Blood Doping in Athletics Committee

:00:25. > :00:33.Order, order. Thank you verx much for coming into this hearing on

:00:34. > :00:43.blood doping. Could you describe the whole context of this. Could you

:00:44. > :00:54.describe how you came into contact with Doctor Bonner and what he did

:00:55. > :01:00.with you? I was at a computhng athlete who was struggling to

:01:01. > :01:05.recover from injuries. I was diagnosed as having low

:01:06. > :01:09.testosterone. Under NHS guidelines I am able to be prescribed

:01:10. > :01:18.testosterone. There is a legitimate medical reason to use testosterone.

:01:19. > :01:24.I heard about Doctor Bonner through the Internet and started working

:01:25. > :01:32.with him and he kind of manhpulated the situation to using biggdr and

:01:33. > :01:42.better things. Stronger substances. EPO, for example. What other

:01:43. > :01:50.substances? He was giving md prescriptions for human growth

:01:51. > :01:56.hormone. You contacted him, or heard about him via the Internet. He

:01:57. > :02:04.advertises himself as an anti-ageing Doctor who specialises in the male

:02:05. > :02:13.hormone replacement therapy. For the nonsporting, I don't think there is

:02:14. > :02:21.much wrong with that. Does ht have any coded meaning inside sports

:02:22. > :02:25.Does it have any further me`ning? Did you think you would be `ble to

:02:26. > :02:34.help you with sporting issuds? Obviously, yes. My issue is that it

:02:35. > :02:41.is a moral grey issue. As you get older as a male, you are producing

:02:42. > :02:45.less testosterone and there is a legitimate reason to use

:02:46. > :02:50.testosterone. If it is affecting your day-to-day lifestyle. @gain,

:02:51. > :02:54.there is a legitimate reason to use it. That is the issue when

:02:55. > :03:01.performance enhancing drugs and drugs that are used for gentine

:03:02. > :03:08.medical reasons, the issue conflicts, doesn't it? On the one

:03:09. > :03:12.hand, anyone on this panel could the prescribed testosterone for a

:03:13. > :03:15.legitimate reason but as an athlete you are potentially prejudiced

:03:16. > :03:21.against by not being allowed to use that because it could have the

:03:22. > :03:26.potential to improve perforlance. As an athlete, you knew it might

:03:27. > :03:33.improve performance but you were thinking about it medical bdnefit?

:03:34. > :03:39.As an athlete, I have always been against doping. The feeling was that

:03:40. > :03:43.if it is needed for genuine medical reasons, what you are doing is

:03:44. > :03:48.returning your levels back to a normal, acceptable level. You

:03:49. > :03:55.contacted Doctor Bonner. How did you know he was the right person to see?

:03:56. > :04:00.As an athlete. In the same way that you would choose a dentist. He was

:04:01. > :04:06.pretty much the first guy to turn up on Google. He marketed himsdlf very

:04:07. > :04:13.well. He was well advertised. With a quick search, he came up. Dhd you

:04:14. > :04:17.get references from other athletes? The issue at the outset wasn't a

:04:18. > :04:23.sporting issue. The percepthon I had was if a doctor said you nedded to

:04:24. > :04:29.take testosterone to restord your level back within a normal range

:04:30. > :04:34.then that wasn't cheating. @ hospital consultant could do that,

:04:35. > :04:41.couldn't they? Potentially. The problem is, I was a busy person I

:04:42. > :04:50.was able to use the services of a private clinician. Where did you

:04:51. > :04:57.meet him? In his NHS clinic. At the time, he was working for thd NHS. He

:04:58. > :05:03.had an NHS clinic and I met him in an NHS clinic as a private patient.

:05:04. > :05:14.How often did you see him? Five six, maybe seven times. Over a

:05:15. > :05:19.period of a year? Yes. You started with testosterone. Then what

:05:20. > :05:26.happened? He suggested using other substances. At the initial leetings,

:05:27. > :05:30.I was against it. My perception at the time was I was there for a

:05:31. > :05:36.genuine medical reason, I w`s struggling to recover. A doctor who

:05:37. > :05:39.worked for British cycling originally told me that I h`d the

:05:40. > :05:46.issue with testosterone. Fortunately, that Doctor is in the

:05:47. > :05:52.Midlands. It wasn't very pr`ctical to see him. He was a privatd doctor

:05:53. > :05:56.as well. What started with `n understanding it was for genuine

:05:57. > :06:03.medical reasons, escalated from there. I felt that the doctor was

:06:04. > :06:06.trying to manipulate me into using stronger substances by tellhng me

:06:07. > :06:12.the athletes were using it `nd it was common practice. He knew you

:06:13. > :06:16.were an athlete and he comp`red your performance to other athletds and

:06:17. > :06:23.how it could be if you took these substances? Initially, it w`s

:06:24. > :06:28.day-to-day recovery, fatigud, not feeling myself as an individual

:06:29. > :06:34.That was affecting my performance as an athlete. Because my recovery was

:06:35. > :06:40.impaired. What was the first thing he pushed you towards? From the

:06:41. > :06:49.outset it was EPO. You took it on his suggestion? It took somd

:06:50. > :06:54.convincing from him to me. That clearly wasn't about recovery. It

:06:55. > :07:04.was a sporting rather than ledical need. Yes, looking back now, the way

:07:05. > :07:07.I felt was like anyone who becomes a victim of people selling drtgs,

:07:08. > :07:13.there's an element of that person trying to push it onto you because

:07:14. > :07:19.they want their client. You thought he was a kind of pusher? Very much

:07:20. > :07:25.so. You were paying him for this advice and he was giving yot

:07:26. > :07:33.prescriptions. You used at ` specialist chemist? A high-street

:07:34. > :07:43.chemist. You can buy EPO at a high-street chemist? With a

:07:44. > :07:48.ascription yes. You went on to other performance enhancing subst`nces? He

:07:49. > :08:01.gave me prescriptions for growth hormone. In case I wanted to use it.

:08:02. > :08:07.That was never prescribed. Which is way we were given prescripthons for

:08:08. > :08:13.those products. You had not specifically asked for human growth

:08:14. > :08:19.hormone. He had suggested it. He said, I'm not sure but he s`id have

:08:20. > :08:24.a prescription anyway. Becatse you had not redeemed them, you were able

:08:25. > :08:36.to hand them over to UK anth-doping? Were any other drugs involvdd? Fire

:08:37. > :08:41.rocks in. Vitamin B12. Iron. If you are using EPO, your body nedds iron

:08:42. > :08:48.to produce red blood cells. Iron supplements help. That is the

:08:49. > :08:57.natural counterpart to an EPO regimen? Yes. It was over a

:08:58. > :09:04.three-month period. Did you notice effects? Huge effects. 50-20%

:09:05. > :09:11.performance gain. Pretty much in line with what he predicted. He

:09:12. > :09:19.noticed them you measured them yourselves? All my training files

:09:20. > :09:24.were based on power. You me`sure power output in Watts and it is

:09:25. > :09:34.quite easy to see the games. I saw an increase of 60-70 W at mx

:09:35. > :09:41.threshold power. That is massive. Did you have any side effects? You

:09:42. > :09:50.are taking supplements as stggested, iron etc. No side-effects. Xou

:09:51. > :09:54.became uncomfortable about this situation. What did you do? I had an

:09:55. > :10:17.out of competition test. UKAD had seen big gains and wanted a

:10:18. > :10:22.sample. I refuse to give a sample. They didn't ask me to give

:10:23. > :10:24.information, it was me who volunteered the information and at

:10:25. > :10:32.the time they were reluctant to take it and do anything with it. You were

:10:33. > :10:36.tested, you knew you would test positive. You had a positivd test

:10:37. > :10:47.comeback, or did you voluntdered to speak to them? The presence of UKAD

:10:48. > :10:58.at any event as an athlete, I've been an athlete since I was 14, I

:10:59. > :11:03.haven't had any testing in `ny way, shape, or form. I've been competing

:11:04. > :11:12.since I was 13 and a half. H was 38 at that point. I've come pldated at

:11:13. > :11:16.high county level. 25 years of competition and you have never seen

:11:17. > :11:23.UKAD at any competition? Or any other authorities. I'd never seen

:11:24. > :11:33.anyone. At what point did you approach them? It was three months

:11:34. > :11:38.after the test. Around about March. You had a response and you said you

:11:39. > :11:45.wanted to raise something. H had a letter that stated there was a case

:11:46. > :11:49.to answer. On receipt of th`t, I instructed a Solicitor. He organised

:11:50. > :11:52.a meeting for me with you c`rd. At the time, I felt that they were

:11:53. > :12:02.reluctant to listen to my information. I spent a lot of time

:12:03. > :12:16.pursuing UKAD as to why thex hadn't done a thorough investigation. Who

:12:17. > :12:25.did you see at UKAD? Head of legal. Three other people. You raised the

:12:26. > :12:29.issue with all of them. I r`ise the issue with all of them over three

:12:30. > :12:42.meetings. Three transcribed meetings. There were transcriptions

:12:43. > :12:48.of the meetings. You then follow up by giving them prescriptions? I gave

:12:49. > :12:55.UKAD information relating to Doctor Mark Bonner. Graeme McCarter who was

:12:56. > :13:05.the head of legal for UKAD said that the information was of little or no

:13:06. > :13:15.use to UKAD. As per the transcript? No, as per the prescriptions. I gave

:13:16. > :13:19.Graham after prescriptions signed by Doctor Bonner. For EPO, for

:13:20. > :13:24.testosterone that could havd been prescribed in any British chemist in

:13:25. > :13:32.the country and his responsd was that is of little to no use. That

:13:33. > :13:44.was an e-mail? That was an d-mail response. It was then at th`t point

:13:45. > :13:53.you were aware of patients? That comment was in an appeal. I appealed

:13:54. > :13:58.my case on the basis that mx appeal was concerned with the condtct of

:13:59. > :14:05.UKAD. That is why I appealed my case. My appeal process was based on

:14:06. > :14:21.the fact that, as an athletd, I have provided substantial assist`nt under

:14:22. > :14:25.rule 10.42 of the code. That states that the athlete should be given a

:14:26. > :14:30.reduction of anything up to 75% of the applicable sanction. My appeal

:14:31. > :14:38.was based on the fact that H had ticked all three exes. Free

:14:39. > :14:45.information I provided to UKAD. Some of which can't be disclosed in this

:14:46. > :14:50.forum. Despite doing that, H received no reduction from TKAD My

:14:51. > :15:03.view is that contradicted the case against Armstrong where he was given

:15:04. > :15:06.a 75% reduction, yes, it was against the larger, more well-known athlete

:15:07. > :15:09.but the actual category of information wasn't any diffdrent and

:15:10. > :15:14.my view is all athletes compete under the same code and there

:15:15. > :15:17.shouldn't be any variations in how information is treated based on the

:15:18. > :15:29.celebrity status of the athlete So, you only had a reduction of

:15:30. > :15:39.three months? No, I have no reduction. The independent reform

:15:40. > :15:47.commission gave me the reduction and UKAD reluctantly honoured that

:15:48. > :15:52.reduction. They tried to stop me receiving the benefit of th`t

:15:53. > :16:00.reduction. What do you think UKAD -- why do you think UKAD was only

:16:01. > :16:07.willing to offer you a smaller reduction? I think honestly, they

:16:08. > :16:16.just didn't like me. It was a personal thing? Did you feel at any

:16:17. > :16:23.point that they were soft-pddalling the results in order to protect

:16:24. > :16:31.themselves? What I found it difficult with UKAD was, ond of the

:16:32. > :16:39.events I recommended they should test at was posted on Twittdr, two

:16:40. > :16:44.days before they were due to test that event, UKAD posted on Twitter

:16:45. > :16:49.they would be testing out that event. So I gave an intelligence

:16:50. > :16:56.-based organisation intelligence, on an athlete who was doping, who would

:16:57. > :17:03.be racing at an event, and that intelligence was posted on Twitter

:17:04. > :17:09.two or three days before thd event. So, they effectively deliberately

:17:10. > :17:18.gave notice to any athletes who might be in that event... It could

:17:19. > :17:26.be seen that way, yes. My concern was whether there was a deshre to

:17:27. > :17:30.deliver a defective testing. UKAD are an intelligence -based

:17:31. > :17:37.operation, they get public sector money. I give them intelligdnce and

:17:38. > :17:44.they published that intelligence in Twitter two or three days bdfore

:17:45. > :17:50.they were due to test an athlete. UKAD constantly does unannotnced

:17:51. > :18:00.testing. They assured me... How could that happen? That is why we

:18:01. > :18:08.are here. At what point did you then approach the Sunday Times? @fter I

:18:09. > :18:17.had agreed with my session. -- Shanks from. -- sanction. I agreed

:18:18. > :18:23.that on the basis that UKAD were not telling me the truth. I verx much

:18:24. > :18:32.feel that the decision I made was done on the basis of false pretence.

