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

TheBlaaMan

@1bryan I dont know if there is an agenda with you, but - accepting that athletes may well lie to proect themselves - what more would you like her to do / say? It sounds tough on her, tbh, and I'm not a niave fan-boy, but she fcuked up, thats clear. Womens cycling is not nearly as well funded/paid as the mens game so she is at a disadvantage when making any comparisons to them.

Why you think this statement is appalling is beyond me - and as for the twitterati comment, she clearly stated that the statement was her own and not proof-read. I suspect most of us, if we found ourselves in her situation, would feel and say similar things.

Tell me how

Lumen wrote:

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.

I too would have some sympathy but the part relating to Thornton leaving without warning does seem weird. Would he himself not have let Lizzie know what was happening?

On the balance, I do feel she is clean but can't figure how she would have let this happen if she is. Why give people a stick to beat you with?

I do believe it not coming out until after she has been cleared to race must seem like preferential treatment to some observers.

Finally, her head must be fried. Wouldn't be surprised if she didn't finish Sunday's race.

godtabh

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

@1bryan I dont know if there is an agenda with you, but - accepting that athletes may well lie to proect themselves - what more would you like her to do / say? It sounds tough on her, tbh, and I'm not a niave fan-boy, but she fcuked up, thats clear. Womens cycling is not nearly as well funded/paid as the mens game so she is at a disadvantage when making any comparisons to them.

Why you think this statement is appalling is beyond me - and as for the twitterati comment, she clearly stated that the statement was her own and not proof-read. I suspect most of us, if we found ourselves in her situation, would feel and say similar things.

For a typical womens cyclist I would agree but she has a lot of personal sponsorship.

1bryan

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

@1bryan I dont know if there is an agenda with you, but - accepting that athletes may well lie to proect themselves - what more would you like her to do / say? It sounds tough on her, tbh, and I'm not a niave fan-boy, but she fcuked up, thats clear. Womens cycling is not nearly as well funded/paid as the mens game so she is at a disadvantage when making any comparisons to them.

Why you think this statement is appalling is beyond me - and as for the twitterati comment, she clearly stated that the statement was her own and not proof-read. I suspect most of us, if we found ourselves in her situation, would feel and say similar things.

she hasn't taken a single bit of personal responsibility for any of the 3 missed-tests. Not one bit.

What has funding/payment got to do with anything? She is an athlete in a sport that is governed by a certain set of rules, and she, like all others (including Nicole Cooke who missed 3 tests her whole career) have to adhere to.

There are plenty of athletes that earn a lot less than Armitstead with all her sponsorship deals, advertising gigs, etc, that don't miss doping tests.

To be honest, I had more sympathy with her before I read that statement. Everyone is to blame but her, basically.

Tell me how

1bryan wrote:

she hasn't taken a single bit of personal responsibility for any of the 3 missed-tests. Not one bit.

She clearly stated "she" made the administrative error surrounding test 2.

How did you miss that?

1bryan

Tell me how wrote: »

She clearly stated "she" made the administrative error surrounding test 2.

How did you miss that?

oh, dunno, maybe that bit got lost in her long-winded excuse

Pudsy33

The fact other pros are not leaping to get defence speaks volumes to me.

gordongekko

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.

She is a professional athlete. She has been involved in this system for over 10 years. She has the resources of BC behind her. Her boyfriend is a professional athlete. It's impossible to believe she doesn't know the importance of filling in this information. If she can't manage it how can we possibly expect a young a athlete starting off in the system and being funded by a poorly resourced federation to comply with the regulations?

Tell me how

Pudsy33 wrote:

The fact other pros are not leaping to get defence speaks volumes to me.

Was thinking that last night when 3 rowers on Sky News all said separately, this should not have happened and there are several ways to update your whereabouts.

The fencing chef de mission who was saying "No country is cleaner than Team GB and we should just leave this incident behind." sounded ridiculously naive.

1bryan

Now we have different information coming out about whether or not the first strike was contested.

UKAD are saying it was not contested. Armitstead says in her statement that she did contest it.

Meaning one of them is not telling the truth.

And now someone has tweeted a podcast where Armitstead herself is saying she didn't contest it?

I'm lost now.

1bryan

Pudsy33 wrote: »

The fact other pros are not leaping to get defence speaks volumes to me.

