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

Leroy42

Without having at the benefit of reading the CAS ruling, it seems strange, from this remove, that they ruled in her favour.

It appears that the claim is that she was not notified of the visit as the inspector refused to tell the hotel why he wished to know her room number (and thus rightly the hotel refused to patch them through) and that she had her phone on silent so didn't hear it. But all athletes were told that they should include their room number on the whereabouts form to avoid such an issue and surely her phone on silent her her problem.

I fail to see, again based on a lack of evidence I'll admit, how this could be seen as anything other than a failure on her part.

dastardly00

So Armistead has responded via The Daily Mail.
Here's a link to the Cyclingnews article about it

Test #1:

Her comments on the August 20 test that she missed (the day before racing the World Cup TTT in Sweden) - i.e. the first one, which has now been expunged from her record after a successful appeal to CAS.

Basically this bloke walks in off the street at 6am and asks for my room number, without explanation, and understandably the receptionist wouldn't give it to him. Then he called my mobile, which was on silent. And then filed a missed test report. The findings in the CAS hearing said that he should have told the receptionist that firstly he was looking for a Boels Dolmans cyclist. He didn't explain who he was or the seriousness of the situation. Basically, it was found that he did not do a good enough job in trying to find me. I was the leader of the World Cup, I was tested the next day, and that sample was negative.

Test #2:

The filing failure in October I take responsibility for. It was just after becoming world champion and I was spinning too many plates and one fell off. I was seeing family and friends that I had not seen for months, I was in holiday mode, I was absolutely not trying to deceive anybody. Since then, extra precautions have been put in place around increased diligence and care and my priority is "whereabouts".

Test #3:

The third one was out of character and under extraordinary circumstances. It's something I don't want to talk about. It's a private family matter. It's something I don’t feel comfortable talking about.

dastardly00

Leroy42 wrote: »

Without having at the benefit of reading the CAS ruling, it seems strange, from this remove, that they ruled in her favour.

Will the 'Reasoned Decision' from CAS become available to the public?

Leroy42

Test 2 and 3 she accepts as being missed tests (at least for now!) so no point discussing them.

Test 1 - UKAD has stated that they informed all athletes that they should include room number of there whereabouts details and the phone on silent is really not their issue. But basically she did not give enough details for the UKAD officer to locate her without recourse to someone else, how is that different from basically just giving your managers telephone number and forcing UKAD to go through them before they can locate you, with all the implications that infers.

Again, I am just bemused as to how CAS can find in her favour. LA admits that it is quite right that the hotel should not release the room number to strangers, but how confident would the hotel be about the legitimacy of a UKAD inspector? We have all heard of examples of fans going to extreme lengths to find out room numbers of their idols in hotels.

It seems to me, that mistakes were made on her part but she seems to be completely absolved of any blame. THe onus, surely, lies on the athlete to ensure that all details are correct and with apps, a txt message service, e-mail etc, there is really no excuse for the athlete not to update the details once they know them.

Even allowing for any or all of the excuses, the reason why 3 tests are the level and not simply one is to allow for cases such as this and Test 3. It allows for 2 prior missed test so that an athlete can learn from previous issues and look to put in place a system to avoid them in the future. So the 3 strike rule was actually adopted for this exact situation, so the athlete would not suffer due to simple mistake or miscommunication. LA, through her winning of her CAS appeal, has effectively been giveing an free strike.

Pudsy33

The excuses for the other missed test are weak too. Only 6 ukad athletes missed 2 test last year.

Joe_ Public

Test #3:

Quote:
The third one was out of character and under extraordinary circumstances. It's something I don't want to talk about. It's a private family matter. It's something I don’t feel comfortable talking about.

You miss nearly 20 per cent of your scheduled tests it's a bit of a stretch to claim it's out of character to be fair.

terrydel

No sympathy for her on 2 & 3.
Its not a big ask for these athletes to adhere to the rules and meet their testing obligations, so when they don't they can have no complaints. Its what they sign up to, if you cant meet your requirements then don't whinge when they throw the book at you.

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

Test 2 and 3 she accepts as being missed tests (at least for now!) so no point discussing them.

Test 1 - UKAD has stated that they informed all athletes that they should include room number of there whereabouts details and the phone on silent is really not their issue. But basically she did not give enough details for the UKAD officer to locate her without recourse to someone else, how is that different from basically just giving your managers telephone number and forcing UKAD to go through them before they can locate you, with all the implications that infers.

Again, I am just bemused as to how CAS can find in her favour. LA admits that it is quite right that the hotel should not release the room number to strangers, but how confident would the hotel be about the legitimacy of a UKAD inspector? We have all heard of examples of fans going to extreme lengths to find out room numbers of their idols in hotels.

Like you say, it's impossible to know for sure without benefit of the reasoned decision. But if you read the UKAD guidelines, they do not say room numbers have to be updated and I think this would be unenforceable anyway as it's just too easy to forget such a thing. It's the DCO's actions that need to be focussed on here and why she (I assume) did or didn't do things the way she did.