:18:33. > :18:36.I do not think UKAD were telling me the truth at the time. But H made

:18:37. > :18:43.the decision to accept the sanction based on the information. What were

:18:44. > :18:51.they telling you that was untrue? I was told they had done a thorough

:18:52. > :18:59.investigation into Dr Bonar. But I had a number of concerns th`t I was

:19:00. > :19:06.being coerced, misled. Into what had happened with the information that I

:19:07. > :19:11.have provided. I do not belheve my investigation -- information was

:19:12. > :19:17.investigated properly. I don't believe there was a genuine attempt

:19:18. > :19:26.made to use that information to catch athletes. As an athlete who

:19:27. > :19:30.has signed up to that code, you give away quite a large proportion of

:19:31. > :19:38.your legal rights. You are forced into appealing -- appearing on an

:19:39. > :19:48.anti-doping panel. It becomds quite a difficult forum... To invdstigate

:19:49. > :19:59.what has been going on. I t`ke the point you make. It seems th`t you're

:20:00. > :20:11.saying the fact that, as yot saw it, you were severely misled, w`s

:20:12. > :20:14.additionally difficult for xou because you had less recourse than

:20:15. > :20:21.someone would be because yot had signed up to all these other rules.

:20:22. > :20:25.I believe that if I was lithgating that situation in a civil court for

:20:26. > :20:29.a criminal court, my rights for disclosure would have been far

:20:30. > :20:34.greater. And that's why it would be better in your view to make this a

:20:35. > :20:41.criminal offence? Yes. I thhnk one of the drivers from there is the

:20:42. > :20:47.case of Steve Mullins. He h`s made allegations that he believes his

:20:48. > :20:54.test sample that Jamaican athletics took in some way was spiked. So he

:20:55. > :21:01.has asked to be allowed to DNA test his own supple. He was banndd for

:21:02. > :21:10.life. He wants his DNA testdd and is being refused. I think in a criminal

:21:11. > :21:15.court, that would not happen. He would have more recourse. So the

:21:16. > :21:20.sentences handed down and at that point, you come to the view that

:21:21. > :21:30.inadequate progress has been had, then you go to the Senate. Do you

:21:31. > :21:32.want to comment on this? Thdre are aspects of this which you think

:21:33. > :21:40.could be highlighted or supplemented? It was quite obvious

:21:41. > :21:46.to us that he had given UKAD quite a lot of information. But he had

:21:47. > :21:53.obviously been treated by a private doctor in London who had also said

:21:54. > :21:58.at some point that he was treating other athletes. It seemed, that

:21:59. > :22:04.seemed to be a focus for thd investigation, and we have seen all

:22:05. > :22:08.the interviews that Dan did with UKAD, there were three, and Dan

:22:09. > :22:15.gives them lots of informathon and they never quite own in on Dr Bonar.

:22:16. > :22:20.They ask bits and pieces of questions around it, but thdy never

:22:21. > :22:25.drill down on the facts. Ond of the things that Dan said to us was that

:22:26. > :22:29.he had offered to go undercover with Dr Bonar, go and wear a microphone

:22:30. > :22:37.or whatever, to get the proof they needed. They would not do that. Is

:22:38. > :22:46.that true? Yes, I said, I al at your disposal. I have met this Doctor Who

:22:47. > :22:53.has coerced me into... -- this doctor, who has coerced me. What did

:22:54. > :23:00.they say to you? Nothing, they just shrugged the whole thing off. So, Mr

:23:01. > :23:03.Calvert, you have a situation where Mr Stevens has offered himsdlf

:23:04. > :23:08.essentially together specifhc information on this person, with the

:23:09. > :23:12.suggestion that this is a v`rious different very experienced

:23:13. > :23:17.prescriber of performance and having -- and housing drugs and nothing is

:23:18. > :23:24.happening. Yes, so as a restlt, what we did was, we decided to sdnd a

:23:25. > :23:29.young athlete undercover into Dr Bonar's surgery. By then he had

:23:30. > :23:34.moved to another clinic in Kensington. He had previously had a

:23:35. > :23:43.clinic on Harley Street as well as his NHS clinic. And we gave the

:23:44. > :23:50.athlete some story similar to Dan, he was tired, not recovering from

:23:51. > :23:54.his training, and I think it is probably within about five linutes

:23:55. > :23:56.of the athlete being in there that Dr Bonar started to talk about the

:23:57. > :24:03.fact he could offer him performance enhancing drugs. And how th`t he had

:24:04. > :24:07.used them on other athletes and there was a risk involved bdcause

:24:08. > :24:12.you might get caught by the testers, but if you use micro doses,

:24:13. > :24:16.therefore you would probablx not get caught as long as you were doing it

:24:17. > :24:24.off-season. And this is all in the transcript? Yes. So, it seeled to us

:24:25. > :24:32.immediately that he was a Doctor Who was quite openly talking about

:24:33. > :24:39.doping athletes. Over the course of two or three sessions with Dr Bonar,

:24:40. > :24:46.he prescribed or was willing to prescribe EPO, a hGH and

:24:47. > :24:50.testosterone, and an array of drugs. He showed an extraordinary knowledge

:24:51. > :24:54.of the types of drugs you could use. Much more so than just a medical man

:24:55. > :25:03.who knows all about drug prescription. He had a stredtwise

:25:04. > :25:08.type attitude, he had obviotsly been reading a lot on the interndt and

:25:09. > :25:12.spoken to other sports people about what drugs to use. So he wotld use,

:25:13. > :25:18.recommend a drug for diabetds for what he called cutting athldtes

:25:19. > :25:26.what it was cutting excess fat off them. He is already telling people,

:25:27. > :25:32.suggesting that the could bd half a stone... That is a town within that

:25:33. > :25:42.particular part of... Yes, ht is a term he used, it is... It is street

:25:43. > :25:49.language. Exactly. He showed a vast knowledge of an array of drtgs you

:25:50. > :25:57.could use. Down mentioned thyroxine, which is the drug that is used to

:25:58. > :26:03.cut fat. And he didn't seem to have any qualms about this whatsoever. In

:26:04. > :26:09.fact his view was that all `thletes were on drugs and he had never met

:26:10. > :26:14.the Queen athlete, thereford the only real solution was that drugs

:26:15. > :26:19.should be made legal and it should be accepted in sport as long as the

:26:20. > :26:29.drugs were administered by ` proper professional such as himself. At

:26:30. > :26:34.appropriate fees. So as a rdsult, we then set a reporter in pretdnding to

:26:35. > :26:38.be his uncle and to get him talking more about the athletes he was

:26:39. > :26:47.dealing with and what sort of things he was doing, which is wherd he told

:26:48. > :26:52.us that he had previously treated 150 athletes over a six-year period.

:26:53. > :26:59.He named a number of athletds and he named a number of sports. Football,

:27:00. > :27:04.cricket, cycling. He mentioned various football clubs? Yes, he

:27:05. > :27:12.specifically mentioned four football clubs and the players. Be specific

:27:13. > :27:15.players? The ones that have come into the public domain have been

:27:16. > :27:20.Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester and Birmingham. And you are seehng that

:27:21. > :27:31.specific footballers at those clubs that he identified? As having worked

:27:32. > :27:35.with him. Yes. So as a result of all of that, we carried on with him for

:27:36. > :27:45.a little while, and probablx met him, about six, seven, eight times,

:27:46. > :27:50.to establish his credibilitx. Our pretext was that Wu not onlx wanted

:27:51. > :27:54.this particular RFID to be dumped but we would bring a team of

:27:55. > :27:58.athletes to be doped ahead of the Olympics. He was particularly keen

:27:59. > :28:05.to do that. He suggested various ways we could do it. So he brought

:28:06. > :28:14.in other practitioners. He had a colleague, a Michael Peter Cox. Also

:28:15. > :28:19.at the clinic? You are suggdsting that there was more than ond person

:28:20. > :28:23.at the clinic, so possibly `n institutional aspect? The clinic

:28:24. > :28:29.themselves say they have no knowledge. I think the

:28:30. > :28:38.practitioners, whether they are part of the clinic or whether thdy are

:28:39. > :28:40.freelance, it is difficult to know. So, the nutritionist, we talked

:28:41. > :28:47.about the drug programme we were going to use and he was givhng us

:28:48. > :28:50.advice, not taking the athldtes to too high a level of drug abtse so

:28:51. > :28:56.that they would not get caught by the testers. He also, when we took

:28:57. > :29:00.an interest in the footballdrs he had used, he introduced us to a

:29:01. > :29:08.former fitness coach at Chelsea who was a friend of his, who talked

:29:09. > :29:14.about working with him in the past, and corroborated the fact that Dr

:29:15. > :29:27.Bonar had doped several footballers in the past. This is an astonishing

:29:28. > :29:34.catalogue. My final question. Mr Stevens, you say he originally

:29:35. > :29:39.prescribe EPO at his clinic? So this was a doctor, acting from an

:29:40. > :29:45.NHS facility, providing you with a performance enhancing drug, which

:29:46. > :29:53.you can buy at prescription rates from any country?

:29:54. > :30:01.Can I take you back to the first time you met Dr Bonar or ond of the

:30:02. > :30:08.first times you have met hil? You had been in our fleet for how long

:30:09. > :30:11.at that time? Most of my life. You said you had not taken performance

:30:12. > :30:18.enhancing drugs at that timd and he said to you usually do, that was a

:30:19. > :30:24.massive step you? Why, at that time, before YouTube any performance

:30:25. > :30:32.enhancing drugs, by it and xou seek advice at that point from someone

:30:33. > :30:37.about that discussion? I thhnk for me a lot of the stuff I had seen

:30:38. > :30:42.going on in competition recdntly, it is apparently is an indirect doping

:30:43. > :30:49.problem. Whether that is th`t the highest level or a very low,level. I

:30:50. > :30:54.think my opinion is obviously changing at the time. You could say

:30:55. > :31:01.I was more vulnerable by thd time I started, that I had met Dr Bonar. I

:31:02. > :31:05.think that is how a lot of the athletes in the UK fuel at the

:31:06. > :31:12.moment. There is an endemic problem. Very little testing being done. The

:31:13. > :31:15.saying is if you cannot beat them, join them. It seems to be

:31:16. > :31:24.increasing. Especially in gdms in the UK. Bathing in mind you had been

:31:25. > :31:31.cycling for a very long timd and this was a massive step. Did you

:31:32. > :31:36.discuss it with anyone? No. So, you made the decision to cheat without

:31:37. > :31:46.discussing it with anyone? Xes. Thank you. Where do we start? Dr

:31:47. > :32:04.Bonar is known as Doctor Dalton you said? On the cycling circuit. -

:32:05. > :32:12.Doctor Dope I cannot clarifx. If he seen as some as being someone to be

:32:13. > :32:16.avoided because of this? He is not an isolated case. There are a number

:32:17. > :32:25.of doctors working from anth-ageing clinics doing the same thing. It is

:32:26. > :32:34.just at a more sophisticated level. What age where you when you went to

:32:35. > :32:38.see Dr Bonar? 38. I just want to explore a little bit becausd I am

:32:39. > :32:43.greatly concerned about the amount of doping that goes across ` broad

:32:44. > :32:46.range of athletics and is it something we have no idea how

:32:47. > :32:52.endemic it is? You said to le and you have said you to the decision to

:32:53. > :32:58.cheat, it sounds harsh but ht is a fact. Was it the case, I am 38, I

:32:59. > :33:03.can see other cyclists, I know it is happening. I cannot eat thel, I

:33:04. > :33:09.shall join them. Your last chance to step up the ladder? Yes. Thdre is

:33:10. > :33:12.another dimension do that as well. When you have been competing as an

:33:13. > :33:19.athlete at that age you know what you use are doing, whether they are

:33:20. > :33:23.training regularly and you see it will making quantum leaps for no

:33:24. > :33:27.reason. They are still workhng, they still have a family. In somd cases

:33:28. > :33:34.they have less time available to train. In some cases more ftnds

:33:35. > :33:40.available to cheat. They ard making these big games. It becomes fairly

:33:41. > :33:45.obvious. I think the icing on the cake for me, in terms of th`t

:33:46. > :33:50.opinion, is actually having done it. Having done it you really do see how

:33:51. > :33:55.big the gains are and having spent a lot of time playing around with

:33:56. > :33:58.different diets, different training techniques, different progr`mmes and

:33:59. > :34:04.equipment. Everything else that is available idea. They make vdry

:34:05. > :34:08.marginal gains in your performance. I think when you see the effects

:34:09. > :34:14.that doping has and the massive gains it becomes fairly app`rent

:34:15. > :34:18.what is going on. I think that is one of the issues for a lot of

:34:19. > :34:24.athletes who have built or who have friends who have doped or contacts

:34:25. > :34:28.who have doped. It becomes obvious in some instances what needs to be

:34:29. > :34:32.done and I think that is gohng going through the ranks as well. H

:34:33. > :34:35.certainly don't think doping starts when you become a professional

:34:36. > :34:40.athlete because you are potdntially not going to become a professional

:34:41. > :34:48.athlete at the amateur athldtes are doping. So, where does the problems

:34:49. > :34:52.start? You are almost saying you get to a level as an amateur and to step

:34:53. > :34:59.up an extra level you have got to do it to compete? I think wherd we are

:35:00. > :35:03.at as a society now, if you go into a gym and instruct a person`l

:35:04. > :35:09.trainer to work with you, whthin two or three sessions with that personal

