Browse content similar to Live Doping in Sport Committee. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Good afternoon. Welcome to this further session in the select | :00:00. | :00:14. | |
committee enquiry into doping in sport. Before we start the first | :00:15. | :00:18. | |
evidence session I would like to run through a few housekeeping points. | :00:19. | :00:24. | |
Firstly that the committee has sought guidance on the use of | :00:25. | :00:31. | |
medicines from the medicines and health care products agency which is | :00:32. | :00:37. | |
an executive agency sponsored by the Department for health. The committee | :00:38. | :00:41. | |
will probably refer to some of the guidance we received during the | :00:42. | :00:44. | |
course of the hearing and we have agreed that we will publish the note | :00:45. | :00:50. | |
that we have been given by Gareth Newman, the head of policy at the | :00:51. | :00:58. | |
body, so we will publish that and we have agreed to publish that now so | :00:59. | :01:02. | |
we will make it available as soon as possible so there will be copies | :01:03. | :01:05. | |
available for those who want to see the full guidance we have been given | :01:06. | :01:10. | |
later on. As many people will know, we have hoped to receive all | :01:11. | :01:15. | |
evidence today from Doctor Friedman. As we know, he had to decline the | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
opportunity to go over this on the grounds of his ill-health and we do | :01:20. | :01:22. | |
not feel the opportunity of giving evidence by remote video link has | :01:23. | :01:27. | |
been possible so the committee will be following up with a series of | :01:28. | :01:33. | |
written questions to Doctor Freeman following the evidence session today | :01:34. | :01:37. | |
and we hope that in lieu of his ability to appear today that he will | :01:38. | :01:41. | |
be able to answer questions in writing to us and the committee | :01:42. | :01:44. | |
reserves the right to call Doctor Freeman or any other witnesses that | :01:45. | :01:48. | |
are relevant to our investigation in the future, if we deem that | :01:49. | :01:50. | |
necessary. Now to today's evidence session. | :01:51. | :02:03. | |
Thank you to Mr Cope for joining us today. This is held as part of our | :02:04. | :02:13. | |
doping in sport enquiry and particularly with regard to how | :02:14. | :02:19. | |
regulations are policed in cycling. There is particular interest in the | :02:20. | :02:24. | |
package that you delivered at Team Sky's request in June 20 11. I | :02:25. | :02:32. | |
wonder if I could start off by asking questions about the sequence | :02:33. | :02:35. | |
of events that led up to you making the journey to Team Sky on 12 June. | :02:36. | :02:42. | |
We've received test dummy from other people and written evidence from | :02:43. | :02:46. | |
British cycling including some of your travel documents and expense | :02:47. | :02:52. | |
claims from that trip but it would help us to ask directly about that | :02:53. | :02:57. | |
time. We appreciate it was some time ago but we would be grateful for any | :02:58. | :03:03. | |
details you can give us. Firstly, the rate in question started on the | :03:04. | :03:11. | |
5th of June 2011. Do you remember when you were first contacted by | :03:12. | :03:17. | |
Team Sky to ask whether you'll be able to collect a package to bring | :03:18. | :03:23. | |
out with you to join the team? I think, like you said earlier, this | :03:24. | :03:30. | |
is a good five years ago now. Last week, I was on a training camp in | :03:31. | :03:36. | |
Spain, I can't even remember if you ask me what I did last Tuesday. I am | :03:37. | :03:40. | |
going to piece together what I can remember. I was asked to go out to | :03:41. | :03:48. | |
help in a logistical role, and as I was going out there, could I bring | :03:49. | :03:53. | |
this package? You don't remember the date? In my world, the cycling | :03:54. | :04:00. | |
world, one race merges into another. Like I said, it's just... I've been | :04:01. | :04:16. | |
looking at you guys thinking, it's a totally different world to what you | :04:17. | :04:21. | |
working. Looking at the documents that British cycling gamers relating | :04:22. | :04:31. | |
to those days, it looks like you made a special trip to Manchester to | :04:32. | :04:36. | |
collect the package. That's incorrect. My base was in | :04:37. | :04:41. | |
Manchester. I was in Manchester and asked to pick the baggage up and | :04:42. | :04:51. | |
bring it out to the Dauphine. I had an apartment there. I was based in | :04:52. | :04:59. | |
Manchester. The travel receipts we were given, you make a rail journey | :05:00. | :05:06. | |
from Eastbourne to Manchester. I live in Ashford in Kent. Why would I | :05:07. | :05:11. | |
go through Eastbourne? Anybody who knows their geography and train | :05:12. | :05:18. | |
lines, you'd go through Stratford into Saint pancreas, Eastbourne. | :05:19. | :05:22. | |
That was the route I used all the time. Also, I had a British cycling | :05:23. | :05:26. | |
car so I would have driven backwards and forwards. That journey was to | :05:27. | :05:32. | |
the hotel at Gatwick. There are two trips. There is one for a rail | :05:33. | :05:38. | |
journey between Eastbourne and Gatwick Airport and there is also a | :05:39. | :05:44. | |
rail journey on the 8th of June which was in relation to the | :05:45. | :05:47. | |
Dauphine, a train journey from Eastbourne to Manchester. I've not | :05:48. | :05:56. | |
seen that. I don't see why I would have gone from Eastbourne to | :05:57. | :06:00. | |
Manchester but it is five years ago. Maybe I did go that route, you have | :06:01. | :06:05. | |
the evidence. That's what it says in the nose. The question is whether | :06:06. | :06:09. | |
you went from Manchester to Eastbourne to pick something up. I | :06:10. | :06:14. | |
wouldn't have said so. But it is five years ago. I had a GB team car | :06:15. | :06:20. | |
which we all got given as coaches and managers. So, I would have | :06:21. | :06:24. | |
driven to Manchester but I would have been in Manchester anyway. What | :06:25. | :06:32. | |
you're expenses claim shows is a railway journey from Eastbourne to | :06:33. | :06:38. | |
Manchester on the 8th of June. Which you account for. You obviously | :06:39. | :06:41. | |
return to Eastbourne afterwards because there is a claim for a rail | :06:42. | :06:44. | |
journey between Eastbourne and Gatwick Airport. I don't know why. I | :06:45. | :06:50. | |
don't live in Eastbourne. That is where the ticket was bought. It | :06:51. | :06:57. | |
could well be. If you buy them online... I can't answer that. The | :06:58. | :07:02. | |
answer to that question could be that you were asked to collect | :07:03. | :07:09. | |
something from Manchester. Yes. You are saying that you don't remember | :07:10. | :07:12. | |
going to Manchester on the 8th of June as Jamaat I would have said I | :07:13. | :07:16. | |
was in Manchester, I collected the package and brought it back home. | :07:17. | :07:22. | |
From my memory, this is what I remember. I collected a package, I | :07:23. | :07:28. | |
went home, I went to London on Saturday night to watch a women's | :07:29. | :07:34. | |
race. Went to Gatwick, stayed in a hotel got on a plane and flew to | :07:35. | :07:39. | |
France. Your record shows that on the 8th of June, you made a rail | :07:40. | :07:42. | |
journey to Manchester from Eastbourne, you come back, you make | :07:43. | :07:47. | |
a rail journey on the 11th of June from Eastbourne to Gatwick Airport | :07:48. | :07:53. | |
where you stay the night in a hotel and get the flight the following | :07:54. | :07:57. | |
morning. Although, your hotel booking says you requested car | :07:58. | :08:08. | |
parking. It's your expenses claim. It is what you've noted down. You've | :08:09. | :08:16. | |
noted Dauphine as part of the claim. If memory serves me right, I didn't | :08:17. | :08:21. | |
make a special trip to Manchester. There is car parking in their as | :08:22. | :08:27. | |
well. That is for the 11th. There is a rail journey between Eastbourne | :08:28. | :08:33. | |
and Manchester on the eighth. I know that I would not go through | :08:34. | :08:36. | |
Eastbourne to go to Manchester from where I live. That is where the | :08:37. | :08:42. | |
ticket was purchased. Do Southern rail have central base when you pay | :08:43. | :08:50. | |
by credit card, online, but not may be. What is interesting is the | :08:51. | :08:53. | |
journey itself. You were in Manchester on the 8th of June. You | :08:54. | :09:02. | |
don't fly out to Geneva until the 12th of June, the day the race | :09:03. | :09:07. | |
finishes. So, when you were asked to collect something, bring something | :09:08. | :09:13. | |
out with you, did your travel plans change in anyway? Did you come out | :09:14. | :09:17. | |
on the 12th of June, was that the day you were always asked to come | :09:18. | :09:22. | |
out or did you change plans? I think, if memory serves me right, I | :09:23. | :09:27. | |
was always asked to go out on the 12th. You didn't book your flight | :09:28. | :09:32. | |
until the ninth after you'd been in Manchester. Any particular reason | :09:33. | :09:40. | |
you made the booking that late? I didn't make the booking. It was made | :09:41. | :09:46. | |
for me. Presumably you issued a request for it to be made? I was | :09:47. | :09:53. | |
asked why buses -- by my bosses to come out, I had a job prior to this | :09:54. | :10:01. | |
as women's Academy coach until the end of 2010. The Academy ceased to | :10:02. | :10:07. | |
be because all the girls I coached moved onto proteins, they deemed | :10:08. | :10:10. | |
there wasn't enough riders to take on to run an Academy in 2011, they | :10:11. | :10:17. | |
made me women's road manager. That was a part-time role. Let's go back | :10:18. | :10:22. | |
to the delivery of the package itself. Your view is you were in | :10:23. | :10:27. | |
Manchester and you were asked to bring it out. Regardless of whether | :10:28. | :10:32. | |
your expenses tally with that, that's your position. You don't | :10:33. | :10:37. | |
remember exactly when you were asked to bring the package out? Who | :10:38. | :10:45. | |
asked... How did the message get to you to bring the package out? I | :10:46. | :10:51. | |
couldn't remember at the time but since reading stuff, it would have | :10:52. | :10:55. | |
been Shane Sutton. Asked me to bring a package out. OK. How would he | :10:56. | :11:04. | |
normally communicate? Text message, telephone? It could have been a | :11:05. | :11:10. | |
phone call, I can't remember. Were you doing a lot of this? I was a gap | :11:11. | :11:18. | |
filler. I didn't really have a role other than alleging the women's road | :11:19. | :11:22. | |
team which was an administrator role. You run the World | :11:23. | :11:28. | |
Championships, that was it. All of these ladies were in proteins. Their | :11:29. | :11:33. | |
teams would provide them with a race programme. So, really, my job was to | :11:34. | :11:39. | |
keep them up-to-date with the UCI rankings that would qualify you to | :11:40. | :11:45. | |
ride for the Olympic Games. We wanted to finish in the first five | :11:46. | :11:52. | |
of the UCI rankings to gain maximum riders for the Olympics. My job was | :11:53. | :11:56. | |
to look at how many points we could score. That was it. It was a | :11:57. | :12:02. | |
part-time role. We will come onto that with the women's team but was | :12:03. | :12:10. | |
this a normal thing? To be asked to do stuff. I was a gap filler. Shane | :12:11. | :12:16. | |
Sutton would often call you up and ask you to bring a package out? It | :12:17. | :12:23. | |
could be a package, or take a bite to someone, do this, do that. If you | :12:24. | :12:28. | |
are paying someone a salary, you want to get your pound of flesh. | :12:29. | :12:33. | |
Nothing unusual for you in that? Not at all. There have been various | :12:34. | :12:39. | |
descriptions of what the package was? It was left on a desk in an the | :12:40. | :12:47. | |
