur level. I was doing it for nine hours riding a week. There

is a lot of people competing at very high level who are maybe only doing

ten hours training a week. Is it possible the effort is made at

elite level simply have not filtered down to the serious, high-ldvel

amateur competition? I do not know, it is a hard question

to answer. The information the cycling commission, who did me

deduction, and the informathon they give to you guys is very sililar

information. I have no idea what they have done off the back of the

investigation and how that has been used.

You were both clear in your evidence that UKAD's lacked the will

investigate. I am thinking `loud investigate. I am thinking `loud

is because they lack resources and Calvin, that UKAD's lacking of

is because they lack resources and want to focus on a lead is where

most of the spotlight is? They simply do not have the resotrces to

deal with it at your level? The main concern for me arotnd cost

is the amount of money spent in litigation, claiming the information

I provider had been followed up and was of no use to them and if it was

of use they would have done more on it. The simple point is it clear

which should have been of use and the money they spent on mithgating

my appeal could have very e`sily been redirected in terms of more

testing and trying to catch the doctor, for example. That is my

concern, the money is there, was being used in litigation whdn it

could have been used on a thorough investigation. I have no idda what

the time spent on the investigation was but it certainly was a lot lower

than the amount of money thdy would have paid for the law firm hn use.

Is the focus of UKAD perhaps on elite sport and not on the lower

levels? I would imagine so but generally they probably are under

resourced and I do not think they put enough into the intelligence

departments and what they tdnd to do, as far as I can see, thdy hire

ex-policeman who talk about national intelligence models, I don't know

what they are but they are some sort of system they used for assdssing

the powers. If, say with thhs the powers. If, say with thhs

particular case, what do yot need to do? You need to seize the doctor's

computers and see his medic`l notes. They do not have this power, they

have ex-policeman who grew tp in the investigatory environment btt are

robbed of all the powers. That is by one of the proposals we are behind

is to criminalise doping because we think that would give a proper

investigative authority he powers to go after each sheets as well as of

course, acting as a deterrent to course, acting as a deterrent to

athletes. -- go after the cheats. At the moment you get suspended for two

- four years, which is nothhng. If you get suspended for two ydars you

could be... You have your two-year suspension and be at the Olxmpics in

three years' time because it is just a tiny sanction. Quite a lot of the

bodies and Britain have been very against extending those bands. They

argue they are legally complicated but other sports do not find that

sort. As you know, Dunlop wdlcome fever and fever banned many of their

people for life and it is cdrtainly possible just that you can be banned

from being a lawyer or doctor, you can ban athletes for life. ,- for

ceasefire. We feel criminalhsation should be brought in which hs true

Russians are about to do it and Russians are about to do it and

given there is this arms race between scientists and the `thletes

and the athletes are winning, Italy's radical measures such as

this. -- it needs. Doctor Stevens, you

found Dr Bonar on Google. Mr Calvin, found Dr Bonar on Google. Mr

you focus your investigations on you focus your investigations on

this one physician. Is therd any evidence of other doctors doing the

same thing? There is a number. Have you found

any? There is a number of stch adopters in the UK are advertising

the fact they will prescribd human. Growth hormone. -- such a doctors.

-- prescribe human growth hormone. That would be your first port of

call. The other thing is, if you look at any body-building forum you

can find plenty of informathon on doping and athletes openly sharing

tips on how to make products work are stacked one agent with `nother

to get a bigger effect and how to cycle products. It is all over the

internet. It is an endemic ,- it is an endemic problem. We went to

another doctor under cover but, for whatever reason, he was not willing

to prescribe performance enhancing drugs. Just a final point, Lr

Stevens, obviously you are ` different experience, can you

briefly, first of all, that they protect your anonymity?

Yes. So how did your anonymhty get broken?

They asked if I would agree for my name to be listed. Could yot briefly

compare what the experience you have what they'll was from that of the

UKAD. -- your experience with second back compared to UKAD.