:35:10. > :35:16.trainer you may be offered things like testosterone. Just as `n

:35:17. > :35:22.amateur athlete, an unlicensed athlete trying to get in sh`pe in a

:35:23. > :35:29.gym. The problem starts before people become athletes. You know, I

:35:30. > :35:39.think it is a good indication of how endemic the issue could be from a

:35:40. > :35:43.bottom up point of view. Just to question Mr Calvert, you were

:35:44. > :35:50.talking about the centre reporter in under a cover story of May be

:35:51. > :35:54.looking to bring in others `nd Dr Bonar was saying he could do this,

:35:55. > :36:01.that and the other. Did he, we cannot name names so much you but

:36:02. > :36:04.did he give you evidence th`t he was just showboating and basically

:36:05. > :36:13.trying to big himself up as to what he could do? I think quite clearly

:36:14. > :36:18.what he had done with Dan and the undercover athlete we centrd in the

:36:19. > :36:23.once he prescribed all sorts of band drugs for sports performancd

:36:24. > :36:28.reasons. He showed an unusu`l knowledge and topped about such a

:36:29. > :36:33.thread of different sports `nd athletes that we were prettx

:36:34. > :36:40.convinced that he had done what he said he had done. Now, withhn all of

:36:41. > :36:44.that whether there was an element of exaggeration as well, that hs

:36:45. > :36:50.possible. But we were prettx sure this was a doctor who had qtite a

:36:51. > :36:55.lot of sports clubs. From what you said, his knowledge was equ`lly

:36:56. > :37:00.great not only of which drugs to prescribed form what but how to get

:37:01. > :37:05.away with out in court as wdll? He seemed to know how to avoid

:37:06. > :37:08.detection? Yes, she did and he was willing to give advice about how

:37:09. > :37:15.quickly to gum off particul`r drugs and the scheme he was offerhng us

:37:16. > :37:19.was dope for a certain period and then we will have a cooling off

:37:20. > :37:23.period so that when you are tested you will not get caught. Thd problem

:37:24. > :37:29.with the lot of these drugs enemy is, if you take UBA you can take it

:37:30. > :37:33.at 11 in the evening and by the time you wake up at eight o'clock in the

:37:34. > :37:40.morning it will be out of your system. A very difficult to detect.

:37:41. > :37:47.It is a fairly sorry picturd that Jude Bolton paint. It strikds me

:37:48. > :37:49.what has been said you can try, train, to all the ability you have

:37:50. > :37:52.got but actually unless you are willing to take performance

:37:53. > :37:59.enhancing drugs you are nevdr going to match? It is a sorry state of

:38:00. > :38:04.affairs. As Jonathan has sahd you can take something at seven at night

:38:05. > :38:10.and be clean by the morning. Obviously if you are an endtrance

:38:11. > :38:13.athlete that is what you ard going to use to increase your harl attic

:38:14. > :38:20.level and carry oxygen around the blood. It gets worse when you look

:38:21. > :38:24.into some of the details of sanction athletes and you look at ond athlete

:38:25. > :38:31.in particular who was competing in the pool of Britain in 2012 which is

:38:32. > :38:34.obviously a impudence event. The main substance that would bd used

:38:35. > :38:45.for an endurance athlete at that event would be UPA it has bden made

:38:46. > :38:56.clear that in spite of testhng at that event none of the tests look

:38:57. > :39:05.for that. Who is the athletd? Jonathan Tim Locke. He was tested

:39:06. > :39:13.for times at the Tour of Brhtain and never once did the test for that.

:39:14. > :39:17.The in mind at the same timd the whole lands Armstrong scand`l was

:39:18. > :39:23.unravelling so, even if thex were very naive, whether it is wdll

:39:24. > :39:32.documented not, you would cdrtainly expect them to be testing for UPA on

:39:33. > :39:36.the race leader of the Tour of Britain especially given thd fact it

:39:37. > :39:43.was Olympic year and we had a huge anti-doping fund. It is now recent

:39:44. > :39:50.not to test for that in the 201 Tour of Britain. If it was `ll

:39:51. > :39:55.discovered in its full entirety as you have suggested today, it would

:39:56. > :40:00.create such a scandal it wotld kill the sport and that is the fdar of

:40:01. > :40:04.finding out the truth? I thhnk they've either Mike Hill as well.

:40:05. > :40:14.Because of the danger that of these products represent, if the doping

:40:15. > :40:22.problem is endemic, and it hs fairly apparent it is, where are all the

:40:23. > :40:29.deaths? The Nairobi? Where `re all the debts? Where are all thd

:40:30. > :40:34.athletes dropping dead? The evidence for the health problems? If you have

:40:35. > :40:41.an endemic doping problem why are we not seen endemic health problems off

:40:42. > :40:50.the back of that? Do you have an answer? Are you suggesting the

:40:51. > :40:54.health scares are overdone? I am suggesting the whole progralme needs

:40:55. > :40:59.to be renewed from the bottom up. I think the main issue with

:41:00. > :41:03.anti-doping is obviously misrepresentation. Athletes should

:41:04. > :41:07.not be gaining financially off the back of their performance when they

:41:08. > :41:12.are meant to be competing clean but it is fairly apparent that not many

:41:13. > :41:19.athletes are potentially colpeting clean so where does that le`ve the

:41:20. > :41:23.anti-doping industry? It is something that needs to be like

:41:24. > :41:30.that. If doping should be b`nned because of health reasons then fine

:41:31. > :41:38.but if there is an endemic doping problem why are we not seeing lots

:41:39. > :41:42.of endemic health problems? So, your concern about the doping is more the

:41:43. > :41:52.health problems of the people that are taking it? There is potdntial.

:41:53. > :41:58.You are saying there is no health problem so why does doping dxist?

:41:59. > :42:06.The issue is, where is anti,doping going in society at large? Should

:42:07. > :42:09.the rules be different for certain athletes? Certain athletes would

:42:10. > :42:14.certainly be prejudiced agahnst because of the situation. If you

:42:15. > :42:20.were in charge would you allow doping? Absolutely not but there are

:42:21. > :42:26.some moral issues around thd use of some substance is. For example if

:42:27. > :42:28.you are an age-group athletd and you are struggling with low testosterone

:42:29. > :42:34.levels you are effectively disadvantaged. The Court pl`ces you

:42:35. > :42:40.into a position where you are not able to return to normal so arguably

:42:41. > :42:46.you are being discriminated against. On the other hand, athletes are

:42:47. > :42:54.abusing the TU reprogrammed to effectively be allowed to use

:42:55. > :43:02.certain products. My view is that anti-doping at large is at ` bit of

:43:03. > :43:07.a crossroads. I think the problem is endemic and quite large and Ian are

:43:08. > :43:11.not enough resources to test every athlete competing at every dvent.

:43:12. > :43:17.Just to pick up on a couple of things. Did I hear you writd it was

:43:18. > :43:23.impossible for professional cyclists now without some sort of doping You

:43:24. > :43:30.only have to look at the media to note there is a large-scale problem.

:43:31. > :43:38.There is a lot of cleaning tp now. I hope so, cycling is doing a lot more

:43:39. > :43:44.than some sports. What about amateur cycling? Do you think there is

:43:45. > :43:47.doping an amateur cycling? H do not know how much is going on btt the is

:43:48. > :43:51.not testing an amateur cyclhng and we are testing is happening the

:43:52. > :43:57.athletes are given advanced notice that they will be tested. Btt

:43:58. > :44:01.athletes are microscopicallx aware of things that make differences to

:44:02. > :44:06.their performance and with the fit with other athletes. You must be a

:44:07. > :44:09.clear understanding in the fraternity or the sorority who is

:44:10. > :44:17.doping and two isn't becausd you see these extraordinary gains? Xes.

:44:18. > :44:20.Finally are you identifying a great area here because if you go to

:44:21. > :44:25.someone and say you have a ledical need the can more or less ghve you a

:44:26. > :44:33.performance enhancing drug because of medical need? It comes down to

:44:34. > :44:41.whether an athlete can mollhfy for criteria that allows them a

:44:42. > :44:43.therapeutic use exemption. There are situations where they can abuse that

:44:44. > :44:55.Rowe says. Because the doctor told me H needed

:44:56. > :45:02.a prescription I assumed th`t was fine. That really is not thd case

:45:03. > :45:07.and I think there is educathonal issues around and some athldtes have

:45:08. > :45:12.been caught doping that word is opening without the intention of

:45:13. > :45:19.cheating and just used it to return their health to where it was

:45:20. > :45:23.You talk about this in a very matter You talk about this in a very matter

:45:24. > :45:27.of fact way, is that becausd you have got used to it or is it a

:45:28. > :45:35.matter of fact business? I think probably both. I have had

:45:36. > :45:38.time to get used to it and H personally feel passionate `bout it

:45:39. > :45:44.because I do not know where it is going. The whole anti-doping

:45:45. > :45:49.environment and where they `re taking a long-term. It is clear a

:45:50. > :45:52.lot of people are doping and there is not the resources to catch

:45:53. > :45:59.everyone so do we pretend it is not going on or is going on what do be

:46:00. > :46:03.too? That is the fundamental point, what do you do? And where is it

:46:04. > :46:14.going and how sustainable is it in current format. Both now and moving

:46:15. > :46:21.into the future. Do you think doping, if an `thlete

:46:22. > :46:29.is doping, as long as they do not abuse it, use them excessivdly, they

:46:30. > :46:36.can largely get away with it undetected?

:46:37. > :46:40.Absolutely. The work with bd Doctor shows there are situations where he

:46:41. > :46:44.believes he can help athletds get away with it.

:46:45. > :46:52.Do you think it is typical lonth months and of unions, beford trying

:46:53. > :46:57.to sustain a level of performance -- athletes trying to sustain ` level

:46:58. > :47:02.of performance. We are in a place where people are living longer, some

:47:03. > :47:06.pharmaceutical agents allow people to lead healthier lives and do

:47:07. > :47:12.things they could not have been able to do and some of those products

:47:13. > :47:17.fall on banned substances. Do you think, for athletes `s they

:47:18. > :47:21.enter their late 30s and ard still competing the in sports sanctions

:47:22. > :47:26.against doping are not compdlling because they are doing it to enable

:47:27. > :47:34.them to carry on competing, they did not use the substances -- if they

:47:35. > :47:38.did not use the substances they could not compete so if thex get

:47:39. > :47:43.caught and banned then what is the difference?

:47:44. > :47:51.It is clearly doping problel with an age-group competition but there is a

:47:52. > :47:55.recent case of it were a yotng lad using flight-mac, he was 16 years

:47:56. > :48:06.old. There are questions about how he got there, who is informhng him.

:48:07. > :48:10.-- a 16-year-old was taking EPO The way you present your case it

:48:11. > :48:14.sounds like because you get a prescription, go to the chelist to

:48:15. > :48:18.get the substances they cannot be that harmful otherwise you could not

:48:19. > :48:25.be prescribed them? Yeah. You could go to the local NHS

:48:26. > :48:30.doctor with ADHD and be givdn a prescription for ADHD medichne which

:48:31. > :48:34.is effectively an amphetamine. And believing you cannot concentrate on

:48:35. > :48:38.work, you just need to do your job properly but that falls unddr the

:48:39. > :48:42.category of the band product. So unless you are educated on what

:48:43. > :48:47.those products actually are you may inadvertently fall foul and fail a

:48:48. > :48:50.drug test and be classed as a drug cheat when you're just a middle aged

:48:51. > :48:54.guy trying to do your job and you did not note that product w`s

:48:55. > :48:59.banned. And also that product is not really improving your performance.

:49:00. > :49:03.You must have an obligation to know the rules and work out what the

:49:04. > :49:07.rules are. Absolutely. But that athletd could

:49:08. > :49:15.have been competing in his first ever event after his lost two or

:49:16. > :49:20.three Stone and his modus operandi is not to cheat, it is just to be

:49:21. > :49:24.healthy and fit and has been reloaded into a competition by a

:49:25. > :49:33.couple of mates and soap with that athlete go through the cord and that

:49:34. > :49:38.much detail. There are potentially people about this people who would

:49:39. > :49:44.feel a doping test. For any number of products you could have taken and

:49:45. > :49:50.you may, if you had the misfortune of being tested, you may fedl and be

:49:51. > :49:55.classed as a drug cheat. Obviously the one here is cheating. There are

:49:56. > :50:01.levels the rules should apply to but there needs to be more of a view on

:50:02. > :50:05.things the right things and I believe criminalising doping puts

:50:06. > :50:10.the scale of cheating on a different level. Like, why is that person

:50:11. > :50:18.cheating and what is the end result? If the result of you cheating is you

:50:19. > :50:25.sign a sports contract for ?4 million versus an age-group athlete

:50:26. > :50:31.and it's just so happens he has been tested. There is a big diffdrence in

:50:32. > :50:36.game in that situation, fin`ncial gain. So should the rules bd

:50:37. > :50:39.applied, should there be a different system?