Joe_ Public

dastardly00 wrote: »

Will the 'Reasoned Decision' from CAS become available to the public?

I think the rule is that decisions are published only if all sides agree to it. Have my doubts all sides will agree in this instance anyway.

Leroy42

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Like you say, it's impossible to know for sure without benefit of the reasoned decision. But if you read the UKAD guidelines, they do not say room numbers have to be updated and I think this would be unenforceable anyway as it's just too easy to forget such a thing. It's the DCO's actions that need to be focussed on here and why she (I assume) did or didn't do things the way she did.

Maybe I misread it, I was sure I had read that UKAD had advised athletes to include room number, but it really is a moot point.

The 3 strikes rules is designed exactly for these types of cases, to allow for issues to arise (like test 3 where she had a family emergency and it is completely understandable that updating whereabouts apps would be the last thing on someones mind).

By allowing this CAS as effectively saying that there is actually no limit to how many tests you can miss, once you can point to an 'error' in the procedures, even,as in this case, that 'error' should of itself not been sufficient to derail to the test ( her phone was on silent so effectively limited UKAD to only one avenue of contact)

fermtri

If you're a pro athlete, its a pretty big part of your life to abide by the regulations, and pretty important too - there no possible way you could be ignorant of that, nor not know the consequences. If it gets to the stage where you've missed three tests, whatever about the individual reasons for each, you deserve to be treated as a doper. Any missed test has to be viewed with suspicion, and three chances in a year would appear to be generous enough for me.

The ins and out of the first one, or any of the others, are irrelevant, theres already a large safety net which takes into account probability

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe I misread it, I was sure I had read that UKAD had advised athletes to include room number, but it really is a moot point.

The 3 strikes rules is designed exactly for these types of cases, to allow for issues to arise (like test 3 where she had a family emergency and it is completely understandable that updating whereabouts apps would be the last thing on someones mind).

By allowing this CAS as effectively saying that there is actually no limit to how many tests you can miss, once you can point to an 'error' in the procedures, even,as in this case, that 'error' should of itself not been sufficient to derail to the test ( her phone was on silent so effectively limited UKAD to only one avenue of contact)

Hardly a moot point if it proved crucial to her case at the hearing. But I do agree this could set a dangerous precedent for the whereabouts system where every action of a DCO could be scrutinised to test whether he or she stuck rigorously to the rule book. Assuming you have the ready cash (or a willing governing body) to help you out, of course!

Leroy42

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Hardly a moot point if it proved crucial to her case at the hearing. But I do agree this could set a dangerous precedent for the whereabouts system where every action of a DCO could be scrutinised to test whether he or she stuck rigorously to the rule book. Assuming you have the ready cash (or a willing governing body) to help you out, of course!

Yes, better phrased to say it should have been a moot point.

As I said in a previous post, massive increase in performance and results, top level athlete and suddenly the rules are allowed to be bent to accommodate her. We have heard this story countless times before.

Fine if CAS what to give an out for failed procedures, then revert to one strike on your out as this makes a mockery of the whole thing

Tigerandahalf

Are female athletes tested by female testers - and actually watch them doing the act?

How often are athletes urine/blood tested?

There does seem to have been a very successful period in British cycling.

Hunterbiker

It appears the key one here is the third missed test.
Just reading many of the posts on this thread it appears many believe there is never a good reason to miss a test. Her comments imply that she doesnt want to divulge what the reason is and without it she will be seen as having no excuse (but even if she did divulge it it wouldn't be enough for many) for all we know it might be something specific to a family member. So if that is the case do family members private business have to become public knowledge in order to clear her name? I would say that is beyond reasonable expectation.
Saying that you would hope she told the CAS the cause of her missing the 3rd test. But then I dont know how the CAS works.

1bryan

Armitstead has just tweeted a statement.

And its apalling.

Does she not have people who will vet these things before she writes them?

This hole just keeps getting deeper.

Weepsie

There seems to be some people implying that her results have come out of nowhere in the past 12-18 months and therefore must have been cheating.

Look at her palmares and you'll see she was often in or around the top.

Wouldn't say it's fishy as much as its naive. Don't think she should be allowed go, but to me the British councils play favourites as try did with Christinie Ohuruogu years ago too

Joe_ Public

Hunterbiker wrote: »

It appears the key one here is the third missed test.
Just reading many of the posts on this thread it appears many believe there is never a good reason to miss a test. Her comments imply that she doesnt want to divulge what the reason is and without it she will be seen as having no excuse (but even if she did divulge it it wouldn't be enough for many) for all we know it might be something specific to a family member. So if that is the case do family members private business have to become public knowledge in order to clear her name? I would say that is beyond reasonable expectation.
Saying that you would hope she told the CAS the cause of her missing the 3rd test. But then I dont know how the CAS works.

She may well have done, but it had no bearing on the legal case she was taking. She accepted the third missed test. She wasn't challenging it.