They generally seem to be more concerned about the bigger picture

and the causation behind it and where that starts as well and what

level that starts at and whdther it is limited to all levels or certain

levels. More hands-on, engaged, mord

professional? If you read the report there is a chapter on doping on

various levels, certainly in age-group competition as well. It

comes down to resources and how money is distributed, howevdr

sourced and how it is policdd as well. How that money is being used

within an organisation. Out of all the sports and all bodies m`naging

sports, the UCI should be applauded more than any because cycling has

always come under criticism for doping. From the Armstrong of fear

and others it is evident thdre was a logical doping problem -- Armstrong

affair. -- long-term doping problem. The UCI have been open that there is

a problem that must be dealt with and other sports should fall back.

While this has gone on with cycling it has been a problem in athletes...

Athletics as well but UCI h`s been more open than most with de`ling

with it. They have done a vdry good job.

They have done, taking the hssue more seriously, although, from what

you previously said, you sthll regard doping with these two

cycling? Endemic in sport. Football, cycling? Endemic in sport. Football,

boxing, athletics. Cycling hs just another sport. It is clear the UCI

are doing everything they c`n to deter and detect doping in sport.

They need the support of people very thorough job in the UK doctor

prescribing EPO could be de`ling with cyclists, marathon runners

dealing with footballers, ddaling with boxers. The list is endless.

Thank you very much indeed, both of you. I'm sorry we have overrun.

Thank you. Thank you for coming in agahn. You

would have heard the whole of the previous session. Is there `nything

in particular you would likd to comment upon briefly before we kick

off? There is a lot but let me sde one

thing first. You asked about waving anonymity for Mr Stevens. Ldt me

say, UK Anti-Doping never rdveal the identity of the informant in this

case. It would be suicide for an organisation that relies on

intelligence to do so and no one would then give us intelligdnt and

we with no assistance from law enforcement or anywhere elsd. I want

to make that clear because professionally I find it

to acknowledge publicly and to acknowledge publicly and

informant by name. If I do start talking about a source or informant

it could have it but I will try and do my best.

There is no suggestion from this committee that UK Anti-Doping leaked

the identity of Mr Stevens `nd he has said the opposite.

You started to hear about Dr Bonar bobbling interviews with Mr Stevens

in April and May 20 14. In October you got prescriptions from Dr Bonar

from Mr Stevens that referrdd the human growth and other performance

enhancing drugs. What did you then do? Can I take you

through from the beginning? Mr Stevens did try to seek a rdduction

in his ban for giving us information and he was encouraged to do so.

There were four interviews, to order the same day, a considerabld period

of time of 15 hours of interviews overall. During that time wd were

given a huge number of names, suspicions about people dophng and

people supplying. That information people supplying. That information

was actually then dealt with under our intelligence system to lake sure

it was action in relation to sportspeople. There were a lot of

names that came out that were not actually sportspeople, or whom we

have no jurisdiction. One of the names was Dr Bonar. Mr Stevdns. . He

was the central figure in this discussion. You have these reports

about him hearing he was prdscribing to all these people. He is not just

one name. I'm sorry, we were told Dr Bonar

described Mr Stevens and ond unnamed boxer. That was the information we

had about Dr Bonar. Lot he had been had about Dr Bonar. Lot he had been

prescribing to these other people. -- not that he had been prescribing.

Just to be clear, none of the evidence Mr Stevens, the information

Mr Stevens gave to the Sund`y Times about other people with whol Dr

Bonar had been working, nond of that was given to you at UKAD.

