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

Joe_ Public

1bryan wrote: »

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?

Yes this seems the case. But then we don't know for sure she didn't. Farah supposedly appealed his second missed test ruling, the infamous unheard doorbell one, but we only heard that long afterwards when the details were leaked to a newspaper. Unless the CAS ruling is published, which I doubt, or Armistead herself decides to talk about it, I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. Not sure that serves the issue of transparency very well to be honest.

1bryan

couerdelion wrote: »

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.

sorry, you've lost me. What was the question again?

Are you saying that I suggested her not contesting the first missed test as being ridiculous? When its the truth?

couerdelion

1bryan wrote: »

sorry, you've lost me. What was the question again?

Are you saying that I suggested her not contesting the first missed test as being ridiculous? When its the truth?

You said she never raised it with BC. Unless your privvy to that information how do you know?

Koobcam

If Lizzie was Russian, the media in the UK would be presenting this in a somewhat different light I suspect. Suppose for a moment that an athlete was doping. I'm sure many of the posters here will have read or heard of the myriad of doping porn books by the likes of Tyler Hamilton, Michael Rasmussen, etc, where they detail the numerous trick of the trade. This includes delaying the arrival of the tester if you have mistimed your dosage so that you have time to flush the evidence from your system. So, to me, the idea of a family emergency just sounds downright dodgy. Also, to miss three tests within a year just really looks very bad. I'm sure that Lizzie is being very honest in telling her side of the story, and she has been cleared by UKAD. The idea though that just because she has taken a staunchly anti-doping stance in the past and is therefore incapable of doping is a bit naive

velo.2010

Having a look at this now. I'd take it that UKAD stepped up controls on Armitstead in the past couple of years given her jump in performance in that same time period.

I'm not sure what the tester was supposed to do at the hotel. If they tell reception that they are a tester and that receptionist phones Armitstead to tell her who it is, then what is to stop Armitstead delaying the tester for a 'shower' or similar as we've seen in the past. Any delay from the moment Armitstead knows the tester is coming surely rules the test null and void, ie, it has to be struck down as a missed test.

The third missed test due to a 'family emergency' may be valid but at first glance sounds like 'the dog ate my homework' excuse.

British Cycling definitely treats some of its athletes a little more favourably than others. Armitstead, Rowsell, Trott, etc are the darlings of BC and were the poster girls of London 2012 - just ask Wendy Houvenagel. If you don't follow the narrative, even in retirement like Nicole Cooke, then your ostracised.

British Cycling and Team Sky may be the home of 'marginal gains' and the height of professionalism in sport but it strikes me as something of a 'chummy' and elite clique that's open to some but closed to most others. I'm still waiting on a Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the whole set up.

morana

she never failed a test but bull**** like this makes me sick. she should have never allowed herself get into this situation never. and all the blame is on her no matter what cas did no matter who they try to deflect the blame onto. when she missed that first one she should have ensured its not going to happen again. as far as I know there are a myriad of ways to update your file. apps, web sms and even somebody who can do it for you.

Her profile is too high to allow this happen thru sloppy administration. she has let down the sport.

greenspurs

Armisteads comments after Nicole Cooke said she felt "robbed" by dopers - Jan 2011.

"But, although Armitstead understands why Cooke spoke out, she said on Tuesday that she did "not understand the benefit of bringing it up".

She added: "I just find it upsetting because the sport that I love, cycling, is clean now. My sport now is not that sport anymore.

"We shouldn't be adding fuel to the fire because for me, if I was a general member of the public and I saw someone in Nicole's position, at the top elite level of sport saying something like that, you're going to believe it."

When asked if she had ever been offered any drugs, Armitstead answered: "That's never happened to me, no."

MPFGLB

The whole thing is a PR disaster for her if clean and she could have avoided it all by some due dilegence ...that what irks the most

I mean how hard can it be to update your whereabouts with modern technology !!

Whatever others say or whatever her results at Rio (which are bound to be effected by this) it does not look good for cycling AGAIN

(this is with the assumption of innocence) ...

In my profession I fill in time sheets everyday ...if not completed I don't get paid or completed incorrectly I am open to dismissal
I complete them correctly even when there has been death & illness in the family...My livelihood depends on it...

dastardly00

Latest article from Cyclingnews.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-questions-than-answers-in-armitstead-case/

Good summary of events so far... more questions that answers.

