Live Doping in Sport Committee

:00:00. > :00:14.Good afternoon. Welcome to this further session in the select

:00:15. > :00:18.committee enquiry into doping in sport. Before we start the first

:00:19. > :00:24.evidence session I would like to run through a few housekeeping points.

:00:25. > :00:31.Firstly that the committee has sought guidance on the use of

:00:32. > :00:37.medicines from the medicines and health care products agency which is

:00:38. > :00:41.an executive agency sponsored by the Department for health. The committee

:00:42. > :00:44.will probably refer to some of the guidance we received during the

:00:45. > :00:50.course of the hearing and we have agreed that we will publish the note

:00:51. > :00:58.that we have been given by Gareth Newman, the head of policy at the

:00:59. > :01:02.body, so we will publish that and we have agreed to publish that now so

:01:03. > :01:05.we will make it available as soon as possible so there will be copies

:01:06. > :01:10.available for those who want to see the full guidance we have been given

:01:11. > :01:15.later on. As many people will know, we have hoped to receive all

:01:16. > :01:19.evidence today from Doctor Friedman. As we know, he had to decline the

:01:20. > :01:22.opportunity to go over this on the grounds of his ill-health and we do

:01:23. > :01:27.not feel the opportunity of giving evidence by remote video link has

:01:28. > :01:33.been possible so the committee will be following up with a series of

:01:34. > :01:37.written questions to Doctor Freeman following the evidence session today

:01:38. > :01:41.and we hope that in lieu of his ability to appear today that he will

:01:42. > :01:44.be able to answer questions in writing to us and the committee

:01:45. > :01:48.reserves the right to call Doctor Freeman or any other witnesses that

:01:49. > :01:50.are relevant to our investigation in the future, if we deem that

:01:51. > :02:03.necessary. Now to today's evidence session.

:02:04. > :02:13.Thank you to Mr Cope for joining us today. This is held as part of our

:02:14. > :02:19.doping in sport enquiry and particularly with regard to how

:02:20. > :02:24.regulations are policed in cycling. There is particular interest in the

:02:25. > :02:32.package that you delivered at Team Sky's request in June 20 11. I

:02:33. > :02:35.wonder if I could start off by asking questions about the sequence

:02:36. > :02:42.of events that led up to you making the journey to Team Sky on 12 June.

:02:43. > :02:46.We've received test dummy from other people and written evidence from

:02:47. > :02:52.British cycling including some of your travel documents and expense

:02:53. > :02:57.claims from that trip but it would help us to ask directly about that

:02:58. > :03:03.time. We appreciate it was some time ago but we would be grateful for any

:03:04. > :03:11.details you can give us. Firstly, the rate in question started on the

:03:12. > :03:17.5th of June 2011. Do you remember when you were first contacted by

:03:18. > :03:23.Team Sky to ask whether you'll be able to collect a package to bring

:03:24. > :03:30.out with you to join the team? I think, like you said earlier, this

:03:31. > :03:36.is a good five years ago now. Last week, I was on a training camp in

:03:37. > :03:40.Spain, I can't even remember if you ask me what I did last Tuesday. I am

:03:41. > :03:48.going to piece together what I can remember. I was asked to go out to

:03:49. > :03:53.help in a logistical role, and as I was going out there, could I bring

:03:54. > :04:00.this package? You don't remember the date? In my world, the cycling

:04:01. > :04:16.world, one race merges into another. Like I said, it's just... I've been

:04:17. > :04:21.looking at you guys thinking, it's a totally different world to what you

:04:22. > :04:31.working. Looking at the documents that British cycling gamers relating

:04:32. > :04:36.to those days, it looks like you made a special trip to Manchester to

:04:37. > :04:41.collect the package. That's incorrect. My base was in

:04:42. > :04:51.Manchester. I was in Manchester and asked to pick the baggage up and

:04:52. > :04:59.bring it out to the Dauphine. I had an apartment there. I was based in

:05:00. > :05:06.Manchester. The travel receipts we were given, you make a rail journey

:05:07. > :05:11.from Eastbourne to Manchester. I live in Ashford in Kent. Why would I

:05:12. > :05:18.go through Eastbourne? Anybody who knows their geography and train

:05:19. > :05:22.lines, you'd go through Stratford into Saint pancreas, Eastbourne.

:05:23. > :05:26.That was the route I used all the time. Also, I had a British cycling

:05:27. > :05:32.car so I would have driven backwards and forwards. That journey was to

:05:33. > :05:38.the hotel at Gatwick. There are two trips. There is one for a rail

:05:39. > :05:44.journey between Eastbourne and Gatwick Airport and there is also a

:05:45. > :05:47.rail journey on the 8th of June which was in relation to the

:05:48. > :05:56.Dauphine, a train journey from Eastbourne to Manchester. I've not

:05:57. > :06:00.seen that. I don't see why I would have gone from Eastbourne to

:06:01. > :06:05.Manchester but it is five years ago. Maybe I did go that route, you have

:06:06. > :06:09.the evidence. That's what it says in the nose. The question is whether

:06:10. > :06:14.you went from Manchester to Eastbourne to pick something up. I

:06:15. > :06:20.wouldn't have said so. But it is five years ago. I had a GB team car

:06:21. > :06:24.which we all got given as coaches and managers. So, I would have

:06:25. > :06:32.driven to Manchester but I would have been in Manchester anyway. What

:06:33. > :06:38.you're expenses claim shows is a railway journey from Eastbourne to

:06:39. > :06:41.Manchester on the 8th of June. Which you account for. You obviously

:06:42. > :06:44.return to Eastbourne afterwards because there is a claim for a rail

:06:45. > :06:50.journey between Eastbourne and Gatwick Airport. I don't know why. I

:06:51. > :06:57.don't live in Eastbourne. That is where the ticket was bought. It

:06:58. > :07:02.could well be. If you buy them online... I can't answer that. The

:07:03. > :07:09.answer to that question could be that you were asked to collect

:07:10. > :07:12.something from Manchester. Yes. You are saying that you don't remember

:07:13. > :07:16.going to Manchester on the 8th of June as Jamaat I would have said I

:07:17. > :07:22.was in Manchester, I collected the package and brought it back home.

:07:23. > :07:28.From my memory, this is what I remember. I collected a package, I

:07:29. > :07:34.went home, I went to London on Saturday night to watch a women's

:07:35. > :07:39.race. Went to Gatwick, stayed in a hotel got on a plane and flew to

:07:40. > :07:42.France. Your record shows that on the 8th of June, you made a rail

:07:43. > :07:47.journey to Manchester from Eastbourne, you come back, you make

:07:48. > :07:53.a rail journey on the 11th of June from Eastbourne to Gatwick Airport

:07:54. > :07:57.where you stay the night in a hotel and get the flight the following

:07:58. > :08:08.morning. Although, your hotel booking says you requested car

:08:09. > :08:16.parking. It's your expenses claim. It is what you've noted down. You've

:08:17. > :08:21.noted Dauphine as part of the claim. If memory serves me right, I didn't

:08:22. > :08:27.make a special trip to Manchester. There is car parking in their as

:08:28. > :08:33.well. That is for the 11th. There is a rail journey between Eastbourne

:08:34. > :08:36.and Manchester on the eighth. I know that I would not go through

:08:37. > :08:42.Eastbourne to go to Manchester from where I live. That is where the

:08:43. > :08:50.ticket was purchased. Do Southern rail have central base when you pay

:08:51. > :08:53.by credit card, online, but not may be. What is interesting is the

:08:54. > :09:02.journey itself. You were in Manchester on the 8th of June. You

:09:03. > :09:07.don't fly out to Geneva until the 12th of June, the day the race

:09:08. > :09:13.finishes. So, when you were asked to collect something, bring something

:09:14. > :09:17.out with you, did your travel plans change in anyway? Did you come out

:09:18. > :09:22.on the 12th of June, was that the day you were always asked to come

:09:23. > :09:27.out or did you change plans? I think, if memory serves me right, I

:09:28. > :09:32.was always asked to go out on the 12th. You didn't book your flight

:09:33. > :09:40.until the ninth after you'd been in Manchester. Any particular reason

:09:41. > :09:46.you made the booking that late? I didn't make the booking. It was made

:09:47. > :09:53.for me. Presumably you issued a request for it to be made? I was

:09:54. > :10:01.asked why buses -- by my bosses to come out, I had a job prior to this

:10:02. > :10:07.as women's Academy coach until the end of 2010. The Academy ceased to

:10:08. > :10:10.be because all the girls I coached moved onto proteins, they deemed

:10:11. > :10:17.there wasn't enough riders to take on to run an Academy in 2011, they

:10:18. > :10:22.made me women's road manager. That was a part-time role. Let's go back

:10:23. > :10:27.to the delivery of the package itself. Your view is you were in

:10:28. > :10:32.Manchester and you were asked to bring it out. Regardless of whether

:10:33. > :10:37.your expenses tally with that, that's your position. You don't

:10:38. > :10:45.remember exactly when you were asked to bring the package out? Who

:10:46. > :10:51.asked... How did the message get to you to bring the package out? I

:10:52. > :10:55.couldn't remember at the time but since reading stuff, it would have

:10:56. > :11:04.been Shane Sutton. Asked me to bring a package out. OK. How would he

:11:05. > :11:10.normally communicate? Text message, telephone? It could have been a

:11:11. > :11:18.phone call, I can't remember. Were you doing a lot of this? I was a gap

:11:19. > :11:22.filler. I didn't really have a role other than alleging the women's road

:11:23. > :11:28.team which was an administrator role. You run the World

:11:29. > :11:33.Championships, that was it. All of these ladies were in proteins. Their

:11:34. > :11:39.teams would provide them with a race programme. So, really, my job was to

:11:40. > :11:45.keep them up-to-date with the UCI rankings that would qualify you to

:11:46. > :11:52.ride for the Olympic Games. We wanted to finish in the first five

:11:53. > :11:56.of the UCI rankings to gain maximum riders for the Olympics. My job was

:11:57. > :12:02.to look at how many points we could score. That was it. It was a

:12:03. > :12:10.part-time role. We will come onto that with the women's team but was

:12:11. > :12:16.this a normal thing? To be asked to do stuff. I was a gap filler. Shane

:12:17. > :12:23.Sutton would often call you up and ask you to bring a package out? It

:12:24. > :12:28.could be a package, or take a bite to someone, do this, do that. If you

:12:29. > :12:33.are paying someone a salary, you want to get your pound of flesh.