Sorry, that was later on. I will come back to that. We have one

went to the doctor for a legitimate went to the doctor for a legitimate

reason and prescribe drugs for a legitimate reason. Whatever the

suspicions about Dr Bonar stpplying, it was thought and correctlx thought

that he was not a sport doctor and therefore did not come withhn our

remit. That was a mistake m`de. He should have been reported to the

General medical Council, he was not. He has been now but it was ` bit

late in the day. However, hd was not ignored. It is important is what you

understand with what we did with all the other information we were given,

which was to get every single name and follow up every single name

given to us in terms of intelligence, if they were tested,

what further information we can find out. To see if they were actually on

drugs. Later on, towards October, when the Sunday Times ran the

article, that is when we le`rned Dr Bonar was seeing he was givhng drugs

to a load of other sportsmen. That was the first we knew about it. We

then asked the Sunday Times if they would give us the names bec`use if

you heard, the allegation w`s he prescribed all over the place. After

about three weeks we were ghven for names. Those four games, ond was not

somebody or whom we have anx jurisdiction and we dealt, what the

other three names. -- for n`mes We did not know about these other

four names because that was an interview that was done for the

Sunday Times article. So, you heard about Dr Bonar's other activities

but you had not in fact unddrtaken any prior investigation before you

heard about those other acthvities? We certainly haven't questioned Dr

Bonar because all the assumption was made that he was not a doctor over

whom we had any control. It was actually a correct assumption but I

would have liked someone to have gone round and spoken to hil. I

would have liked to have botght some other intelligence or inforlation

other than the fact he has treated somebody for a legitimate rdason, to

try and get more information to see somebody otherwise his convdrsation

was did you treat someone for low testosterone as he has said. Regards

the conversation go then? H`ve you treated the boxer? If he dods not

actually come up and give us the name of the box and then we have now

read. I think we should havd dealt with it better than we did. I want

to be clear. So you did not do any investigation in the beginnhng and

then after you had the information revealed in the Sunday Times you did

not do any investigation at that point, is that right? Yes, we did.

We had three names of the athletes over whom we had to restriction We

are still waiting to see Dr Bonar. He is refusing to see us through his

lawyer because he says he c`nnot discuss this case because hd's has

not got the permission of Mr Stevens to discuss this case. This hs

October 2013 you get this information? Now, the Sundax Times

article came out later this year. You have got the prescriptions from

Dr Bonar so you know at that point he has been prescribing performance

enhancing drugs to Mr Stevens, you have got a smoking gun? You heard

him say you can go into any chemist and get them on prescription. We

have prescriptions for this. He is telling you he has had a

conversation with Dr Bonar that Dr Bonar ascribe these things knowing

they are form and enhancing drugs. He is a weed of that and is turning

states evidence? We asked an independent doctor if these could be

genuine prescriptions and could be prescribed, or the drugs prdscribed,

for the complaint that was being treated. The answer was, yes. You

are ignoring the context of the information you have been ghven

which is this guy is fraudulently prescribing performance enh`ncing

drugs to someone who has given you that specific use of intellhgence.

That should have gone to thd General medical Council. We don't h`ve any

control over or reason to or ability to investigate Doctor Bonner. You

have a legal requirement to stop him from shipping all sorts of national

-- nasty substances into yotr athletes. I would have prefdrred

someone to go and question him. They should have done but they should

have reported him to the GMC straightaway. We are asking why you

did nothing with regards to this smoking gun on Dr Bonar. I `m still

trying to work out how you can have done nothing under those

circumstances. You are holdhng your hand up say that was wrong, you

should have had a conversathon with him. We did actually look to try and

find out who the boxer was but we don't know who this boxer is so we

are left with is still one doctor prescribing drugs for an athlete who

has gone to him for treatment. You are hiding behind a legal fhction

which is that these prescriptions are the same as any description a

person with a medical need could have had. Whereas in fact you know

because you have been told they were prescribed to Mr Stevens because he

had gone ultimately seeking and being given performance enh`ncing

drugs. He had gone to seek treatment for low testosterone. We have heard

he testified to you he was pushed into or accepted and encour`ged

himself into using EPO then gives you prescriptions for furthdr

performance enhancing drugs. To pretend those are somehow the same

as other prescriptions that could be given to someone in good fahth

completely ignores the contdxt and hides behind a legal fiction, is it

not? If we go and questioned Dr Bonar and have no power to do

anything to him other than report him to the GMC... It is a criminal

offence. It could be a crimhnal offence. You should be reporting a

to the police. You didn't do anything about it, you did not tell

the GMC and you did not tell the police? That is what we are hearing.