British cycling office. It was a jiffy bag, around that size, a | :12:48. | :12:54. | |
little post it note, saying for Simon, for Richard Freeman. And the | :12:55. | :13:00. | |
package was sealed? The package was sealed. You said you were going out | :13:01. | :13:09. | |
anyway. Shane Sutton said it was logistics. How long were you with | :13:10. | :13:13. | |
the team that day? You couldn't have been with them very long. I came | :13:14. | :13:20. | |
with them in the morning, got to the finish, help sought some stuff out | :13:21. | :13:23. | |
and brought Shane back to the airport. Looking at your travel | :13:24. | :13:28. | |
schedule, assuming it arrived on time, you would have been landing in | :13:29. | :13:34. | |
Geneva at about 11 o'clock, get through the airport, collect a | :13:35. | :13:43. | |
higher car, say that takes an hour, 12 o'clock, two-hour drive to the | :13:44. | :13:51. | |
destination, so that's two o'clock. Then your return flight was at | :13:52. | :13:58. | |
9:45pm. Work back, you would have got a couple of hours before then, | :13:59. | :14:08. | |
you are only with the team for about three hours that day. I was asked to | :14:09. | :14:13. | |
go out on a logistical role and that was it. My boss asked me to go and | :14:14. | :14:18. | |
do something and I don't question my boss if I want to keep my job. What | :14:19. | :14:22. | |
sort of logistical role do you undertake in three hours? That was | :14:23. | :14:28. | |
for them to decide what they needed me to do. I needed to bring Shane | :14:29. | :14:34. | |
back to the airport. Other than you driving Shane back to the airport, | :14:35. | :14:40. | |
what did you do there? Delivered the package to the doctor. Help sought a | :14:41. | :14:44. | |
few bikes. I was under the impression that I needed to bring | :14:45. | :14:47. | |
some bikes back but that never happened. You were asked to come out | :14:48. | :14:54. | |
for the team and before you knew that you would be asked to deliver a | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
package, you say you were coming out anyway, your duties were to spend | :14:59. | :15:03. | |
the day making a round trip where the only duties you were aware of | :15:04. | :15:07. | |
were driving Shane Sutton to the airport and maybe bringing back some | :15:08. | :15:13. | |
bikes? Was that normal? It is normal in our world. It seems an unusual | :15:14. | :15:20. | |
use of resources to make someone make a journey that. People do | :15:21. | :15:26. | |
unusual things like flying detergent out to a race because one rider is | :15:27. | :15:30. | |
allergic to it. If you look at any sport, really. OK. When you arrived | :15:31. | :15:38. | |
with the team on the 12th of June, at the end of the race, what did you | :15:39. | :15:41. | |
do with the package, will who did you give it to? The doctor. Did | :15:42. | :15:51. | |
anyone else see you do that? I can't remember that. There was people | :15:52. | :15:56. | |
milling around whether they took any interest or not, I don't know. Did | :15:57. | :16:01. | |
Doctor Freeman give you anything back to take away or dispose of? | :16:02. | :16:06. | |
That was the last resort of the package? Yes. | :16:07. | :16:15. | |
Did you ask what was in the package? I didn't. Why would I? I didn't | :16:16. | :16:25. | |
think anything was towards. It is a national governing body and why | :16:26. | :16:30. | |
would I question the integrity about our governing body, basically? It is | :16:31. | :16:34. | |
not about questioning integrity, it is just when you are going through | :16:35. | :16:37. | |
an airport with a package of quite like to know what is in the package. | :16:38. | :16:45. | |
Guild no, I ask. Did you not asked because of fear for keeping your | :16:46. | :16:50. | |
job? Not at all, I just didn't ask. You could think I was stupid. | :16:51. | :16:56. | |
Absolutely not, I have your CV in front of us and you are a former | :16:57. | :17:02. | |
professional cyclist and a national circuit race champion and you have | :17:03. | :17:06. | |
been obviously on the Olympic programme and you have a substantial | :17:07. | :17:10. | |
record is both a cyclist and also a coach as well, are you, in fact, | :17:11. | :17:15. | |
though in this instance the most core overqualified a delivery boy in | :17:16. | :17:21. | |
history? I could well become a Yaffa! As I said earlier, I had a | :17:22. | :17:26. | |
role in 2010, that was a full-time role. I suddenly moved into a role | :17:27. | :17:30. | |
that I could see 12 months down the line, that did happen, I was made | :17:31. | :17:37. | |
redundant so I was doing everything possible to keep everyone happy and | :17:38. | :17:41. | |
trying keep my job. I have family to keep so what would you do? When | :17:42. | :17:46. | |
someone asks used to do something, your boss, you don't question it. I | :17:47. | :17:52. | |
was struck that you said one race Rock moulds into another but this | :17:53. | :17:56. | |
one was quite an exceptionally important race because it is the | :17:57. | :17:59. | |
run-up to the Tour de France under one week long race and effectively | :18:00. | :18:04. | |
all across the New Year that Mr Wiggins was trying to win the race | :18:05. | :18:09. | |
and the build-up, was trailed in the press and of a thing like that, it | :18:10. | :18:12. | |
is not just one race at Malton to another so when you are asked to | :18:13. | :18:17. | |
take a package through an airport, a jiffy bag, did you not make some | :18:18. | :18:26. | |
connection? There have been 101 Dauphines, to me it is just another | :18:27. | :18:31. | |
bike race. To certain people and to his story it was a standout race but | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
to me doing my job, no, it just moulds into another race. I am quite | :18:37. | :18:40. | |
intrigued as to what you were expected to do when you were there. | :18:41. | :18:43. | |
It seems like they went to the expense of sending you there and you | :18:44. | :18:47. | |
were just going to hang around for a few hours and do this or that and I | :18:48. | :18:51. | |
understand that a professional cycling team will have a lot of | :18:52. | :18:54. | |
manpower and flexibility but at the same time you are a very highly | :18:55. | :19:00. | |
qualified coach and someone with this particular background, is this | :19:01. | :19:06. | |
just not very strange that you were asked to go there and hang around | :19:07. | :19:11. | |
for a few hours and incidentally handing over a jiffy bag? At that | :19:12. | :19:17. | |
period in the time, no, not really. As much as I was qualified didn't | :19:18. | :19:21. | |
actually have a job. You saw others on the team doing something similar? | :19:22. | :19:27. | |
They would be doing that, yes. Would they be taking other bags through? I | :19:28. | :19:32. | |
would have thought so, in every cycling team in the world. What you | :19:33. | :19:38. | |
think now looking back with the benefit of hindsight, should you | :19:39. | :19:42. | |
have asked more questions? I should. I probably should have asked what | :19:43. | :19:46. | |
was in the package but as I said at the time really I didn't think it | :19:47. | :19:54. | |
was anything untoward. If you wanted to ask more questions now, does that | :19:55. | :20:00. | |
mean you are suspicious? No, but because of the media asking why | :20:01. | :20:03. | |
would you travel here or there and the other day I travelled down to | :20:04. | :20:07. | |
Spain with 40 boxes in the car and I didn't open every box but I presumed | :20:08. | :20:11. | |
they were helmets but I don't know. We do travel from a and B and C with | :20:12. | :20:20. | |
a lot of stuff. A quick question on that. Thank you, Mr Cope, before I | :20:21. | :20:28. | |
was a member of Parliament I was in the Royal Air Force and I'm | :20:29. | :20:32. | |
interested in airport security. Obviously in 2011 there was a lot | :20:33. | :20:35. | |
going on in the world and airport security was very heightened at the | :20:36. | :20:41. | |
start of the Arab Spring. Can you remember, did you check any luggage | :20:42. | :20:49. | |
into the hole that all? I did, yes. The jiffy bag was in the hold. You | :20:50. | :20:56. | |
would have been asked when you are checking in did you pack the bag | :20:57. | :21:01. | |
yourself and were you given any items to put on board. I cannot | :21:02. | :21:07. | |
remember to be honest but I probably said yes. So you would have misled | :21:08. | :21:13. | |
the check-in staff? Obviously you had a package, so you put the jiffy | :21:14. | :21:17. | |
bag, what kind of bag you normally travelling when you check something. | :21:18. | :21:28. | |
It was a normal hold tight bag. In a side pocket? No, just chucked it in | :21:29. | :21:31. | |
with anything else, my wash bag and everything else. The only reason I | :21:32. | :21:36. | |
check to hold bag in was that I had items that would be confiscated | :21:37. | :21:42. | |
going through overhead. You seem to have good recollection. I have lost | :21:43. | :21:46. | |
a lot of money doing that, with aftershaves and things like that so | :21:47. | :21:53. | |
I know now to check the bag in. So that is your regular procedure. It | :21:54. | :21:59. | |
is now, yes. When you have a package you put in your hold luggage. Well, | :22:00. | :22:03. | |
I don't get given packages that often but at this point I did. So | :22:04. | :22:08. | |
just to clarify you would have misled airport check-in staff if you | :22:09. | :22:15. | |
asked whether you packed everything yourself? They would have done | :22:16. | :22:20. | |
because of the state of security. Do they still asked that question? They | :22:21. | :22:29. | |
stopped asking it. They do, yes. You just said you went to Spain last | :22:30. | :22:34. | |
week with 40 boxes which you presumed had helmets in them. What | :22:35. | :22:39. | |
did you presume was in this package? You must've had thought what the | :22:40. | :22:42. | |
Senate. If it came from the doctor it was a busy something medical but | :22:43. | :22:49. | |
anything untoward, no, because our national governing body. I have been | :22:50. | :22:54. | |
a cyclist for 30 plus years and looked up to British cycling and we | :22:55. | :23:03. | |
have done so well, and with the stance of zero tolerance towards | :23:04. | :23:07. | |
performance enhancing drugs, I would have never thought that anything | :23:08. | :23:12. | |
like that would be in a package, so I had no reason to believe it was | :23:13. | :23:16. | |
anything untoward at all. Why Makar how long did you do the job for? Was | :23:17. | :23:24. | |
about five years? Which job? The job you are doing at the time. Five or | :23:25. | :23:31. | |
six years. Where you asked to take packages are any other time? I | :23:32. | :23:35. | |
asked to take stuff, packages, asked to take stuff, | :23:36. | :23:39. | |
clothing, helmets. I mean small clothing, helmets. I mean small | :23:40. | :23:46. | |
jiffy bags. It could well be, yes, but I have no recollection. It is | :23:47. | :23:50. | |
not untoward to take stuff from A to B. What about small packages that | :23:51. | :23:56. | |
could contain all sorts? Semiregular occurrence? Semiregular. Did you | :23:57. | :24:05. | |
ever ask what was in them? Did you take them abroad through customs? | :24:06. | :24:11. | |
Could well be, yes. It depends how you were travelling, if I was in the | :24:12. | :24:15. | |
boot of a cart -- if I was in a car would be in the boot but in an | :24:16. | :24:20. | |
airport it would go in the hold luggage or maybe the hand luggage, | :24:21. | :24:27. | |
it just depends really. You are making out I am -- I assume you take | :24:28. | :24:35. | |
more than one package so each time was your normal method of operation | :24:36. | :24:39. | |
to put them in the hold luggage other hand luggage? It would be | :24:40. | :24:42. | |
either. What would make your mind up? | :24:43. | :24:54. | |
Well... I would've thought you would always put it in the hold and every | :24:55. | :24:59. | |
time you would be asked by customs, did you pack it yourself? And you | :25:00. | :25:05. | |