People are understandably suspicious of the family emergency excuse, as much as they might be sympathetic to the athlete for whatever circumstances arose. Okay, if you get an emergency call at 6.30am and the testers arrive at 7.0am to find you missing, that would be understandable. In that instance, I would wager you'd immediately challenge UKAD, explain the circumstances and they might strike it off.

Otherwise, we all know that even in emergency situations, life goes on and you have to take care of or delegate important stuff. Somebody said earlier she's self-coached, but she still has a partner who's a cyclist and, presumably, other support staff so it's just a stretch to imagine such an important consideration being totally overlooked. And particularly given that she was already on two strikes.

Her explanation for the second test miss isn't very convincing either nor British Cycling's account of its role in the CAS process.

dastardly00

Her statement:

1bryan

I don't even know where to start with that. The bit about Thornton beggars belief. We were working under a 'policy of no news is good news'

while on 2 strikes

then he left without BC telling her

sorry, but WHAT?

godtabh

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She may well have done, but it had no bearing on the legal case she was taking. She accepted the third missed test. She wasn't challenging it.

People are understandably suspicious of the family emergency excuse, as much as they might be sympathetic to the athlete for whatever circumstances arose. Okay, if you get an emergency call at 6.30am and the testers arrive at 7.0am to find you missing, that would be understandable. In that instance, I would wager you'd immediately challenge UKAD, explain the circumstances and they might strike it off.

Otherwise, we all know that even in emergency situations, life goes on and you have to take care of or delegate important stuff. Somebody said earlier she's self-coached, but she still has a partner who's a cyclist and, presumably, other support staff so it's just a stretch to imagine such an important consideration being totally overlooked. And particularly given that she was already on two strikes.

Her explanation for the second test miss isn't very convincing either nor British Cycling's account of its role in the CAS process.

In her statement she says that she gave medical information of the family member who was the center of the crisis. This was deemed not to be extreme enough not to have missed a test.

1bryan

Her statement implies negligence both by UKAD and by British Cycling.

If she stands by this statement I would encourage her to take legal action against them both. Firstly, for jeapordising her career like this. Secondly, for damage to her reputuation.

If she were to win legal action, it would go a long way to improving her reputation IMO.

Her comment about 'Twitter army' is going to be like a red rag to a bull. Seriously ill-advised by her.

godtabh

1bryan wrote: »

Her statement implies negligence both by UKAD and by British Cycling.

If she stands by this statement I would encourage her to take legal action against them both. Firstly, for jeapordising her career like this. Secondly, for damage to her reputuation.

If she were to win legal action, it would go a long way to improving her reputation IMO.

Her comment about 'Twitter army' is going to be like a red rag to a bull. Seriously ill-advised by her.

From her statement she blames BC for taking away her assistant/helper/hand holder and not telling her and that's the cause of the third failure.

1bryan

godtabh wrote: »

From her statement she blames BC for taking away her assistant/helper/hand holder and not telling her and that's the cause of the third failure.

yes, and UKAD on 2 counts. Firstly, the alleged negligence of the tester. Secondly, for denying her appeal following the first violation. If they were at fault on both of these counts, then she has every right to blame them for her situation now.

Leroy42

1bryan wrote: »

Her statement implies negligence both by UKAD and by British Cycling.

If she stands by this statement I would encourage her to take legal action against them both. Firstly, for jeapordising her career like this. Secondly, for damage to her reputuation.

If she were to win legal action, it would go a long way to improving her reputation IMO.

Her comment about 'Twitter army' is going to be like a red rag to a bull. Seriously ill-advised by her.

Where exactly?

They kept the details of all of this out of the public domain, it was the Daily Mail who uncovered it, so how did they jeapordise her career? And damaging her reputation, well that is tied in to the first one.

Taxuser1

Not one mention of boards.ie in there. ffs

Lumen

1bryan wrote: »

If she stands by this statement I would encourage her to take legal action against them both. Firstly, for jeapordising her career like this. Secondly, for damage to her reputuation.

If she were to win legal action, it would go a long way to improving her reputation IMO.

Suing everybody in sight is Lance levels of bolloxology.

I have to say after reading that statement I'm feeling quite sympathetic. She may be a world champion, but this is womens' cycling and barely a professional sport, in fact in some ways sits between and combines the worst aspects of amateur and pro sport. I wouldn't judge it on the same terms as mens pro cycling.

Joe_ Public

I am curious to know what other athletes will make of this needing your federation to devise a support staff to handle the filling out of a form and then trying to offload the responsibility, which ultimately is 100 per cent the athlete's, onto that federation when it breaks down (the same federation as it happens that provided a dig out when it came to the legal challenge). I imagine a lot of raised eyebrows among colleagues and rivals reading that.

C3PO

"When you're in a hole ... stop digging" springs to mind!!

godtabh

Lumen wrote: »

Suing everybody in sight is Lance levels of bolloxology.

I have to say after reading that statement I'm feeling quite sympathetic. She may be a world champion, but this is womens' cycling and barely a professional sport, in fact in some ways sits between and combines the worst aspects of amateur and pro sport. I wouldn't judge it on the same terms as mens pro cycling.

sexist