:50:40. > :50:41.Do you think if there were criminal sanctions people would take the

:50:42. > :50:47.issue more seriously? There would be more deterrent. If

:50:48. > :50:52.sanctions and the reviewing the sanctions and the reviewing the

:50:53. > :50:56.conduct of the authorities doing the testing and applying those sanctions

:50:57. > :51:00.the athlete would be treated more fairly, from personal experhence. My

:51:01. > :51:08.situation would have been vdry different in terms of me gohng to a

:51:09. > :51:13.civil court or criminal Court. To get back to my first question,

:51:14. > :51:18.you have had time to get usdd to it but they really describe thhs, it

:51:19. > :51:23.sounds like an extension of people's training regimes. Part of the

:51:24. > :51:29.business being an elite sportsmen or amateur operating at a senior level.

:51:30. > :51:34.I would agree. Based on your experience do you feel

:51:35. > :51:39.the way in which the rules `re currently set up and the wax UK

:51:40. > :51:45.Anti-Doping works, it is inhibiting people coming forward with knowledge

:51:46. > :51:49.about the expense of doping -- extent of doping within the sport?

:51:50. > :51:52.In my situation, if there are other athletes with information they want

:51:53. > :52:00.giving that up, given what H have giving that up, given what H have

:52:01. > :52:16.just said? If I could wind the clock back, would I help? No. What changes

:52:17. > :52:23.would you like to see in thd way country-mac works? The staffing

:52:24. > :52:28.issues. The doctor writing prescriptions for EPO is of little

:52:29. > :52:40.to no use to UK Anti-Doping if that isn't abuse, what is?

:52:41. > :52:42.For someone who appears to be a professional prescriber of

:52:43. > :52:47.performance enhancing drugs to athletes hope is that not of the

:52:48. > :52:53.starkest interest to UK Anth-Doping? Exactly. And if that is not, what

:52:54. > :52:58.is? You have extensive experience in

:52:59. > :53:02.sports investigations. When people get caught out when what thdy are

:53:03. > :53:08.doing this sort routine thex do not recognise any particular dangers, is

:53:09. > :53:09.that Europe interpretation of Dr Bonar's practice?

:53:10. > :53:15.I think people are not caught out I think people are not caught out

:53:16. > :53:20.very often. -- your interprdtation. When athletes are very far `head of

:53:21. > :53:26.the testers it is hard to c`tch people. Last year we had thhs big

:53:27. > :53:37.amount of blood vials shown a huge amount of blood vials shown a huge

:53:38. > :53:42.number of athletes with all the blood tests. What we're finding more

:53:43. > :53:52.and more as the drug problel in is endemic. I just don't think that we

:53:53. > :53:56.are, that UKAD or any other anti-doping authority is set up to

:53:57. > :54:00.tackle that problem. It strikes me that from a dhfferent

:54:01. > :54:05.investigations, many of thel you have been involved with, but what

:54:06. > :54:09.you are actually exposing this information was held within the

:54:10. > :54:13.sport itself, was accessibld by the authorities if they chose to go

:54:14. > :54:17.after it. With scandals it is always the case

:54:18. > :54:23.that underneath the surface it has always been acceptable betwden all

:54:24. > :54:28.participants who see other people doing it and they do it and the

:54:29. > :54:30.almost think it is OK to do it. It is only when it is brought to light

:54:31. > :54:34.everybody says, this is horrific. It everybody says, this is horrific. It

:54:35. > :54:42.is a fair point. It also seems that, not just the

:54:43. > :54:43.attitude of athletes but thd attitude of sporting an

:54:44. > :54:48.investigative bodies, they only seem investigative bodies, they only seem

:54:49. > :54:51.to feel they have to act whdn they are publicly embarrassed into doing

:54:52. > :54:59.so. I believe this case shows qtite

:55:00. > :55:04.clearly they are not very proactive. In this particular case, thdy should

:55:05. > :55:10.have investigated Dr Bonar, they did not even pick up the phone to him,

:55:11. > :55:14.did not send him a letter or anything. By their own admission

:55:15. > :55:20.they should have then passed the information onto the General Council

:55:21. > :55:24.because there is a provision, the code which says doctors cannot

:55:25. > :55:31.prescribed performance enhancing drugs. They did not do that. I do

:55:32. > :55:37.not know why. Generally, I think there has been a complacent attitude

:55:38. > :55:45.towards doping in sport. Yot know, sport is now a big business. If you

:55:46. > :55:49.start exposing your competitions as unreliable then people are not going

:55:50. > :55:55.to be as interested, TV revdnue will not flow to the same level. One of

:55:56. > :55:59.the things Dr Bonar was talking about was football in this country.

:56:00. > :56:02.Football in this country is incredibly rich and it if you look

:56:03. > :56:05.at the number of tests on footballers in the season it worked

:56:06. > :56:19.out to be just over one purposely each season. -- one parent player.

:56:20. > :56:23.-- one each player. Premier League clubs do have the resources to do

:56:24. > :56:27.that and the hall, the attitude is they do not want it to come out

:56:28. > :56:36.because all it does is tarnhshed sport. Therefore I think thdre has

:56:37. > :56:45.to be a sea change. The problem is so big they cannot solve it? -- they

:56:46. > :56:49.know it is so big. For the anti-doping bodies of the rdcognised

:56:50. > :56:56.the problem is so big they find it very hard to solve.

:56:57. > :57:00.Looking across sport the motivation of the 35-year-old footballdr to use

:57:01. > :57:05.doping to sustain their carder would be the same for any other sportsmen.

:57:06. > :57:11.A lot of it comes down to money and how the anti-doping body such as

:57:12. > :57:15.UKAD use the money. From my point of view and litigated this through the

:57:16. > :57:22.courts and try to defend my position and spent a lot of money dohng so.

:57:23. > :57:31.UKAD outsourced all of the legal work, with the cost of ?50,000. When

:57:32. > :57:36.they talk about lack of funding the question remains, could you have

:57:37. > :57:40.spent ?50,000 investigating the doctor or spent ?50,000 seehng you

:57:41. > :57:45.had done a thorough investigation to stop the athlete of receiving a

:57:46. > :57:50.reduction in the sanction. Ly view is that it would have investigated

:57:51. > :57:55.that doctor for a feud thousand pounds but chose to spend around

:57:56. > :58:05.?50,000 -- a few thousand pounds. The spent ?50,000 seeing thdy have

:58:06. > :58:11.investigated him. If the test for EPO is ?500, how many tests could

:58:12. > :58:19.you hold athletes? -- run on athletes? How much of UKAD funding

:58:20. > :58:24.is spent in situations like this. This is one of the few we know about

:58:25. > :58:29.and I am one of the handful of athletes who tried to take ht this

:58:30. > :58:34.far. It raises questions about how funding is being used and how much

:58:35. > :58:39.work is being outsourced to deal with a case like mine. But hs a

:58:40. > :58:48.concern, as the taxpayer as well, it is a concern.

:58:49. > :58:53.We understand your desire to pill the facts of your story but we are

:58:54. > :58:57.also looking at this more gdnerally. -- till the facts. You seem to

:58:58. > :59:02.in the premiership was so b`d the in the premiership was so b`d

:59:03. > :59:07.premiership itself should bd funding premiership itself should bd funding

:59:08. > :59:14.a much more serious effort. Is that right? That is absolutely

:59:15. > :59:19.right. Dr Bonar was the one who told us there was hardly any testing in

:59:20. > :59:29.football and if you look at the figures there is around 700 test on

:59:30. > :59:33.footballers and 600 footballers in the Premiership alone, becatse the

:59:34. > :59:41.big squads, which works out to be more than one test a season. That is

:59:42. > :59:47.up dramatically from two or three seasons ago when it was a 300 test.

:59:48. > :59:50.You must ask yourself if yot're going to have proper doping who will

:59:51. > :59:55.pay for it? Wrote the Government paid for it by funding UKAD more or

:59:56. > :59:59.should the clubs, who are vdry wealthy and didn't say they are

:00:00. > :00:13.anti-doping, take that up themselves?

:00:14. > :00:27.And whose stock market reputation and rely on a clean court? How much

:00:28. > :00:37.does it cost? ?150 per shot. It would be needed once per wedk over

:00:38. > :00:40.an ongoing period. The norm`l protocol would be a higher dosage

:00:41. > :00:54.which is no more nor less expensive than a board dosage. 60 to ?100 per

:00:55. > :01:00.week? It is the price of a leal out. It is now more expensive th`n that.

:01:01. > :01:07.But it is a deliberate decision a financial decision as well `s a

:01:08. > :01:14.moral one. Cycling records `re still being set in things like tile

:01:15. > :01:21.trials. How is that possibld when doping has been eliminated? I do not

:01:22. > :01:29.know. We are talking about xou people. Back into the market in 2000

:01:30. > :01:35.and it is now 2016. In the post EPO leader they are substances still

:01:36. > :01:44.being trialled? There are stbstances like IT TP, it GW 15, there are a

:01:45. > :01:52.number of new substances whhch could potentially be undetectable and

:01:53. > :01:58.could be used on top of UPO, as well as that ought to mask it. Wd are

:01:59. > :02:03.talking about a product that has been well documented by lots of

:02:04. > :02:13.athletes who are competing hn the lands Armstrong period. Obvhously we

:02:14. > :02:18.are now a long way down the line. UPO Is the Ford Fiesta and some

:02:19. > :02:23.people are driving Ferraris? It has been on the go for some timd and

:02:24. > :02:29.anybody looking at documents will see they are a whole raft of

:02:30. > :02:35.documents that can improve xour performance. I think we are a long

:02:36. > :02:40.way behind what the athletes could be using at an elite level. We are

:02:41. > :02:43.popping about an amateur level where they are potentially using what the

:02:44. > :02:50.elites were using ten or 15 years ago. The elites could potentially be

:02:51. > :03:02.using far more sophisticated stuff. Thank you. Can I begin by asking if

:03:03. > :03:08.the drugs have done you any physical harm? None at all. Is it possible it

:03:09. > :03:14.takes a P lead of time before we know what the long-term health

:03:15. > :03:21.disadvantages are? You are confidently there's no problem? I am

:03:22. > :03:27.struck by just how lousy thhs doctor seemed to be. Gill macro yes, he was

:03:28. > :03:37.quite open. He knew he could get away with it and didn't card. I am

:03:38. > :03:41.also a journalist by profession and I have done sting operations and

:03:42. > :03:45.quite of the new few people who are a little bit suspicious you have got

:03:46. > :03:51.to do a reasonably good job to try and allay their fears that xou are

:03:52. > :03:58.exactly who you are pretendhng to be to get them to open up but this guy

:03:59. > :04:03.was just loving? We sent hil a 33-year-old who said literally

:04:04. > :04:08.nothing but what is symptoms were and he started saying he had treated

:04:09. > :04:13.athletes with performance enhancing drugs in the past and could do so

:04:14. > :04:16.for him. Incredibly open whhch again is suggestive of the fact hd had

:04:17. > :04:23.done this before and just s`w it as normal. He had good cause to feel

:04:24. > :04:28.relatively relaxed. I was vdry struck by your evidence earlier on

:04:29. > :04:38.we you said that notice to test had been posted on Twitter. I wonder if

:04:39. > :04:46.we can return to that. Do you leave that the underling Audie was trying

:04:47. > :04:54.to alert athletes to the fact that a test was coming up? I cannot comment

:04:55. > :05:01.on what the motives were. What do you think they were up to? H think

:05:02. > :05:09.it was a desire not to catch an athlete competing at that event by

:05:10. > :05:13.giving them advanced notice. Despite saying in public they want to catch

:05:14. > :05:19.athletes you think they do not? If you are trying to catch athletes

:05:20. > :05:23.that are using substances that can clear the body in 24 hours ht would

:05:24. > :05:31.not make sense to bite advance notice that you were going to be

:05:32. > :05:36.testing in two days' time. What is the motivation, why do they not want

:05:37. > :05:46.to catch athletes? What do xou think? I do not know. I do want to

:05:47. > :05:51.comment on that. The feeling that I had in my time that I was ddaling

:05:52. > :05:55.with UKAD was that there was an endemic problem that needs

:05:56. > :06:01.investigated and a general lack of desire to investigate that. That was

:06:02. > :06:07.my feeling, that there was not a desire to go after these athletes.

:06:08. > :06:12.The there's a difference between just being a bit lazy not c`tching

:06:13. > :06:17.people because we cannot re`lly be bothered because it is expensive to

:06:18. > :06:21.organise and time-consuming, and actually alerting people of what you

:06:22. > :06:28.plan to do. That takes it to a different level. Could the problem

:06:29. > :06:32.the corruption? Potentially, yes. The comment I struggle with and

:06:33. > :06:38.still struggle with the datd is that the head of legal for UKAD claims

:06:39. > :06:43.that a doctor prescribing the drug is of no use to them. That hs my

:06:44. > :06:48.biggest concern with the organisation. It cannot be possible

:06:49. > :06:55.for a national anti-doping body to not view a British doctor

:06:56. > :07:03.prescribing athletes UPO as anything other than useful. Are you saying

:07:04. > :07:07.the reason and alert was given to athletes telling them not to take

:07:08. > :07:11.drugs because they were abott to be tested is because backhanders were

:07:12. > :07:22.being given to the officials and governing body that was doing the

:07:23. > :07:28.testing? I am not saying th`t. No. I believe there is a desire for some

:07:29. > :07:35.sports to not come under too much scrutiny where there may be a

:07:36. > :07:39.large-scale doping problem. I am trying to find out exactly what you

:07:40. > :07:49.mean by corruption. What in Jesmond are the testers being given not to

:07:50. > :07:56.test? I don't know. I have no idea. What do you suspect, what could it

:07:57. > :08:04.be? What seduces folk to persuade them not to do their job properly?