would obviously say yes, even it was no. Tier I did packet, but in the | :25:06. | :25:10. | |
bag. You are splitting hairs, you had a package that you did not know | :25:11. | :25:16. | |
what was in it that you put it in the suitcase and you said yes when | :25:17. | :25:20. | |
the answer was no. He said that happened several times. Once or | :25:21. | :25:25. | |
twice, yes. Yes. Did you bring anything back? Did you bring any | :25:26. | :25:31. | |
packages back, you came back on the same day? I didn't come back on the | :25:32. | :25:37. | |
same day, no. I didn't bring any packages back. Did you booked the | :25:38. | :25:41. | |
flight yourself, or was it booked for you? Booked for me. Did you pay | :25:42. | :25:46. | |
for hold luggage or was it booked with the ticket? Your initial | :25:47. | :25:52. | |
thought was that you were going out to give someone a lift back to the | :25:53. | :25:56. | |
airport and bring some bags back and the return ticket, where these bikes | :25:57. | :26:03. | |
booked on your return ticket? I do not remember what was put on the | :26:04. | :26:12. | |
return ticket or not, I am not sure. Given new when staying overnight, | :26:13. | :26:17. | |
why did you take your overnight bag with you? I stayed overnight after | :26:18. | :26:21. | |
the London knock-down, which I explained earlier, so I had an | :26:22. | :26:24. | |
overnight bag with a change of underwear and probably a change of | :26:25. | :26:30. | |
clothing, so yes, that's why had an overnight. It is unclear whether you | :26:31. | :26:51. | |
left your car at the hotel? Some people might have left the bag in | :26:52. | :26:57. | |
and back for the sake of it and and back for the sake of it and | :26:58. | :27:01. | |
checking it through airport security and that adds delay and it is odd | :27:02. | :27:08. | |
As you said with my expenses, I As you said with | :27:09. | :27:09. | |
can't remember if it was a train or can't remember if it was a train or | :27:10. | :27:13. | |
back into holes -- would not check a back into holes -- would not check a | :27:14. | :27:15. | |
bag into a hole that they did not bag into a hole that they did not | :27:16. | :27:16. | |
Where you asked by British cycling made just to bring it back | :27:17. | :27:17. | |
to make sure the package was checked to make sure the package was checked | :27:18. | :27:23. | |
into the holder not carried by hand? I wasn't asked by anybody what to do | :27:24. | :27:28. | |
with it. Can you give us an idea of how big it was? About a shoe box, | :27:29. | :27:39. | |
about... I don't know what was in it, papers or something. You guys I | :27:40. | :27:43. | |
say it is fluid so I don't know. That is what the doctor said it was. | :27:44. | :27:49. | |
I don't even know how big Bloomer sillies. | :27:50. | :27:56. | |
Just a quick question, you spoke about your reference for British | :27:57. | :28:01. | |
in their managers and that you would in their managers and that you would | :28:02. | :28:09. | |
not questioned them but you said earlier that they tend to wear two | :28:10. | :28:13. | |
hats with Team Sky. Do you have the same reverence for Team Sky? Yes. | :28:14. | :28:19. | |
There is a zero tolerance across the board. The fact that British cycling | :28:20. | :28:27. | |
is running the game has been running for some time gives them a sense of | :28:28. | :28:32. | |
credibility and so on. Team Sky and you are trying to establish | :28:33. | :28:37. | |
themselves and they start off with a poorly attaining season before they | :28:38. | :28:41. | |
start to do well and you have no reason therefore to trust the | :28:42. | :28:45. | |
integrity of Team Sky? It is the same people, I think the reason they | :28:46. | :28:49. | |
had a poor couple of seasons is because starting a new team takes a | :28:50. | :28:52. | |
hell of a lot. You know, you don't just walk in and take the world on, | :28:53. | :28:56. | |
it takes a hell of a lot of thinking and a lot of mistakes to get it | :28:57. | :29:03. | |
right. Do you resent the fact that you have been asked to carry the can | :29:04. | :29:08. | |
for this business? Carry what can? I mean my name has been all over the | :29:09. | :29:14. | |
media, yes. Indeed, and you are in front of the select committee | :29:15. | :29:17. | |
answering some very tricky questions about a package that nobody seems to | :29:18. | :29:20. | |
know what was involved in it, does it not annoy you a little bit? A | :29:21. | :29:26. | |
little bit, yes. But it is history now, so I can only say what I know, | :29:27. | :29:34. | |
and that is it. Thank you. Can I just be clear, was your trip to | :29:35. | :29:40. | |
Manchester solely to collect this package? Not that I can remember, I | :29:41. | :29:45. | |
was based in Manchester, I would have been in Manchester from memory | :29:46. | :29:50. | |
that we potentially running track programmes. I don't remember going | :29:51. | :29:54. | |
solely to Manchester pick up a package to come home. You think you | :29:55. | :30:00. | |
were in Manchester anyway? Tier I was based in Manchester for a good | :30:01. | :30:05. | |
few years so to actually travel to Manchester Speaker package up and | :30:06. | :30:10. | |
back row, I don't remember doing that at all. I am confused about the | :30:11. | :30:17. | |
timescale on this. The evidence that the chairman has referred to said | :30:18. | :30:21. | |
that the package was collected on June eight, and the journey was not | :30:22. | :30:26. | |
made until the 12th of June, the journey to France, so there is a gap | :30:27. | :30:32. | |
of three days. I can't remember, to be honest. I think potentia picked | :30:33. | :30:40. | |
it up on the Friday came home and then, like I said, went to London on | :30:41. | :30:43. | |
the Saturday Night Live went to France on the Sunday. Did you | :30:44. | :30:53. | |
deliver packages often? No, not offered. Have you ever delivered | :30:54. | :31:00. | |
another package? Tier package as in medical package or clothing package? | :31:01. | :31:06. | |
Paper? Did you know this was a medical package when you picked it | :31:07. | :31:11. | |
up? I didn't know it was a medical package but I assumed that being | :31:12. | :31:14. | |
from a doctor it would be something medical. Had you delivered a medical | :31:15. | :31:21. | |
package from a doctor before? Not if memory serves me right, no. Have you | :31:22. | :31:28. | |
delivered a medical package subsequently? I don't think so, no. | :31:29. | :31:33. | |
So this is the only medical package you have ever delivered. | :31:34. | :31:37. | |
Potentially, yes. If memory serves me right. | :31:38. | :31:47. | |
You said earlier you did not know what was in the package. I still do | :31:48. | :31:54. | |
not know what was in the package. What told you it was from a doctor? | :31:55. | :32:05. | |
Did someone tell you? If something is being made up for you to be given | :32:06. | :32:09. | |
to the doctor you assume it is from the doctor has ordered at. He did | :32:10. | :32:16. | |
not say it was from the doctor, he said can you pick a package up to | :32:17. | :32:20. | |
give to Richard Freeman, who was the doctor at British cycling. I am | :32:21. | :32:25. | |
assuming. I cannot imagine Richard ordering anything else. I could be | :32:26. | :32:37. | |
wrong. I want to go back to something you said before where you | :32:38. | :32:42. | |
said you have taken packages more than once but you never know what | :32:43. | :32:49. | |
was in them. But sometimes you put them in your whole bondage and | :32:50. | :32:51. | |
sometimes in your hand luggage. How could you take something in your | :32:52. | :32:56. | |
hand luggage they did not know what was in it Mr? I am not saying I took | :32:57. | :33:07. | |
packages here are, there and everywhere. To take something in | :33:08. | :33:10. | |
your hand luggage you would have to know... Maybe I asked what that was. | :33:11. | :33:16. | |
So just sometimes you know what is in these packages? Yeah. What would | :33:17. | :33:22. | |
have sometimes been in these packages that sometimes you know? It | :33:23. | :33:30. | |
could be licenses. Licenses? Every rider needs a licence. I got sent a | :33:31. | :33:34. | |
package the other day full of licensees. This package we are | :33:35. | :33:38. | |
talking about on this occasion that you picked up in Manchester for the | :33:39. | :33:44. | |
doctor, you decided to put that into your hold luggage, why? I did not | :33:45. | :33:53. | |
take any hand luggage. Other than my passport in my pocket. Would that be | :33:54. | :33:59. | |
usual thing for you to do to put things in your luggage and not know | :34:00. | :34:02. | |
which were taking? It could have been anything. It could have been. | :34:03. | :34:09. | |
You would never question that? If a guy on the street gave me a package | :34:10. | :34:14. | |
I think I would be suspicious. This is our national governing body. I | :34:15. | :34:17. | |
had no reason to be suspicious at all. Is that because it was known | :34:18. | :34:25. | |
practice at the things that were not quite legitimate in packages? I do | :34:26. | :34:29. | |
not know whether it was normal practice, I was just asked to take | :34:30. | :34:32. | |
the package and I did not ask what was in it. Do you find on reflection | :34:33. | :34:41. | |
that was a strange thing to do? It probably is on reflection. We are | :34:42. | :34:47. | |
five or six years down the line. You were not an experienced person | :34:48. | :34:55. | |
around cycling so I presume you not inexperienced to presume what was in | :34:56. | :34:59. | |
the package. Why would I presume it was anything untoward? I am not | :35:00. | :35:05. | |
saying it was but with your years of experience you would surely have the | :35:06. | :35:08. | |
reasonable understanding of the types of things that were in | :35:09. | :35:15. | |
packages? Basically I did not think it was anything to worry about. I | :35:16. | :35:26. | |
trusted my colleagues. OK. When you handed the package to | :35:27. | :35:29. | |
doctor feeling did he give the impression he knew what was in it? I | :35:30. | :35:34. | |
just gave it to him and I presume he said thank you like most common | :35:35. | :35:48. | |
decent people would and that was that. No other comment, just handed | :35:49. | :35:53. | |
straight to him? No. I did not think it was anything untoward or secret | :35:54. | :35:57. | |
or underhand. It was like me handing a bit of paper like you guys have | :35:58. | :35:59. | |
been handed paper. At the airport when you arrived in Geneva you | :36:00. | :36:04. | |
picked up a car. What car was it? I have no clue. I have driven a | :36:05. | :36:12. | |
million cars between now and then. Was it a car or van? It was a car. I | :36:13. | :36:21. | |
know it was a car. You were expecting to bring things back from | :36:22. | :36:30. | |
the airport -- bikes? You can put the hood down and transport them. If | :36:31. | :36:34. | |
I needed to bring five bikes back surely they would have booked a van | :36:35. | :36:39. | |
but the booked a car. You did not look it, somebody else booked it? | :36:40. | :36:48. | |
Exactly. You mentioned your job at the time was part-time. Yes. I much | :36:49. | :36:56. | |
did you get paid? I think that is for British cycling to say, not for | :36:57. | :37:02. | |
me. You are not willing... No. I do not think I have to disclose that. | :37:03. | :37:11. | |
Was it adequate? What is adequate? Were you paid sufficiently not to | :37:12. | :37:19. | |
ask questions? No. It was not a three figure sum, I can tell you | :37:20. | :37:25. | |
that. It was not? No, nowhere near. I care. | :37:26. | :37:31. | |
It was enough to make you drop everything. It was not a question of | :37:32. | :37:38. | |
dropping something, he was my boss. Without question you take what you | :37:39. | :37:42. | |
are asked to take and go where you are asked to go. Do you ask | :37:43. | :37:46. | |
questions to your boss? I think you do. Is it normal for Team Sky to | :37:47. | :37:54. | |
move bikes around on an easyJet flight? I would have thought so. | :37:55. | :37:59. | |
