Lizzie Armisted 'cleared' to ride in Rio - 3 missed doping test violations

Leroy42

Big increase in her results, coupled with two missed tests and an excuse for a third (I know the 3rd is chronologically before the other 2). A world champion, a medal favourite in Olympic year, and one of the top performing cyclists in the sport misses two tests?

As was raised in some opinion pieces, if this was a Russian athlete would we be so willing to move on?

dastardly00

LA Confidential
http://inrng.com/2016/08/armitstead-whereabouts-ukad-british-cycling/

Beasty

I personally think she has been incompetent and should consider herself very fortunate that the CAS has sided with her. If she had an issue with the first missed test she should have challenged it then.

The whole concept of "family emergency" (or indeed any other type of "emergency") perhaps needs looking at. The description can cover a whole range of scenarios from the very serious to something that may border on comical.

I think it's entirely reasonable to be "absent" if a close family member dies or is suddenly hospitalised. Perhaps there should be some process for considering whether an "excuse" is "reasonable", again though that should be within a short period and not months later. It's not unheard of for families to have 2 or more "emergencies" in a year and if the facts support it (there's no need to make them public - they can be dealt with by an independent tribunal meeting in private) perhaps a retrospective exemption can be given, with possibly increased scrutiny of the athlete going forward in return.

kilns

Perfect example of politics at play here

If she was Russian, no way would she be cleared

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Am very uncomfortable with her appeal to CAS being supported by BC.

JTL couldn't appeal to CAS because he couldn't afford it and was cut loose by same BC.

Either BC making judgements or treating higher profile cyclists preferentially. Eitehr way not good.

That LA Confidential link provided by dastardly is saying BC did not "fund" her appeal but offered "legal support"

I'm not entirely sure of the distiction though as legal support costs money!

DKmac

Beasty wrote: »

The whole concept of "family emergency" (or indeed any other type of "emergency") perhaps needs looking at. The description can cover a whole range of scenarios from the very serious to something that may border on comical.
.

The "Family Emergency" was not contested as a missed test.

1bryan

Beasty wrote: »

That LA Confidential link provided by dastardly is saying BC did not "fund" her appeal but offered "legal support"

I'm not entirely sure of the distiction though as legal support costs money!

maybe its just spin. They offered 'legal support' at no cost to the taxpayer.

'no cost to the taxpayer' being the important part here.

Beasty

DKmac wrote: »

The "Family Emergency" was not contested as a missed test.

I'm raising it as a wider point and not the specific case here (I've seen reference to a "serious family illness", but have no idea whether it's somneone close to her or perhaps someone she's not seen for years, or how "serious" it was - she also did not need to contest it if, as happened, her main claim was upheld). There are many situations which would warrant not being available, but do the rules allow it as a "reasonable excuse"? If not perhaps, in duly confirmed circumstances, they should.

Joe_ Public

Beasty wrote: »

I personally think she has been incompetent and should consider herself very fortunate that the CAS has sided with her. If she had an issue with the first missed test she should have challenged it then.

The whole concept of "family emergency" (or indeed any other type of "emergency") perhaps needs looking at. The description can cover a whole range of scenarios from the very serious to something that may border on comical.

I think it's entirely reasonable to be "absent" if a close family member dies or is suddenly hospitalised. Perhaps there should be some process for considering whether an "excuse" is "reasonable", again though that should be within a short period and not months later. It's not unheard of for families to have 2 or more "emergencies" in a year and if the facts support it (there's no need to make them public - they can be dealt with by an independent tribunal meeting in private) perhaps a retrospective exemption can be given, with possibly increased scrutiny of the athlete going forward in return.

I agree with you to some extent. But she can definitely count herself extremely lucky on the grounds of incompetence given that excuse wouldn't wash if an athlete took a contaminated supplement without checking.

The excuse of family tragedies or emergencies is problematic. I've read comments from athletes complaining that the testing system is too invasive, that the whereabouts thing takes control of their lives, but that's the price you pay for being an elite athlete and surely you learn how to manage it once you're in that position. As absent minded as you become in the grip of an emergency, surely there are people around you, coach, manager, agent whatever, who will remind you to deal with the wherabouts. It only takes seconds to do it. I think they are already providing enough latitude in making it three strikes in 12 months rather than two or the three in 18 months as it used to be.