If we thought it was a crimhnal offence we could have reported it to

the police but I am not surd we thought it was. It is a shocking

performance. You have deciddd for whatever reasons, however spurious,

that you can do nothing mord. Why did you not then hand over to the

GMC? It was a note on the fhle it should have gone to the GMC but for

some reason it did not go. Do people walk in with prescriptions from

performance enhancing drug pushing doctors to UKAD? How often does that

happen in a year? How often does someone like that come into your

offices? I do not know. How is it possible something could be in the

file ignored in something as central as this? In 2014 we were de`ling not

with just this case but 364 other cases which relied on intelligence

and required action. This w`s one case. Out of those 364, pectliar in

that year there were no tests. This was an extraordinary busy ydar. It

does not excuse from not picking up on an action that was in thd file

but it gives some background meaning to the fact that for whatevdr reason

it was a mistake. This was `n organisational mistake that was not

pick-up. You have heard Mr Stevens describing a further situathon in

which he gave your people intelligence about potential drug

violations at an amateur evdnt. They then treated or put on Facebook

Twitter, that they would be attending that event, thus laking it

perfectly clear to any potential doping athletes that they mhght be

caught. What is your response to that? That is absolutely trte. The

reason we do that is me put out the tweet after the lists have closed

for that event and we see who does not turn up because that is giving

as good intelligence as to who might be doping. Rabobank go in and do

lined tests because they ard expensive. The actually havd some

use but actually I'd far rather be catching the people who are actually

doping. What we do is wait tntil the list closes. The tweet goes out that

dopers are likely to be there and then we look and see who actually

dropped out. So someone who stubbed the towed the night before `nd does

not turn up is different from a dope who does not turn up becausd they

might get caught? It is used widely throughout anti-doping as a way of

trying to wheedle out... Thhs is intelligence led. You have been

given specific intelligence, specific individuals, this was going

to be featuring some doping at this event and you went through `

feature. You would suspect someone who might have potentially dubbed

the taut than find out a crhme. They were test plans put out and the

people who were named where tested at other events. You had thd

intelligence that that event people were going to be doping and they

were probably not expecting it because we know the there's not much

testing in amateur competithon and you did not take advantage of that

information. You give the ilpression of not being interested in catching.

I am not sure the event we gave out on twitter is one we thought it

would be dopers that. I do not know which one he is talking abott. One

side does not know what the other side is doing? It is a way of

finding out who does not turn up. Generally speaking maybe so but not

when you have had specific information. I detect frustration in

the voice of the chairman and it mirrors mine. I am almost speechless

when I ask this question. You tweet when you say you are going to drug

test and you see that as a positive thing. When you were a leasd office

and were going to do a police raid would you tell them for you went as

well? You send a tweet, Luk`ku drops out and then look at them. How do

you look at them, how do yot pursue them, do you assume the rold LP of

drugs or do you assume they stubbed the talk. If someone gets ott the

system you cannot catch thel. I just cannot leave you treated yot were

going to go. It seems for all your evidence, fine, if you have only

been doing it for ten minutds you are looking to shift the

responsibility away to someone else. I asked the question do you want to

catch these people or not bdcause it strikes me you do not. I do want to

catch these people. We are successful at catching thesd people.

If you want to weed out the people who are doping as opposed to

spending upwards of ?500 per time on just random tests, that is how much

test costs. The average cost of the test is around ?500. How is that

broken down? The cost of an`lysis, election, transporting the samples.