Indeed, only for the work of the Daily Mail, it seems that Armitstead’s case might never have been made public at all. According to the UCI’s anti-doping rule 14.4.3, in cases where an athlete is cleared of an anti-doping violation, “the decision may be publicly disclosed only with the consent of the Rider or Other Person who is the subject of the decision.”

And so, while CAS last week published a list of pending arbitration cases involving Russian athletes who were seeking to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympics, there is no mention anywhere on its website of the confidential Armitstead hearing.

check_six

If LA missed three out of competition tests, I'm curious to know how many out of competition tests she completed in the last year. Would that number be close to zero? Or actually zero?

In any event, the whole situation looks terrible public relations-wise.

ednwireland

The optics of this really don't look good.

eeeee

The reaction of other riders is telling:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-react-to-the-lizzie-armitstead-case/

There's no groundswell of support for her.

It's super, super disappointing. I enjoy the women's racing more than the men's cos I always thought it want financially beneficial enough to dope, so was a purer , more honest and real kind of racing.
It'd be so shyte for that not to be the case.

The bit that rankles with me is the cover up after strike three, and the fact that she updated operated almost exclusively outside BC, yet now they're defending her?

It's all very strange and disappointing.

Lusk_Doyle

One of them has to plan the wedding and she's been fairly busy of late winning races and missing tests!

Edit: Was in response to MPFLGBs query on where was Philip D but the new boards site for some.reason chose to not include the quote!

NiallBoo

What surprises me most is that there wasn't a time limit (a few weeks say) for appealing the whereabouts failure.

Fair-enough if anti-doping was genuinely at fault, but details are always going to get a lot muddied so long after the event.

That uncertainty is only going to favour the athlete getting off.

This would all be a non-issue (one way or the other) if the failure had been appealed a year ago

Joe_ Public

NiallBoo wrote: »

What surprises me most is that there wasn't a time limit (a few weeks say) for appealing the whereabouts failure.

Fair-enough if anti-doping was genuinely at fault, but details are always going to get a lot muddied so long after the event.

That uncertainty is only going to favour the athlete getting off.

This would all be a non-issue (one way or the other) if the failure had been appealed a year ago

There are a lot of questions. I read where the head of her own cycling union said she was advised she had the option to contest the decision last October, but she declined (reason unspecified). I presume you can contest missed test decisions to some independent panel and then to CAS if you are so inclined, but like others said maybe she didn't because of the cost factors and because it would be made public if she took that route. So keep it quiet and just make sure of no more missed tests. Well, that may have been the plan anyway!

In fairness, though, eight/nine months after the fact isn't all that long a time. They saw a legal loophole and went for it as a last desperate option. Raises a few troubling issues but in a way can't really blame her for it.

velo.2010

This line from UKAD is disturbing regarding the testing...

'in the event that the testers need to contact an athlete through a hotel reception, for example, it would become an 'announced test' (basically a heads up test) and another test would be done later.

So an athlete can effectively turn an unannounced test into a prior warning test if they turn their phone off and have reception do the work of intermediary and letting them know the testers are on thre way. This is flawed regardless if, as said elsewhere by UKAD, such an athlete would come under closer scrutiny in future testing.

For all the apps, texts and other ways to update an athlete's whereabouts, it still comes down to the simple fact of the tester getting immediate acccess to the athlete as soon as they turn up 'unannounced'. Any delay beyond the athlete getting out of bed to answer the door and the process is undermined. How many unannounced tests have gone this way I wonder?

Lets not forget the best example of the above in 2009. Armstrong taking a '20 minute shower' after the tester turns up with Bruyneel stalling them by trying to contact the UCI.

MPFGLB

So I guess we know what Philip Deignan is up to..defending his woman ..if unwisely on Twitter and with misjudged tweets

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/760559940566220805

velo.2010

MPFGLB wrote: »

So I guess we know what Philip Deignan is up to..defending his woman ..if unwisely on Twitter and with misjudged tweets

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/760559940566220805

Translation...

'and having an affair with a married man with children is also shameful'

'also shameful'! Is that an admission there Philip?

nak

velo.2010 wrote: »

Translation...

'and having an affair with a married man with children is also shameful'

'also shameful'! Is that an admission there Philip?

Can also mean disgraceful. Pretty childish on his part getting involved in Twitter arguments.

Joe_ Public

velo.2010 wrote: »

This line from UKAD is disturbing regarding the testing...

'in the event that the testers need to contact an athlete through a hotel reception, for example, it would become an 'announced test' (basically a heads up test) and another test would be done later.