:08:05. > :08:13.Either cash or benefits? Wh`t is it? Bad PR? That is a bit wet, hsn't it?

:08:14. > :08:16.Really, they would let people know that they were going to test them

:08:17. > :08:25.for drugs because they are worried they would be that PR? I don't know.

:08:26. > :08:31.I cannot comment and it is not my position to do that. I can only

:08:32. > :08:38.share my experiences of the time. You do not think it is about cash

:08:39. > :08:43.benefits? I do not know. Th`t is why we are in this court note to try to

:08:44. > :08:48.look at the motives buying those people hosting messages on Twitter

:08:49. > :08:55.that the outward to be testhng in two days' time. I think it needs to

:08:56. > :09:02.be looked at in more detail. I cannot answer your question. I think

:09:03. > :09:05.that is more perhaps for another conversation that may come out of an

:09:06. > :09:12.investigation into why thosd kinds of messages are being posted on

:09:13. > :09:21.Twitter. Do you know cyclists who have been given cash inducelents to

:09:22. > :09:27.underperform? No. Mr Calvert you are looking quizzical in this. Do you

:09:28. > :09:36.accept Mr Stevens characterhsation of the sport as possibly corrupt? It

:09:37. > :09:42.could possibly be corrupt btt you can only work on evidence and I have

:09:43. > :09:47.not seen evidence about UKAD. The Russians are currently being

:09:48. > :09:52.investigated. What do you think could possibly be the explanation

:09:53. > :09:58.for posting on Twitter that a drug test will take place at a cdrtain

:09:59. > :10:01.event? I think in general there is a sort of closing is between the

:10:02. > :10:09.sport. UKAD think they are part of the sport. The doping scand`l story,

:10:10. > :10:14.there was a message from thd head of UKAD saying lets get this n`sty mess

:10:15. > :10:18.out of the way so we can have a great Rio de Janeiro Olympics with

:10:19. > :10:28.the British team. My guess hs that they will say that the do do

:10:29. > :10:33.testing, surprise testing, but they also warn at times because ht is

:10:34. > :10:39.cost-effective to say don't there don't here because we are going to

:10:40. > :10:46.warn you in advance. Advancd notice on twitter? The world of advanced

:10:47. > :10:53.testing but it does seem to me a pointless thing to do, to ghve

:10:54. > :11:02.advance notice. Where are they trying to warn any specific athlete,

:11:03. > :11:08.do you think? I don't know. I think that is probably a question that

:11:09. > :11:14.UKAD knows the answer. You `re here, we will have skewed. It is ` matter

:11:15. > :11:23.of evidence and I cannot colment on your question without knowing the

:11:24. > :11:30.inner workings of UKAD. Isn't it interesting the sport should rely so

:11:31. > :11:34.heavily on journalists and people in journalism. Without you and people

:11:35. > :11:37.like you giving evidence in the committee it is likely the

:11:38. > :11:46.widespread use of drugs would go undiscovered? I think that has been

:11:47. > :11:51.the case. Neither the sort of vested interest. If you are the IA@F

:11:52. > :11:54.running your World Championships you do not want people to think your

:11:55. > :12:02.sport is riddled with drugs and therefore the drugs problem for many

:12:03. > :12:10.members is not the biggest hssue. It to our friend and colleague with the

:12:11. > :12:15.German documentary team to reveal the extent of the Russian doping wet

:12:16. > :12:22.had to be known or by a number of years. If you asked any athlete they

:12:23. > :12:30.would have had great suspichons Sebastian Coe did not know `nything

:12:31. > :12:34.about it at all. Now Russia will decide later this week if Rtssia

:12:35. > :12:43.will be like to compete in the Olympics. There is an element that

:12:44. > :12:46.our criticism of UKAD is th`t they did not investigate this particular

:12:47. > :12:52.case properly. If you look `t the three interviews with Dan, they

:12:53. > :12:57.wander all over the place. The do not drill down on what clearly could

:12:58. > :13:05.be proved. You have two question their investigation. In the

:13:06. > :13:10.statement they say the medi` is invaluable in the fight agahnst

:13:11. > :13:14.doping. Do you think they mdan that? Do the like you? Are they glad you

:13:15. > :13:21.are doing what you are doing? Are you greeted warmly when you meet

:13:22. > :13:25.them? I do not know. We are. I have been trying to build bridges with

:13:26. > :13:30.them again after we were so critical of them because we could sed we

:13:31. > :13:35.would pick up some informathon that they will not have and we would like

:13:36. > :13:42.to be able to pass it on to them so they can investigate it properly.

:13:43. > :13:53.Thank you. Mr Chairman? Thank you very much indeed. We need to keep

:13:54. > :13:59.moving. If I ask Mr Stevens about the recent history of cycling from

:14:00. > :14:02.the Lance Armstrong scandal and people getting sacked from TK

:14:03. > :14:07.cycling from doing with drugs five or ten years previously, I have an

:14:08. > :14:15.entirely different victor from the one you are painting of a sport

:14:16. > :14:20.riddled with doping. How is that? That is the question I think we have

:14:21. > :14:25.been trying to ask as well. I think it is public opinion and max be what

:14:26. > :14:29.is going on behind closed doors may be conflicted. My view is vdry much

:14:30. > :14:33.there is a fairly obvious problem that needs to be dealt with. I gave

:14:34. > :14:41.them the information to allow them to deal with it and it was not dealt

:14:42. > :14:48.with. What level do you cycle at? High-quality amateur?

:14:49. > :14:57.A good amateur level. I was doing it for nine hours riding a week. There

:14:58. > :15:05.is a lot of people competing at very high level who are maybe only doing

:15:06. > :15:10.ten hours training a week. Is it possible the effort is made at

:15:11. > :15:16.elite level simply have not filtered down to the serious, high-ldvel

:15:17. > :15:23.amateur competition? I do not know, it is a hard question

:15:24. > :15:29.to answer. The information the cycling commission, who did me

:15:30. > :15:37.deduction, and the informathon they give to you guys is very sililar

:15:38. > :15:41.information. I have no idea what they have done off the back of the

:15:42. > :15:44.investigation and how that has been used.

:15:45. > :15:50.You were both clear in your evidence that UKAD's lacked the will

:15:51. > :15:58.investigate. I am thinking `loud investigate. I am thinking `loud

:15:59. > :16:04.is because they lack resources and Calvin, that UKAD's lacking of

:16:05. > :16:10.is because they lack resources and want to focus on a lead is where

:16:11. > :16:14.most of the spotlight is? They simply do not have the resotrces to

:16:15. > :16:19.deal with it at your level? The main concern for me arotnd cost

:16:20. > :16:24.is the amount of money spent in litigation, claiming the information

:16:25. > :16:29.I provider had been followed up and was of no use to them and if it was

:16:30. > :16:33.of use they would have done more on it. The simple point is it clear

:16:34. > :16:38.which should have been of use and the money they spent on mithgating

:16:39. > :16:46.my appeal could have very e`sily been redirected in terms of more

:16:47. > :16:51.testing and trying to catch the doctor, for example. That is my

:16:52. > :16:56.concern, the money is there, was being used in litigation whdn it

:16:57. > :17:01.could have been used on a thorough investigation. I have no idda what

:17:02. > :17:08.the time spent on the investigation was but it certainly was a lot lower

:17:09. > :17:15.than the amount of money thdy would have paid for the law firm hn use.

:17:16. > :17:21.Is the focus of UKAD perhaps on elite sport and not on the lower

:17:22. > :17:25.levels? I would imagine so but generally they probably are under

:17:26. > :17:29.resourced and I do not think they put enough into the intelligence

:17:30. > :17:38.departments and what they tdnd to do, as far as I can see, thdy hire

:17:39. > :17:41.ex-policeman who talk about national intelligence models, I don't know

:17:42. > :17:47.what they are but they are some sort of system they used for assdssing

:17:48. > :17:54.the powers. If, say with thhs the powers. If, say with thhs

:17:55. > :17:59.particular case, what do yot need to do? You need to seize the doctor's

:18:00. > :18:06.computers and see his medic`l notes. They do not have this power, they

:18:07. > :18:10.have ex-policeman who grew tp in the investigatory environment btt are

:18:11. > :18:15.robbed of all the powers. That is by one of the proposals we are behind

:18:16. > :18:18.is to criminalise doping because we think that would give a proper

:18:19. > :18:24.investigative authority he powers to go after each sheets as well as of

:18:25. > :18:30.course, acting as a deterrent to course, acting as a deterrent to

:18:31. > :18:36.athletes. -- go after the cheats. At the moment you get suspended for two

:18:37. > :18:45.- four years, which is nothhng. If you get suspended for two ydars you

:18:46. > :18:49.could be... You have your two-year suspension and be at the Olxmpics in

:18:50. > :18:56.three years' time because it is just a tiny sanction. Quite a lot of the

:18:57. > :19:01.bodies and Britain have been very against extending those bands. They

:19:02. > :19:07.argue they are legally complicated but other sports do not find that

:19:08. > :19:16.sort. As you know, Dunlop wdlcome fever and fever banned many of their

:19:17. > :19:20.people for life and it is cdrtainly possible just that you can be banned

:19:21. > :19:29.from being a lawyer or doctor, you can ban athletes for life. ,- for

:19:30. > :19:36.ceasefire. We feel criminalhsation should be brought in which hs true

:19:37. > :19:43.Russians are about to do it and Russians are about to do it and

:19:44. > :19:48.given there is this arms race between scientists and the `thletes

:19:49. > :19:52.and the athletes are winning, Italy's radical measures such as

:19:53. > :19:57.this. -- it needs. Doctor Stevens, you

:19:58. > :20:00.found Dr Bonar on Google. Mr Calvin, found Dr Bonar on Google. Mr

:20:01. > :20:09.you focus your investigations on you focus your investigations on

:20:10. > :20:12.this one physician. Is therd any evidence of other doctors doing the

:20:13. > :20:22.same thing? There is a number. Have you found

:20:23. > :20:29.any? There is a number of stch adopters in the UK are advertising

:20:30. > :20:36.the fact they will prescribd human. Growth hormone. -- such a doctors.

:20:37. > :20:41.-- prescribe human growth hormone. That would be your first port of

:20:42. > :20:47.call. The other thing is, if you look at any body-building forum you

:20:48. > :20:52.can find plenty of informathon on doping and athletes openly sharing

:20:53. > :20:58.tips on how to make products work are stacked one agent with `nother

:20:59. > :21:06.to get a bigger effect and how to cycle products. It is all over the

:21:07. > :21:14.internet. It is an endemic ,- it is an endemic problem. We went to

:21:15. > :21:17.another doctor under cover but, for whatever reason, he was not willing

:21:18. > :21:26.to prescribe performance enhancing drugs. Just a final point, Lr

:21:27. > :21:33.Stevens, obviously you are ` different experience, can you

:21:34. > :21:38.briefly, first of all, that they protect your anonymity?

:21:39. > :21:40.Yes. So how did your anonymhty get broken?

:21:41. > :21:51.They asked if I would agree for my name to be listed. Could yot briefly

:21:52. > :21:59.compare what the experience you have what they'll was from that of the

:22:00. > :22:05.UKAD. -- your experience with second back compared to UKAD.

:22:06. > :22:08.They generally seem to be more concerned about the bigger picture

:22:09. > :22:12.and the causation behind it and where that starts as well and what

:22:13. > :22:21.level that starts at and whdther it is limited to all levels or certain

:22:22. > :22:25.levels. More hands-on, engaged, mord

:22:26. > :22:31.professional? If you read the report there is a chapter on doping on

:22:32. > :22:35.various levels, certainly in age-group competition as well. It

:22:36. > :22:40.comes down to resources and how money is distributed, howevdr

:22:41. > :22:47.sourced and how it is policdd as well. How that money is being used

:22:48. > :22:54.within an organisation. Out of all the sports and all bodies m`naging

:22:55. > :22:59.sports, the UCI should be applauded more than any because cycling has

:23:00. > :23:04.always come under criticism for doping. From the Armstrong of fear

:23:05. > :23:13.and others it is evident thdre was a logical doping problem -- Armstrong

:23:14. > :23:18.affair. -- long-term doping problem. The UCI have been open that there is

:23:19. > :23:24.a problem that must be dealt with and other sports should fall back.

:23:25. > :23:30.While this has gone on with cycling it has been a problem in athletes...

:23:31. > :23:33.Athletics as well but UCI h`s been more open than most with de`ling

:23:34. > :23:41.with it. They have done a vdry good job.

:23:42. > :23:45.They have done, taking the hssue more seriously, although, from what

:23:46. > :23:47.you previously said, you sthll regard doping with these two

:23:48. > :23:54.cycling? Endemic in sport. Football, cycling? Endemic in sport. Football,

:23:55. > :24:05.boxing, athletics. Cycling hs just another sport. It is clear the UCI

:24:06. > :24:14.are doing everything they c`n to deter and detect doping in sport.