:12:34. > :12:39.Nothing unusual for you in that? Not at all. There have been various

:12:40. > :12:47.descriptions of what the package was? It was left on a desk in an the

:12:48. > :12:54.British cycling office. It was a jiffy bag, around that size, a

:12:55. > :13:00.little post it note, saying for Simon, for Richard Freeman. And the

:13:01. > :13:09.package was sealed? The package was sealed. You said you were going out

:13:10. > :13:13.anyway. Shane Sutton said it was logistics. How long were you with

:13:14. > :13:20.the team that day? You couldn't have been with them very long. I came

:13:21. > :13:23.with them in the morning, got to the finish, help sought some stuff out

:13:24. > :13:28.and brought Shane back to the airport. Looking at your travel

:13:29. > :13:34.schedule, assuming it arrived on time, you would have been landing in

:13:35. > :13:43.Geneva at about 11 o'clock, get through the airport, collect a

:13:44. > :13:51.higher car, say that takes an hour, 12 o'clock, two-hour drive to the

:13:52. > :13:58.destination, so that's two o'clock. Then your return flight was at

:13:59. > :14:08.9:45pm. Work back, you would have got a couple of hours before then,

:14:09. > :14:13.you are only with the team for about three hours that day. I was asked to

:14:14. > :14:18.go out on a logistical role and that was it. My boss asked me to go and

:14:19. > :14:22.do something and I don't question my boss if I want to keep my job. What

:14:23. > :14:28.sort of logistical role do you undertake in three hours? That was

:14:29. > :14:34.for them to decide what they needed me to do. I needed to bring Shane

:14:35. > :14:40.back to the airport. Other than you driving Shane back to the airport,

:14:41. > :14:44.what did you do there? Delivered the package to the doctor. Help sought a

:14:45. > :14:47.few bikes. I was under the impression that I needed to bring

:14:48. > :14:54.some bikes back but that never happened. You were asked to come out

:14:55. > :14:58.for the team and before you knew that you would be asked to deliver a

:14:59. > :15:03.package, you say you were coming out anyway, your duties were to spend

:15:04. > :15:07.the day making a round trip where the only duties you were aware of

:15:08. > :15:13.were driving Shane Sutton to the airport and maybe bringing back some

:15:14. > :15:20.bikes? Was that normal? It is normal in our world. It seems an unusual

:15:21. > :15:26.use of resources to make someone make a journey that. People do

:15:27. > :15:30.unusual things like flying detergent out to a race because one rider is

:15:31. > :15:38.allergic to it. If you look at any sport, really. OK. When you arrived

:15:39. > :15:41.with the team on the 12th of June, at the end of the race, what did you

:15:42. > :15:51.do with the package, will who did you give it to? The doctor. Did

:15:52. > :15:56.anyone else see you do that? I can't remember that. There was people

:15:57. > :16:01.milling around whether they took any interest or not, I don't know. Did

:16:02. > :16:06.Doctor Freeman give you anything back to take away or dispose of?

:16:07. > :16:15.That was the last resort of the package? Yes.

:16:16. > :16:25.Did you ask what was in the package? I didn't. Why would I? I didn't

:16:26. > :16:30.think anything was towards. It is a national governing body and why

:16:31. > :16:34.would I question the integrity about our governing body, basically? It is

:16:35. > :16:37.not about questioning integrity, it is just when you are going through

:16:38. > :16:45.an airport with a package of quite like to know what is in the package.

:16:46. > :16:50.Guild no, I ask. Did you not asked because of fear for keeping your

:16:51. > :16:56.job? Not at all, I just didn't ask. You could think I was stupid.

:16:57. > :17:02.Absolutely not, I have your CV in front of us and you are a former

:17:03. > :17:06.professional cyclist and a national circuit race champion and you have

:17:07. > :17:10.been obviously on the Olympic programme and you have a substantial

:17:11. > :17:15.record is both a cyclist and also a coach as well, are you, in fact,

:17:16. > :17:21.though in this instance the most core overqualified a delivery boy in

:17:22. > :17:26.history? I could well become a Yaffa! As I said earlier, I had a

:17:27. > :17:30.role in 2010, that was a full-time role. I suddenly moved into a role

:17:31. > :17:37.that I could see 12 months down the line, that did happen, I was made

:17:38. > :17:41.redundant so I was doing everything possible to keep everyone happy and

:17:42. > :17:46.trying keep my job. I have family to keep so what would you do? When

:17:47. > :17:52.someone asks used to do something, your boss, you don't question it. I

:17:53. > :17:56.was struck that you said one race Rock moulds into another but this

:17:57. > :17:59.one was quite an exceptionally important race because it is the

:18:00. > :18:04.run-up to the Tour de France under one week long race and effectively

:18:05. > :18:09.all across the New Year that Mr Wiggins was trying to win the race

:18:10. > :18:12.and the build-up, was trailed in the press and of a thing like that, it

:18:13. > :18:17.is not just one race at Malton to another so when you are asked to

:18:18. > :18:26.take a package through an airport, a jiffy bag, did you not make some

:18:27. > :18:31.connection? There have been 101 Dauphines, to me it is just another

:18:32. > :18:36.bike race. To certain people and to his story it was a standout race but

:18:37. > :18:40.to me doing my job, no, it just moulds into another race. I am quite

:18:41. > :18:43.intrigued as to what you were expected to do when you were there.

:18:44. > :18:47.It seems like they went to the expense of sending you there and you

:18:48. > :18:51.were just going to hang around for a few hours and do this or that and I

:18:52. > :18:54.understand that a professional cycling team will have a lot of

:18:55. > :19:00.manpower and flexibility but at the same time you are a very highly

:19:01. > :19:06.qualified coach and someone with this particular background, is this

:19:07. > :19:11.just not very strange that you were asked to go there and hang around

:19:12. > :19:17.for a few hours and incidentally handing over a jiffy bag? At that

:19:18. > :19:21.period in the time, no, not really. As much as I was qualified didn't

:19:22. > :19:27.actually have a job. You saw others on the team doing something similar?

:19:28. > :19:32.They would be doing that, yes. Would they be taking other bags through? I

:19:33. > :19:38.would have thought so, in every cycling team in the world. What you

:19:39. > :19:42.think now looking back with the benefit of hindsight, should you

:19:43. > :19:46.have asked more questions? I should. I probably should have asked what

:19:47. > :19:54.was in the package but as I said at the time really I didn't think it

:19:55. > :20:00.was anything untoward. If you wanted to ask more questions now, does that

:20:01. > :20:03.mean you are suspicious? No, but because of the media asking why

:20:04. > :20:07.would you travel here or there and the other day I travelled down to

:20:08. > :20:11.Spain with 40 boxes in the car and I didn't open every box but I presumed

:20:12. > :20:20.they were helmets but I don't know. We do travel from a and B and C with

:20:21. > :20:28.a lot of stuff. A quick question on that. Thank you, Mr Cope, before I

:20:29. > :20:32.was a member of Parliament I was in the Royal Air Force and I'm

:20:33. > :20:35.interested in airport security. Obviously in 2011 there was a lot

:20:36. > :20:41.going on in the world and airport security was very heightened at the

:20:42. > :20:49.start of the Arab Spring. Can you remember, did you check any luggage

:20:50. > :20:56.into the hole that all? I did, yes. The jiffy bag was in the hold. You

:20:57. > :21:01.would have been asked when you are checking in did you pack the bag

:21:02. > :21:07.yourself and were you given any items to put on board. I cannot

:21:08. > :21:13.remember to be honest but I probably said yes. So you would have misled

:21:14. > :21:17.the check-in staff? Obviously you had a package, so you put the jiffy

:21:18. > :21:28.bag, what kind of bag you normally travelling when you check something.

:21:29. > :21:31.It was a normal hold tight bag. In a side pocket? No, just chucked it in

:21:32. > :21:36.with anything else, my wash bag and everything else. The only reason I

:21:37. > :21:42.check to hold bag in was that I had items that would be confiscated

:21:43. > :21:46.going through overhead. You seem to have good recollection. I have lost

:21:47. > :21:53.a lot of money doing that, with aftershaves and things like that so

:21:54. > :21:59.I know now to check the bag in. So that is your regular procedure. It

:22:00. > :22:03.is now, yes. When you have a package you put in your hold luggage. Well,

:22:04. > :22:08.I don't get given packages that often but at this point I did. So

:22:09. > :22:15.just to clarify you would have misled airport check-in staff if you

:22:16. > :22:20.asked whether you packed everything yourself? They would have done

:22:21. > :22:29.because of the state of security. Do they still asked that question? They

:22:30. > :22:34.stopped asking it. They do, yes. You just said you went to Spain last

:22:35. > :22:39.week with 40 boxes which you presumed had helmets in them. What

:22:40. > :22:42.did you presume was in this package? You must've had thought what the

:22:43. > :22:49.Senate. If it came from the doctor it was a busy something medical but

:22:50. > :22:54.anything untoward, no, because our national governing body. I have been

:22:55. > :23:03.a cyclist for 30 plus years and looked up to British cycling and we

:23:04. > :23:07.have done so well, and with the stance of zero tolerance towards

:23:08. > :23:12.performance enhancing drugs, I would have never thought that anything

:23:13. > :23:16.like that would be in a package, so I had no reason to believe it was

:23:17. > :23:24.anything untoward at all. Why Makar how long did you do the job for? Was

:23:25. > :23:31.about five years? Which job? The job you are doing at the time. Five or

:23:32. > :23:35.six years. Where you asked to take packages are any other time? I

:23:36. > :23:39.asked to take stuff, packages, asked to take stuff,

:23:40. > :23:46.clothing, helmets. I mean small clothing, helmets. I mean small

:23:47. > :23:50.jiffy bags. It could well be, yes, but I have no recollection. It is

:23:51. > :23:56.not untoward to take stuff from A to B. What about small packages that

:23:57. > :24:05.could contain all sorts? Semiregular occurrence? Semiregular. Did you

:24:06. > :24:11.ever ask what was in them? Did you take them abroad through customs?

:24:12. > :24:15.Could well be, yes. It depends how you were travelling, if I was in the

:24:16. > :24:20.boot of a cart -- if I was in a car would be in the boot but in an

:24:21. > :24:27.airport it would go in the hold luggage or maybe the hand luggage,

:24:28. > :24:35.it just depends really. You are making out I am -- I assume you take

:24:36. > :24:39.more than one package so each time was your normal method of operation

:24:40. > :24:42.to put them in the hold luggage other hand luggage? It would be

:24:43. > :24:54.either. What would make your mind up?