I was reading around this earlier today. It may be telling in the manner you imply, but in another way it may be because she's not terribly well thought of in the sport.

Didn't cyclingtips start a 'Female Secret Pro' this year. I hope theres an article coming soon.

Joe_ Public

1bryan wrote: »

Now we have different information coming out about whether or not the first strike was contested.

UKAD are saying it was not contested. Armitstead says in her statement that she did contest it.

Meaning one of them is not telling the truth.

And now someone has tweeted a podcast where Armitstead herself is saying she didn't contest it?

I'm lost now.

Dunno but could just be a question of semantics. She says she sent a letter to UKAD explaining the situation which might not constitute a formal challenge in their eyes. Perhaps they responded by saying they rejected her explanation but she had the right to contest it at an independent hearing if she desired. Only speculating but it's possible anyway.

Macy0161

1bryan wrote: »

I was reading around this earlier today. It may be telling in the manner you imply, but in another way it may be because she's not terribly well thought of in the sport.

Didn't cyclingtips start a 'Female Secret Pro' this year. I hope theres an article coming soon.

Also, no more than fans, you'd be nuts to go all out in defence of anyone in professional sport.

1bryan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dunno but could just be a question of semantics. She says she sent a letter to UKAD explaining the situation which might not constitute a formal challenge in their eyes. Perhaps they responded by saying they rejected her explanation but she had the right to contest it at an independent hearing if she desired. Only speculating but it's possible anyway.

this is absolutely possible. But its almost an invitation/challenge to UKAD to clarify things. And that may not be the best thing for Armitstead.

A statement along the lines of, 'I accept the decision, I acknowledge my responsibility, and I'll try and do better in future', would have been better. The situation is bad enough as it is. No need to create a possibility for it worsening.

Pudsy33

1bryan wrote: »

I was reading around this earlier today. It may be telling in the manner you imply, but in another way it may be because she's not terribly well thought of in the sport.

Didn't cyclingtips start a 'Female Secret Pro' this year. I hope theres an article coming soon.

That's entirely possible. Never got the impression she wasn't well liked, but I could be entirely wrong.

Lumen

godtabh wrote: »

sexist

Don't be ridiculous. Mens and womens pro cycling are not remotely comparable in terms of rider remuneration, media exposure, team finances etc.

I'm not saying that should be the case, only that it is.

This is directly relevant to the amount of support received, as evidenced by her relying on unreliable support from BC.

Lumen

gordongekko wrote: »

She is a professional athlete. She has been involved in this system for over 10 years. She has the resources of BC behind her.

Or not, apparently.

Joe_ Public

As regards the reliance on British Cycling to help manage her whereabouts, her statement raises some interesting questions I think.


In December 2015, I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a third potential 'strike'.

Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi-weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail-safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.

Obviously her updates weren't as detailed and as specific as they can possibly be if no room numbers were provided (even if UKAD guidelines don't specify this as absolutely necessary). She hasn't actually gone "as far as I can."



Unfortunately, this system fell apart on the June 9 when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be.

Simon Thornton had left BC three weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD.


She says Thornton had checked her form twice and week and that they had had "regular contact", yet now three weeks pass without hearing from him and she doesn't deem that suspicious or worthy of her interest. Unless Thornton was intimately appraised of all her movements and whereabouts at all times, I imagine he would have to be in touch at least once every week if he was doing his job thoroughly.


If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My overnight accommodation (the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.

Thornton would only be in a position to change anything, assuming he was still in the job, if he had been made aware of the emergency situation. But if Armistead had had the presence of mind to contact Thornton, then it follows that she'd have had the presence of mind to deal with the whereabouts form herself. Ultimately, there's only so much any support staff can do and they can't be held in any way responsible for an athlete changing his or her whereabouts at the drop of a hat, for whatever reason. Thinking of it as a "fail safe" mechanism was incredibly naive if that's how she looked at it.

Beasty

Maybe this thread is better suited to the conspiracy theories forum .....