:24:15. > :24:18.They need the support of people very thorough job in the UK doctor

:24:19. > :24:22.prescribing EPO could be de`ling with cyclists, marathon runners

:24:23. > :24:27.dealing with footballers, ddaling with boxers. The list is endless.

:24:28. > :24:32.Thank you very much indeed, both of you. I'm sorry we have overrun.

:24:33. > :25:11.Thank you. Thank you for coming in agahn. You

:25:12. > :25:17.would have heard the whole of the previous session. Is there `nything

:25:18. > :25:20.in particular you would likd to comment upon briefly before we kick

:25:21. > :25:31.off? There is a lot but let me sde one

:25:32. > :25:38.thing first. You asked about waving anonymity for Mr Stevens. Ldt me

:25:39. > :25:43.say, UK Anti-Doping never rdveal the identity of the informant in this

:25:44. > :25:48.case. It would be suicide for an organisation that relies on

:25:49. > :25:52.intelligence to do so and no one would then give us intelligdnt and

:25:53. > :25:57.we with no assistance from law enforcement or anywhere elsd. I want

:25:58. > :25:58.to make that clear because professionally I find it

:25:59. > :26:04.to acknowledge publicly and to acknowledge publicly and

:26:05. > :26:08.informant by name. If I do start talking about a source or informant

:26:09. > :26:12.it could have it but I will try and do my best.

:26:13. > :26:16.There is no suggestion from this committee that UK Anti-Doping leaked

:26:17. > :26:25.the identity of Mr Stevens `nd he has said the opposite.

:26:26. > :26:34.You started to hear about Dr Bonar bobbling interviews with Mr Stevens

:26:35. > :26:38.in April and May 20 14. In October you got prescriptions from Dr Bonar

:26:39. > :26:41.from Mr Stevens that referrdd the human growth and other performance

:26:42. > :26:48.enhancing drugs. What did you then do? Can I take you

:26:49. > :26:55.through from the beginning? Mr Stevens did try to seek a rdduction

:26:56. > :27:01.in his ban for giving us information and he was encouraged to do so.

:27:02. > :27:06.There were four interviews, to order the same day, a considerabld period

:27:07. > :27:14.of time of 15 hours of interviews overall. During that time wd were

:27:15. > :27:15.given a huge number of names, suspicions about people dophng and

:27:16. > :27:23.people supplying. That information people supplying. That information

:27:24. > :27:28.was actually then dealt with under our intelligence system to lake sure

:27:29. > :27:32.it was action in relation to sportspeople. There were a lot of

:27:33. > :27:36.names that came out that were not actually sportspeople, or whom we

:27:37. > :27:44.have no jurisdiction. One of the names was Dr Bonar. Mr Stevdns. . He

:27:45. > :27:49.was the central figure in this discussion. You have these reports

:27:50. > :27:56.about him hearing he was prdscribing to all these people. He is not just

:27:57. > :28:01.one name. I'm sorry, we were told Dr Bonar

:28:02. > :28:02.described Mr Stevens and ond unnamed boxer. That was the information we

:28:03. > :28:09.had about Dr Bonar. Lot he had been had about Dr Bonar. Lot he had been

:28:10. > :28:17.prescribing to these other people. -- not that he had been prescribing.

:28:18. > :28:23.Just to be clear, none of the evidence Mr Stevens, the information

:28:24. > :28:27.Mr Stevens gave to the Sund`y Times about other people with whol Dr

:28:28. > :28:34.Bonar had been working, nond of that was given to you at UKAD.

:28:35. > :28:38.Sorry, that was later on. I will come back to that. We have one

:28:39. > :28:41.went to the doctor for a legitimate went to the doctor for a legitimate

:28:42. > :28:51.reason and prescribe drugs for a legitimate reason. Whatever the

:28:52. > :28:55.suspicions about Dr Bonar stpplying, it was thought and correctlx thought

:28:56. > :29:00.that he was not a sport doctor and therefore did not come withhn our

:29:01. > :29:05.remit. That was a mistake m`de. He should have been reported to the

:29:06. > :29:09.General medical Council, he was not. He has been now but it was ` bit

:29:10. > :29:15.late in the day. However, hd was not ignored. It is important is what you

:29:16. > :29:18.understand with what we did with all the other information we were given,

:29:19. > :29:22.which was to get every single name and follow up every single name

:29:23. > :29:27.given to us in terms of intelligence, if they were tested,

:29:28. > :29:36.what further information we can find out. To see if they were actually on

:29:37. > :29:44.drugs. Later on, towards October, when the Sunday Times ran the

:29:45. > :29:47.article, that is when we le`rned Dr Bonar was seeing he was givhng drugs

:29:48. > :29:52.to a load of other sportsmen. That was the first we knew about it. We

:29:53. > :29:56.then asked the Sunday Times if they would give us the names bec`use if

:29:57. > :30:01.you heard, the allegation w`s he prescribed all over the place. After

:30:02. > :30:06.about three weeks we were ghven for names. Those four games, ond was not

:30:07. > :30:09.somebody or whom we have anx jurisdiction and we dealt, what the

:30:10. > :30:21.other three names. -- for n`mes We did not know about these other

:30:22. > :30:27.four names because that was an interview that was done for the

:30:28. > :30:34.Sunday Times article. So, you heard about Dr Bonar's other activities

:30:35. > :30:39.but you had not in fact unddrtaken any prior investigation before you

:30:40. > :30:44.heard about those other acthvities? We certainly haven't questioned Dr

:30:45. > :30:51.Bonar because all the assumption was made that he was not a doctor over

:30:52. > :30:54.whom we had any control. It was actually a correct assumption but I

:30:55. > :30:59.would have liked someone to have gone round and spoken to hil. I

:31:00. > :31:02.would have liked to have botght some other intelligence or inforlation

:31:03. > :31:08.other than the fact he has treated somebody for a legitimate rdason, to

:31:09. > :31:13.try and get more information to see somebody otherwise his convdrsation

:31:14. > :31:20.was did you treat someone for low testosterone as he has said. Regards

:31:21. > :31:23.the conversation go then? H`ve you treated the boxer? If he dods not

:31:24. > :31:27.actually come up and give us the name of the box and then we have now

:31:28. > :31:33.read. I think we should havd dealt with it better than we did. I want

:31:34. > :31:36.to be clear. So you did not do any investigation in the beginnhng and

:31:37. > :31:40.then after you had the information revealed in the Sunday Times you did

:31:41. > :31:47.not do any investigation at that point, is that right? Yes, we did.

:31:48. > :31:53.We had three names of the athletes over whom we had to restriction We

:31:54. > :31:58.are still waiting to see Dr Bonar. He is refusing to see us through his

:31:59. > :32:04.lawyer because he says he c`nnot discuss this case because hd's has

:32:05. > :32:10.not got the permission of Mr Stevens to discuss this case. This hs

:32:11. > :32:20.October 2013 you get this information? Now, the Sundax Times

:32:21. > :32:23.article came out later this year. You have got the prescriptions from

:32:24. > :32:29.Dr Bonar so you know at that point he has been prescribing performance

:32:30. > :32:35.enhancing drugs to Mr Stevens, you have got a smoking gun? You heard

:32:36. > :32:40.him say you can go into any chemist and get them on prescription. We

:32:41. > :32:44.have prescriptions for this. He is telling you he has had a

:32:45. > :32:49.conversation with Dr Bonar that Dr Bonar ascribe these things knowing

:32:50. > :32:56.they are form and enhancing drugs. He is a weed of that and is turning

:32:57. > :33:03.states evidence? We asked an independent doctor if these could be

:33:04. > :33:07.genuine prescriptions and could be prescribed, or the drugs prdscribed,

:33:08. > :33:14.for the complaint that was being treated. The answer was, yes. You

:33:15. > :33:19.are ignoring the context of the information you have been ghven

:33:20. > :33:22.which is this guy is fraudulently prescribing performance enh`ncing

:33:23. > :33:27.drugs to someone who has given you that specific use of intellhgence.

:33:28. > :33:38.That should have gone to thd General medical Council. We don't h`ve any

:33:39. > :33:46.control over or reason to or ability to investigate Doctor Bonner. You

:33:47. > :33:52.have a legal requirement to stop him from shipping all sorts of national

:33:53. > :33:57.-- nasty substances into yotr athletes. I would have prefdrred

:33:58. > :34:03.someone to go and question him. They should have done but they should

:34:04. > :34:08.have reported him to the GMC straightaway. We are asking why you

:34:09. > :34:14.did nothing with regards to this smoking gun on Dr Bonar. I `m still

:34:15. > :34:18.trying to work out how you can have done nothing under those

:34:19. > :34:21.circumstances. You are holdhng your hand up say that was wrong, you

:34:22. > :34:28.should have had a conversathon with him. We did actually look to try and

:34:29. > :34:32.find out who the boxer was but we don't know who this boxer is so we

:34:33. > :34:39.are left with is still one doctor prescribing drugs for an athlete who

:34:40. > :34:42.has gone to him for treatment. You are hiding behind a legal fhction

:34:43. > :34:49.which is that these prescriptions are the same as any description a

:34:50. > :34:53.person with a medical need could have had. Whereas in fact you know

:34:54. > :34:56.because you have been told they were prescribed to Mr Stevens because he

:34:57. > :35:07.had gone ultimately seeking and being given performance enh`ncing

:35:08. > :35:14.drugs. He had gone to seek treatment for low testosterone. We have heard

:35:15. > :35:21.he testified to you he was pushed into or accepted and encour`ged

:35:22. > :35:23.himself into using EPO then gives you prescriptions for furthdr

:35:24. > :35:28.performance enhancing drugs. To pretend those are somehow the same

:35:29. > :35:33.as other prescriptions that could be given to someone in good fahth

:35:34. > :35:39.completely ignores the contdxt and hides behind a legal fiction, is it

:35:40. > :35:43.not? If we go and questioned Dr Bonar and have no power to do

:35:44. > :35:49.anything to him other than report him to the GMC... It is a criminal

:35:50. > :35:56.offence. It could be a crimhnal offence. You should be reporting a

:35:57. > :35:59.to the police. You didn't do anything about it, you did not tell

:36:00. > :36:07.the GMC and you did not tell the police? That is what we are hearing.

:36:08. > :36:10.If we thought it was a crimhnal offence we could have reported it to

:36:11. > :36:19.the police but I am not surd we thought it was. It is a shocking

:36:20. > :36:22.performance. You have deciddd for whatever reasons, however spurious,

:36:23. > :36:29.that you can do nothing mord. Why did you not then hand over to the

:36:30. > :36:35.GMC? It was a note on the fhle it should have gone to the GMC but for

:36:36. > :36:43.some reason it did not go. Do people walk in with prescriptions from

:36:44. > :36:48.performance enhancing drug pushing doctors to UKAD? How often does that

:36:49. > :36:55.happen in a year? How often does someone like that come into your

:36:56. > :37:00.offices? I do not know. How is it possible something could be in the

:37:01. > :37:09.file ignored in something as central as this? In 2014 we were de`ling not

:37:10. > :37:13.with just this case but 364 other cases which relied on intelligence

:37:14. > :37:27.and required action. This w`s one case. Out of those 364, pectliar in

:37:28. > :37:30.that year there were no tests. This was an extraordinary busy ydar. It

:37:31. > :37:35.does not excuse from not picking up on an action that was in thd file

:37:36. > :37:40.but it gives some background meaning to the fact that for whatevdr reason

:37:41. > :37:48.it was a mistake. This was `n organisational mistake that was not

:37:49. > :37:51.pick-up. You have heard Mr Stevens describing a further situathon in

:37:52. > :37:59.which he gave your people intelligence about potential drug

:38:00. > :38:06.violations at an amateur evdnt. They then treated or put on Facebook

:38:07. > :38:11.Twitter, that they would be attending that event, thus laking it

:38:12. > :38:17.perfectly clear to any potential doping athletes that they mhght be

:38:18. > :38:25.caught. What is your response to that? That is absolutely trte. The

:38:26. > :38:28.reason we do that is me put out the tweet after the lists have closed

:38:29. > :38:33.for that event and we see who does not turn up because that is giving

:38:34. > :38:40.as good intelligence as to who might be doping. Rabobank go in and do

:38:41. > :38:47.lined tests because they ard expensive. The actually havd some

:38:48. > :38:52.use but actually I'd far rather be catching the people who are actually

:38:53. > :38:58.doping. What we do is wait tntil the list closes. The tweet goes out that

:38:59. > :39:04.dopers are likely to be there and then we look and see who actually

:39:05. > :39:09.dropped out. So someone who stubbed the towed the night before `nd does

:39:10. > :39:15.not turn up is different from a dope who does not turn up becausd they

:39:16. > :39:22.might get caught? It is used widely throughout anti-doping as a way of

:39:23. > :39:25.trying to wheedle out... Thhs is intelligence led. You have been

:39:26. > :39:31.given specific intelligence, specific individuals, this was going

:39:32. > :39:41.to be featuring some doping at this event and you went through `

:39:42. > :39:48.feature. You would suspect someone who might have potentially dubbed

:39:49. > :39:52.the taut than find out a crhme. They were test plans put out and the

:39:53. > :39:57.people who were named where tested at other events. You had thd

:39:58. > :40:01.intelligence that that event people were going to be doping and they

:40:02. > :40:05.were probably not expecting it because we know the there's not much

:40:06. > :40:10.testing in amateur competithon and you did not take advantage of that

:40:11. > :40:15.information. You give the ilpression of not being interested in catching.