So an athlete can effectively turn an unannounced test into a prior warning test if they turn their phone off and have reception do the work of intermediary and letting them know the testers are on thre way. This is flawed regardless if, as said elsewhere by UKAD, such an athlete would come under closer scrutiny in future testing.

For all the apps, texts and other ways to update an athlete's whereabouts, it still comes down to the simple fact of the tester getting immediate acccess to the athlete as soon as they turn up 'unannounced'. Any delay beyond the athlete getting out of bed to answer the door and the process is undermined. How many unannounced tests have gone this way I wonder?

Lets not forget the best example of the above in 2009. Armstrong taking a '20 minute shower' after the tester turns up with Bruyneel stalling them by trying to contact the UCI.

The rule is that the athlete has to be notified by the tester, not through a third party such a hotel receptionist. I don't know that it makes a huge amount of difference in that circumstance, but I guess it's strictly enforced so as not to be open to any kind of ambiguity.

Do athletes have much to gain by delaying the process in the normal course of things? I mean they could theoretically use the time delay to inject some kind of saline solution but that would sound a bit technical for the average athlete I would think.

dastardly00

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The rule is that the athlete has to be notified by the tester, not through a third party such a hotel receptionist. I don't know that it makes a huge amount of difference in that circumstance, but I guess it's strictly enforced so as not to be open to any kind of ambiguity.

Do athletes have much to gain by delaying the process in the normal course of things? I mean they could theoretically use the time delay to inject some kind of saline solution but that would sound a bit technical for the average athlete I would think.

A few minutes of notice before the tester arrived could make a big difference! Now the following method wouldn't apply to Armistead (it'll make perfect sense don't worry)...
...but Mike Tyson used this method to fool testers before... the video clip is from a really interesting BBC Horizon documentary that was on a couple of weeks ago! The video clip is eh, NSFW I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRXp8JTmUAQ

Joe_ Public

dastardly00 wrote: »

A few minutes of notice before the tester arrived could make a big difference! Now the following method wouldn't apply to Armistead (it'll make perfect sense don't worry)...
...but Mike Tyson used this method to fool testers before... the video clip is from a really interesting BBC Horizon documentary that was on a couple of weeks ago! The video clip is eh, NSFW I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRXp8JTmUAQ

Ha..thats actually quite hilarious and a little bit disturbing at the same time. Must have a look for that doc on the iplayer.

I wonder if there's a marked discrepancy between testers as regards how vigilant they are. Is it ok, for instance, to insist on a guy dropping his pants to make sure there's no funny business going on or is that considered too much an invastion of privacy? Questions, questions.

NiallBoo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ha..thats actually quite hilarious and a little bit disturbing at the same time. Must have a look for that doc on the iplayer.

I wonder if there's a marked discrepancy between testers as regards how vigilant they are. Is it ok, for instance, to insist on a guy dropping his pants to make sure there's no funny business going on or is that considered too much an invastion of privacy? Questions, questions.

"Didn't you used to be circumcised?"

Carawaystick

So does the CAS have secret hearings?
If it does then the goose is cooked and sport is dead.

pelevin

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is it ok, for instance, to insist on a guy dropping his pants to make sure there's no funny business going on or is that considered too much an invastion of privacy? Questions, questions.

Imagine if they did that & discovered Lizzie Armitstead was really Philip Deignan? Would maybe explain her incredible results over the last year or so & also Deignan's disappearance from the men's races over the same period.

nak

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wonder if there's a marked discrepancy between testers as regards how vigilant they are. Is it ok, for instance, to insist on a guy dropping his pants to make sure there's no funny business going on or is that considered too much an invastion of privacy? Questions, questions.

Haven't been tested myself, but friend who was said that clothes had to be removed from bottom half and if female and you had your period, tampon had to be removed with the tester standing watching. Not much dignity in it, but stops people switching samples.

gordongekko

Why didnt she just update her location to include her room number?

1bryan

couerdelion wrote: »

You said she never raised it with BC. Unless your privvy to that information how do you know?

ha, I didnt. I read back through my posts. Someone else suggested that.

godtabh

dastardly00 wrote: »

A few minutes of notice before the tester arrived could make a big difference! Now the following method wouldn't apply to Armistead (it'll make perfect sense don't worry)...
...but Mike Tyson used this method to fool testers before... the video clip is from a really interesting BBC Horizon documentary that was on a couple of weeks ago! The video clip is eh, NSFW I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRXp8JTmUAQ

Reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd0gJwD7200

dastardly00

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Must have a look for that doc on the iplayer.

Here it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ll97c

Well worth a watch.