As I've already said I think she's fortunate that CAS sided with her, but they did. They are the arbiter and are independedent from BC and the anti-doping authorites. They obviously have accepted her appeal and that is the end of the matter. No amount of speculating here is going to change things. She has provided an explanation which appears to me entirely reasonable. Yes you can always try and dig deeper to try and find whatever perceived inconsistencies you want. However the real world is far from perfect. We all make mistakes. The key is not to try and speculate over what the facts may have been but to learn from those mistakes to minimise the risk of them being repeated. There are, I am sure, lessons for Lizzie Armistead, BC, the UKADA and many others here.

MPFGLB

Having read the statement and having sympathy for her situation, I am in a agreement with the cycling podcast boys when they say this is not about an indvidual case ...this is about the rules of anti doping
And if these rules are not upheld no matter the individual then what is the point of them

The 3 strike system was put in place to catch dopers ...it is clear what the system is and what consitutes failure....
The issue is that the system rules be upheld so fans can have some faith in these systems

Now if a hairy looking Russian misses 3 tests ...who says they can't get off...and then some Italian in a pro Conti team ? And why shouldn't they ??

Its not really about Armistead its about the sport ...

Given that I have sympathy for her I do not think from what I read she should be riding in Rio...she should be banned

And this is not in any way about whether she is doing or not ...it is not the main issue

The confusion, extenuating circumatance, some guy left but no one told me etc are just that excuses....And everyone has one...

It sounds harsh but what is the point of a system if you can get round it

1bryan

Beasty wrote: »

The key is not to try and speculate over what the facts may have been but to learn from those mistakes to minimise the risk of them being repeated.

to this end, as Shane Stokes has just tweeted, the CAS reasoned decision really needs to be released sooner rather than later.

But its hardly likely to happen before the olymics, I'd wager.

Don't Chute!

Tell me how wrote: »

She clearly stated "she" made the administrative error surrounding test 2.

How did you miss that?

I suspect because he wanted to miss it.

godtabh

Lumen wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. Mens and womens pro cycling are not remotely comparable in terms of rider remuneration, media exposure, team finances etc.

I'm not saying that should be the case, only that it is.

This is directly relevant to the amount of support received, as evidenced by her relying on unreliable support from BC.

That was a joke

godtabh

MPFGLB wrote: »

...

Given that I have sympathy for her I do not think from what I read she should be riding in Rio...she should be banned

i think you maybe missing a 'nt from that sentence

Joe_ Public

1bryan wrote: »

to this end, as Shane Stokes has just tweeted, the CAS reasoned decision really needs to be released sooner rather than later.

But its hardly likely to happen before the olymics, I'd wager.

Or ever happen at all would be my guess.

RobFowl

CAS had all the facts and ruled on her behalf, she still has 2 strikes hanging over her and in some ways her reputation will never fully recover.
Issue closed for now as Beasty says and she is fortunate but free to race and compete.

velo.2010

Beasty wrote: »

Maybe this thread is better suited to the conspiracy theories forum .....

That's nice.

She missed three tests, whatever the explanation. This is a professional athlete who lives with another professional athlete who is a member of one of the most professional outfits in world sport. Every aspect of Armitstead's day is planned meticulously, from her training to her diet and rest patterns. For her to forget to update her whereabouts or to take notice of the fact that the guy helping her had left BC for three weeks smacks of someone who is very careless, at the very least. At worst, she contrived to miss tests. I can understand the continuing questions.

CAS appear to take someone at face value rather than uphold the facts from this and previous rulings. As much as I am a fan of Alberto Contador, they accepted that he took a tainted supplement which contained Clenbutoral, just slightly different than Contador's own ridiculous proffering. And yet he still got banned! Are CAS more lenient towards women cyclists? More questions.

FWIW, I don't believe Armitstead dopes in the context of what it currently means to dope. Rather, I question what I see to be the tacit acceptance of a sort of legalised medicalization of modern sport - see Maria Sharapova etc.

Carawaystick

If CAS are having secret cases, and not releasing decisions then I'm adding them to my bunch of gangsters list running sport like the UCI, IOC, Fifa, IAAF, Nike, etc.

Joe_ Public

Carawaystick wrote: »

If CAS are having secret cases, and not releasing decisions then I'm adding them to my bunch of gangsters list running sport like the UCI, IOC, Fifa, IAAF, Nike, etc.

I'm open to correction but because it's arbitration decisions will only be published if both parties involved agree to it. Don't think CAS itself is the issue here.

Carawaystick

Secret courts are kangaroo courts.