:24:55. > :24:59.Well... I would've thought you would always put it in the hold and every

:25:00. > :25:05.time you would be asked by customs, did you pack it yourself? And you

:25:06. > :25:10.would obviously say yes, even it was no. Tier I did packet, but in the

:25:11. > :25:16.bag. You are splitting hairs, you had a package that you did not know

:25:17. > :25:20.what was in it that you put it in the suitcase and you said yes when

:25:21. > :25:25.the answer was no. He said that happened several times. Once or

:25:26. > :25:31.twice, yes. Yes. Did you bring anything back? Did you bring any

:25:32. > :25:37.packages back, you came back on the same day? I didn't come back on the

:25:38. > :25:41.same day, no. I didn't bring any packages back. Did you booked the

:25:42. > :25:46.flight yourself, or was it booked for you? Booked for me. Did you pay

:25:47. > :25:52.for hold luggage or was it booked with the ticket? Your initial

:25:53. > :25:56.thought was that you were going out to give someone a lift back to the

:25:57. > :26:03.airport and bring some bags back and the return ticket, where these bikes

:26:04. > :26:12.booked on your return ticket? I do not remember what was put on the

:26:13. > :26:17.return ticket or not, I am not sure. Given new when staying overnight,

:26:18. > :26:21.why did you take your overnight bag with you? I stayed overnight after

:26:22. > :26:24.the London knock-down, which I explained earlier, so I had an

:26:25. > :26:30.overnight bag with a change of underwear and probably a change of

:26:31. > :26:51.clothing, so yes, that's why had an overnight. It is unclear whether you

:26:52. > :26:57.left your car at the hotel? Some people might have left the bag in

:26:58. > :27:01.and back for the sake of it and and back for the sake of it and

:27:02. > :27:08.checking it through airport security and that adds delay and it is odd

:27:09. > :27:09.As you said with my expenses, I As you said with

:27:10. > :27:13.can't remember if it was a train or can't remember if it was a train or

:27:14. > :27:15.back into holes -- would not check a back into holes -- would not check a

:27:16. > :27:16.bag into a hole that they did not bag into a hole that they did not

:27:17. > :27:17.Where you asked by British cycling made just to bring it back

:27:18. > :27:23.to make sure the package was checked to make sure the package was checked

:27:24. > :27:28.into the holder not carried by hand? I wasn't asked by anybody what to do

:27:29. > :27:39.with it. Can you give us an idea of how big it was? About a shoe box,

:27:40. > :27:43.about... I don't know what was in it, papers or something. You guys I

:27:44. > :27:49.say it is fluid so I don't know. That is what the doctor said it was.

:27:50. > :27:56.I don't even know how big Bloomer sillies.

:27:57. > :28:01.Just a quick question, you spoke about your reference for British

:28:02. > :28:09.in their managers and that you would in their managers and that you would

:28:10. > :28:13.not questioned them but you said earlier that they tend to wear two

:28:14. > :28:19.hats with Team Sky. Do you have the same reverence for Team Sky? Yes.

:28:20. > :28:27.There is a zero tolerance across the board. The fact that British cycling

:28:28. > :28:32.is running the game has been running for some time gives them a sense of

:28:33. > :28:37.credibility and so on. Team Sky and you are trying to establish

:28:38. > :28:41.themselves and they start off with a poorly attaining season before they

:28:42. > :28:45.start to do well and you have no reason therefore to trust the

:28:46. > :28:49.integrity of Team Sky? It is the same people, I think the reason they

:28:50. > :28:52.had a poor couple of seasons is because starting a new team takes a

:28:53. > :28:56.hell of a lot. You know, you don't just walk in and take the world on,

:28:57. > :29:03.it takes a hell of a lot of thinking and a lot of mistakes to get it

:29:04. > :29:08.right. Do you resent the fact that you have been asked to carry the can

:29:09. > :29:14.for this business? Carry what can? I mean my name has been all over the

:29:15. > :29:17.media, yes. Indeed, and you are in front of the select committee

:29:18. > :29:20.answering some very tricky questions about a package that nobody seems to

:29:21. > :29:26.know what was involved in it, does it not annoy you a little bit? A

:29:27. > :29:34.little bit, yes. But it is history now, so I can only say what I know,

:29:35. > :29:40.and that is it. Thank you. Can I just be clear, was your trip to

:29:41. > :29:45.Manchester solely to collect this package? Not that I can remember, I

:29:46. > :29:50.was based in Manchester, I would have been in Manchester from memory

:29:51. > :29:54.that we potentially running track programmes. I don't remember going

:29:55. > :30:00.solely to Manchester pick up a package to come home. You think you

:30:01. > :30:05.were in Manchester anyway? Tier I was based in Manchester for a good

:30:06. > :30:10.few years so to actually travel to Manchester Speaker package up and

:30:11. > :30:17.back row, I don't remember doing that at all. I am confused about the

:30:18. > :30:21.timescale on this. The evidence that the chairman has referred to said

:30:22. > :30:26.that the package was collected on June eight, and the journey was not

:30:27. > :30:32.made until the 12th of June, the journey to France, so there is a gap

:30:33. > :30:40.of three days. I can't remember, to be honest. I think potentia picked

:30:41. > :30:43.it up on the Friday came home and then, like I said, went to London on

:30:44. > :30:53.the Saturday Night Live went to France on the Sunday. Did you

:30:54. > :31:00.deliver packages often? No, not offered. Have you ever delivered

:31:01. > :31:06.another package? Tier package as in medical package or clothing package?

:31:07. > :31:11.Paper? Did you know this was a medical package when you picked it

:31:12. > :31:14.up? I didn't know it was a medical package but I assumed that being

:31:15. > :31:21.from a doctor it would be something medical. Had you delivered a medical

:31:22. > :31:28.package from a doctor before? Not if memory serves me right, no. Have you

:31:29. > :31:33.delivered a medical package subsequently? I don't think so, no.

:31:34. > :31:37.So this is the only medical package you have ever delivered.

:31:38. > :31:47.Potentially, yes. If memory serves me right.

:31:48. > :31:54.You said earlier you did not know what was in the package. I still do

:31:55. > :32:05.not know what was in the package. What told you it was from a doctor?

:32:06. > :32:09.Did someone tell you? If something is being made up for you to be given

:32:10. > :32:16.to the doctor you assume it is from the doctor has ordered at. He did

:32:17. > :32:20.not say it was from the doctor, he said can you pick a package up to

:32:21. > :32:25.give to Richard Freeman, who was the doctor at British cycling. I am

:32:26. > :32:37.assuming. I cannot imagine Richard ordering anything else. I could be

:32:38. > :32:42.wrong. I want to go back to something you said before where you

:32:43. > :32:49.said you have taken packages more than once but you never know what

:32:50. > :32:51.was in them. But sometimes you put them in your whole bondage and

:32:52. > :32:56.sometimes in your hand luggage. How could you take something in your

:32:57. > :33:07.hand luggage they did not know what was in it Mr? I am not saying I took

:33:08. > :33:10.packages here are, there and everywhere. To take something in

:33:11. > :33:16.your hand luggage you would have to know... Maybe I asked what that was.

:33:17. > :33:22.So just sometimes you know what is in these packages? Yeah. What would

:33:23. > :33:30.have sometimes been in these packages that sometimes you know? It

:33:31. > :33:34.could be licenses. Licenses? Every rider needs a licence. I got sent a

:33:35. > :33:38.package the other day full of licensees. This package we are

:33:39. > :33:44.talking about on this occasion that you picked up in Manchester for the

:33:45. > :33:53.doctor, you decided to put that into your hold luggage, why? I did not

:33:54. > :33:59.take any hand luggage. Other than my passport in my pocket. Would that be

:34:00. > :34:02.usual thing for you to do to put things in your luggage and not know

:34:03. > :34:09.which were taking? It could have been anything. It could have been.

:34:10. > :34:14.You would never question that? If a guy on the street gave me a package

:34:15. > :34:17.I think I would be suspicious. This is our national governing body. I

:34:18. > :34:25.had no reason to be suspicious at all. Is that because it was known

:34:26. > :34:29.practice at the things that were not quite legitimate in packages? I do

:34:30. > :34:32.not know whether it was normal practice, I was just asked to take

:34:33. > :34:41.the package and I did not ask what was in it. Do you find on reflection

:34:42. > :34:47.that was a strange thing to do? It probably is on reflection. We are

:34:48. > :34:55.five or six years down the line. You were not an experienced person

:34:56. > :34:59.around cycling so I presume you not inexperienced to presume what was in

:35:00. > :35:05.the package. Why would I presume it was anything untoward? I am not

:35:06. > :35:08.saying it was but with your years of experience you would surely have the

:35:09. > :35:15.reasonable understanding of the types of things that were in

:35:16. > :35:26.packages? Basically I did not think it was anything to worry about. I

:35:27. > :35:29.trusted my colleagues. OK. When you handed the package to

:35:30. > :35:34.doctor feeling did he give the impression he knew what was in it? I

:35:35. > :35:48.just gave it to him and I presume he said thank you like most common

:35:49. > :35:53.decent people would and that was that. No other comment, just handed

:35:54. > :35:57.straight to him? No. I did not think it was anything untoward or secret

:35:58. > :35:59.or underhand. It was like me handing a bit of paper like you guys have

:36:00. > :36:04.been handed paper. At the airport when you arrived in Geneva you

:36:05. > :36:12.picked up a car. What car was it? I have no clue. I have driven a

:36:13. > :36:21.million cars between now and then. Was it a car or van? It was a car. I

:36:22. > :36:30.know it was a car. You were expecting to bring things back from

:36:31. > :36:34.the airport -- bikes? You can put the hood down and transport them. If

:36:35. > :36:39.I needed to bring five bikes back surely they would have booked a van

:36:40. > :36:48.but the booked a car. You did not look it, somebody else booked it?

:36:49. > :36:56.Exactly. You mentioned your job at the time was part-time. Yes. I much

:36:57. > :37:02.did you get paid? I think that is for British cycling to say, not for

:37:03. > :37:11.me. You are not willing... No. I do not think I have to disclose that.

:37:12. > :37:19.Was it adequate? What is adequate? Were you paid sufficiently not to

:37:20. > :37:25.ask questions? No. It was not a three figure sum, I can tell you

:37:26. > :37:31.that. It was not? No, nowhere near. I care.