:40:16. > :40:22.I am not sure the event we gave out on twitter is one we thought it

:40:23. > :40:27.would be dopers that. I do not know which one he is talking abott. One

:40:28. > :40:33.side does not know what the other side is doing? It is a way of

:40:34. > :40:36.finding out who does not turn up. Generally speaking maybe so but not

:40:37. > :40:43.when you have had specific information. I detect frustration in

:40:44. > :40:47.the voice of the chairman and it mirrors mine. I am almost speechless

:40:48. > :40:52.when I ask this question. You tweet when you say you are going to drug

:40:53. > :40:57.test and you see that as a positive thing. When you were a leasd office

:40:58. > :41:04.and were going to do a police raid would you tell them for you went as

:41:05. > :41:07.well? You send a tweet, Luk`ku drops out and then look at them. How do

:41:08. > :41:14.you look at them, how do yot pursue them, do you assume the rold LP of

:41:15. > :41:18.drugs or do you assume they stubbed the talk. If someone gets ott the

:41:19. > :41:25.system you cannot catch thel. I just cannot leave you treated yot were

:41:26. > :41:28.going to go. It seems for all your evidence, fine, if you have only

:41:29. > :41:32.been doing it for ten minutds you are looking to shift the

:41:33. > :41:35.responsibility away to someone else. I asked the question do you want to

:41:36. > :41:42.catch these people or not bdcause it strikes me you do not. I do want to

:41:43. > :41:45.catch these people. We are successful at catching thesd people.

:41:46. > :41:52.If you want to weed out the people who are doping as opposed to

:41:53. > :41:58.spending upwards of ?500 per time on just random tests, that is how much

:41:59. > :42:06.test costs. The average cost of the test is around ?500. How is that

:42:07. > :42:11.broken down? The cost of an`lysis, election, transporting the samples.

:42:12. > :42:18.If you did several tests th`t one event that 500 would fall? Xou could

:42:19. > :42:25.transport them all together? But it still has costs. If you drive off to

:42:26. > :42:33.Edinburgh to conduct one test it cost you ?500 at if you conduct 20

:42:34. > :42:37.tests they do not all cost ?500 We want to find out exactly who the

:42:38. > :42:40.people are who are likely to be doping. If you are going to be

:42:41. > :42:46.intelligence led they are ntmerous ways you can get intelligence. One

:42:47. > :42:51.is to watch people's behaviour. You are right drugs go out of the system

:42:52. > :42:54.very quickly which is widelx used things like the athlete biological

:42:55. > :42:58.passport. You do a longitudhnal study of an athlete like levels to

:42:59. > :43:03.find out whether they have `ctually been doping. That is the modern way

:43:04. > :43:08.of doing it because they can get rid of them so quickly. The new code

:43:09. > :43:14.allows us to go in in the mhddle of the night to do tests purelx and

:43:15. > :43:20.simply because the old window was too long. You have not answdred the

:43:21. > :43:24.question, you have avoided the question. By giving advance notice

:43:25. > :43:29.you allow them to get the drugs out of the system before you turn up. By

:43:30. > :43:33.giving advance notice we wanted to find out who was not going to turn

:43:34. > :43:40.up. We probably were not gohng to do testing on that day. We want to find

:43:41. > :43:43.out who is not going to turn up I have great concerns about that

:43:44. > :43:47.method of operation. Another thing which makes it more problem`tic as a

:43:48. > :43:52.general procedure is, as yot will know and as we have heard today from

:43:53. > :44:00.Mr Stevens, it can take less than 12 hours for EPO two cleared through

:44:01. > :44:03.someone's system. If you get eight to date notice it is not evdn clear

:44:04. > :44:08.you will be catching people because they have been titled O sing your

:44:09. > :44:13.sister may have cleared the drug in that period. I don't think xou

:44:14. > :44:17.understand. If we have tweeted we are going to be the we do not

:44:18. > :44:20.actually go, that is the thhng. We then look at the list of who drops

:44:21. > :44:27.out and we then followed thdm for the next competition. That hs what

:44:28. > :44:34.we do. So you would rather tweet you are going to be somewhere and not be

:44:35. > :44:37.the Das, that is very odd in itself, we live the credibility in xour

:44:38. > :44:40.organisation when it says it will be somewhere and is not. Even hf you do

:44:41. > :44:46.that you would rather do th`t and not turn up and turn up and catch

:44:47. > :44:49.someone using the intelligence provided by a whistle-blower who has

:44:50. > :44:52.given you prescription drugs showing the prescription of perform`nce

:44:53. > :45:13.enhancing substances? I know that was the event. H -- I do

:45:14. > :45:17.not know. Every time it you tweak there is no testing so I hope there

:45:18. > :45:26.would be a mix up of that now. There are a couple of issues here.

:45:27. > :45:32.One is the question of Mr Stevens, the case he set out as he h`s been

:45:33. > :45:36.tested, found guilty, as he comes up to you with the prescriptions that

:45:37. > :45:49.Dr Bonar gave him and there are going to think that should happen.

:45:50. > :45:57.They should reap be referred to the GMC and the response from UK

:45:58. > :46:03.Anti-Doping, if I am correct in what Dan Stevens told us, is you did not

:46:04. > :46:04.regard this as sufficient evidence, sufficient grounds to reducd

:46:05. > :46:13.limit of his ban? Yes. But when he limit of his ban? Yes. But when he

:46:14. > :46:19.went to the cycling reform commission the dead and the reduced

:46:20. > :46:24.it. How can you explain the different approaches.

:46:25. > :46:29.-- they did. We refer to Mr Stevens and they recommended his sentence to

:46:30. > :46:34.be reduced by three months, which we accepted. When he came to us with

:46:35. > :46:36.this information one of the challenges is the definition

:46:37. > :46:41.substantial assistance under the substantial assistance under the

:46:42. > :46:45.codes, he was quite right when he says what it says in the code but

:46:46. > :46:50.the definition says you must be prepared to give a written statement

:46:51. > :46:59.and appear as a witness before a tribunal. We did not get a written

:47:00. > :47:05.statement at the time and when you look at Mr Stevens' case, wd

:47:06. > :47:10.followed the code quite correctly and he was not given any reduction.

:47:11. > :47:18.However, if you look at somd of his other evidence, at interviews,

:47:19. > :47:27.people might say, it was a bit soft. This is one of the challengds of the

:47:28. > :47:30.code. -- it was a bit off. We are required to use intelligencd and

:47:31. > :47:34.investigations and in that investigations and in that

:47:35. > :47:38.investigation there is no recognition for people who get

:47:39. > :47:43.intelligence, rather than evidence. The code must change, quite

:47:44. > :47:49.radically. Some might say you're working from

:47:50. > :47:56.not just intelligence, but dvidence. Dan Stevens has been caught, he

:47:57. > :48:00.comes to UK Anti-Doping and said he used the and substance, herd is the

:48:01. > :48:07.man who prescribe it to me `nd here is the description. This is written,

:48:08. > :48:11.documentary evidence. Most people would see that as substantive

:48:12. > :48:19.assistance that is likely to lead to further action.

:48:20. > :48:22.There has to be some outcomd of the evidence and there was a tangential

:48:23. > :48:28.outcome by somebody who reftsed to give a test but that was thd one

:48:29. > :48:35.where I think you could argte either way, either substantial asshstance

:48:36. > :48:44.or not. I debate, no. It is a very grey area and must be sorted out.

:48:45. > :48:49.Would there not have been some outcomes if you'd done a better job

:48:50. > :48:53.following it up. For Dr Bonar I am not sure what

:48:54. > :48:57.would have came out. We don't follow everything else.

:48:58. > :49:04.Although you are full of ex-policemen and policewomen and the

:49:05. > :49:11.reference to GMC and the testing at the particular event, that does not

:49:12. > :49:24.sound like 043 so far. If you follow up you would have liked outcomes. --

:49:25. > :49:30.zero Bashley. -- zero 43. Whth the GMC we should have done mord. When

:49:31. > :49:39.you come back to the question, should he have had some recognition,

:49:40. > :49:42.I can argue either way but H think probably in retrospect he should

:49:43. > :49:50.have. How can the question of admhssion

:49:51. > :49:53.from hemp bear on your compdtence. If he gives you some perfectly

:49:54. > :49:59.signed, sealed delivered thhng and you are not competent, what would

:50:00. > :50:05.they be the result? There would not be outcome and he would not get the

:50:06. > :50:09.remission? That is not right. I have s`id we

:50:10. > :50:14.did not deal with Dr Bonar correctly and I cannot recover that.

:50:15. > :50:20.If you had that might have pualified him.

:50:21. > :50:29.On the evidence I have, not supposition, on the evidencd, I do

:50:30. > :50:35.not know there would have bden. There were also a couple of

:50:36. > :50:41.important points on this because do you feel that your interpretation of

:50:42. > :50:45.the codes in Dan Stevens' c`se was wrong or are you saying you had no

:50:46. > :50:50.alternative but to interpret it in the way it was interpreted?

:50:51. > :50:55.The code was interpreted correctly. I think, by the book, I think with a

:50:56. > :51:00.bit more latitude you could have said, actually he would havd got

:51:01. > :51:06.something off. Whether he would have got more than the three Monty did

:51:07. > :51:09.get is another question. Was that within the discretion of thd person

:51:10. > :51:15.who made the decision. -- the three months he did get.

:51:16. > :51:20.There is no discretion in the code. That has got to be some out, and the

:51:21. > :51:25.statement and the willingness to give evidence.

:51:26. > :51:33.You have written evidence, hf that has been presented... The statement

:51:34. > :51:37.There is evidence that could be There is evidence that could be

:51:38. > :51:43.acted upon, clearly you acknowledge the failure to act upon it hn this

:51:44. > :51:46.case. What I'm saying this could someone at UK Anti-Doping looking at

:51:47. > :51:54.this make a different decishon and the reduced Dan Stevensban?

:51:55. > :52:01.Yes, they could... The code could be written in such a

:52:02. > :52:03.way which may not be helpful but in this case UK Anti-Doping cotld have

:52:04. > :52:11.taken a different decision `nd the reduced his ban? Yes.

:52:12. > :52:17.If there are also a lesson here which is if the code is being

:52:18. > :52:23.interpreted in this way, whhch may be overly rigid and strict, it's me

:52:24. > :52:27.actually put people off doing what Dan Stevens beds and coming forward

:52:28. > :52:33.because if they work in a rdduction in their ban because they whll not

:52:34. > :52:38.feel there is any incentive? Absolutely. There is currently no

:52:39. > :52:41.incentive for someone to give us intelligence, as opposed to

:52:42. > :52:46.evidence, and it is a distinct difference. That proves to be useful

:52:47. > :52:52.then they can get a reduction. - if then they can get a reduction. - if

:52:53. > :52:55.that proves to be useful. There are lessons therefore UK

:52:56. > :53:01.Anti-Doping but also, you fdel, a broader message as well?

:53:02. > :53:07.When the discussions on the new code were taking place in 2013 this was a

:53:08. > :53:12.brave new world of intelligdnce and investigations and this sittation

:53:13. > :53:15.was not envisaged. Firstly, relating to Dan Stdvens

:53:16. > :53:26.case. , how many cases a ye`r are case. , how many cases a ye`r are

:53:27. > :53:31.reached at this advanced st`ge where someone has been investigatdd,

:53:32. > :53:35.tested, found guilty, bands and then come forward with evidence to try

:53:36. > :53:45.and reduce their ban? How often does that happen? In 2014, there were 364

:53:46. > :53:51.cases that started because there was some intelligence followed through

:53:52. > :53:55.on, floors there were 18 non-analytical is. They are tough

:53:56. > :54:06.cases to deal with because they require, not just a straightforward

:54:07. > :54:12.test, which is yes or no, and on top of that there were, I think I am

:54:13. > :54:18.right in saying, about 14 tdsts but I cannot be sure on that figure ,

:54:19. > :54:29.on positive tests. You are talking about, to go to a tribunal, probably

:54:30. > :54:34.about 30 cases in a year. That is a reasonable amount of work not such

:54:35. > :54:37.an enormous amount that Dan Stevens' case should have been neglected or

:54:38. > :54:44.important information he prdsented should not have been followdd up on.

:54:45. > :54:48.The action was there that w`s in the papers should have been followed up.

:54:49. > :54:56.I am not trying to hide behhnd that, it should have been done. And it was

:54:57. > :54:58.not. It was an organisation -- if you look at what happened the

:54:59. > :55:03.organisation failed to deal with that.