Pudsy33

Macy0161 wrote: »

I assume she couldn't turn off the hotel room phone? CAS have accepted that the UKAD rep didn't follow correct procedure - that's more explainable than the mistakes in updating whereabouts info for me.

If it was such a blatant case of the UKAD officer not following procedures, why did they wait until after the 3rd missed test to challenge? They were looking for something to challenge when they realised they were in trouble.

MB Lacey

In my mind there is not a chance in hell that Lizzie Armitstead would dope and this doubt over her is hugely disappointing.

from road cc:

“The October 2015 failure was the result of a filing failure on ADAMS caused by an administrative oversight. Armitstead did not dispute the oversight. “The June 2016 missed test was the result of Armitstead not updating her whereabouts on ADAMS, having had an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family.”

Someone has suggesetd that her coach or manager could have updated her wherabouts on ADAMS when one of her family took ill. Lizzie does not have a coach and when she's home, she's usually home on her own to spend time with her family.

An admin error, a family emergency and an incompetant tester make her a doper?
Oh and Phil didn't race for Sky, and she has the same initials as Lance Armstrong - so hey, we've got all the facts, she really must be doping

Give it a rest.

DKmac

Beasty wrote: »

I'm raising it as a wider point and not the specific case here (I've seen reference to a "serious family illness", but have no idea whether it's somneone close to her or perhaps someone she's not seen for years, or how "serious" it was - she also did not need to contest it if, as happened, her main claim was upheld). There are many situations which would warrant not being available, but do the rules allow it as a "reasonable excuse"? If not perhaps, in duly confirmed circumstances, they should.

As I sit here now in work, if something came up I'd have to let someone know before I leave. It can't take too long to update ADAMS. Athletes as hard as they do work don't live in the 9-5 like the majority. This is not a reasonable excuse, an acceptance of this as a reasonable excuse would open the door to abuse (my cat died!)

The bigger question in all this is "Are athletes abusing the three-strike rule?" given that she was free to contest all three missed tests and only contested the first after missing two more.

RobFowl

MB Lacey wrote: »

In my mind there is not a chance in hell that Lizzie Armitstead would dope and this doubt over her is hugely disappointing.

Pudsy33

MB Lacey wrote: »

In my mind there is not a chance in hell that Lizzie Armitstead would dope and this doubt over her is hugely disappointing.

from road cc:

“The October 2015 failure was the result of a filing failure on ADAMS caused by an administrative oversight. Armitstead did not dispute the oversight. “The June 2016 missed test was the result of Armitstead not updating her whereabouts on ADAMS, having had an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family.”

Someone has suggesetd that her coach or manager could have updated her wherabouts on ADAMS when one of her family took ill. Lizzie does not have a coach and when she's home, she's usually home on her own to spend time with her family.

An admin error, a family emergency and an incompetant tester make her a doper?
Oh and Phil didn't race for Sky, and she has the same initials as Lance Armstrong - so hey, we've got all the facts, she really must be doping

Give it a rest.

Three missed test in a year, regardless of circumstances, is mental. If you missed one, do you not think she should be extra careful? If this was Nibali or Zakarin the pitchforks would be out. The fact she didn't challenge the first test at the time speak volumes.

I'm not saying she is doping, but it's incompetent in the extreme. And British cycling supporting her against UKAD is worrying.

1bryan

MB Lacey wrote: »

An admin error, a family emergency and an incompetant tester make her a doper?

under the rules, yes. 3 missed tests means a failed test, and you must be sanctioned as such.

Just dealing in facts, she did actually receive a ban for her discressions (intentional or otherwise).

I don't think anyone here (maybe with the exception of 1 person) is suggesting that she is on anything. The optics of the situation, both from her point of view, and of that of British Cycling and their 'relationship' with UKAD, are not great.

I'd really like to hear the UKAD tester's side of this. I can't imagine they work for UKAD anymore if they did what is claimed of them.

MPFGLB

MB Lacey wrote: »

In my mind there is not a chance in hell that Lizzie Armitstead would dope and this doubt over her is hugely disappointing.

from road cc:

“The October 2015 failure was the result of a filing failure on ADAMS caused by an administrative oversight. Armitstead did not dispute the oversight. “The June 2016 missed test was the result of Armitstead not updating her whereabouts on ADAMS, having had an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family.”