:37:32. > :37:38.It was enough to make you drop everything. It was not a question of

:37:39. > :37:42.dropping something, he was my boss. Without question you take what you

:37:43. > :37:46.are asked to take and go where you are asked to go. Do you ask

:37:47. > :37:54.questions to your boss? I think you do. Is it normal for Team Sky to

:37:55. > :37:59.move bikes around on an easyJet flight? I would have thought so.

:38:00. > :38:04.Like any cycling team flying anywhere with bikes. You have done

:38:05. > :38:15.that before? They can bikes on flights? EasyJet? Why easyJet? That

:38:16. > :38:20.is who you are flying with. You can boot a bike on any flight. Had you

:38:21. > :38:29.done that before? Yes. Nothing unusual about that? No. When the

:38:30. > :38:36.story about the package was first reported and you did an interview

:38:37. > :38:41.for that Mike cycling News you said the package was not for Brad, why

:38:42. > :38:46.did you say that? Because it was for doctor Freeman. What he did with it

:38:47. > :38:54.was none of my business. You did not know? No. The press like to twist

:38:55. > :39:00.things. What you told this package was important? No. Doctor Freeman

:39:01. > :39:03.must've thought it was important and yet you are asked to clear it

:39:04. > :39:07.through an airport without any documentation or any knowledge of

:39:08. > :39:10.what it was. If you had been stopped and questioned the package could've

:39:11. > :39:17.been confiscated and taken off of you. Without any documentation. That

:39:18. > :39:24.is my naivete for not asking. It seems naive of them as well. You

:39:25. > :39:28.would have to ask the doctor. The potentially care more about the

:39:29. > :39:34.package than you. Potentially. That is a question for the doctor. When

:39:35. > :39:38.you were told about the package that was no importance attached to it and

:39:39. > :39:48.no sense of how important it was that he did not miss your flight?

:39:49. > :39:51.Not at all. I am struck by the fact that your memory has recovered to an

:39:52. > :39:56.extraordinary degree in the course of this evidence. You began and

:39:57. > :40:02.could scarcely remember what you did last Tuesday but now you can recall

:40:03. > :40:06.your travel arrangements and have a detailed memory, you remember you

:40:07. > :40:11.are asked to drive Shane Sutton to the airport expecting to bring back

:40:12. > :40:15.bikes, there was a car, not a van, you checked in luggage, you remember

:40:16. > :40:23.the size of the package. It is a curious way your memory works. I

:40:24. > :40:29.can't help how my memory works. Credibility. Why did you not ask

:40:30. > :40:36.what was in the package? I did not feel I needed to. This was an

:40:37. > :40:41.unusual circumstance. You said you did not often deliver to the doctor

:40:42. > :40:46.and yet on this occasion you are asked to give something to a doctor.

:40:47. > :40:51.At the heart of this evidence what people will find hard to believe is

:40:52. > :40:56.that you travelled through an airport with the package for a

:40:57. > :41:03.doctor and you did not ask what was then that package. I trusted my

:41:04. > :41:07.employees. Do you understand why people find that an extraordinary

:41:08. > :41:14.bit of evidence for you to give? Potentially, yes. It is not about

:41:15. > :41:18.hindsight. I understand why you say you trusted your employer because

:41:19. > :41:22.that is clearly an intent to shift focus onto them but the focus is on

:41:23. > :41:30.you today. Whether you trusted your employer or not it is a normal and

:41:31. > :41:34.natural question to ask what is in a medical package that you are

:41:35. > :41:43.transporting across international boundaries by plane. I did not ask.

:41:44. > :41:49.I would ask my partner, my best friend, my employer, what within a

:41:50. > :42:03.package I was going to transport by plane. All of us would. Everybody in

:42:04. > :42:05.this room would come apart from you. They are better people than me. It

:42:06. > :42:08.is not a question of being better, it is doing something that is

:42:09. > :42:10.logical because we know that when we go to the airport we get asked what

:42:11. > :42:13.is in our baggage. You are faced with two choices, to lie and say you

:42:14. > :42:19.did know what was in a tangible acted yourself or that you were

:42:20. > :42:25.carrying nothing. That is why at the heart of this evidence people find

:42:26. > :42:29.something deeply suspicious. I was asked to take a package out of

:42:30. > :42:33.France and that is what I did. I did not ask what within it. You have

:42:34. > :42:41.said sometimes people were asked to transport detergent. You said that

:42:42. > :42:48.earlier. Yes. Clearly your employers were in the habit of telling you

:42:49. > :42:53.what within packages. I did not say I transported the detergent. You can

:42:54. > :42:59.get asked to take anything anywhere. You mentioned detergent. That was an

:43:00. > :43:03.off-the-cuff comment. That is what you said. Clearly your employers

:43:04. > :43:10.were in the habit of telling couriers but as yourself what was in

:43:11. > :43:15.the packages you were transporting. That may well be but they did not

:43:16. > :43:20.tell me what within this package. The standard practice was to see

:43:21. > :43:23.what within packages and on this particular occasion transporting

:43:24. > :43:27.medicine to a doctor they did not say what within the package? You

:43:28. > :43:35.would have to ask them that. I cannot answer. No, you are the

:43:36. > :43:39.witness. Not them. That is why we are asking you questions. I did not

:43:40. > :43:46.know what within it, I took it and that is all I say. What do you think

:43:47. > :43:55.was in the package looking back? I have no clue. If that is what it was

:43:56. > :43:59.that is what it was. What was your master plan? What we're going to do

:44:00. > :44:04.if the package had been opened? I did not have the master plan. I

:44:05. > :44:10.think you think this is some... I do not know what. I was asked to take a

:44:11. > :44:13.package... You are different from everybody else in this room because

:44:14. > :44:18.I would be very nervous as I was transporting a package that I did

:44:19. > :44:25.not know what within it. I did not think it anything untoward. You did

:44:26. > :44:32.not have a clue? Not a clue. I did not ask. In your period as an

:44:33. > :44:41.athlete have you ever seen dodgy substances given to athletes?

:44:42. > :44:50.Physically actually seeing it? Yes. No. Not at all. Track-side, have you

:44:51. > :45:01.heard about it? Gossip? There is gossip everywhere. Gossip you

:45:02. > :45:08.believed? Believed and tell people to go positive, basically. There is

:45:09. > :45:14.gossip about anything, mechanical doping, gossip about everything.

:45:15. > :45:17.Yes, but we are talking about you and people you knew in the sport

:45:18. > :45:24.that you presumably loved, did you hear people talk about doping in a

:45:25. > :45:36.way that you found credible? There has been talk, yes. Did you find it

:45:37. > :45:41.credible? Credible? Credible. We are repeating one another, I do not know

:45:42. > :45:46.why. You know what credible means. Did you find it credible, some of

:45:47. > :45:52.the gossip you heard? Yes, believable, yes. I will go with

:45:53. > :45:58.believable. You found it credible, believable, some of the gossip you

:45:59. > :46:04.heard about drug-taking. I think we all that within sport, is financial

:46:05. > :46:08.gain. You have been involved in the sport and had her gossip about

:46:09. > :46:15.drug-taking, you find that gossip credible or believable, you were

:46:16. > :46:18.then asked most unusually to transport a package across

:46:19. > :46:23.international boundaries and even though you believed that drug-taking

:46:24. > :46:30.was credible and that you were being asked to deliver this package in a

:46:31. > :46:36.report to ask what was in it? No. Not with the stance of Team Sky and

:46:37. > :46:43.British cycling of zero tolerance, I believe that was their philosophy.

:46:44. > :46:52.You said you believe gossip about drug-taking. Tier I'm going back to

:46:53. > :46:59.20 years in my career. You can't you believe the gossip and you don't

:47:00. > :47:05.believe the gossip. I was under the impression of we were talking about

:47:06. > :47:10.my career as a cyclist. In the sport in general I would believe there are

:47:11. > :47:17.some people who cheat. OK, so we have established that you think

:47:18. > :47:22.there is cheating in sport. In general. You believe or you do not

:47:23. > :47:30.think there is cheating in cycling? I believe there is potentially, like

:47:31. > :47:35.anybody else. OK, so you think there is cheating in cycling. I am talking

:47:36. > :47:40.about cycling as a whole worldwide, I am not talking about British

:47:41. > :47:42.cheating in British cycling. I have cheating in British cycling.

:47:43. > :47:49.never heard anything at all. No never heard anything at all. No

:47:50. > :47:55.gossip, no rumours. I am sure the journalists would love the answer to

:47:56. > :47:59.this question. I am sure they know themselves. I am not going to say

:48:00. > :48:03.who I think is cheating because I am putting my neck on the line. How are

:48:04. > :48:10.you putting your neck on the line? I could be wrong. I am not asking you

:48:11. > :48:16.to name names! There has been systematic doping within the soviet

:48:17. > :48:21.union, hasn't there? So that has come out. I would say individual

:48:22. > :48:28.riders potentially would take the risk because there is financial

:48:29. > :48:33.gain, but as for British cycling, I have never seen anything. Who did

:48:34. > :48:40.you talk to in the run-up to giving this evidence session? Who did you

:48:41. > :48:46.prepare the evidence session with? Just my lawyer, that's it. You

:48:47. > :48:57.didn't talk to anybody else involved in the sport? As in? I am asking you

:48:58. > :49:02.the question. No. I have spoken to my lawyer and also some friends,

:49:03. > :49:07.that is it. Friends involved in the sport. The friends have been

:49:08. > :49:17.involved in the sport in the past, yes? Any senior figures in the

:49:18. > :49:26.sport? Mechanics and things like that. You were asked when he went

:49:27. > :49:30.out to Geneva that you might expect to bring some bikes back, in the end

:49:31. > :49:39.did you bring anything that? No, I didn't. Shane Sutton said about your

:49:40. > :49:44.visit that he also took some stuff back with him and I grabbed a lift

:49:45. > :49:48.back to the airport with him. No, I didn't bring anything back. That is

:49:49. > :49:51.what he has told us and he was travelling with you so he might have

:49:52. > :49:56.noticed if you are bringing anything back. I didn't bring anything back.

:49:57. > :50:00.You are saying Shane Sutton was wrong and you were not bringing

:50:01. > :50:04.anything back. I didn't listen to what he said but I was not given

:50:05. > :50:12.anything to bring back. A couple more quick questions. Just to

:50:13. > :50:20.confirm, was the package sealed? It was, yes. Hypothetically, if you

:50:21. > :50:28.were to take a package to one of the team doctors and that package

:50:29. > :50:33.contained performance enhancing drugs that might have therapeutic

:50:34. > :50:39.use, and you were the coria and the team doctor administered it to

:50:40. > :50:45.athlete, you would be implicated in athlete, you would be implicated in

:50:46. > :50:48.that doping ruling? Yes, I would be. So it means in the nicest possible

:50:49. > :50:55.way it is very handy that you were not aware what was in the package?