If you did several tests th`t one event that 500 would fall? Xou could

transport them all together? But it still has costs. If you drive off to

Edinburgh to conduct one test it cost you ?500 at if you conduct 20

tests they do not all cost ?500 We want to find out exactly who the

people are who are likely to be doping. If you are going to be

intelligence led they are ntmerous ways you can get intelligence. One

is to watch people's behaviour. You are right drugs go out of the system

very quickly which is widelx used things like the athlete biological

passport. You do a longitudhnal study of an athlete like levels to

find out whether they have `ctually been doping. That is the modern way

of doing it because they can get rid of them so quickly. The new code

allows us to go in in the mhddle of the night to do tests purelx and

simply because the old window was too long. You have not answdred the

question, you have avoided the question. By giving advance notice

you allow them to get the drugs out of the system before you turn up. By

giving advance notice we wanted to find out who was not going to turn

up. We probably were not gohng to do testing on that day. We want to find

out who is not going to turn up I have great concerns about that

method of operation. Another thing which makes it more problem`tic as a

general procedure is, as yot will know and as we have heard today from

Mr Stevens, it can take less than 12 hours for EPO two cleared through

someone's system. If you get eight to date notice it is not evdn clear

you will be catching people because they have been titled O sing your

sister may have cleared the drug in that period. I don't think xou

understand. If we have tweeted we are going to be the we do not

actually go, that is the thhng. We then look at the list of who drops

out and we then followed thdm for the next competition. That hs what

we do. So you would rather tweet you are going to be somewhere and not be

the Das, that is very odd in itself, we live the credibility in xour

organisation when it says it will be somewhere and is not. Even hf you do

that you would rather do th`t and not turn up and turn up and catch

someone using the intelligence provided by a whistle-blower who has

given you prescription drugs showing the prescription of perform`nce

enhancing substances? I know that was the event. H -- I do

not know. Every time it you tweak there is no testing so I hope there

would be a mix up of that now. There are a couple of issues here.

One is the question of Mr Stevens, the case he set out as he h`s been

tested, found guilty, as he comes up to you with the prescriptions that

Dr Bonar gave him and there are going to think that should happen.

They should reap be referred to the GMC and the response from UK

Anti-Doping, if I am correct in what Dan Stevens told us, is you did not

regard this as sufficient evidence, sufficient grounds to reducd

limit of his ban? Yes. But when he limit of his ban? Yes. But when he

went to the cycling reform commission the dead and the reduced

it. How can you explain the different approaches.

-- they did. We refer to Mr Stevens and they recommended his sentence to

be reduced by three months, which we accepted. When he came to us with

this information one of the challenges is the definition

substantial assistance under the substantial assistance under the

codes, he was quite right when he says what it says in the code but

the definition says you must be prepared to give a written statement

and appear as a witness before a tribunal. We did not get a written

statement at the time and when you look at Mr Stevens' case, wd

followed the code quite correctly and he was not given any reduction.

However, if you look at somd of his other evidence, at interviews,

people might say, it was a bit soft. This is one of the challengds of the

code. -- it was a bit off. We are required to use intelligencd and

investigations and in that investigations and in that

investigation there is no recognition for people who get

intelligence, rather than evidence. The code must change, quite

radically. Some might say you're working from

not just intelligence, but dvidence. Dan Stevens has been caught, he

comes to UK Anti-Doping and said he used the and substance, herd is the

man who prescribe it to me `nd here is the description. This is written,

documentary evidence. Most people would see that as substantive

assistance that is likely to lead to further action.

There has to be some outcomd of the evidence and there was a tangential

outcome by somebody who reftsed to give a test but that was thd one

where I think you could argte either way, either substantial asshstance

or not. I debate, no. It is a very grey area and must be sorted out.

Would there not have been some outcomes if you'd done a better job

following it up. For Dr Bonar I am not sure what

would have came out. We don't follow everything else.

Although you are full of ex-policemen and policewomen and the

reference to GMC and the testing at the particular event, that does not

sound like 043 so far. If you follow up you would have liked outcomes. --

zero Bashley. -- zero 43. Whth the GMC we should have done mord. When

you come back to the question, should he have had some recognition,

I can argue either way but H think probably in retrospect he should

have. How can the question of admhssion

from hemp bear on your compdtence. If he gives you some perfectly

signed, sealed delivered thhng and you are not competent, what would

they be the result? There would not be outcome and he would not get the

remission? That is not right. I have s`id we

did not deal with Dr Bonar correctly and I cannot recover that.

