Shane Sutton accused of 'absolutely lying' by former team-mate over denial of knowledge of doping

If we assume that SS wanted testosterone for another purpose but needed a cover story, then is it plausible that he claimed to have ED and a reason why other treatments wouldn't be possible?

Viagra is available OTC but isn't always the right thing. Testosterone, other drugs and therapy are often needed, depending on the root cause (innuendo not intended). Men are often bad at taking such things to a GP, so SS might have been quite plausible as an informal patient to RF.

Possible truths include:

1. RF did order the drugs for SS and he did have ED
2. RF ordered for doping purposes and SS was part of it
3. SS duped RF into ordering for a doping purpose that RF did not know of
4. RF ordered for doping and SS is innocent

If no 2 is right, and I were in RF's shoes, given all that he has admitted, I'd be making sure I didn't go down alone.

Except most of that's cobblers. 
Testosterone was one of the earliest methods of doping and its relatively easy to text for. 
Teatostrone for ED has been throughly debunked as pretty much useless outside of a few testosterone related issues. 
The whole thing stinks - if Sutton had Freeman that terrified why on earth didn't he get him to order something useful?

We know Freeman is a liar or supremely incompetent due to his own remarks about testosterone and  the stupid laptop incidents. 
There may well be something going on between the 2 of them but it strains credulity that it's ED and testosterone related. 
The ED story seems created specifically to cause maximum embarrassment to Sutton who appears to be a quintessential "jock". 

Velovoyeur wrote:

What has Shane Sutton's history and alleged erectile dysfunction got to do with all of the above?

Why is this case still ongoing?

Suttons history and ED has everything to do with it, that is what the whole trial surrounds, if he has ED and wanted the testosterone, that is far less dodgy that what it might have been for. The whole reason that Suttons past is being questioned at the moment is his refusal to participate after throwing his little hissy fit and walking out previously. He has denied having ED, same as he's denied doping or knowing anything about doping in the past.

He's a liar, that's why they have called witnesses to show he's a liar. Sutton is a c**t, end of.

Velovoyeur wrote:

2. He has already been found guilty of 18 of the 22 charges.

I was under the impression that he's not been found guilty of anything yet, he may have pled guilty, but nothing has been decided yet. Almost all of those 18 charges are very minor and are unlikely to lead to him being struck off or found unfit to practice.
 

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I think you're joking on this point - but it is getting this farcical.   Its usually the work of a few hours max to prove a witness is unreliable - not this constant stream of slander.

It's only a stream of slander if untrue. I haven't heard anything that rings as untrue when levelled at Sutton.

The 18 charges he simply admitted to, no evidence was given by either side on those. If the main charge (and so the 4 re. Testogel) are not proved/agreed by the panel, the other 18 related charges will not be enough for the panel to recomend he isn't fit to practice. He'll get a temporary suspension or allowed to carry on practicing with some conditions set he has to abide to. Probably simply evidence of his record keeping each month now he's working back in NHS East Lancs.

I think the gist of this for Freeman is that he ordered the testosterone, which is obviously a dodgy thing to have around any athletic organisation, because Sutton asked him to treat ED.

Sutton says he does not have ED, so Freeman must have ordered it for another purpose. Freeman says he doesn't know of another purpose, so perhaps Sutton wanted it for that other purpose. Sutton says he knows of the purpose but has never experienced it in his long career through an iffy period in cycling.

So Freeman needs to paint Sutton as a liar if the ED defence is to, er, stand up.

The way this is going, I expect Sutton may be asked to prove a lack of ED in court.

On the truth... Only one of the two can be telling it. But that's an upper limit on the number.

TheBillder wrote:

I expect Sutton may be asked to prove a lack of ED in court. On the truth...

I think you're joking on this point - but it is getting this farcical.   Its usually the work of a few hours max to prove a witness is unreliable - not this constant stream of slander.

Sutton doesn't medically require ED for him to have bullied Freeman to order Testogel to treat it, he just needs to have said he has it and bullied Freeman to order it under that pretence. In fact Freeman interestingly said a while back, Sutton's ED was more a matter of him having unrealistic expectations he felt needed to be addressed or something to that effect. Given the 'many conquests' boasts Sutton is also said to have boasted about while at BC (a couple even part of his resignation) it is simply a bully doing what a bully does to get whatever he wants.

Simply Freeman needs to convince the panel Sutton is not trustowrthy in his denial by showing witness evidence proving he's not trustworthy, same as GMC have tried with Freeman. There's only two people involved here and that's Freeman & Sutton and no direct evidence of the main 4 charges and so the ultimate charge of not being fit to practice.