Like any cycling team flying anywhere with bikes. You have done | :38:00. | :38:04. | |
that before? They can bikes on flights? EasyJet? Why easyJet? That | :38:05. | :38:15. | |
is who you are flying with. You can boot a bike on any flight. Had you | :38:16. | :38:20. | |
done that before? Yes. Nothing unusual about that? No. When the | :38:21. | :38:29. | |
story about the package was first reported and you did an interview | :38:30. | :38:36. | |
for that Mike cycling News you said the package was not for Brad, why | :38:37. | :38:41. | |
did you say that? Because it was for doctor Freeman. What he did with it | :38:42. | :38:46. | |
was none of my business. You did not know? No. The press like to twist | :38:47. | :38:54. | |
things. What you told this package was important? No. Doctor Freeman | :38:55. | :39:00. | |
must've thought it was important and yet you are asked to clear it | :39:01. | :39:03. | |
through an airport without any documentation or any knowledge of | :39:04. | :39:07. | |
what it was. If you had been stopped and questioned the package could've | :39:08. | :39:10. | |
been confiscated and taken off of you. Without any documentation. That | :39:11. | :39:17. | |
is my naivete for not asking. It seems naive of them as well. You | :39:18. | :39:24. | |
would have to ask the doctor. The potentially care more about the | :39:25. | :39:28. | |
package than you. Potentially. That is a question for the doctor. When | :39:29. | :39:34. | |
you were told about the package that was no importance attached to it and | :39:35. | :39:38. | |
no sense of how important it was that he did not miss your flight? | :39:39. | :39:48. | |
Not at all. I am struck by the fact that your memory has recovered to an | :39:49. | :39:51. | |
extraordinary degree in the course of this evidence. You began and | :39:52. | :39:56. | |
could scarcely remember what you did last Tuesday but now you can recall | :39:57. | :40:02. | |
your travel arrangements and have a detailed memory, you remember you | :40:03. | :40:06. | |
are asked to drive Shane Sutton to the airport expecting to bring back | :40:07. | :40:11. | |
bikes, there was a car, not a van, you checked in luggage, you remember | :40:12. | :40:15. | |
the size of the package. It is a curious way your memory works. I | :40:16. | :40:23. | |
can't help how my memory works. Credibility. Why did you not ask | :40:24. | :40:29. | |
what was in the package? I did not feel I needed to. This was an | :40:30. | :40:36. | |
unusual circumstance. You said you did not often deliver to the doctor | :40:37. | :40:41. | |
and yet on this occasion you are asked to give something to a doctor. | :40:42. | :40:46. | |
At the heart of this evidence what people will find hard to believe is | :40:47. | :40:51. | |
that you travelled through an airport with the package for a | :40:52. | :40:56. | |
doctor and you did not ask what was then that package. I trusted my | :40:57. | :41:03. | |
employees. Do you understand why people find that an extraordinary | :41:04. | :41:07. | |
bit of evidence for you to give? Potentially, yes. It is not about | :41:08. | :41:14. | |
hindsight. I understand why you say you trusted your employer because | :41:15. | :41:18. | |
that is clearly an intent to shift focus onto them but the focus is on | :41:19. | :41:22. | |
you today. Whether you trusted your employer or not it is a normal and | :41:23. | :41:30. | |
natural question to ask what is in a medical package that you are | :41:31. | :41:34. | |
transporting across international boundaries by plane. I did not ask. | :41:35. | :41:43. | |
I would ask my partner, my best friend, my employer, what within a | :41:44. | :41:49. | |
package I was going to transport by plane. All of us would. Everybody in | :41:50. | :42:03. | |
this room would come apart from you. They are better people than me. It | :42:04. | :42:05. | |
is not a question of being better, it is doing something that is | :42:06. | :42:08. | |
logical because we know that when we go to the airport we get asked what | :42:09. | :42:10. | |
is in our baggage. You are faced with two choices, to lie and say you | :42:11. | :42:13. | |
did know what was in a tangible acted yourself or that you were | :42:14. | :42:19. | |
carrying nothing. That is why at the heart of this evidence people find | :42:20. | :42:25. | |
something deeply suspicious. I was asked to take a package out of | :42:26. | :42:29. | |
France and that is what I did. I did not ask what within it. You have | :42:30. | :42:33. | |
said sometimes people were asked to transport detergent. You said that | :42:34. | :42:41. | |
earlier. Yes. Clearly your employers were in the habit of telling you | :42:42. | :42:48. | |
what within packages. I did not say I transported the detergent. You can | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
get asked to take anything anywhere. You mentioned detergent. That was an | :42:54. | :42:59. | |
off-the-cuff comment. That is what you said. Clearly your employers | :43:00. | :43:03. | |
were in the habit of telling couriers but as yourself what was in | :43:04. | :43:10. | |
the packages you were transporting. That may well be but they did not | :43:11. | :43:15. | |
tell me what within this package. The standard practice was to see | :43:16. | :43:20. | |
what within packages and on this particular occasion transporting | :43:21. | :43:23. | |
medicine to a doctor they did not say what within the package? You | :43:24. | :43:27. | |
would have to ask them that. I cannot answer. No, you are the | :43:28. | :43:35. | |
witness. Not them. That is why we are asking you questions. I did not | :43:36. | :43:39. | |
know what within it, I took it and that is all I say. What do you think | :43:40. | :43:46. | |
was in the package looking back? I have no clue. If that is what it was | :43:47. | :43:55. | |
that is what it was. What was your master plan? What we're going to do | :43:56. | :43:59. | |
if the package had been opened? I did not have the master plan. I | :44:00. | :44:04. | |
think you think this is some... I do not know what. I was asked to take a | :44:05. | :44:10. | |
package... You are different from everybody else in this room because | :44:11. | :44:13. | |
I would be very nervous as I was transporting a package that I did | :44:14. | :44:18. | |
not know what within it. I did not think it anything untoward. You did | :44:19. | :44:25. | |
not have a clue? Not a clue. I did not ask. In your period as an | :44:26. | :44:32. | |
athlete have you ever seen dodgy substances given to athletes? | :44:33. | :44:41. | |
Physically actually seeing it? Yes. No. Not at all. Track-side, have you | :44:42. | :44:50. | |
heard about it? Gossip? There is gossip everywhere. Gossip you | :44:51. | :45:01. | |
believed? Believed and tell people to go positive, basically. There is | :45:02. | :45:08. | |
gossip about anything, mechanical doping, gossip about everything. | :45:09. | :45:14. | |
Yes, but we are talking about you and people you knew in the sport | :45:15. | :45:17. | |
that you presumably loved, did you hear people talk about doping in a | :45:18. | :45:24. | |
way that you found credible? There has been talk, yes. Did you find it | :45:25. | :45:36. | |
credible? Credible? Credible. We are repeating one another, I do not know | :45:37. | :45:41. | |
why. You know what credible means. Did you find it credible, some of | :45:42. | :45:46. | |
the gossip you heard? Yes, believable, yes. I will go with | :45:47. | :45:52. | |
believable. You found it credible, believable, some of the gossip you | :45:53. | :45:58. | |
heard about drug-taking. I think we all that within sport, is financial | :45:59. | :46:04. | |
gain. You have been involved in the sport and had her gossip about | :46:05. | :46:08. | |
drug-taking, you find that gossip credible or believable, you were | :46:09. | :46:15. | |
then asked most unusually to transport a package across | :46:16. | :46:18. | |
international boundaries and even though you believed that drug-taking | :46:19. | :46:23. | |
was credible and that you were being asked to deliver this package in a | :46:24. | :46:30. | |
report to ask what was in it? No. Not with the stance of Team Sky and | :46:31. | :46:36. | |
British cycling of zero tolerance, I believe that was their philosophy. | :46:37. | :46:43. | |
You said you believe gossip about drug-taking. Tier I'm going back to | :46:44. | :46:52. | |
20 years in my career. You can't you believe the gossip and you don't | :46:53. | :46:59. | |
believe the gossip. I was under the impression of we were talking about | :47:00. | :47:05. | |
my career as a cyclist. In the sport in general I would believe there are | :47:06. | :47:10. | |
some people who cheat. OK, so we have established that you think | :47:11. | :47:17. | |
there is cheating in sport. In general. You believe or you do not | :47:18. | :47:22. | |
think there is cheating in cycling? I believe there is potentially, like | :47:23. | :47:30. | |
anybody else. OK, so you think there is cheating in cycling. I am talking | :47:31. | :47:35. | |
about cycling as a whole worldwide, I am not talking about British | :47:36. | :47:40. | |
cheating in British cycling. I have cheating in British cycling. | :47:41. | :47:42. | |
never heard anything at all. No never heard anything at all. No | :47:43. | :47:49. | |
gossip, no rumours. I am sure the journalists would love the answer to | :47:50. | :47:55. | |
this question. I am sure they know themselves. I am not going to say | :47:56. | :47:59. | |
who I think is cheating because I am putting my neck on the line. How are | :48:00. | :48:03. | |
you putting your neck on the line? I could be wrong. I am not asking you | :48:04. | :48:10. | |
to name names! There has been systematic doping within the soviet | :48:11. | :48:16. | |
union, hasn't there? So that has come out. I would say individual | :48:17. | :48:21. | |
riders potentially would take the risk because there is financial | :48:22. | :48:28. | |
gain, but as for British cycling, I have never seen anything. Who did | :48:29. | :48:33. | |
you talk to in the run-up to giving this evidence session? Who did you | :48:34. | :48:40. | |
prepare the evidence session with? Just my lawyer, that's it. You | :48:41. | :48:46. | |
didn't talk to anybody else involved in the sport? As in? I am asking you | :48:47. | :48:57. | |
the question. No. I have spoken to my lawyer and also some friends, | :48:58. | :49:02. | |
that is it. Friends involved in the sport. The friends have been | :49:03. | :49:07. | |
involved in the sport in the past, yes? Any senior figures in the | :49:08. | :49:17. | |
sport? Mechanics and things like that. You were asked when he went | :49:18. | :49:26. | |
out to Geneva that you might expect to bring some bikes back, in the end | :49:27. | :49:30. | |
did you bring anything that? No, I didn't. Shane Sutton said about your | :49:31. | :49:39. | |
visit that he also took some stuff back with him and I grabbed a lift | :49:40. | :49:44. | |
back to the airport with him. No, I didn't bring anything back. That is | :49:45. | :49:48. | |
what he has told us and he was travelling with you so he might have | :49:49. | :49:51. | |
noticed if you are bringing anything back. I didn't bring anything back. | :49:52. | :49:56. | |
You are saying Shane Sutton was wrong and you were not bringing | :49:57. | :50:00. | |
anything back. I didn't listen to what he said but I was not given | :50:01. | :50:04. | |
anything to bring back. A couple more quick questions. Just to | :50:05. | :50:12. | |
confirm, was the package sealed? It was, yes. Hypothetically, if you | :50:13. | :50:20. | |
were to take a package to one of the team doctors and that package | :50:21. | :50:28. | |
contained performance enhancing drugs that might have therapeutic | :50:29. | :50:33. | |
use, and you were the coria and the team doctor administered it to | :50:34. | :50:39. | |
athlete, you would be implicated in athlete, you would be implicated in | :50:40. | :50:45. | |
that doping ruling? Yes, I would be. So it means in the nicest possible | :50:46. | :50:48. | |
way it is very handy that you were not aware what was in the package? | :50:49. | :50:55. | |