:50:56. > :50:57.here and I think you are being here and I think you

:50:58. > :50:59.stitched up, I think you have been stitched up, I think you have been

:51:00. > :51:01.left to dangle by people who may or may not be former colleagues and

:51:02. > :51:07.friends and that actually you have been left in a very difficult

:51:08. > :51:15.position. Yes. Do you feel that? Is there anything else you want to tell

:51:16. > :51:18.the committee? Bearing in mind that you have been done in. Tier I have

:51:19. > :51:23.told you everything I know, I don't know what was in and I was asked to

:51:24. > :51:28.take it by my employees. I was in a position where my role was not full

:51:29. > :51:33.side so I was trying to secure the job so any job that I was asked to

:51:34. > :51:41.do that I would do it. Has your reputation been damaged as a result

:51:42. > :51:43.of this? Potentially yes. Kammy clarify from where we started in

:51:44. > :51:49.terms of your arrangements and where you spend your time. You said you

:51:50. > :51:54.live near Ashford in Kent and you also said you live part-time in

:51:55. > :51:59.Manchester as well, is that correct? I live me quake in Manchester and I

:52:00. > :52:05.went home at weekends. Did you say you had a flat in Manchester? It was

:52:06. > :52:11.shared with a couple of mechanics and another coach. It was a

:52:12. > :52:20.registered address for you in Manchester? No, my registered

:52:21. > :52:24.address was still in Ashford. Did you have a residence in Manchester

:52:25. > :52:29.or wager sharing with some friends? I suppose it was sharing really,

:52:30. > :52:36.wasn't it? I used to get their Mundie Nightingale home on Friday

:52:37. > :52:44.afternoon. How long did that continue for? Two or three years and

:52:45. > :52:49.I hated every minute of it! To be clear, were you on the electoral

:52:50. > :52:55.register or paying bills? No, I left everything down in Kent. Thank you,

:52:56. > :53:48.Mr Cope. in front of the committee. We have

:53:49. > :53:52.seen you several times in our doping in sport enquiry and we are very

:53:53. > :53:55.grateful for your existence that you have given the committee and your

:53:56. > :54:00.colleagues during the course of this enquiry. We would be very keen to

:54:01. > :54:04.ask you about the progress you have made in this investigation of this

:54:05. > :54:07.matter and you will obviously be familiar with the evidence we have

:54:08. > :54:12.just received from Simon Cope and the evidence we received last year

:54:13. > :54:16.from sky -- Team Sky and British cycling. The key thing we were told,

:54:17. > :54:22.I think, when Dave Brailsford gave evidence to us was that he had been

:54:23. > :54:28.told by Doctor Freeman that the package that Simon Cope delivered to

:54:29. > :54:32.Team Sky contained Fluimucil and I think we are interested to know

:54:33. > :54:35.whether in the evidence you have received from British cycling, Team

:54:36. > :54:39.Sky or anybody else you spoke to in your enquiries as to whether there

:54:40. > :54:44.is any corroborating evidence or written evidence to support

:54:45. > :54:53.backplane? If you will permit me I will start from the beginning, which

:54:54. > :54:57.is that on the of September last year we started an investigation at

:54:58. > :55:04.UK anti-do in and that was based on the fact that we had received

:55:05. > :55:09.information to suggest that a possible anti-do the rules violation

:55:10. > :55:18.may have been committed during some stage of the Dauphine in France in

:55:19. > :55:21.June 20 11. Subsequently that Anti-Doping Agency violation in

:55:22. > :55:31.question became about the contents of a package that was delivered to

:55:32. > :55:38.Doctor Freeman in France with the additional allegation that the

:55:39. > :55:48.package contains a glucocorticosteroids. We have into

:55:49. > :55:52.void 32 individuals that across current and ex-employee 's British

:55:53. > :55:59.cycling and Team Sky, writers and medical professionals. -- we have

:56:00. > :56:05.interviewed. And the fact as we have been able to establish art that at

:56:06. > :56:11.some point during the Dauphine a request was made by Doctor Freeman

:56:12. > :56:19.for a package to be delivered to him. He requested Shane Sutton to

:56:20. > :56:24.arrange for that package to be delivered to him over in France and

:56:25. > :56:31.Shane Sutton then got into contact with Simon Cope to pick up that

:56:32. > :56:37.package and to bring it over to France. Parallel to that is a

:56:38. > :56:52.conversation that Doctor Freeman had with a British cycling

:56:53. > :56:53.Phil Burt and he was the individual Phil Burt and he was the individual

:56:54. > :56:55.then left the package with Shane then left the package with Shane

:56:56. > :57:01.Sutton 's assistant, on her desk or with her we are unsure, because we

:57:02. > :57:05.cannot ascertain specifically how that action took place and as you

:57:06. > :57:08.have concerned -- as you have heard that is from where Simon Cope

:57:09. > :57:15.collected the package up in the velodrome. On the basis of the

:57:16. > :57:21.information that we have received Simon Cope travelled to Manchester

:57:22. > :57:26.to pick up that package and then at some later point he travelled to

:57:27. > :57:31.Gatwick on June the 11th and he stayed overnight at Gatwick and then

:57:32. > :57:40.he took a flight out to Geneva on the 12th of June anti-car and he

:57:41. > :57:46.took it to the end stage of the Dauphine on June the 12th passed the

:57:47. > :57:51.package over to Doctor Freeman. We have received one account of what

:57:52. > :57:58.was in the package and that was that the package contained Fluimucil.

:57:59. > :58:04.That, for the committee 's information, and I have heard you

:58:05. > :58:06.already have information about Fluimucil, is not a prohibited

:58:07. > :58:11.substance and it is used for the treatment of a build-up of mucus or

:58:12. > :58:19.Qatar which is, I believe, quite common in endurance sports. The

:58:20. > :58:24.reason we have asked a wealth of individuals about what they believe

:58:25. > :58:29.the contents of the package to contain, specifically Phil Burt who

:58:30. > :58:36.put the package together, and he has no recollection whatsoever of what

:58:37. > :58:44.he put in the package, neither does anybody else, so we are not able to

:58:45. > :58:49.confirm or refute the one account that we have been given, which is

:58:50. > :58:52.that it contained Fluimucil. I think it is important also add that during

:58:53. > :59:00.the course of our investigation we have asked for inventory is and

:59:01. > :59:05.medical records that can go to confirming whether it actually was

:59:06. > :59:16.Fluimucil and we have not been able to ascertain that because there are

:59:17. > :59:20.no records. Thank you. The guidance that we received from the medicines

:59:21. > :59:23.and health care regulatory product, we have been asked to us from their

:59:24. > :59:29.point of view what would be normal in terms of record-keeping, and at

:59:30. > :59:35.this time Fluimucil was an unlicensed medication in the UK and

:59:36. > :59:42.supplying an unlicensed medicine in says here that where a doctor is

:59:43. > :59:44.supplying an unlicensed medicine in the UK he would need to record the

:59:45. > :59:46.source and the date where he obtained the product and the data

:59:47. > :59:48.which he supplied and the quantity supplied and the details of any

:59:49. > :59:55.adverse reactions which he is not adverse reactions which

:59:56. > :59:57.became aware of, so in this case it became aware of, so in this case it

:59:58. > :00:00.appears there is no such records that have been kept, because if they

:00:01. > :00:07.had been kept then you would have documents that showed that it was

:00:08. > :00:14.Fluimucil. That is correct. There are no records, particularly those

:00:15. > :00:18.kept by Doctor Freeman, who was the doctor overseeing Team Sky at this

:00:19. > :00:24.particular event, there are absolutely no records whatsoever of

:00:25. > :00:31.any treatment during the course of that event. Our enquiries have

:00:32. > :00:41.established that Doctor Freeman kept medical records on a laptop and he

:00:42. > :00:45.was meant to, according to Team Sky policy, and a policy that the other

:00:46. > :00:52.doctors followed was to upload the medical records into a drop box,

:00:53. > :01:00.which all the doctors had access to. He did not do that, for one reason

:01:01. > :01:08.or another, and in 2014 we have been informed that his laptop was stolen

:01:09. > :01:11.whilst he was on holiday in Greece and that is why we have not been

:01:12. > :01:13.able to access the medical records that we need to because they are on

:01:14. > :01:34.a laptop which has been stolen. If he was supposed to upload them,

:01:35. > :01:38.that had not been done. Isn't the case -- is it the case that medical

:01:39. > :01:45.records in this case for Bradley Wiggins do not exist or are

:01:46. > :01:50.incomplete? They do not exist or they are incomplete. Have you been

:01:51. > :01:55.given full access to the medical records that exist? Yes. I am in

:01:56. > :01:58.front of you and I will be nothing but honestly to that in the first

:01:59. > :02:05.instance we have met with a degree of resistance and I understand why.