Someone has suggesetd that her coach or manager could have updated her wherabouts on ADAMS when one of her family took ill. Lizzie does not have a coach and when she's home, she's usually home on her own to spend time with her family.

An admin error, a family emergency and an incompetant tester make her a doper?
Oh and Phil didn't race for Sky, and she has the same initials as Lance Armstrong - so hey, we've got all the facts, she really must be doping

Give it a rest.

So you know for certain ?? No one here said she was doping but the circumstances are suspicious and deserve questioning and debate

But to be adamant about something you cannot be sure about is as myopic as those who believe everyone is doping

"Give is a rest" ?? ...you don't even believe in debate or legit questioning of circumstances ...donl t work for UK cycling do you ???

TheBlaaMan

Beasty wrote: »

I personally think she has been incompetent and should consider herself very fortunate that the CAS has sided with her. If she had an issue with the first missed test she should have challenged it then.

The whole concept of "family emergency" (or indeed any other type of "emergency") perhaps needs looking at. The description can cover a whole range of scenarios from the very serious to something that may border on comical.

I think it's entirely reasonable to be "absent" if a close family member dies or is suddenly hospitalised. Perhaps there should be some process for considering whether an "excuse" is "reasonable", again though that should be within a short period and not months later. It's not unheard of for families to have 2 or more "emergencies" in a year and if the facts support it (there's no need to make them public - they can be dealt with by an independent tribunal meeting in private) perhaps a retrospective exemption can be given, with possibly increased scrutiny of the athlete going forward in return.

Beasty wrote: »

That LA Confidential link provided by dastardly is saying BC did not "fund" her appeal but offered "legal support"

I'm not entirely sure of the distiction though as legal support costs money!

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Three missed test in a year, regardless of circumstances, is mental. If you missed one, do you not think she should be extra careful? If this was Nibali or Zakarin the pitchforks would be out. The fact she didn't challenge the first test at the time speak volumes.

I'm not saying she is doping, but it's incompetent in the extreme. And British cycling supporting her against UKAD is worrying.

Her father - on twitter for a while but not very active - has taken to trying to explain some of the anomolies, FWIW. While there are good grounds for wondering why she took 9 months to challenge the initial 'miss', it seems only to have become an issue after the third, which is kinda understandable. The simple cost of taking the first one to CAS is certainly being cited as a factor, they simply opted to let it stand not expecting it to really cause her issues.

Add in the fact that (even 'the clean') athlete's clearly dislike the intrusion of the Whereabouts regime - witness Cav's ranting about it a year or two back - and I can possibly see how this has come about.

That said, she shares initials with the worlds worst doper, so she must be guilty:cool:

Joe_ Public

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Her father - on twitter for a while but not very active - has taken to trying to explain some of the anomolies, FWIW. While there are good grounds for wondering why she took 9 months to challenge the initial 'miss', it seems only to have become an issue after the third, which is kinda understandable. The simple cost of taking the first one to CAS is certainly being cited as a factor, they simply opted to let it stand not expecting it to really cause her issues.

Add in the fact that (even 'the clean') athlete's clearly dislike the intrusion of the Whereabouts regime - witness Cav's ranting about it a year or two back - and I can possibly see how this has come about.

That said, she shares initials with the worlds worst doper, so she must be guilty:cool:

Nobody likes it. The vast majority accept it and understand why it is there. Ultimately it's a small price to pay for being an elite athlete and part of a system that is transparent and people can have faith in.

What is obviously now needed, by UKAD and others, is clarity on what constitutes an acceptable attempt by a doping officer to contact an athlete, short of beating down the door with a mallet, and which won't leave itself open to any subsequent legal challenge.

Ps What on earth has Lance Armstrong got to do with any of this?

1bryan

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

The simple cost of taking the first one to CAS is certainly being cited as a factor, they simply opted to let it stand not expecting it to really cause her issues.

the simple cost of taking the first one to CAS would make me more diligent about making sure I didn't miss anymore tests

Thats not even to mention that it might put my participation in the olympics in doubt if I didn't.

TheBlaaMan

1bryan wrote: »

the simple cost of taking the first one to CAS would make me more diligent about making sure I didn't miss anymore tests

Thats not even to mention that it might put my participation in the olympics in doubt if I didn't.

My poor English, but the simple cost (a five figure sum, apparently) was meant to imply that the cost was simply too high when it was not really an issue, ie. when first notified in October last, prior to the subsequent two. Hindsight is a wonderful thing....