here and I think you are being here and I think you | :50:56. | :50:57. | |
stitched up, I think you have been stitched up, I think you have been | :50:58. | :50:59. | |
left to dangle by people who may or may not be former colleagues and | :51:00. | :51:01. | |
friends and that actually you have been left in a very difficult | :51:02. | :51:07. | |
position. Yes. Do you feel that? Is there anything else you want to tell | :51:08. | :51:15. | |
the committee? Bearing in mind that you have been done in. Tier I have | :51:16. | :51:18. | |
told you everything I know, I don't know what was in and I was asked to | :51:19. | :51:23. | |
take it by my employees. I was in a position where my role was not full | :51:24. | :51:28. | |
side so I was trying to secure the job so any job that I was asked to | :51:29. | :51:33. | |
do that I would do it. Has your reputation been damaged as a result | :51:34. | :51:41. | |
of this? Potentially yes. Kammy clarify from where we started in | :51:42. | :51:43. | |
terms of your arrangements and where you spend your time. You said you | :51:44. | :51:49. | |
live near Ashford in Kent and you also said you live part-time in | :51:50. | :51:54. | |
Manchester as well, is that correct? I live me quake in Manchester and I | :51:55. | :51:59. | |
went home at weekends. Did you say you had a flat in Manchester? It was | :52:00. | :52:05. | |
shared with a couple of mechanics and another coach. It was a | :52:06. | :52:11. | |
registered address for you in Manchester? No, my registered | :52:12. | :52:20. | |
address was still in Ashford. Did you have a residence in Manchester | :52:21. | :52:24. | |
or wager sharing with some friends? I suppose it was sharing really, | :52:25. | :52:29. | |
wasn't it? I used to get their Mundie Nightingale home on Friday | :52:30. | :52:36. | |
afternoon. How long did that continue for? Two or three years and | :52:37. | :52:44. | |
I hated every minute of it! To be clear, were you on the electoral | :52:45. | :52:49. | |
register or paying bills? No, I left everything down in Kent. Thank you, | :52:50. | :52:55. | |
Mr Cope. in front of the committee. We have | :52:56. | :53:48. | |
seen you several times in our doping in sport enquiry and we are very | :53:49. | :53:52. | |
grateful for your existence that you have given the committee and your | :53:53. | :53:55. | |
colleagues during the course of this enquiry. We would be very keen to | :53:56. | :54:00. | |
ask you about the progress you have made in this investigation of this | :54:01. | :54:04. | |
matter and you will obviously be familiar with the evidence we have | :54:05. | :54:07. | |
just received from Simon Cope and the evidence we received last year | :54:08. | :54:12. | |
from sky -- Team Sky and British cycling. The key thing we were told, | :54:13. | :54:16. | |
I think, when Dave Brailsford gave evidence to us was that he had been | :54:17. | :54:22. | |
told by Doctor Freeman that the package that Simon Cope delivered to | :54:23. | :54:28. | |
Team Sky contained Fluimucil and I think we are interested to know | :54:29. | :54:32. | |
whether in the evidence you have received from British cycling, Team | :54:33. | :54:35. | |
Sky or anybody else you spoke to in your enquiries as to whether there | :54:36. | :54:39. | |
is any corroborating evidence or written evidence to support | :54:40. | :54:44. | |
backplane? If you will permit me I will start from the beginning, which | :54:45. | :54:53. | |
is that on the of September last year we started an investigation at | :54:54. | :54:57. | |
UK anti-do in and that was based on the fact that we had received | :54:58. | :55:04. | |
information to suggest that a possible anti-do the rules violation | :55:05. | :55:09. | |
may have been committed during some stage of the Dauphine in France in | :55:10. | :55:18. | |
June 20 11. Subsequently that Anti-Doping Agency violation in | :55:19. | :55:21. | |
question became about the contents of a package that was delivered to | :55:22. | :55:31. | |
Doctor Freeman in France with the additional allegation that the | :55:32. | :55:38. | |
package contains a glucocorticosteroids. We have into | :55:39. | :55:48. | |
void 32 individuals that across current and ex-employee 's British | :55:49. | :55:52. | |
cycling and Team Sky, writers and medical professionals. -- we have | :55:53. | :55:59. | |
interviewed. And the fact as we have been able to establish art that at | :56:00. | :56:05. | |
some point during the Dauphine a request was made by Doctor Freeman | :56:06. | :56:11. | |
for a package to be delivered to him. He requested Shane Sutton to | :56:12. | :56:19. | |
arrange for that package to be delivered to him over in France and | :56:20. | :56:24. | |
Shane Sutton then got into contact with Simon Cope to pick up that | :56:25. | :56:31. | |
package and to bring it over to France. Parallel to that is a | :56:32. | :56:37. | |
conversation that Doctor Freeman had with a British cycling | :56:38. | :56:52. | |
Phil Burt and he was the individual Phil Burt and he was the individual | :56:53. | :56:53. | |
then left the package with Shane then left the package with Shane | :56:54. | :56:55. | |
Sutton 's assistant, on her desk or with her we are unsure, because we | :56:56. | :57:01. | |
cannot ascertain specifically how that action took place and as you | :57:02. | :57:05. | |
have concerned -- as you have heard that is from where Simon Cope | :57:06. | :57:08. | |
collected the package up in the velodrome. On the basis of the | :57:09. | :57:15. | |
information that we have received Simon Cope travelled to Manchester | :57:16. | :57:21. | |
to pick up that package and then at some later point he travelled to | :57:22. | :57:26. | |
Gatwick on June the 11th and he stayed overnight at Gatwick and then | :57:27. | :57:31. | |
he took a flight out to Geneva on the 12th of June anti-car and he | :57:32. | :57:40. | |
took it to the end stage of the Dauphine on June the 12th passed the | :57:41. | :57:46. | |
package over to Doctor Freeman. We have received one account of what | :57:47. | :57:51. | |
was in the package and that was that the package contained Fluimucil. | :57:52. | :57:58. | |
That, for the committee 's information, and I have heard you | :57:59. | :58:04. | |
already have information about Fluimucil, is not a prohibited | :58:05. | :58:06. | |
substance and it is used for the treatment of a build-up of mucus or | :58:07. | :58:11. | |
Qatar which is, I believe, quite common in endurance sports. The | :58:12. | :58:19. | |
reason we have asked a wealth of individuals about what they believe | :58:20. | :58:24. | |
the contents of the package to contain, specifically Phil Burt who | :58:25. | :58:29. | |
put the package together, and he has no recollection whatsoever of what | :58:30. | :58:36. | |
he put in the package, neither does anybody else, so we are not able to | :58:37. | :58:44. | |
confirm or refute the one account that we have been given, which is | :58:45. | :58:49. | |
that it contained Fluimucil. I think it is important also add that during | :58:50. | :58:52. | |
the course of our investigation we have asked for inventory is and | :58:53. | :59:00. | |
medical records that can go to confirming whether it actually was | :59:01. | :59:05. | |
Fluimucil and we have not been able to ascertain that because there are | :59:06. | :59:16. | |
no records. Thank you. The guidance that we received from the medicines | :59:17. | :59:20. | |
and health care regulatory product, we have been asked to us from their | :59:21. | :59:23. | |
point of view what would be normal in terms of record-keeping, and at | :59:24. | :59:29. | |
this time Fluimucil was an unlicensed medication in the UK and | :59:30. | :59:35. | |
supplying an unlicensed medicine in says here that where a doctor is | :59:36. | :59:42. | |
supplying an unlicensed medicine in the UK he would need to record the | :59:43. | :59:44. | |
source and the date where he obtained the product and the data | :59:45. | :59:46. | |
which he supplied and the quantity supplied and the details of any | :59:47. | :59:48. | |
adverse reactions which he is not adverse reactions which | :59:49. | :59:55. | |
became aware of, so in this case it became aware of, so in this case it | :59:56. | :59:57. | |
appears there is no such records that have been kept, because if they | :59:58. | :00:00. | |
had been kept then you would have documents that showed that it was | :00:01. | :00:07. | |
Fluimucil. That is correct. There are no records, particularly those | :00:08. | :00:14. | |
kept by Doctor Freeman, who was the doctor overseeing Team Sky at this | :00:15. | :00:18. | |
particular event, there are absolutely no records whatsoever of | :00:19. | :00:24. | |
any treatment during the course of that event. Our enquiries have | :00:25. | :00:31. | |
established that Doctor Freeman kept medical records on a laptop and he | :00:32. | :00:41. | |
was meant to, according to Team Sky policy, and a policy that the other | :00:42. | :00:45. | |
doctors followed was to upload the medical records into a drop box, | :00:46. | :00:52. | |
which all the doctors had access to. He did not do that, for one reason | :00:53. | :01:00. | |
or another, and in 2014 we have been informed that his laptop was stolen | :01:01. | :01:08. | |
whilst he was on holiday in Greece and that is why we have not been | :01:09. | :01:11. | |
able to access the medical records that we need to because they are on | :01:12. | :01:13. | |
a laptop which has been stolen. If he was supposed to upload them, | :01:14. | :01:34. | |
that had not been done. Isn't the case -- is it the case that medical | :01:35. | :01:38. | |
records in this case for Bradley Wiggins do not exist or are | :01:39. | :01:45. | |
incomplete? They do not exist or they are incomplete. Have you been | :01:46. | :01:50. | |
given full access to the medical records that exist? Yes. I am in | :01:51. | :01:55. | |
front of you and I will be nothing but honestly to that in the first | :01:56. | :01:58. | |
instance we have met with a degree of resistance and I understand why. | :01:59. | :02:05. | |
I do not undermine the argument of doctor-patient confidentiality. But | :02:06. | :02:10. | |
it has caused a delay to our efforts and we have had to find various | :02:11. | :02:17. | |
routes round getting round that argument that wanting to access | :02:18. | :02:21. | |
various individuals' records is breaching doctor-patient | :02:22. | :02:27. | |
confidentiality. We have been able to access the wreckers and I wish to | :02:28. | :02:33. | |
be clear that we are specifically looking at records that pertains to | :02:34. | :02:38. | |
the duration of the race in question and not beyond that and there are no | :02:39. | :02:56. | |
corresponding records of any treatment whatsoever. The General | :02:57. | :02:57. | |
Medical Council requires the doctors keep such records. We'll doctor | :02:58. | :03:01. | |
Freeman be pursued by the GMC? I think the GMC will want to be | :03:02. | :03:07. | |
involved and we have been communicating with them. Yes, it is | :03:08. | :03:09. | |
my understanding that doctors are expected to keep as contemporaneous | :03:10. | :03:15. | |
a note as possible of the treatment given to patients. With regards to | :03:16. | :03:20. | |
British Cycling itself, the advice we were given by the medicines and | :03:21. | :03:25. | |
health care products regulatory industry was that in this case if | :03:26. | :03:32. | |
produce cycling supplied then they would be acting as a wholesaler? Dr | :03:33. | :03:45. | |
Freeman war two hats. He wore the heart of the employee within British | :03:46. | :03:49. | |
Cycling but he was also employed by teams guide's doctor. We have seen | :03:50. | :03:56. | |
invoices and records which indicate that when he was ordering medical | :03:57. | :04:02. | |
products he was wearing one of those two hats however when those | :04:03. | :04:11. | |
medicines, products, were delivered, they were all delivered primarily | :04:12. | :04:16. | |
within... To the Manchester velodrome. And they were kept in one | :04:17. | :04:25. | |