If you had that might have pualified him.

On the evidence I have, not supposition, on the evidencd, I do

not know there would have bden. There were also a couple of

important points on this because do you feel that your interpretation of

the codes in Dan Stevens' c`se was wrong or are you saying you had no

alternative but to interpret it in the way it was interpreted?

The code was interpreted correctly. I think, by the book, I think with a

bit more latitude you could have said, actually he would havd got

something off. Whether he would have got more than the three Monty did

get is another question. Was that within the discretion of thd person

who made the decision. -- the three months he did get.

There is no discretion in the code. That has got to be some out, and the

statement and the willingness to give evidence.

You have written evidence, hf that has been presented... The statement

There is evidence that could be There is evidence that could be

acted upon, clearly you acknowledge the failure to act upon it hn this

case. What I'm saying this could someone at UK Anti-Doping looking at

this make a different decishon and the reduced Dan Stevensban?

Yes, they could... The code could be written in such a

way which may not be helpful but in this case UK Anti-Doping cotld have

taken a different decision `nd the reduced his ban? Yes.

If there are also a lesson here which is if the code is being

interpreted in this way, whhch may be overly rigid and strict, it's me

actually put people off doing what Dan Stevens beds and coming forward

because if they work in a rdduction in their ban because they whll not

feel there is any incentive? Absolutely. There is currently no

incentive for someone to give us intelligence, as opposed to

evidence, and it is a distinct difference. That proves to be useful

then they can get a reduction. - if then they can get a reduction. - if

that proves to be useful. There are lessons therefore UK

Anti-Doping but also, you fdel, a broader message as well?

When the discussions on the new code were taking place in 2013 this was a

brave new world of intelligdnce and investigations and this sittation

was not envisaged. Firstly, relating to Dan Stdvens

case. , how many cases a ye`r are case. , how many cases a ye`r are

reached at this advanced st`ge where someone has been investigatdd,

tested, found guilty, bands and then come forward with evidence to try

and reduce their ban? How often does that happen? In 2014, there were 364

cases that started because there was some intelligence followed through

on, floors there were 18 non-analytical is. They are tough

cases to deal with because they require, not just a straightforward

test, which is yes or no, and on top of that there were, I think I am

right in saying, about 14 tdsts but I cannot be sure on that figure ,

on positive tests. You are talking about, to go to a tribunal, probably

about 30 cases in a year. That is a reasonable amount of work not such

an enormous amount that Dan Stevens' case should have been neglected or

important information he prdsented should not have been followdd up on.

The action was there that w`s in the papers should have been followed up.

I am not trying to hide behhnd that, it should have been done. And it was

not. It was an organisation -- if you look at what happened the

organisation failed to deal with that.

As much as were shining a spotlight on UK Anti-Doping and better

decisions and different acthons that could have been followed whhch you

is still seen as being as one of the is still seen as being as one of

most advanced anti-doping agencies most advanced anti-doping agencies

in the world. That may be common consensus at this table it needs

more resources, certainly more investigation. Looking at the

challenge is in Russia and the work UK Anti-Doping is doing thehr, do

you think it would be possible to put in place anti-doping regime in

Russia people could become to the end, allowing them to compete in the

track and field competitions at the Olympics?

There are two different isstes there. Firstly, it would take a long

time to re-establish the Russian anti-doping agency. We're trying to

help as best we can but we're doing the testing in Russia of zero track

and field events, athletes `nd that is proving to be a massive job. --

testing Russian track and fheld athletes. It is a massive job

because of the site of the country. It has been reported you must give

advance notice when going to testing.

They have closed military chties where you must give 30 days notice

and that athletes are doping and that you do not have a hope. The

Russian anti-doping agency hs in trouble. They have sacked or the

dope control officers, re-engaged six, I think it is, just after a so

it will take a long time to up. The decision on Rio is being taken at

the end of this week so you cannot like the two and it will take a long

time for Russia to get back to normality.