Macy0161

Pudsy33 wrote: »

If it was such a blatant case of the UKAD officer not following procedures, why did they wait until after the 3rd missed test to challenge? They were looking for something to challenge when they realised they were in trouble.

Presumably she wasn't planning on missing another 2, and as we can see, drawing attention to a missed test (whether genuine or not) is hardly going to be good publicity. I can see why she'd try and let it drop off the rolling year rather than challenge it.

Well I can see why initially - I think I'd be getting worried if I had 2 strikes in the circumstances and if there was a question about 1, challenge it then. If there is such a mechanism (I don't know whether there is tbh.).

DKmac

1bryan wrote: »

the simple cost of taking the first one to CAS would make me more diligent about making sure I didn't miss anymore tests

That's not even to mention that it might put my participation in the olympics in doubt if I didn't.

If BC were so willing to help now, why didn't she bring this to their attention back then. Surely they would have helped. In-fact, surely they would have known themselves one of their athletes missed a test. Clearly cost is not an issue here.

Why dispute the first when it looks like she feels the grounds for appeal were greater for the last instance i.e. Family Emergency? How many of these has she missed in the past, two a year??

couerdelion

DKmac wrote: »

If BC were so willing to help now, why didn't she bring this to their attention back then. Surely they would have helped. In-fact, surely they would have known themselves one of their athletes missed a test. Clearly cost is not an issue here.

Why dispute the first when it looks like she feels the grounds for appeal were greater for the last instance i.e. Family Emergency? How many of these has she missed in the past, two a year??

How do you know she didnt bring it to the attention of BC back then and they told her not to worry and that the cost was prohibitive at that time to challenge it?

Carawaystick

Saw a post linked by Digger,
written by someone else.

It says the odds of her not meeting the whereabouts rule only on the 3 times when she was missed tests are very low, i.e. it's likely she was away other days when she wasn't tested too.


She's also lied to the media by saying she didn't race by choice instead of being banned. If you're going to lie about an easily verified thing, which will come out in the wash in CAS, then I wouldn't trust her in anything else.

DKmac

couerdelion wrote: »

How do you know she didnt bring it to the attention of BC back then and they told her not to worry and that the cost was prohibitive at that time to challenge it?

I don't it's very possible. But the second time around, when the threat of a ban was quite serious? Why so selective about the instance you are appealing, almost a year down the line? More than likely I would think the legal advice was to go for the low hanging fruit, which one of the instances could be technically voided if challenged.

As usual more questions are raised than answers provided.

Joe_ Public

DKmac wrote: »

I don't it's very possible. But the second time around, when the threat of a ban was quite serious? Why so selective about the instance you are appealing, almost a year down the line? More than likely I would think the legal advice was to go for the low hanging fruit, which one of the instances could be technically voided if challenged.

As usual more questions are raised than answers provided.

Because there were no legal grounds to challenge either of the other two rulings. An athlete will gain a lot of sympathy for missing a test due to an emergency situation, perhaps ask the authorities for clemency, but there's no basis why a tribunal would not let it stand. It goes back to an earlier point: the 3 missed test rule gives athletes a degree of latitude in part to take such potential misfortunes into account.

1bryan

couerdelion wrote: »

How do you know she didnt bring it to the attention of BC back then and they told her not to worry and that the cost was prohibitive at that time to challenge it?

are you suggesting she did? So theres an implication here that BC encouraged her to stay silent on this and that, basically, her ban could have been avoided but for them?

Thats quite an allegation. What evidence is there to back this up?

1bryan

and even if theres an argument for not appealing transgression #1 after it happened, surely you'd appeal it after trangression #2.

I'd imagine theres a lot of pressure being in that predicament so why would anyone willingly let that hang over them?

gordongekko

Carawaystick wrote: »

. If you're going to lie about an easily verified thing, which will come out in the wash in CAS, then I wouldn't trust her in anything else.

Ah here

couerdelion

1bryan wrote: »

are you suggesting she did? So theres an implication here that BC encouraged her to stay silent on this and that, basically, her ban could have been avoided but for them?

Thats quite an allegation. What evidence is there to back this up?

Not at all. But from your post you're quite adamant that she didnt. I'm just presenting an equally ridiculous flipside of the argument.