area and there was no segregation of the products that were designated | :04:26. | :04:28. | |
for British Cycling as opposed to Team Sky. Neither, from what we have | :04:29. | :04:35. | |
obtained, any clear records of what was going in and out of that medical | :04:36. | :04:40. | |
supply and how those various products had been ordered were being | :04:41. | :04:46. | |
administered. Regardless of how they did or did not keep records, in this | :04:47. | :04:52. | |
case Dr Freeman was effectively purchasing drugs from British | :04:53. | :04:57. | |
Cycling to administered to a collie rider competing for Team Sky, not | :04:58. | :05:05. | |
Team GB. Possibly. We cannot see at what point... There no record to | :05:06. | :05:09. | |
show the were coming out of the Team Sky order and purely going to Team | :05:10. | :05:15. | |
Sky riders versus the orders that he was able to put in on behalf of | :05:16. | :05:20. | |
British Cycling. The guidance we received here suggests that if | :05:21. | :05:24. | |
British Cycling supplied medicines to Dr Freeman they would've had to | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
have held a wholesaler is' license and kept a record of supply | :05:29. | :05:32. | |
including minimum quantity, the date of dispatch, and adverse reactions | :05:33. | :05:46. | |
to the products they became aware of the case of a licensed product. | :05:47. | :05:52. | |
There is only a legal requirement was records are kept for five years | :05:53. | :05:58. | |
so in this case the wreckers were destroyed shortly before your | :05:59. | :06:00. | |
investigation started but have you been given any indication by British | :06:01. | :06:04. | |
Cycling that they keep records of that sort? No. Not that our records | :06:05. | :06:11. | |
have yielded. Clearly when we are asking for access to records about | :06:12. | :06:15. | |
what an individual has been prescribed, it was very much | :06:16. | :06:21. | |
confined to this particular race and the cyclists involved so I cannot | :06:22. | :06:28. | |
speak for Dr Freeman's record-keeping as opposed to other | :06:29. | :06:35. | |
riders. It is just very clear from investigation that there is no audit | :06:36. | :06:42. | |
trail of what is going in and out of a comprehensive supply of medical | :06:43. | :06:49. | |
products. Incredibly serious matter because there are laws around the | :06:50. | :06:54. | |
dispensing and administering of medicines and it would certainly | :06:55. | :06:57. | |
seem from what you have said Dr Freeman is not complying with the | :06:58. | :07:02. | |
GMC guidelines and British Cycling is not complying with their | :07:03. | :07:06. | |
obligations to keep records, a legal requirement to keep records for the | :07:07. | :07:14. | |
dispensing of medicines. Yes. One or two further questions. With regard | :07:15. | :07:23. | |
to the use of a drug you mentioned earlier, this was a drug for team | :07:24. | :07:32. | |
were using and we were told that it was used out of competition when | :07:33. | :07:36. | |
there was medical need for Team Sky riders. Have you found records about | :07:37. | :07:42. | |
the amount that was being used? We have seen orders, yes, from Team Sky | :07:43. | :07:50. | |
and British Cycling that indicate that it has been ordered. That is | :07:51. | :08:01. | |
clear from the infantry of orders that have come into the Manchester | :08:02. | :08:08. | |
velodrome. There is no audit of how it was used. From the records you | :08:09. | :08:14. | |
would expect to see of what is going in the supply of products there is | :08:15. | :08:21. | |
no clear audit that it has left or been administered to an individual. | :08:22. | :08:26. | |
That said you would have to pry into every riders' medical record to see | :08:27. | :08:33. | |
of them is a note of them having been administered that at any time. | :08:34. | :08:48. | |
The TUV certificates? I am not aware of the extent to which it has been | :08:49. | :09:02. | |
prescribed to riders within Team Sky or British Cycling because our focus | :09:03. | :09:05. | |
has been on this particular package and in relation to Bradley Wiggins. | :09:06. | :09:11. | |
We would have to overcome the hurdle again and showed justification of | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
why we wanted to delve into the therapeutic use exemption is of | :09:16. | :09:18. | |
every other rider and whether there was clear justification. I think it | :09:19. | :09:26. | |
is helpful for me to set out that obviously when it comes the | :09:27. | :09:29. | |
therapeutic use exemption is we all except that there are athletes who | :09:30. | :09:37. | |
have genuine medical conditions who should not be excluded from sport | :09:38. | :09:44. | |
because of those medical impairments for want of a better word. That is | :09:45. | :09:51. | |
exactly why therapeutic use exemption system is there. You as an | :09:52. | :09:58. | |
individual have to apply to your national anti-doping Organisation or | :09:59. | :10:00. | |
your international federation, you have to apply for therapeutic use | :10:01. | :10:10. | |
exemption ahead of your use and that application for an exemption is | :10:11. | :10:14. | |
considered by an independent therapeutic use exemption committee | :10:15. | :10:21. | |
who will consider the request against some strict criteria, | :10:22. | :10:27. | |
primarily can that individual demonstrates they have the condition | :10:28. | :10:33. | |
to begin with? Secondly, is there any other permissible alternative | :10:34. | :10:39. | |
available to them? From the records you have seen relating to the use of | :10:40. | :10:48. | |
this drug, was more product ordered than is needed to administer? Yes. | :10:49. | :10:57. | |
Specifically in relation to Bradley Wiggins, yes, far more. Looking at | :10:58. | :11:02. | |
the quantity that was ordered, do you believe the quantity would | :11:03. | :11:15. | |
suggest a widespread use I cannot specify whether it is used in or out | :11:16. | :11:19. | |
of competition. You will have to squeeze me of my medical terminology | :11:20. | :11:32. | |
is vague but my understanding is it is quite a serious product but you | :11:33. | :11:36. | |
do not treat conditions with it lightly. My understanding is you | :11:37. | :11:49. | |
would not... I research study done in 2009 or 2011 which demonstrated | :11:50. | :11:56. | |
that it was not... It should not be the preferred method of treatment | :11:57. | :12:01. | |
and for that reason you would either think there was an excessive amount | :12:02. | :12:06. | |
of triamcinolone being ordered for one person or quite a few people had | :12:07. | :12:13. | |
a very similar problem. So based on what you have seen you would see if | :12:14. | :12:17. | |
all of this triamcinolone was for one person it would have been an | :12:18. | :12:20. | |
excessive amount or it was being used by lots of riders? Yes. It is | :12:21. | :12:27. | |
difficult because of the lack of records to understand over what | :12:28. | :12:33. | |
duration these orders were lasting. Given that you said you received an | :12:34. | :12:35. | |
allegation that triamcinolone could have been what was in the package | :12:36. | :12:39. | |
that was sent out to Bradley Wiggins, were you concerned that the | :12:40. | :12:45. | |
use of triamcinolone was far more widespread than just the isolated | :12:46. | :12:51. | |
occasions we know it was used? For starters it is permitted out of | :12:52. | :12:58. | |
competition. It is permitted in competition via certain routes. It | :12:59. | :13:03. | |
gets a bit complicated. You are required... It is prohibited if you | :13:04. | :13:09. | |
take it intramuscularly, morally, intravenously, for example, and that | :13:10. | :13:15. | |
is when you would have to apply for a therapeutic use exemption. Through | :13:16. | :13:22. | |
any other route it is acceptable so it is a very challenging substance | :13:23. | :13:27. | |
because first it is quite difficult to detect in a sample and it is | :13:28. | :13:38. | |
difficult to detect the writ of administration and whether it was | :13:39. | :13:45. | |
through a permissible or prohibited route. The large quantities of | :13:46. | :13:54. | |
triamcinolone being ordered, presumably by Dr Freeman. The GMC | :13:55. | :14:10. | |
says that the team will not... Is this the matter you have discussed | :14:11. | :14:13. | |
with the GMC in terms of whether they will be investigating Dr | :14:14. | :14:21. | |
Freeman's use of triamcinolone? Our investigation is not concluded. At | :14:22. | :14:24. | |
the point at which we are prepared to package everything up then | :14:25. | :14:29. | |
absolutely, there has already been dialogue with the GMC with regard to | :14:30. | :14:34. | |
doctor-patient confidentiality and we will continue that dialogue with | :14:35. | :14:38. | |
regards to what we think is appropriate to handover. You said | :14:39. | :14:46. | |
there is a lack of records. Have you given any information that suggest | :14:47. | :14:49. | |
Biba had been asked to destroy records that might have been | :14:50. | :14:53. | |
relevant? We have no evidence there has been any sort of cover up or | :14:54. | :14:57. | |
tampering. That is an incredibly serious allegation. In our mind it | :14:58. | :15:03. | |
is an allegation that we can pursue as an anti-doping rule violation and | :15:04. | :15:08. | |
the anti-doping rules and at this time we have no evidence to pursue | :15:09. | :15:15. | |
such a charge against anyone. No evidence Biba have been asked to | :15:16. | :15:21. | |
delete emails or computer files? -- people. Not that we are aware of at | :15:22. | :15:29. | |
this time. You gave evidence that Fluimucil was in the package. That | :15:30. | :15:34. | |
was Dr Freeman who told us that Fluimucil was in the package. Phil | :15:35. | :15:40. | |
Burt, is he an employee of British Cycling? Yes, he is a British | :15:41. | :15:48. | |
Cycling physio. And he put the package together but there are no | :15:49. | :15:53. | |
records kept by British Cycling about the administration of this | :15:54. | :15:58. | |
drug? No record at all of what went into that package. Can I ask about | :15:59. | :16:05. | |
the laptop that Dr Freeman says has been stolen? Do you know when that | :16:06. | :16:12. | |
was said to be stolen? I am sorry, I do not recall the date, I think it | :16:13. | :16:17. | |
was... It was 2014 but I do not know the month, it was the summer. | :16:18. | :16:24. | |
Was that reported to the police? We believe it was reported to the | :16:25. | :16:32. | |
police and we are working with Interpol to obtain confirmation that | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
it was reported. It was reported to British cycling so they have a | :16:38. | :16:40. | |
record that a theft from Doctor Freeman was reported and we are | :16:41. | :16:45. | |
unable to ascertain that Team Sky was informed as much. When was | :16:46. | :16:50. | |
British cycling informed about the theft of the laptop? I am terribly | :16:51. | :16:54. | |
sorry, I don't know that, I can certainly let the committee know | :16:55. | :17:03. | |
afterwards. Can we have that information because I am very | :17:04. | :17:05. | |
concerned about the absence of documentation from British cycling | :17:06. | :17:10. | |
and Team Sky and that we have not got supporting evidence. That is | :17:11. | :17:15. | |
your experience as well, isn't it? Is there any written evidence of the | :17:16. | :17:20. | |
theft of the laptop? My understanding is that there is a | :17:21. | :17:25. | |
record at British cycling that the theft was reported to them. Have you | :17:26. | :17:33. | |
seen a record? My team have seen that records are they are aware of | :17:34. | :17:37. | |
that record and we can find a record from Team Sky because clearly Doctor | :17:38. | :17:42. | |
Freeman was acting with a dual role here. Yes, I am very concerned about | :17:43. | :17:49. | |
this dual role. As far as your enquiry is concerned, have that | :17:50. | :17:57. | |
presented problems in apportioning responsibility, for example? Yes, it | :17:58. | :18:01. | |