:02:06. > :02:10.I do not undermine the argument of doctor-patient confidentiality. But

:02:11. > :02:17.it has caused a delay to our efforts and we have had to find various

:02:18. > :02:21.routes round getting round that argument that wanting to access

:02:22. > :02:27.various individuals' records is breaching doctor-patient

:02:28. > :02:33.confidentiality. We have been able to access the wreckers and I wish to

:02:34. > :02:38.be clear that we are specifically looking at records that pertains to

:02:39. > :02:56.the duration of the race in question and not beyond that and there are no

:02:57. > :02:57.corresponding records of any treatment whatsoever. The General

:02:58. > :03:01.Medical Council requires the doctors keep such records. We'll doctor

:03:02. > :03:07.Freeman be pursued by the GMC? I think the GMC will want to be

:03:08. > :03:09.involved and we have been communicating with them. Yes, it is

:03:10. > :03:15.my understanding that doctors are expected to keep as contemporaneous

:03:16. > :03:20.a note as possible of the treatment given to patients. With regards to

:03:21. > :03:25.British Cycling itself, the advice we were given by the medicines and

:03:26. > :03:32.health care products regulatory industry was that in this case if

:03:33. > :03:45.produce cycling supplied then they would be acting as a wholesaler? Dr

:03:46. > :03:49.Freeman war two hats. He wore the heart of the employee within British

:03:50. > :03:56.Cycling but he was also employed by teams guide's doctor. We have seen

:03:57. > :04:02.invoices and records which indicate that when he was ordering medical

:04:03. > :04:11.products he was wearing one of those two hats however when those

:04:12. > :04:16.medicines, products, were delivered, they were all delivered primarily

:04:17. > :04:25.within... To the Manchester velodrome. And they were kept in one

:04:26. > :04:28.area and there was no segregation of the products that were designated

:04:29. > :04:35.for British Cycling as opposed to Team Sky. Neither, from what we have

:04:36. > :04:40.obtained, any clear records of what was going in and out of that medical

:04:41. > :04:46.supply and how those various products had been ordered were being

:04:47. > :04:52.administered. Regardless of how they did or did not keep records, in this

:04:53. > :04:57.case Dr Freeman was effectively purchasing drugs from British

:04:58. > :05:05.Cycling to administered to a collie rider competing for Team Sky, not

:05:06. > :05:09.Team GB. Possibly. We cannot see at what point... There no record to

:05:10. > :05:15.show the were coming out of the Team Sky order and purely going to Team

:05:16. > :05:20.Sky riders versus the orders that he was able to put in on behalf of

:05:21. > :05:24.British Cycling. The guidance we received here suggests that if

:05:25. > :05:28.British Cycling supplied medicines to Dr Freeman they would've had to

:05:29. > :05:32.have held a wholesaler is' license and kept a record of supply

:05:33. > :05:46.including minimum quantity, the date of dispatch, and adverse reactions

:05:47. > :05:52.to the products they became aware of the case of a licensed product.

:05:53. > :05:58.There is only a legal requirement was records are kept for five years

:05:59. > :06:00.so in this case the wreckers were destroyed shortly before your

:06:01. > :06:04.investigation started but have you been given any indication by British

:06:05. > :06:11.Cycling that they keep records of that sort? No. Not that our records

:06:12. > :06:15.have yielded. Clearly when we are asking for access to records about

:06:16. > :06:21.what an individual has been prescribed, it was very much

:06:22. > :06:28.confined to this particular race and the cyclists involved so I cannot

:06:29. > :06:35.speak for Dr Freeman's record-keeping as opposed to other

:06:36. > :06:42.riders. It is just very clear from investigation that there is no audit

:06:43. > :06:49.trail of what is going in and out of a comprehensive supply of medical

:06:50. > :06:54.products. Incredibly serious matter because there are laws around the

:06:55. > :06:57.dispensing and administering of medicines and it would certainly

:06:58. > :07:02.seem from what you have said Dr Freeman is not complying with the

:07:03. > :07:06.GMC guidelines and British Cycling is not complying with their

:07:07. > :07:14.obligations to keep records, a legal requirement to keep records for the

:07:15. > :07:23.dispensing of medicines. Yes. One or two further questions. With regard

:07:24. > :07:32.to the use of a drug you mentioned earlier, this was a drug for team

:07:33. > :07:36.were using and we were told that it was used out of competition when

:07:37. > :07:42.there was medical need for Team Sky riders. Have you found records about

:07:43. > :07:50.the amount that was being used? We have seen orders, yes, from Team Sky

:07:51. > :08:01.and British Cycling that indicate that it has been ordered. That is

:08:02. > :08:08.clear from the infantry of orders that have come into the Manchester

:08:09. > :08:14.velodrome. There is no audit of how it was used. From the records you

:08:15. > :08:21.would expect to see of what is going in the supply of products there is

:08:22. > :08:26.no clear audit that it has left or been administered to an individual.

:08:27. > :08:33.That said you would have to pry into every riders' medical record to see

:08:34. > :08:48.of them is a note of them having been administered that at any time.

:08:49. > :09:02.The TUV certificates? I am not aware of the extent to which it has been

:09:03. > :09:05.prescribed to riders within Team Sky or British Cycling because our focus

:09:06. > :09:11.has been on this particular package and in relation to Bradley Wiggins.

:09:12. > :09:15.We would have to overcome the hurdle again and showed justification of

:09:16. > :09:18.why we wanted to delve into the therapeutic use exemption is of

:09:19. > :09:26.every other rider and whether there was clear justification. I think it

:09:27. > :09:29.is helpful for me to set out that obviously when it comes the

:09:30. > :09:37.therapeutic use exemption is we all except that there are athletes who

:09:38. > :09:44.have genuine medical conditions who should not be excluded from sport

:09:45. > :09:51.because of those medical impairments for want of a better word. That is

:09:52. > :09:58.exactly why therapeutic use exemption system is there. You as an

:09:59. > :10:00.individual have to apply to your national anti-doping Organisation or

:10:01. > :10:10.your international federation, you have to apply for therapeutic use

:10:11. > :10:14.exemption ahead of your use and that application for an exemption is

:10:15. > :10:21.considered by an independent therapeutic use exemption committee

:10:22. > :10:27.who will consider the request against some strict criteria,

:10:28. > :10:33.primarily can that individual demonstrates they have the condition

:10:34. > :10:39.to begin with? Secondly, is there any other permissible alternative

:10:40. > :10:48.available to them? From the records you have seen relating to the use of

:10:49. > :10:57.this drug, was more product ordered than is needed to administer? Yes.

:10:58. > :11:02.Specifically in relation to Bradley Wiggins, yes, far more. Looking at

:11:03. > :11:15.the quantity that was ordered, do you believe the quantity would

:11:16. > :11:19.suggest a widespread use I cannot specify whether it is used in or out

:11:20. > :11:32.of competition. You will have to squeeze me of my medical terminology

:11:33. > :11:36.is vague but my understanding is it is quite a serious product but you

:11:37. > :11:49.do not treat conditions with it lightly. My understanding is you

:11:50. > :11:56.would not... I research study done in 2009 or 2011 which demonstrated

:11:57. > :12:01.that it was not... It should not be the preferred method of treatment

:12:02. > :12:06.and for that reason you would either think there was an excessive amount

:12:07. > :12:13.of triamcinolone being ordered for one person or quite a few people had

:12:14. > :12:17.a very similar problem. So based on what you have seen you would see if

:12:18. > :12:20.all of this triamcinolone was for one person it would have been an

:12:21. > :12:27.excessive amount or it was being used by lots of riders? Yes. It is

:12:28. > :12:33.difficult because of the lack of records to understand over what

:12:34. > :12:35.duration these orders were lasting. Given that you said you received an

:12:36. > :12:39.allegation that triamcinolone could have been what was in the package

:12:40. > :12:45.that was sent out to Bradley Wiggins, were you concerned that the

:12:46. > :12:51.use of triamcinolone was far more widespread than just the isolated

:12:52. > :12:58.occasions we know it was used? For starters it is permitted out of

:12:59. > :13:03.competition. It is permitted in competition via certain routes. It

:13:04. > :13:09.gets a bit complicated. You are required... It is prohibited if you

:13:10. > :13:15.take it intramuscularly, morally, intravenously, for example, and that

:13:16. > :13:22.is when you would have to apply for a therapeutic use exemption. Through

:13:23. > :13:27.any other route it is acceptable so it is a very challenging substance

:13:28. > :13:38.because first it is quite difficult to detect in a sample and it is

:13:39. > :13:45.difficult to detect the writ of administration and whether it was

:13:46. > :13:54.through a permissible or prohibited route. The large quantities of

:13:55. > :14:10.triamcinolone being ordered, presumably by Dr Freeman. The GMC

:14:11. > :14:13.says that the team will not... Is this the matter you have discussed

:14:14. > :14:21.with the GMC in terms of whether they will be investigating Dr

:14:22. > :14:24.Freeman's use of triamcinolone? Our investigation is not concluded. At

:14:25. > :14:29.the point at which we are prepared to package everything up then

:14:30. > :14:34.absolutely, there has already been dialogue with the GMC with regard to

:14:35. > :14:38.doctor-patient confidentiality and we will continue that dialogue with

:14:39. > :14:46.regards to what we think is appropriate to handover. You said

:14:47. > :14:49.there is a lack of records. Have you given any information that suggest

:14:50. > :14:53.Biba had been asked to destroy records that might have been

:14:54. > :14:57.relevant? We have no evidence there has been any sort of cover up or

:14:58. > :15:03.tampering. That is an incredibly serious allegation. In our mind it

:15:04. > :15:08.is an allegation that we can pursue as an anti-doping rule violation and

:15:09. > :15:15.the anti-doping rules and at this time we have no evidence to pursue

:15:16. > :15:21.such a charge against anyone. No evidence Biba have been asked to

:15:22. > :15:29.delete emails or computer files? -- people. Not that we are aware of at

:15:30. > :15:34.this time. You gave evidence that Fluimucil was in the package. That

:15:35. > :15:40.was Dr Freeman who told us that Fluimucil was in the package. Phil

:15:41. > :15:48.Burt, is he an employee of British Cycling? Yes, he is a British

:15:49. > :15:53.Cycling physio. And he put the package together but there are no

:15:54. > :15:58.records kept by British Cycling about the administration of this

:15:59. > :16:05.drug? No record at all of what went into that package. Can I ask about

:16:06. > :16:12.the laptop that Dr Freeman says has been stolen? Do you know when that

:16:13. > :16:17.was said to be stolen? I am sorry, I do not recall the date, I think it

:16:18. > :16:24.was... It was 2014 but I do not know the month, it was the summer.