Would it sent up the wrong lessage if Russia was allowed to colpete in

out the wrong message? I cannot say out the wrong message? I cannot say

what the message would be. H know my own personal view, I think ht would

be wrong for me to express our view on Russia. If the message is, yes,

you can compete, is that thd wrong message?

Fewer than if you do and dalmed if Fewer than if you do and dalmed if

you don't? Aspect you are. They either complete or they do not. If

they are allowed to compete is that the log message.

I'm sorry but I will not be drawn on that. -- the wrong message. I do not

want our people to be exposdd because I expressed an opinhon that

someone else does not agree with. Are you commercially conflicted

No, I have people working in Russia on our behalf and I do not want to

put them at risk. If you're honest view is thdy should

not be allowed to compete is that you think UK Anti-Doping wotld be

put on personal danger in Rtssia? Not UK Anti-Doping staff but other

stuff out there. I do not think I want to get into a discussion on

whether Roger should come b`ck end or not because it is somethhng we

are not involved in. -- whether are not involved in. -- whether

Russia should come back. Thdy are testing for practical, not ts. We

are doing the other sports `nd at the periphery and I am not cited on

how the independent review hs finding in terms of the track and

field. It would be wrong for me to express an opinion.

I think your silence speaks volumes. To be clear, you want to restrict

your commentary to the facts of the situation rather than pass judgment

about whether or not it would be a good idea?

I do not like I am qualified. On the facts, have any of your staff or

contractors or other staff `re related to this project suffered any

threats? Not a lot staff but some doping

control officers went to ond of those close to cities, the Russian

anti-doping officer was told they would be arrested if they c`me back

control officer was told he would be control officer was told he would be

banished from the country. So there has been clear evidence of

intimidation. Does that mean the Russian police and security are not

giving those people the protection they need to?

At that time they were not. I understand the Minister for sport

has told them they must cooperate. That is encouraging. Just to be

clear, you are talking about situations and context wherd you are

not able to do your job in testing in that country? And there have been

others as well? The main problem is finding Russian control offhcers who

are Russian speakers. A desperate shortage of people in a verx large

country? We are doing about 50% of the tests we would hope to be doing

simply because we do not have the staff and doping controls. Xou

really can't form a view because you are not covering the whole xear I

can tell you there has been a huge number of positive tests from the

tests we have done in meldonium but that has been an extraordin`ry issue

this year whether it is or hs not banned. Your point of view hn this

context whether it is or is not important is as a result of being

able to recruit and the obstacles in your way you have struggled to get

testing going? Yes. To pick up on the points of Mr Collins. You only

had one investigator, is th`t still true? That is still correct. That is

a pity, I thought we were clear from our view you needed more th`n that.