is very difficult at any given time to see what is being prescribed when | :18:02. | :18:06. | |
Doctor Freeman is acting on behalf of Team Sky or whether he is acting | :18:07. | :18:15. | |
for British cycling. Your enquiry is being conducted at the request of | :18:16. | :18:18. | |
British cycling, is that right? Game no. How did that actually happen? We | :18:19. | :18:29. | |
became aware via a source that there was an allocation being made about | :18:30. | :18:32. | |
this package and that is what has instigated our enquiry. Sorry, I | :18:33. | :18:39. | |
think there was also something that came out in the press around the | :18:40. | :18:44. | |
same time as well. I had a recollection of British cycling | :18:45. | :18:50. | |
referring to your enquiry but that particular matter is not of great | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
importance. Can I ask you, in your conclusions, and I know you have | :18:56. | :18:59. | |
reached them yet, will an issue that you consider BB dual role of British | :19:00. | :19:07. | |
cycling and Team Sky and individuals who seem to have been employed by | :19:08. | :19:14. | |
both? I am aware that UK sport conducted a Deloitte audit enquiry | :19:15. | :19:22. | |
of this specific, more general, area. I don't imagine that when you | :19:23. | :19:27. | |
conduct an audit of the roles that people are playing anybody who is | :19:28. | :19:31. | |
minded to pry into the role of Doctor and possible antidote | :19:32. | :19:37. | |
allegations that may come out of that and so when I answer your | :19:38. | :19:41. | |
question it is purely from that perspective, it is that I do find it | :19:42. | :19:47. | |
very difficult and I absolutely recognise that from, purely from an | :19:48. | :19:52. | |
anti-doping perspective I think there is a huge conflict of | :19:53. | :20:02. | |
interest. Thank you. In their evidence to us at an earlier session | :20:03. | :20:10. | |
two people said they declined to answer numerous questions on the | :20:11. | :20:16. | |
basis that you had asked them not to reveal any details of the | :20:17. | :20:18. | |
conversations, is that correct? At the time that we first started we | :20:19. | :20:30. | |
had discussions with British cycling, primarily Ian Drake, the | :20:31. | :20:37. | |
then chief executive at British cycling, and we asked them not to | :20:38. | :20:47. | |
discuss beyond that conversation, to discuss it more freely, so, yes, Ian | :20:48. | :20:52. | |
Drake and I then had some conversations where they wanted to | :20:53. | :20:58. | |
be kept appraised of our investigation and clearly we won't | :20:59. | :21:05. | |
discuss an investigation with an independent organisation, we don't | :21:06. | :21:09. | |
have to answer to sports and, yes, I think at the time they certainly | :21:10. | :21:15. | |
wouldn't have known anything about the package in relation to our | :21:16. | :21:18. | |
investigation because we weren't sharing that information with them, | :21:19. | :21:23. | |
if that makes sense. At the start of your evidence today you talked about | :21:24. | :21:26. | |
obstructions he faced early in the enquiry. Can you talk a bit about | :21:27. | :21:30. | |
those and what they were and who they were from? When I say | :21:31. | :21:35. | |
obstructions I don't mean that they were malicious. The obstructions or | :21:36. | :21:46. | |
the obstacles rather, that we faced, was primarily doctor/ patient | :21:47. | :21:50. | |
confidentiality which is we will not give you access to these records | :21:51. | :21:56. | |
because it is an invasion of that right, that premise. And that is | :21:57. | :22:04. | |
incredibly frustrating for us as an organisation when we are seeking to | :22:05. | :22:08. | |
prove or disprove something. We found a way around that and so | :22:09. | :22:16. | |
whilst that was used as a, I guess, a first response to our request, we | :22:17. | :22:26. | |
have met with corporation eventually from all parties involved. What was | :22:27. | :22:31. | |
the way round it? What we did was we first of all contacted the GMC and | :22:32. | :22:34. | |
asked for their advice. They very much left it between us and British | :22:35. | :22:42. | |
cycling and Team Sky to resolve. My understanding is that the premise of | :22:43. | :22:49. | |
doctor/ patient confidentiality is not absolute and it can be | :22:50. | :22:57. | |
circumvented in a number of instances, one is when you are | :22:58. | :23:01. | |
required to under law and the second one is with a patient's consent and | :23:02. | :23:09. | |
the third one is this the public interest in that matter outweighs | :23:10. | :23:16. | |
the need to maintain the confidentiality. Notwithstanding | :23:17. | :23:19. | |
that any of those arguments works for us, how we found a route around | :23:20. | :23:26. | |
was that we used an independent doctor to access the records that we | :23:27. | :23:32. | |
wanted to get hold of, so they were our filter, so we were not trawling | :23:33. | :23:39. | |
through. The problem was that in accessing one individual 's records | :23:40. | :23:42. | |
you had to see a number of riders records and the concern was that | :23:43. | :23:48. | |
Doctor Freeman 's records in relation to other riders would then | :23:49. | :23:54. | |
be available to us and the restriction was that we were | :23:55. | :24:00. | |
specifically looking at the medical records of Sir Bradley Wiggins. How | :24:01. | :24:04. | |
long did it take from the time you first made the request to see the | :24:05. | :24:08. | |
records to when you had an independent doctor? A long time. I | :24:09. | :24:12. | |
would like to say that we finally got all of the records we wanted at | :24:13. | :24:16. | |
the end of January, and we started this in early October. That was | :24:17. | :24:24. | |
quite a bit of time there. Quite a bit of time, yes. Are you confident | :24:25. | :24:28. | |
that the records that your doctor sought with a full and correct | :24:29. | :24:34. | |
version? As much as we are able to establish that, that was a | :24:35. | :24:37. | |
comprehensive record given what I have already told the committee in | :24:38. | :24:40. | |
relation to the record-keeping and the lack of record keeping. These | :24:41. | :24:47. | |
are not his GP records, for example? This is specifically related to | :24:48. | :24:53. | |
self-management by British cycling and Team Sky? Yes, and very | :24:54. | :24:56. | |
specifically in relation to primarily Doctor Freeman. Have you | :24:57. | :25:09. | |
or anybody at UK anti-doping had a conversation directly with Sir | :25:10. | :25:12. | |
Bradley Wiggins regarding this? Guild yes, we have interviewed Sir | :25:13. | :25:16. | |
Bradley Wiggins. Are you able to say what he has commented on in terms of | :25:17. | :25:23. | |
this? His recollection was that he was treated the Fluimucil the | :25:24. | :25:27. | |
evening of June the 12th. He does not know what was in the package. | :25:28. | :25:38. | |
OK, but he was treated with Fluimucil? Victim Care Unit he was | :25:39. | :25:44. | |
treated the Fluimucil that evening. At that time Fluimucil was | :25:45. | :25:51. | |
unlicensed in the UK but was it available elsewhere in Europe? Yes, | :25:52. | :25:56. | |
our records indicate that the Fluimucil for Team Sky and British | :25:57. | :26:01. | |
cycling was coming from two outlets, one in Germany and one in | :26:02. | :26:05. | |
Switzerland. OK, so much closer to the location and getting someone on | :26:06. | :26:09. | |
a plane and a train and an automobile to travel halfway across | :26:10. | :26:12. | |
Europe to deliver something that was readily available on the doorstep? | :26:13. | :26:21. | |
Indeed. Thank you very much. Did Bradley Wiggins say how he was | :26:22. | :26:26. | |
administered this? Yes, he said by nebuliser. The records for Team Sky | :26:27. | :26:36. | |
about Fluimucil is that we have records of them buying ten | :26:37. | :26:39. | |
cloud-macro 33 Bridges cycling in Manchester. No, my understanding of | :26:40. | :26:44. | |
how this was ordered is that there seems to be no record of it being | :26:45. | :26:51. | |
ordered in the UK, which can only lead me to believe that Fluimucil | :26:52. | :26:54. | |
only ever came from pharmacies abroad. The records I can't prevent | :26:55. | :27:01. | |
disprove that. It is quite interesting because some people have | :27:02. | :27:03. | |
suggested that the reason it may have been ordered from the British | :27:04. | :27:06. | |
cycling store is that they might wanted a consistent supply but if | :27:07. | :27:10. | |
they wanted a consistent supply in this case they would've gone to a | :27:11. | :27:15. | |
pharmacist in Switzerland? Is entirely possible. Our understanding | :27:16. | :27:18. | |
is that the reason that Doctor Freeman chose to ask for it to be | :27:19. | :27:26. | |
transported from the UK to France was because he was unsure of his | :27:27. | :27:35. | |
prescription rights in France and he wanted to be 100% sure about the | :27:36. | :27:43. | |
concentration of the Fluimucil that he was using. I understand that it | :27:44. | :27:47. | |
can vary in terms of its strength abroad. We ask British cycling if | :27:48. | :27:56. | |
they would give us records relating to the quantities of drugs that are | :27:57. | :28:00. | |
routinely stored in Manchester and they have not done that but have you | :28:01. | :28:06. | |
seen any evidence to suggest that Fluimucil is ordered by British | :28:07. | :28:08. | |
cycling are kept in their stores? I have not, no. The information | :28:09. | :28:15. | |
British cycling has given you as part of the investigation, there is | :28:16. | :28:18. | |
nothing to suggest that Fluimucil is a drug that they hold. I have only | :28:19. | :28:24. | |
seen invoices and records that relate to products which do not | :28:25. | :28:31. | |
include Fluimucil. There are lots of records but no records to support | :28:32. | :28:42. | |
the Fluimucil? Guild no. Can I ask as well, regarding the Manchester | :28:43. | :28:48. | |
City that Simon Cope said he made, we believe from the written evidence | :28:49. | :28:51. | |
that we were given that it was quite clear that he made a trip to | :28:52. | :28:55. | |
Manchester on June the 8th and that is your recollection as well, is | :28:56. | :28:58. | |
that based on their document or other evidence you have received? No | :28:59. | :29:02. | |
I cannot be specific about that. I can confirm it and I believe it is | :29:03. | :29:06. | |
based on the records that you have seen. The overall picture that you | :29:07. | :29:14. | |
paint is extremely concerning because it seems that there are no | :29:15. | :29:18. | |
records that British cycling or Team Sky can go back on to demonstrate | :29:19. | :29:22. | |
the drugs that Doctor Freeman is ordering on what he is doing with | :29:23. | :29:26. | |
the man who really is giving them too. There is certainly no record of | :29:27. | :29:32. | |
what was put in this package which went with Simon Cope from the UK to | :29:33. | :29:40. | |
France. There are no records of the large quantities of Triamcinolone | :29:41. | :29:43. | |
that they are ordering and how that is being used either, if outside of | :29:44. | :29:48. | |
the scope of your enquiry? It is outside the scope but my expectation | :29:49. | :29:51. | |
is that not withstanding you would expect to leasing audit trail of | :29:52. | :29:55. | |
what is going in and out of what I would very flippantly call a | :29:56. | :30:00. | |
medicine cabinet, but certainly the extent of our investigation has not | :30:01. | :30:04. | |
delved into exactly where those products are being administered. We | :30:05. | :30:14. | |
have been told that the team operate an ethical policy whereby medication | :30:15. | :30:18. | |
is only ever used to treat medical need, but it is unclear how we can | :30:19. | :30:22. | |
be certain that is the case when there are no records to demonstrate | :30:23. | :30:28. | |
that is true. Correct. I understand that back in 2011 there was a Team | :30:29. | :30:32. | |