:16:25. > :16:32.Was that reported to the police? We believe it was reported to the

:16:33. > :16:37.police and we are working with Interpol to obtain confirmation that

:16:38. > :16:40.it was reported. It was reported to British cycling so they have a

:16:41. > :16:45.record that a theft from Doctor Freeman was reported and we are

:16:46. > :16:50.unable to ascertain that Team Sky was informed as much. When was

:16:51. > :16:54.British cycling informed about the theft of the laptop? I am terribly

:16:55. > :17:03.sorry, I don't know that, I can certainly let the committee know

:17:04. > :17:05.afterwards. Can we have that information because I am very

:17:06. > :17:10.concerned about the absence of documentation from British cycling

:17:11. > :17:15.and Team Sky and that we have not got supporting evidence. That is

:17:16. > :17:20.your experience as well, isn't it? Is there any written evidence of the

:17:21. > :17:25.theft of the laptop? My understanding is that there is a

:17:26. > :17:33.record at British cycling that the theft was reported to them. Have you

:17:34. > :17:37.seen a record? My team have seen that records are they are aware of

:17:38. > :17:42.that record and we can find a record from Team Sky because clearly Doctor

:17:43. > :17:49.Freeman was acting with a dual role here. Yes, I am very concerned about

:17:50. > :17:57.this dual role. As far as your enquiry is concerned, have that

:17:58. > :18:01.presented problems in apportioning responsibility, for example? Yes, it

:18:02. > :18:06.is very difficult at any given time to see what is being prescribed when

:18:07. > :18:15.Doctor Freeman is acting on behalf of Team Sky or whether he is acting

:18:16. > :18:18.for British cycling. Your enquiry is being conducted at the request of

:18:19. > :18:29.British cycling, is that right? Game no. How did that actually happen? We

:18:30. > :18:32.became aware via a source that there was an allocation being made about

:18:33. > :18:39.this package and that is what has instigated our enquiry. Sorry, I

:18:40. > :18:44.think there was also something that came out in the press around the

:18:45. > :18:50.same time as well. I had a recollection of British cycling

:18:51. > :18:55.referring to your enquiry but that particular matter is not of great

:18:56. > :18:59.importance. Can I ask you, in your conclusions, and I know you have

:19:00. > :19:07.reached them yet, will an issue that you consider BB dual role of British

:19:08. > :19:14.cycling and Team Sky and individuals who seem to have been employed by

:19:15. > :19:22.both? I am aware that UK sport conducted a Deloitte audit enquiry

:19:23. > :19:27.of this specific, more general, area. I don't imagine that when you

:19:28. > :19:31.conduct an audit of the roles that people are playing anybody who is

:19:32. > :19:37.minded to pry into the role of Doctor and possible antidote

:19:38. > :19:41.allegations that may come out of that and so when I answer your

:19:42. > :19:47.question it is purely from that perspective, it is that I do find it

:19:48. > :19:52.very difficult and I absolutely recognise that from, purely from an

:19:53. > :20:02.anti-doping perspective I think there is a huge conflict of

:20:03. > :20:10.interest. Thank you. In their evidence to us at an earlier session

:20:11. > :20:16.two people said they declined to answer numerous questions on the

:20:17. > :20:18.basis that you had asked them not to reveal any details of the

:20:19. > :20:30.conversations, is that correct? At the time that we first started we

:20:31. > :20:37.had discussions with British cycling, primarily Ian Drake, the

:20:38. > :20:47.then chief executive at British cycling, and we asked them not to

:20:48. > :20:52.discuss beyond that conversation, to discuss it more freely, so, yes, Ian

:20:53. > :20:58.Drake and I then had some conversations where they wanted to

:20:59. > :21:05.be kept appraised of our investigation and clearly we won't

:21:06. > :21:09.discuss an investigation with an independent organisation, we don't

:21:10. > :21:15.have to answer to sports and, yes, I think at the time they certainly

:21:16. > :21:18.wouldn't have known anything about the package in relation to our

:21:19. > :21:23.investigation because we weren't sharing that information with them,

:21:24. > :21:26.if that makes sense. At the start of your evidence today you talked about

:21:27. > :21:30.obstructions he faced early in the enquiry. Can you talk a bit about

:21:31. > :21:35.those and what they were and who they were from? When I say

:21:36. > :21:46.obstructions I don't mean that they were malicious. The obstructions or

:21:47. > :21:50.the obstacles rather, that we faced, was primarily doctor/ patient

:21:51. > :21:56.confidentiality which is we will not give you access to these records

:21:57. > :22:04.because it is an invasion of that right, that premise. And that is

:22:05. > :22:08.incredibly frustrating for us as an organisation when we are seeking to

:22:09. > :22:16.prove or disprove something. We found a way around that and so

:22:17. > :22:26.whilst that was used as a, I guess, a first response to our request, we

:22:27. > :22:31.have met with corporation eventually from all parties involved. What was

:22:32. > :22:34.the way round it? What we did was we first of all contacted the GMC and

:22:35. > :22:42.asked for their advice. They very much left it between us and British

:22:43. > :22:49.cycling and Team Sky to resolve. My understanding is that the premise of

:22:50. > :22:57.doctor/ patient confidentiality is not absolute and it can be

:22:58. > :23:01.circumvented in a number of instances, one is when you are

:23:02. > :23:09.required to under law and the second one is with a patient's consent and

:23:10. > :23:16.the third one is this the public interest in that matter outweighs

:23:17. > :23:19.the need to maintain the confidentiality. Notwithstanding

:23:20. > :23:26.that any of those arguments works for us, how we found a route around

:23:27. > :23:32.was that we used an independent doctor to access the records that we

:23:33. > :23:39.wanted to get hold of, so they were our filter, so we were not trawling

:23:40. > :23:42.through. The problem was that in accessing one individual 's records

:23:43. > :23:48.you had to see a number of riders records and the concern was that

:23:49. > :23:54.Doctor Freeman 's records in relation to other riders would then

:23:55. > :24:00.be available to us and the restriction was that we were

:24:01. > :24:04.specifically looking at the medical records of Sir Bradley Wiggins. How

:24:05. > :24:08.long did it take from the time you first made the request to see the

:24:09. > :24:12.records to when you had an independent doctor? A long time. I

:24:13. > :24:16.would like to say that we finally got all of the records we wanted at

:24:17. > :24:24.the end of January, and we started this in early October. That was

:24:25. > :24:28.quite a bit of time there. Quite a bit of time, yes. Are you confident

:24:29. > :24:34.that the records that your doctor sought with a full and correct

:24:35. > :24:37.version? As much as we are able to establish that, that was a

:24:38. > :24:40.comprehensive record given what I have already told the committee in

:24:41. > :24:47.relation to the record-keeping and the lack of record keeping. These

:24:48. > :24:53.are not his GP records, for example? This is specifically related to

:24:54. > :24:56.self-management by British cycling and Team Sky? Yes, and very

:24:57. > :25:09.specifically in relation to primarily Doctor Freeman. Have you

:25:10. > :25:12.or anybody at UK anti-doping had a conversation directly with Sir

:25:13. > :25:16.Bradley Wiggins regarding this? Guild yes, we have interviewed Sir

:25:17. > :25:23.Bradley Wiggins. Are you able to say what he has commented on in terms of

:25:24. > :25:27.this? His recollection was that he was treated the Fluimucil the

:25:28. > :25:38.evening of June the 12th. He does not know what was in the package.

:25:39. > :25:44.OK, but he was treated with Fluimucil? Victim Care Unit he was

:25:45. > :25:51.treated the Fluimucil that evening. At that time Fluimucil was

:25:52. > :25:56.unlicensed in the UK but was it available elsewhere in Europe? Yes,

:25:57. > :26:01.our records indicate that the Fluimucil for Team Sky and British

:26:02. > :26:05.cycling was coming from two outlets, one in Germany and one in

:26:06. > :26:09.Switzerland. OK, so much closer to the location and getting someone on

:26:10. > :26:12.a plane and a train and an automobile to travel halfway across

:26:13. > :26:21.Europe to deliver something that was readily available on the doorstep?

:26:22. > :26:26.Indeed. Thank you very much. Did Bradley Wiggins say how he was

:26:27. > :26:36.administered this? Yes, he said by nebuliser. The records for Team Sky

:26:37. > :26:39.about Fluimucil is that we have records of them buying ten

:26:40. > :26:44.cloud-macro 33 Bridges cycling in Manchester. No, my understanding of

:26:45. > :26:51.how this was ordered is that there seems to be no record of it being

:26:52. > :26:54.ordered in the UK, which can only lead me to believe that Fluimucil

:26:55. > :27:01.only ever came from pharmacies abroad. The records I can't prevent

:27:02. > :27:03.disprove that. It is quite interesting because some people have

:27:04. > :27:06.suggested that the reason it may have been ordered from the British

:27:07. > :27:10.cycling store is that they might wanted a consistent supply but if

:27:11. > :27:15.they wanted a consistent supply in this case they would've gone to a

:27:16. > :27:18.pharmacist in Switzerland? Is entirely possible. Our understanding

:27:19. > :27:26.is that the reason that Doctor Freeman chose to ask for it to be

:27:27. > :27:35.transported from the UK to France was because he was unsure of his

:27:36. > :27:43.prescription rights in France and he wanted to be 100% sure about the

:27:44. > :27:47.concentration of the Fluimucil that he was using. I understand that it

:27:48. > :27:56.can vary in terms of its strength abroad. We ask British cycling if

:27:57. > :28:00.they would give us records relating to the quantities of drugs that are

:28:01. > :28:06.routinely stored in Manchester and they have not done that but have you

:28:07. > :28:08.seen any evidence to suggest that Fluimucil is ordered by British

:28:09. > :28:15.cycling are kept in their stores? I have not, no. The information

:28:16. > :28:18.British cycling has given you as part of the investigation, there is

:28:19. > :28:24.nothing to suggest that Fluimucil is a drug that they hold. I have only

:28:25. > :28:31.seen invoices and records that relate to products which do not

:28:32. > :28:42.include Fluimucil. There are lots of records but no records to support

:28:43. > :28:48.the Fluimucil? Guild no. Can I ask as well, regarding the Manchester

:28:49. > :28:51.City that Simon Cope said he made, we believe from the written evidence

:28:52. > :28:55.that we were given that it was quite clear that he made a trip to

:28:56. > :28:58.Manchester on June the 8th and that is your recollection as well, is

:28:59. > :29:02.that based on their document or other evidence you have received? No

:29:03. > :29:06.I cannot be specific about that. I can confirm it and I believe it is

:29:07. > :29:14.based on the records that you have seen. The overall picture that you

:29:15. > :29:18.paint is extremely concerning because it seems that there are no

:29:19. > :29:22.records that British cycling or Team Sky can go back on to demonstrate

:29:23. > :29:26.the drugs that Doctor Freeman is ordering on what he is doing with

:29:27. > :29:32.the man who really is giving them too. There is certainly no record of

:29:33. > :29:40.what was put in this package which went with Simon Cope from the UK to

:29:41. > :29:43.France. There are no records of the large quantities of Triamcinolone

:29:44. > :29:48.that they are ordering and how that is being used either, if outside of

:29:49. > :29:51.the scope of your enquiry? It is outside the scope but my expectation

:29:52. > :29:55.is that not withstanding you would expect to leasing audit trail of

:29:56. > :30:00.what is going in and out of what I would very flippantly call a

:30:01. > :30:04.medicine cabinet, but certainly the extent of our investigation has not

:30:05. > :30:14.delved into exactly where those products are being administered. We

:30:15. > :30:18.have been told that the team operate an ethical policy whereby medication

:30:19. > :30:22.is only ever used to treat medical need, but it is unclear how we can

:30:23. > :30:28.be certain that is the case when there are no records to demonstrate

:30:29. > :30:32.that is true. Correct. I understand that back in 2011 there was a Team

:30:33. > :30:41.Sky policy which was about the keeping of clear records by the

:30:42. > :30:48.doctors and I am aware that there were other doctors who absolutely

:30:49. > :30:52.kept watertight records and, again, the extent of our investigation is

:30:53. > :30:57.confined to this particular race for which there are zero records by

:30:58. > :31:02.Doctor Freeman. Given that he was employed by British cycling and

:31:03. > :31:06.still is, what does this say about the British cycling policy on the

:31:07. > :31:11.administering of drugs in the way police is the anti-doping

:31:12. > :31:17.guidelines? I clearly would absolutely think that there should

:31:18. > :31:22.be some clear adherence to the General medical Council 's

:31:23. > :31:26.guidelines, which are about keeping comprehensive records and when you

:31:27. > :31:31.are talking about a prescription only medicines and there should

:31:32. > :31:36.absolutely be a record of to whom that bulk order of prescription

:31:37. > :31:40.medicines are being administered at any given time and a clear record of

:31:41. > :31:46.the conditions for which they are being treated.