:55:04. > :55:08.As much as were shining a spotlight on UK Anti-Doping and better

:55:09. > :55:12.decisions and different acthons that could have been followed whhch you

:55:13. > :55:14.is still seen as being as one of the is still seen as being as one of

:55:15. > :55:18.most advanced anti-doping agencies most advanced anti-doping agencies

:55:19. > :55:20.in the world. That may be common consensus at this table it needs

:55:21. > :55:27.more resources, certainly more investigation. Looking at the

:55:28. > :55:33.challenge is in Russia and the work UK Anti-Doping is doing thehr, do

:55:34. > :55:36.you think it would be possible to put in place anti-doping regime in

:55:37. > :55:40.Russia people could become to the end, allowing them to compete in the

:55:41. > :55:45.track and field competitions at the Olympics?

:55:46. > :55:49.There are two different isstes there. Firstly, it would take a long

:55:50. > :55:53.time to re-establish the Russian anti-doping agency. We're trying to

:55:54. > :55:59.help as best we can but we're doing the testing in Russia of zero track

:56:00. > :56:10.and field events, athletes `nd that is proving to be a massive job. --

:56:11. > :56:15.testing Russian track and fheld athletes. It is a massive job

:56:16. > :56:18.because of the site of the country. It has been reported you must give

:56:19. > :56:22.advance notice when going to testing.

:56:23. > :56:26.They have closed military chties where you must give 30 days notice

:56:27. > :56:36.and that athletes are doping and that you do not have a hope. The

:56:37. > :56:40.Russian anti-doping agency hs in trouble. They have sacked or the

:56:41. > :56:50.dope control officers, re-engaged six, I think it is, just after a so

:56:51. > :56:55.it will take a long time to up. The decision on Rio is being taken at

:56:56. > :56:58.the end of this week so you cannot like the two and it will take a long

:56:59. > :57:04.time for Russia to get back to normality.

:57:05. > :57:09.Would it sent up the wrong lessage if Russia was allowed to colpete in

:57:10. > :57:18.out the wrong message? I cannot say out the wrong message? I cannot say

:57:19. > :57:20.what the message would be. H know my own personal view, I think ht would

:57:21. > :57:28.be wrong for me to express our view on Russia. If the message is, yes,

:57:29. > :57:28.you can compete, is that thd wrong message?

:57:29. > :57:35.Fewer than if you do and dalmed if Fewer than if you do and dalmed if

:57:36. > :57:39.you don't? Aspect you are. They either complete or they do not. If

:57:40. > :57:44.they are allowed to compete is that the log message.

:57:45. > :57:51.I'm sorry but I will not be drawn on that. -- the wrong message. I do not

:57:52. > :57:56.want our people to be exposdd because I expressed an opinhon that

:57:57. > :58:00.someone else does not agree with. Are you commercially conflicted

:58:01. > :58:04.No, I have people working in Russia on our behalf and I do not want to

:58:05. > :58:07.put them at risk. If you're honest view is thdy should

:58:08. > :58:14.not be allowed to compete is that you think UK Anti-Doping wotld be

:58:15. > :58:17.put on personal danger in Rtssia? Not UK Anti-Doping staff but other

:58:18. > :58:20.stuff out there. I do not think I want to get into a discussion on

:58:21. > :58:23.whether Roger should come b`ck end or not because it is somethhng we

:58:24. > :58:31.are not involved in. -- whether are not involved in. -- whether

:58:32. > :58:35.Russia should come back. Thdy are testing for practical, not ts. We

:58:36. > :58:41.are doing the other sports `nd at the periphery and I am not cited on

:58:42. > :58:44.how the independent review hs finding in terms of the track and

:58:45. > :58:51.field. It would be wrong for me to express an opinion.

:58:52. > :58:55.I think your silence speaks volumes. To be clear, you want to restrict

:58:56. > :58:59.your commentary to the facts of the situation rather than pass judgment

:59:00. > :59:04.about whether or not it would be a good idea?

:59:05. > :59:07.I do not like I am qualified. On the facts, have any of your staff or

:59:08. > :59:13.contractors or other staff `re related to this project suffered any

:59:14. > :59:18.threats? Not a lot staff but some doping

:59:19. > :59:27.control officers went to ond of those close to cities, the Russian

:59:28. > :59:33.anti-doping officer was told they would be arrested if they c`me back

:59:34. > :59:38.control officer was told he would be control officer was told he would be

:59:39. > :59:43.banished from the country. So there has been clear evidence of

:59:44. > :59:46.intimidation. Does that mean the Russian police and security are not

:59:47. > :59:51.giving those people the protection they need to?

:59:52. > :59:52.At that time they were not. I understand the Minister for sport

:59:53. > :00:06.has told them they must cooperate. That is encouraging. Just to be

:00:07. > :00:13.clear, you are talking about situations and context wherd you are

:00:14. > :00:23.not able to do your job in testing in that country? And there have been

:00:24. > :00:28.others as well? The main problem is finding Russian control offhcers who

:00:29. > :00:33.are Russian speakers. A desperate shortage of people in a verx large

:00:34. > :00:39.country? We are doing about 50% of the tests we would hope to be doing

:00:40. > :00:46.simply because we do not have the staff and doping controls. Xou

:00:47. > :00:51.really can't form a view because you are not covering the whole xear I

:00:52. > :00:57.can tell you there has been a huge number of positive tests from the

:00:58. > :01:02.tests we have done in meldonium but that has been an extraordin`ry issue

:01:03. > :01:08.this year whether it is or hs not banned. Your point of view hn this

:01:09. > :01:13.context whether it is or is not important is as a result of being

:01:14. > :01:23.able to recruit and the obstacles in your way you have struggled to get

:01:24. > :01:27.testing going? Yes. To pick up on the points of Mr Collins. You only

:01:28. > :01:35.had one investigator, is th`t still true? That is still correct. That is

:01:36. > :01:39.a pity, I thought we were clear from our view you needed more th`n that.

:01:40. > :01:47.Is that the cause of lack of funding? Yes it is. The country

:01:48. > :01:52.cannot increase the money. When we started the anti-doping project in

:01:53. > :02:01.2008 we forecast a budget of ?9 million. This year our brand is 5.3

:02:02. > :02:07.million. It had been reduced? It never got to ?9 million but we had

:02:08. > :02:10.?100,000 for each year over the next four years but we are being

:02:11. > :02:17.encouraged to earn more mondy so we will earn nearly ?2 million this

:02:18. > :02:21.year. We could always do with more and we certainly need more

:02:22. > :02:24.investigators. The court had been widened and therefore you rdmit has

:02:25. > :02:32.potentially been widened? Considerably, yes. So the ftnding is

:02:33. > :02:35.inadequate? The funding is inadequate and if we are gohng to

:02:36. > :02:41.increase our number of investigators or even education. You have heard

:02:42. > :02:45.today about the problems evdn lower down in sport and I don't think I

:02:46. > :02:52.can deny that that private gems they could be a problem, a seriots

:02:53. > :02:56.problem. We cannot get near that. You said there was no discrdtion as

:02:57. > :03:02.regards sentencing for Mr Stevens and your hands were tied by the

:03:03. > :03:10.code, is that right? If you look at the code it is quite strict. How is

:03:11. > :03:15.it possible the has been anx reduction at all? A way to the

:03:16. > :03:22.cycling review commission, they had different powers to recommend. You

:03:23. > :03:26.could have made a recommend`tion to the independent review commhssion to

:03:27. > :03:31.say he is entitled to more than just three months of production? I am not

:03:32. > :03:40.sure about the timing of thhs because we recommended ten to the

:03:41. > :03:48.IRC. You said that your staff did not refer this matter to thd GMC and

:03:49. > :03:53.that they did not follow up with Dr Bonar and that they did not think

:03:54. > :03:58.this would be a criminal offence of we now revision of a banned

:03:59. > :04:02.substance is a criminal offdnce and the is a very clear case of this

:04:03. > :04:09.potentially being one. Have the staff involved that UKAD bedn

:04:10. > :04:13.disciplined for those failures? Now, having looked at the independent

:04:14. > :04:17.review being done into this case it was the view this was not a

:04:18. > :04:21.disciplinary issue and it w`s the view of the border was not `

:04:22. > :04:32.disciplinary issue. It was performance and an organisation

:04:33. > :04:38.feeling. That failing. Interesting. How many other suspected doctors

:04:39. > :04:46.have you referred to the GMC? I really don't know. And Dan Stevens

:04:47. > :04:53.mentioned the Iraq other Dr Dope out there. You just have to trawl the

:04:54. > :04:58.Internet to find people prolising various things. You have to do that

:04:59. > :05:05.to try to identify those? How does that work? One of the things you

:05:06. > :05:09.start to do when you're tryhng to gather intelligence about anything

:05:10. > :05:18.is open source searching. You look at Google, twitter, all the open

:05:19. > :05:24.bits you can get to. To find out what people are doing. Interestingly

:05:25. > :05:27.if you look at the website of Dr Bonar here are some quite

:05:28. > :05:33.extraordinary things he says about himself in the which would give you

:05:34. > :05:42.reason to think, is he actu`lly genuine or just a sort of

:05:43. > :05:45.blackguard? You go to these websites. You try and trawl through

:05:46. > :05:53.what is genuine and therefore you can presume, or we can use xou. So,

:05:54. > :05:58.for example, one of the problems we have is that if we get a list from

:05:59. > :06:06.an undercover laboratory as we did recently. A list of customers, about

:06:07. > :06:09.300 customers. We have no w`y of knowing who are the sports people on

:06:10. > :06:13.the who would come under our jurisdiction. Apart from thd boards

:06:14. > :06:17.are going through the Internet and other open source is to try and find

:06:18. > :06:21.out who they are and then investigate them. It would be so

:06:22. > :06:30.much easier if we had access to the databases of the governing bodies.

:06:31. > :06:35.But we don't. You say you investigate them but at the same

:06:36. > :06:38.time you say you have not h`d a conversation with Dr Bonar. If they

:06:39. > :06:42.are making certain promises on the Internet do you have a convdrsation

:06:43. > :06:47.with them? Do you proactively reach out to them and say it seems like

:06:48. > :06:54.you are engaging in suspicious activity here, can you stop it? If

:06:55. > :06:59.you search for drugs in sport or doping on the Internet you `re going

:07:00. > :07:04.to get millions and millions of hits. Trying to trawl through that

:07:05. > :07:10.lot and get something meaningful is really quite time-consuming. We have

:07:11. > :07:13.one investigator. We have some other people do the research but frankly

:07:14. > :07:19.we just do not have the timd to do all that. We do rely on people like

:07:20. > :07:23.Mr Stevens. We rely on the press. The press after an car stick. They

:07:24. > :07:30.can do things we cannot do. You had the boot a young athlete in two Dr

:07:31. > :07:38.Bonar, we cannot do that. Wd rely on those sorts of people to give us

:07:39. > :07:41.evidence. It sounds like an you probably have sympathy from this

:07:42. > :07:48.committee in terms of the rdmit it looks like it CDs some CDs reviewed.

:07:49. > :07:52.If you look further down thd sport we are limited in the work we can do

:07:53. > :07:57.an amateur sport and that is where the danger is. People who w`nt to be

:07:58. > :08:01.elite athletes. They might just want a little bit of help in becoming an

:08:02. > :08:12.elite athlete. That is the danger area. Final question, very briefly.

:08:13. > :08:16.In order to get some idea of the scale you say occasionally xou tweet

:08:17. > :08:19.out testing will be conductdd and then athletes do not turn up to

:08:20. > :08:28.these events. What kind of ` scale of no shows do you get? Two or

:08:29. > :08:37.three. How many times up at a cycling event? 40 or 50. So

:08:38. > :08:41.single-digit percentage? Possibly and that makes it easier to follow

:08:42. > :08:46.them up. I'll give you an example. In South Africa if you use `go they

:08:47. > :08:50.had a schoolboy tournament hn not the. The anti-doping people put out

:08:51. > :08:53.a rumour that they were going to be there. Actually they were not

:08:54. > :09:00.allowed to go and test them but what they found was, come the match,

:09:01. > :09:08.almost the entire team had changed. Right, very revealing. Very

:09:09. > :09:17.interesting, thank you. A couple of points before we wind up. H`ve you

:09:18. > :09:25.received any posed in the p`st regarding Dr Bonar? No. We have

:09:26. > :09:33.given all the details to thd GMC but what they're doing with that I do

:09:34. > :09:42.not know. When was that? October. October of last year? Yes. That

:09:43. > :09:48.matter stands of them as bad as you are concerned? Yes. We are now going

:09:49. > :09:54.through lawyers and they will not let us interview him at the moment.

:09:55. > :10:02.Because there is some suspicion he may not have given his permhssion?

:10:03. > :10:08.Yes. I hope we have at least facilitated your investigathon.

:10:09. > :10:11.Good. Unless there are further pointed has been a very illtminating

:10:12. > :10:15.session. It would be helpful if you could write to us on the qudstion

:10:16. > :10:20.raised earlier as to how often you get a situation like Dan Stdvens

:10:21. > :10:24.with prescriptions and things like that. Also it would be helpful if

:10:25. > :10:27.you could explain to us in writing what your procedure is in these

:10:28. > :10:31.twitter type events and what actually happened in the ond he

:10:32. > :10:37.referred to so we get a precise understanding of that. Other than

:10:38. > :10:40.that, I am very grateful for you allowing yourself to come in late in

:10:41. > :10:45.this conversation. Thank yot very much indeed.