Sky policy which was about the keeping of clear records by the | :30:33. | :30:41. | |
doctors and I am aware that there were other doctors who absolutely | :30:42. | :30:48. | |
kept watertight records and, again, the extent of our investigation is | :30:49. | :30:52. | |
confined to this particular race for which there are zero records by | :30:53. | :30:57. | |
Doctor Freeman. Given that he was employed by British cycling and | :30:58. | :31:02. | |
still is, what does this say about the British cycling policy on the | :31:03. | :31:06. | |
administering of drugs in the way police is the anti-doping | :31:07. | :31:11. | |
guidelines? I clearly would absolutely think that there should | :31:12. | :31:17. | |
be some clear adherence to the General medical Council 's | :31:18. | :31:22. | |
guidelines, which are about keeping comprehensive records and when you | :31:23. | :31:26. | |
are talking about a prescription only medicines and there should | :31:27. | :31:31. | |
absolutely be a record of to whom that bulk order of prescription | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
medicines are being administered at any given time and a clear record of | :31:37. | :31:40. | |
the conditions for which they are being treated. | :31:41. | :31:46. | |
What excuse have British Cycling given to you for this lack of | :31:47. | :31:51. | |
record-keeping? We have not had an excuse. There is just an | :31:52. | :31:57. | |
acknowledgement that there was no policy and no records, that is it. | :31:58. | :32:04. | |
And the same at Team Sky? Team Sky had a policy but not everyone was | :32:05. | :32:08. | |
adhering to it. Is there any evidence of how the team management | :32:09. | :32:15. | |
sought to keep track of the policies that the doctors were following and | :32:16. | :32:20. | |
the administration of those? No. That has not been the extent of our | :32:21. | :32:28. | |
inquiry. I have been told Team Sky had a routine policy of review | :32:29. | :32:31. | |
meetings where the coach and the doctor would look at treatment of a | :32:32. | :32:37. | |
particular rider and that is part of a review and not unusual for | :32:38. | :32:43. | |
professional athlete it seems strange those detailed reviews were | :32:44. | :32:46. | |
carried out but there were no proper records kept of their medication. | :32:47. | :32:51. | |
Clearly there is this dropbox for which there are records being by | :32:52. | :32:56. | |
other doctors. I am not sure that is the policy that was employed at the | :32:57. | :33:01. | |
time across the board. Is the lack of records in this case unusual? | :33:02. | :33:10. | |
Certainly in relation to the record-keeping of other doctors, | :33:11. | :33:19. | |
yes, this is unusual. Following up on the questions from the chairman, | :33:20. | :33:27. | |
I hear what you are saying about record-keeping but Team Sky and | :33:28. | :33:32. | |
later UK cycling, particularly Team Sky, founded on the basis of winning | :33:33. | :33:38. | |
clean and fair and yet what you are suggesting is not they are not doing | :33:39. | :33:42. | |
that but they are not providing or maintaining the evidence to | :33:43. | :33:48. | |
demonstrate they are doing it, which is central to their mission, which | :33:49. | :33:51. | |
strikes me as a little bit old. It strikes me as odd as well. I would | :33:52. | :33:58. | |
expect particularly for a professional road cycling team that | :33:59. | :34:08. | |
was founded on the premise of exhibiting that road racing could | :34:09. | :34:11. | |
"It cleanly am not to have records that would demonstrate any | :34:12. | :34:18. | |
influences to the contrary. Have you found them to be slapdash in other | :34:19. | :34:23. | |
areas of the operation? The extent of our investigation has not gone | :34:24. | :34:27. | |
into that. I have no oversight of that. Electronic interference there. | :34:28. | :34:44. | |
Do you have a timetable whereby you can hope to conclude its | :34:45. | :34:52. | |
investigation? The team at UK anti-doping is still finalising some | :34:53. | :34:56. | |
other lines of inquiry. I cannot definitively say to you when it will | :34:57. | :35:03. | |
be concluded. I will be very happy to tell the committee as and when we | :35:04. | :35:07. | |
beat that juncture. Given the evidence so far do you think there | :35:08. | :35:12. | |
would be grounds for widening the scope to include the use of | :35:13. | :35:16. | |
triamcinolone? It is difficult because our premise is to | :35:17. | :35:19. | |
investigate where we think an anti-doping rule violation may have | :35:20. | :35:25. | |
occurred. And unless there is reason to believe that there has been one | :35:26. | :35:32. | |
it is difficult to stray into an area which is purely about the | :35:33. | :35:39. | |
medical practices of an organisation. I am absolutely | :35:40. | :35:42. | |
committed to pursuing any avenues which indicate that there is | :35:43. | :35:46. | |
wrongdoing that falls within the parameters of the rules. In this | :35:47. | :35:52. | |
case I suppose would the use of triamcinolone be something that the | :35:53. | :35:55. | |
GMC might investigate? Very possibly, yes. Looking at this | :35:56. | :36:02. | |
experience, from our point of view our interest is the legal powers and | :36:03. | :36:07. | |
the resources that you haven't your disposal. Do you think that has to | :36:08. | :36:13. | |
be reviewed in terms of the resource and powers you have? Very much so. | :36:14. | :36:17. | |
From October of last year this has been an incredibly resource | :36:18. | :36:26. | |
intensive effort which has spanned the breadth of UK anti-doping in | :36:27. | :36:33. | |
terms of the staff involvement. I think it has involved well in excess | :36:34. | :36:40. | |
of over 1000 man hours. Whether in relation to my time or down to | :36:41. | :36:46. | |
researchers and investigators at UK anti-doping. I think what it has | :36:47. | :36:53. | |
highlighted to me is that gone are the days when much of what we did | :36:54. | :36:58. | |
was about testing and getting a positive outcome to a blood test or | :36:59. | :37:07. | |
you're in test, that investigations themselves are becoming more common | :37:08. | :37:15. | |
than before. When you look at the resources that this is taken up... | :37:16. | :37:19. | |
At the detriment of other activity at UK anti-doping, then I do not | :37:20. | :37:25. | |
think that the resources that we have at the moment, it is not a | :37:26. | :37:31. | |
sustainable model at all. If you were to say to me what do I want? I | :37:32. | :37:36. | |
would love my budget to be doubled. We have a grand budget of 5.3 | :37:37. | :37:42. | |
million. If we were to receive twice that amount, which I understand is | :37:43. | :37:46. | |
whistling in the wind, that would enable me to cover a greater breadth | :37:47. | :37:54. | |
and depth within the sport some sports we cannot even get to test. | :37:55. | :38:00. | |
The education is absolutely fundamental and as this particular | :38:01. | :38:05. | |
case has indicated we need far more investigative manpower generally | :38:06. | :38:12. | |
when it comes to investigations and intelligence. You are talking about | :38:13. | :38:17. | |
people time rather than tangible outputs as it were, resources that | :38:18. | :38:23. | |
are needed to undertake that. Your power is to trigger investigations | :38:24. | :38:27. | |
based on evidence reasonable grounds for investigation being brought to | :38:28. | :38:31. | |
your attention but it seems that the record-keeping that enables a team | :38:32. | :38:35. | |
or governing body to police the anti-doping rules has been woeful. | :38:36. | :38:40. | |
It seems there is a need for more constant checks on the way in which | :38:41. | :38:43. | |
the day-to-day administration of the rules are being followed. Yes, we do | :38:44. | :38:48. | |
not have the powers the police have, the powers of search and entry or | :38:49. | :38:58. | |
seizure. Or arrest. We have an incredibly good relationship with | :38:59. | :39:03. | |
law enforcement, whether the police or medicines health care regulatory | :39:04. | :39:08. | |
agency or Border Force. You have to look at our website to see that at | :39:09. | :39:15. | |
the moment there are ten current sanctions which pertain to | :39:16. | :39:22. | |
non-analytical cases, but the problem is that we have no powers to | :39:23. | :39:27. | |
compel people to provide other information, to talk to us. If | :39:28. | :39:33. | |
nothing else, I would like to see two things. That is for the cord to | :39:34. | :39:42. | |
change, the world anti-doping code to change, to enable organisations | :39:43. | :39:50. | |
like ourselves I guess to have the power to obligate individuals to | :39:51. | :39:55. | |
comply with an investigation, to assist with an investigation. There | :39:56. | :39:58. | |
should be sanctions if they refuse to do so. Similarly I think it is | :39:59. | :40:07. | |
incumbent on sports themselves to perhaps make it a condition of | :40:08. | :40:16. | |
participating in that sport that their athletes and support personnel | :40:17. | :40:20. | |
should be prepared to waive their right to things like doctor-patient | :40:21. | :40:24. | |
confidentiality to enable us to demonstrate and to give confidence | :40:25. | :40:30. | |
to the public that they are complying with the varied roles that | :40:31. | :40:37. | |
are in place. What response do you feel that UK sport has in this? -- | :40:38. | :40:48. | |
role. We make it a condition through collaboration and the partnership | :40:49. | :40:53. | |
with not only UK sport but all the warm country sports councils to make | :40:54. | :40:59. | |
it a condition of funding that sports, in receipt of public money, | :41:00. | :41:07. | |
are gearing to not only the anti-doping policy, but wider | :41:08. | :41:12. | |
complying anti doping rules and I think it is for each of those | :41:13. | :41:16. | |
funding bodies alongside us to help us to ensure that sports are | :41:17. | :41:23. | |
adhering to those rules and are held to account if not. UK sport has | :41:24. | :41:30. | |
responsibility for operating the system whereby athletes have to give | :41:31. | :41:33. | |
a of the day they are available for testing in a location that can | :41:34. | :41:39. | |
found. Is that correct? That is our requirement. At any point when it | :41:40. | :41:43. | |
comes to a requirement to make yourself available for testing that | :41:44. | :41:49. | |
is determined by others at UK Anti-Doping. The gathering of | :41:50. | :41:53. | |
information, is that done by UK Sport? No, that is done by us. Have | :41:54. | :41:58. | |
you had any concerns about other texts? To make sure that team | :41:59. | :42:04. | |
members are complying. Absolutely. We have designated staff at UK | :42:05. | :42:10. | |
Anti-Doping who are monitoring the provision of athlete whereabouts and | :42:11. | :42:15. | |
we will support athletes who are struggling with abattoir and but at | :42:16. | :42:20. | |
the same time we will give them so many chances and if they are still | :42:21. | :42:25. | |
not doing what is asked of them we will issue them with what is called | :42:26. | :42:33. | |
a filing failure, failing to file the appropriate information, or | :42:34. | :42:36. | |
worst case scenario they give is inaccurate or misleading information | :42:37. | :42:39. | |
and we go to test the man they are not there, they will receive a | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
missed test from ours, and three of those over a year equates to an | :42:45. | :42:49. | |
anti-doping rule violation. How long do you hold those records for to | :42:50. | :42:52. | |
make sure you receive information about someone who might not have had | :42:53. | :43:01. | |
up-to-date information? 18 months, because it is personal data and we | :43:02. | :43:04. | |
have an obligation not to hold its beyond the time for which we need | :43:05. | :43:12. | |
it. Thank you. I think that completes our questions. Unless you | :43:13. | :43:16. | |
have any other comments? No, I think I am | :43:17. | :43:17. |