:31:47. > :31:51.What excuse have British Cycling given to you for this lack of

:31:52. > :31:57.record-keeping? We have not had an excuse. There is just an

:31:58. > :32:04.acknowledgement that there was no policy and no records, that is it.

:32:05. > :32:08.And the same at Team Sky? Team Sky had a policy but not everyone was

:32:09. > :32:15.adhering to it. Is there any evidence of how the team management

:32:16. > :32:20.sought to keep track of the policies that the doctors were following and

:32:21. > :32:28.the administration of those? No. That has not been the extent of our

:32:29. > :32:31.inquiry. I have been told Team Sky had a routine policy of review

:32:32. > :32:37.meetings where the coach and the doctor would look at treatment of a

:32:38. > :32:43.particular rider and that is part of a review and not unusual for

:32:44. > :32:46.professional athlete it seems strange those detailed reviews were

:32:47. > :32:51.carried out but there were no proper records kept of their medication.

:32:52. > :32:56.Clearly there is this dropbox for which there are records being by

:32:57. > :33:01.other doctors. I am not sure that is the policy that was employed at the

:33:02. > :33:10.time across the board. Is the lack of records in this case unusual?

:33:11. > :33:19.Certainly in relation to the record-keeping of other doctors,

:33:20. > :33:27.yes, this is unusual. Following up on the questions from the chairman,

:33:28. > :33:32.I hear what you are saying about record-keeping but Team Sky and

:33:33. > :33:38.later UK cycling, particularly Team Sky, founded on the basis of winning

:33:39. > :33:42.clean and fair and yet what you are suggesting is not they are not doing

:33:43. > :33:48.that but they are not providing or maintaining the evidence to

:33:49. > :33:51.demonstrate they are doing it, which is central to their mission, which

:33:52. > :33:58.strikes me as a little bit old. It strikes me as odd as well. I would

:33:59. > :34:08.expect particularly for a professional road cycling team that

:34:09. > :34:11.was founded on the premise of exhibiting that road racing could

:34:12. > :34:18."It cleanly am not to have records that would demonstrate any

:34:19. > :34:23.influences to the contrary. Have you found them to be slapdash in other

:34:24. > :34:27.areas of the operation? The extent of our investigation has not gone

:34:28. > :34:44.into that. I have no oversight of that. Electronic interference there.

:34:45. > :34:52.Do you have a timetable whereby you can hope to conclude its

:34:53. > :34:56.investigation? The team at UK anti-doping is still finalising some

:34:57. > :35:03.other lines of inquiry. I cannot definitively say to you when it will

:35:04. > :35:07.be concluded. I will be very happy to tell the committee as and when we

:35:08. > :35:12.beat that juncture. Given the evidence so far do you think there

:35:13. > :35:16.would be grounds for widening the scope to include the use of

:35:17. > :35:19.triamcinolone? It is difficult because our premise is to

:35:20. > :35:25.investigate where we think an anti-doping rule violation may have

:35:26. > :35:32.occurred. And unless there is reason to believe that there has been one

:35:33. > :35:39.it is difficult to stray into an area which is purely about the

:35:40. > :35:42.medical practices of an organisation. I am absolutely

:35:43. > :35:46.committed to pursuing any avenues which indicate that there is

:35:47. > :35:52.wrongdoing that falls within the parameters of the rules. In this

:35:53. > :35:55.case I suppose would the use of triamcinolone be something that the

:35:56. > :36:02.GMC might investigate? Very possibly, yes. Looking at this

:36:03. > :36:07.experience, from our point of view our interest is the legal powers and

:36:08. > :36:13.the resources that you haven't your disposal. Do you think that has to

:36:14. > :36:17.be reviewed in terms of the resource and powers you have? Very much so.

:36:18. > :36:26.From October of last year this has been an incredibly resource

:36:27. > :36:33.intensive effort which has spanned the breadth of UK anti-doping in

:36:34. > :36:40.terms of the staff involvement. I think it has involved well in excess

:36:41. > :36:46.of over 1000 man hours. Whether in relation to my time or down to

:36:47. > :36:53.researchers and investigators at UK anti-doping. I think what it has

:36:54. > :36:58.highlighted to me is that gone are the days when much of what we did

:36:59. > :37:07.was about testing and getting a positive outcome to a blood test or

:37:08. > :37:15.you're in test, that investigations themselves are becoming more common

:37:16. > :37:19.than before. When you look at the resources that this is taken up...

:37:20. > :37:25.At the detriment of other activity at UK anti-doping, then I do not

:37:26. > :37:31.think that the resources that we have at the moment, it is not a

:37:32. > :37:36.sustainable model at all. If you were to say to me what do I want? I

:37:37. > :37:42.would love my budget to be doubled. We have a grand budget of 5.3

:37:43. > :37:46.million. If we were to receive twice that amount, which I understand is

:37:47. > :37:54.whistling in the wind, that would enable me to cover a greater breadth

:37:55. > :38:00.and depth within the sport some sports we cannot even get to test.

:38:01. > :38:05.The education is absolutely fundamental and as this particular

:38:06. > :38:12.case has indicated we need far more investigative manpower generally

:38:13. > :38:17.when it comes to investigations and intelligence. You are talking about

:38:18. > :38:23.people time rather than tangible outputs as it were, resources that

:38:24. > :38:27.are needed to undertake that. Your power is to trigger investigations

:38:28. > :38:31.based on evidence reasonable grounds for investigation being brought to

:38:32. > :38:35.your attention but it seems that the record-keeping that enables a team

:38:36. > :38:40.or governing body to police the anti-doping rules has been woeful.

:38:41. > :38:43.It seems there is a need for more constant checks on the way in which

:38:44. > :38:48.the day-to-day administration of the rules are being followed. Yes, we do

:38:49. > :38:58.not have the powers the police have, the powers of search and entry or

:38:59. > :39:03.seizure. Or arrest. We have an incredibly good relationship with

:39:04. > :39:08.law enforcement, whether the police or medicines health care regulatory

:39:09. > :39:15.agency or Border Force. You have to look at our website to see that at

:39:16. > :39:22.the moment there are ten current sanctions which pertain to

:39:23. > :39:27.non-analytical cases, but the problem is that we have no powers to

:39:28. > :39:33.compel people to provide other information, to talk to us. If

:39:34. > :39:42.nothing else, I would like to see two things. That is for the cord to

:39:43. > :39:50.change, the world anti-doping code to change, to enable organisations

:39:51. > :39:55.like ourselves I guess to have the power to obligate individuals to

:39:56. > :39:58.comply with an investigation, to assist with an investigation. There

:39:59. > :40:07.should be sanctions if they refuse to do so. Similarly I think it is

:40:08. > :40:16.incumbent on sports themselves to perhaps make it a condition of

:40:17. > :40:20.participating in that sport that their athletes and support personnel

:40:21. > :40:24.should be prepared to waive their right to things like doctor-patient

:40:25. > :40:30.confidentiality to enable us to demonstrate and to give confidence

:40:31. > :40:37.to the public that they are complying with the varied roles that

:40:38. > :40:48.are in place. What response do you feel that UK sport has in this? --

:40:49. > :40:53.role. We make it a condition through collaboration and the partnership

:40:54. > :40:59.with not only UK sport but all the warm country sports councils to make

:41:00. > :41:07.it a condition of funding that sports, in receipt of public money,

:41:08. > :41:12.are gearing to not only the anti-doping policy, but wider

:41:13. > :41:16.complying anti doping rules and I think it is for each of those

:41:17. > :41:23.funding bodies alongside us to help us to ensure that sports are

:41:24. > :41:30.adhering to those rules and are held to account if not. UK sport has

:41:31. > :41:33.responsibility for operating the system whereby athletes have to give

:41:34. > :41:39.a of the day they are available for testing in a location that can

:41:40. > :41:43.found. Is that correct? That is our requirement. At any point when it

:41:44. > :41:49.comes to a requirement to make yourself available for testing that

:41:50. > :41:53.is determined by others at UK Anti-Doping. The gathering of

:41:54. > :41:58.information, is that done by UK Sport? No, that is done by us. Have

:41:59. > :42:04.you had any concerns about other texts? To make sure that team

:42:05. > :42:10.members are complying. Absolutely. We have designated staff at UK

:42:11. > :42:15.Anti-Doping who are monitoring the provision of athlete whereabouts and

:42:16. > :42:20.we will support athletes who are struggling with abattoir and but at

:42:21. > :42:25.the same time we will give them so many chances and if they are still

:42:26. > :42:33.not doing what is asked of them we will issue them with what is called

:42:34. > :42:36.a filing failure, failing to file the appropriate information, or

:42:37. > :42:39.worst case scenario they give is inaccurate or misleading information

:42:40. > :42:44.and we go to test the man they are not there, they will receive a

:42:45. > :42:49.missed test from ours, and three of those over a year equates to an

:42:50. > :42:52.anti-doping rule violation. How long do you hold those records for to

:42:53. > :43:01.make sure you receive information about someone who might not have had

:43:02. > :43:04.up-to-date information? 18 months, because it is personal data and we

:43:05. > :43:12.have an obligation not to hold its beyond the time for which we need

:43:13. > :43:16.it. Thank you. I think that completes our questions. Unless you

:43:17. > :43:17.have any other comments? No, I think I am