Speculation intended to raise controversy where none exists. UKAD themselves tell us that it was legal advice that 'finished the case'. Apparently they are not to be trusted either.

When and is it known that Ben Westwood had failed a drugs test as well, can't recall said incident, cover up?

2002

What is staggering and unbelievable is the statement that UKAD handed the 'top secret dossier' in it's entirety to Gleeson in return for his cooperation. As the file contains many personal confidential statements, this is a massive breach of the Data Protection Act at the very least, surely.



With this admittance, it is fairly obvious who SportingIntelligence is getting it's excerpts from.

You sure the DPA would cover this?

Not sure, no. You'd think that some sort of confidentiality laws would be in place, though, otherwise the full openness of statements given by individuals to the UKAD could be compromised, if those individuals were aware that their revelations could be published for public scrutiny at some point in the future.



If people cannot be certain that information is given in confidence, that will surely curtail what they reveal. I'm certain Fitz, for example, is delighted that his impeccable reputation has now been besmirched.



It is in the interests of any investigation that all witness statements are treated with the utmost privacy.

Just seen that UKAD [iis[/i governed by the DPA in [url=http://www.ukad.org.uk/privacy-policy/respect of the storage of test results and athletes' personal information[/url.



Not sure if that would extend to statements given as part of an investigation?

I thought the DPA only covered data stored in electronic format and not the written word

No it's both. And verbal, too, I believe. My company is governed by the DPA, and part of my job is to ensure that the act is adhered to by all within my department.

I'm fairly sure it would.



If I were any of the folk whose details have appeared on that anti-RL website I'd be lodging a complaint and/or consulting a solicitor.

Surely it can't be lawful for Gleeson to have been given the file by UKAD, as stated by sportingintelligence?







It's almost as if UKAD were giving him the ammunition to, if not clear his name, then certainly to implicate others. It's ludicrous. And it can only be concluded that sportingintelligence are getting their info via Gleeson.

True.

So either Gleeson and/or sportingintelligence are making it up or the UKAD have questions to answer.