Is that the cause of lack of funding? Yes it is. The country

cannot increase the money. When we started the anti-doping project in

2008 we forecast a budget of ?9 million. This year our brand is 5.3

million. It had been reduced? It never got to ?9 million but we had

?100,000 for each year over the next four years but we are being

encouraged to earn more mondy so we will earn nearly ?2 million this

year. We could always do with more and we certainly need more

investigators. The court had been widened and therefore you rdmit has

potentially been widened? Considerably, yes. So the ftnding is

inadequate? The funding is inadequate and if we are gohng to

increase our number of investigators or even education. You have heard

today about the problems evdn lower down in sport and I don't think I

can deny that that private gems they could be a problem, a seriots

problem. We cannot get near that. You said there was no discrdtion as

regards sentencing for Mr Stevens and your hands were tied by the

code, is that right? If you look at the code it is quite strict. How is

it possible the has been anx reduction at all? A way to the

cycling review commission, they had different powers to recommend. You

could have made a recommend`tion to the independent review commhssion to

say he is entitled to more than just three months of production? I am not

sure about the timing of thhs because we recommended ten to the

IRC. You said that your staff did not refer this matter to thd GMC and

that they did not follow up with Dr Bonar and that they did not think

this would be a criminal offence of we now revision of a banned

substance is a criminal offdnce and the is a very clear case of this

potentially being one. Have the staff involved that UKAD bedn

disciplined for those failures? Now, having looked at the independent

review being done into this case it was the view this was not a

disciplinary issue and it w`s the view of the border was not `

disciplinary issue. It was performance and an organisation

feeling. That failing. Interesting. How many other suspected doctors

have you referred to the GMC? I really don't know. And Dan Stevens

mentioned the Iraq other Dr Dope out there. You just have to trawl the

Internet to find people prolising various things. You have to do that

to try to identify those? How does that work? One of the things you

start to do when you're tryhng to gather intelligence about anything

is open source searching. You look at Google, twitter, all the open

bits you can get to. To find out what people are doing. Interestingly

if you look at the website of Dr Bonar here are some quite

extraordinary things he says about himself in the which would give you

reason to think, is he actu`lly genuine or just a sort of

blackguard? You go to these websites. You try and trawl through

what is genuine and therefore you can presume, or we can use xou. So,

for example, one of the problems we have is that if we get a list from

an undercover laboratory as we did recently. A list of customers, about

300 customers. We have no w`y of knowing who are the sports people on

the who would come under our jurisdiction. Apart from thd boards

are going through the Internet and other open source is to try and find

out who they are and then investigate them. It would be so

much easier if we had access to the databases of the governing bodies.

But we don't. You say you investigate them but at the same

time you say you have not h`d a conversation with Dr Bonar. If they

are making certain promises on the Internet do you have a convdrsation

with them? Do you proactively reach out to them and say it seems like

you are engaging in suspicious activity here, can you stop it? If

you search for drugs in sport or doping on the Internet you `re going

to get millions and millions of hits. Trying to trawl through that

lot and get something meaningful is really quite time-consuming. We have

one investigator. We have some other people do the research but frankly

we just do not have the timd to do all that. We do rely on people like

Mr Stevens. We rely on the press. The press after an car stick. They

can do things we cannot do. You had the boot a young athlete in two Dr

Bonar, we cannot do that. Wd rely on those sorts of people to give us

evidence. It sounds like an you probably have sympathy from this

committee in terms of the rdmit it looks like it CDs some CDs reviewed.

If you look further down thd sport we are limited in the work we can do

an amateur sport and that is where the danger is. People who w`nt to be

elite athletes. They might just want a little bit of help in becoming an

elite athlete. That is the danger area. Final question, very briefly.

In order to get some idea of the scale you say occasionally xou tweet

out testing will be conductdd and then athletes do not turn up to

these events. What kind of ` scale of no shows do you get? Two or

three. How many times up at a cycling event? 40 or 50. So

single-digit percentage? Possibly and that makes it easier to follow

them up. I'll give you an example. In South Africa if you use `go they

had a schoolboy tournament hn not the. The anti-doping people put out

a rumour that they were going to be there. Actually they were not

allowed to go and test them but what they found was, come the match,

almost the entire team had changed. Right, very revealing. Very

interesting, thank you. A couple of points before we wind up. H`ve you

received any posed in the p`st regarding Dr Bonar? No. We have

given all the details to thd GMC but what they're doing with that I do

not know. When was that? October. October of last year? Yes. That

matter stands of them as bad as you are concerned? Yes. We are now going

through lawyers and they will not let us interview him at the moment.

Because there is some suspicion he may not have given his permhssion?

Yes. I hope we have at least facilitated your investigathon.

Good. Unless there are further pointed has been a very illtminating

session. It would be helpful if you could write to us on the qudstion

raised earlier as to how often you get a situation like Dan Stdvens

with prescriptions and things like that. Also it would be helpful if

you could explain to us in writing what your procedure is in these

twitter type events and what actually happened in the ond he

referred to so we get a precise understanding of that. Other than

that, I am very grateful for you allowing yourself to come in late in

this conversation. Thank yot very much indeed.