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

godtabh

I thought this was interesting

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/the-female-secret-pro-giro-rosa-la-course-and-doping-in-the-womens-peloton/

Puts everything into perspective. 50% dont get paid. 25% get less than €10k. To get paid you need to be the best and it would appear only the best could afford to dope (not suggesting Armitstead did).

eeeee

godtabh wrote: »

I thought this was interesting

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/the-female-secret-pro-giro-rosa-la-course-and-doping-in-the-womens-peloton/

Puts everything into perspective. 50% dont get paid. 25% get less than €10k. To get paid you need to be the best and it would appear only the best could afford to dope (not suggesting Armitstead did).

Which makes it especially galling to have anyone dope imo.

My guess for the female secret pro is Tiffany Cromwell!

godtabh

Why do you think its Cromwell? do the two of them have history?

pelevin

I think having seen earlier a BBC short interview with Armitstead in tears talking about how she'll always be viewed as a cheat by many, what she should do or have done in the last few days is withdraw from the Olympics with some explanation/apology, accepting some degree of blame, with some hopefully genuine degree of humility. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt, the simple truth is her medalling or winning gold in the Olympics race would be a very unpopular result for very much of the the public & fellow competitors alike. It just wouldn't sit well for very many. Otoh a withdrawal would besides probably being imo the right thing to do regardless would serve to gain sympathy as an act of humility & contrition. She'll presumably be competing with & against fellow cyclists for several years yet, & balancing a little how they feel about her would surely make life a little more comfortable during that time.

I think such a withdrawal is quite an obvious move to make in terms of the right thing to do on more than one level, though I'd not blame her for not thinking straight at the moment.

This post is as said based on giving her the benefit of the doubt though I see that that isn't necessarily how others would & perhaps justifiably see it. ALl the more reason then for her to make such a withdrawal & soften the perception of her somewhat.

godtabh

pelevin wrote: »

I think having seen earlier a BBC short interview with Armitstead in tears talking about how she'll always be viewed as a cheat by many, what she should do or have done in the last few days is withdraw from the Olympics with some explanation/apology, accepting some degree of blame, with some hopefully genuine degree of humility. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt, the simple truth is her medalling or winning gold in the Olympics race would be a very unpopular result for very much of the the public & fellow competitors alike. It just wouldn't sit well for very many. Otoh a withdrawal would besides probably being imo the right thing to do regardless would serve to gain sympathy as an act of humility & contrition. She'll presumably be competing with & against fellow cyclists for several years yet, & balancing a little how they feel about her would surely make life a little more comfortable during that time.

I think such a withdrawal is quite an obvious move to make in terms of the right thing to do on more than one level, though I'd not blame her for not thinking straight at the moment.

This post is as said based on giving her the benefit of the doubt though I see that that isn't necessarily how others would & perhaps justifiably see it. ALl the more reason then for her to make such a withdrawal & soften the perception of her somewhat.

Digger wrote something similar on twitter today. He suggested that if she admitted what happened he would defend her but that her fans would tear her apart.

pelevin

godtabh wrote: »

Digger wrote something similar on twitter today. He suggested that if she admitted what happened he would defend her but that her fans would tear her apart.

Tear her apart for what? Withdrawing or taking responsibility for the mess she's in? Would seem odd to me anyone criticising her for a withdrawal unless myopically interested in nothing but victories for a favoured athlete/Team GB kind of thing.

Lumen

pelevin wrote: »

I think such a withdrawal is quite an obvious move to make in terms of the right thing to do

It'd be a bit weird to get cleared to compete by CAS and then pull out. Would it silence her detractors? I doubt it.

Some of the comments posted online (not here) are really vitriolic, at the level I'd expect if she'd been cleared of a positive drug test on a technicality.

Mind you, Froome gets booed/spat on by TdF spectators for being suspiciously good, so the threshold for triggering vitriol these days seems quite low.

Actually Froome missed a drug test in almost identical circumstances to that dismissed third strike of LA's.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/24/chris-froome-missed-drug-test-tour-de-france

pelevin

Lumen wrote: »

It'd be a bit weird to get cleared to compete by CAS and then pull out. Would it silence her detractors? I doubt it.

Some of the comments posted online (not here) are really vitriolic, at the level I'd expect if she'd been cleared of a positive drug test on a technicality.

Mind you, Froome gets booed/spat on by TdF spectators for being suspiciously good, so the threshold for triggering vitriol these days seems quite low.

Actually Froome missed a drug test in almost identical circumstances to that dismissed third strike of LA's.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/24/chris-froome-missed-drug-test-tour-de-france

A withdrawal certainly wouldn't silence the vitriol but those inclined to be vitriolic aren't the most reasonable anyway. As regards the wider more reasonable public though I think a withdrawal would look good, & for her fellow competitors also. Just in terms of the obvious negative reaction that's ensued form this, it's clear that being cleared by CAS hasn't resulted in everybody going, "Ah sure, we all make mistakes. Let her get on with it & we'll forget all about it."

Just taking myself as presumably not a wholly isolated individual in my own response, as said I'm not judging her as 'guilty', stained forever, etc but even from that position of mildness I'm still pretty certain my emotional response to her winning gold would not be positive. It would simply feel wrong, & one could say, "Yeah, we saw her in tears but how deep did they go? Here she is with her gold medal." I think it'd be much more of a disaster again for people's sense of her to get gold. The negative feelings would be much stronger than already the case. Otoh she might be so upset that she won't ride well anyway - which is itself another reason to pull out.

And I'm not just saying pull out & stay silent. Just give her reasons for it, with the genuine hurt hopefully genuinely apparent- & not just a calculated PR move - & I think it would be the best in both the short & long term for her.

MPFGLB

godtabh wrote: »

i think you maybe missing a 'nt from that sentence

I think you maybe missed my point ...its not about Lizzie Armisted but the system beign upheld to have any credibilty no matter the rider...if its 3 strikes and you have aban then its 3 strikes and you have a ban otherwise there is always an excuse.....and who is to say who is doping or not ? Its hard not to have sympathy with her especially seeing her crying on BBC news these few days

Anyway I am not sure of the details but this is an interesting tweet ?

https://twitter.com/8aldwin/status/761584194560589824

Leroy42

I don't agree she should pull out, she has been cleared by CAS, the system therefore has deemed that she has done nothing wrong.

Whilst many may not agree, where do we go if we simply allow public feeling to decide? Maybe her she looked a bit more contrite? Maybe she should hug a puppy or a sick child? Where do you draw the line?

All sport are based on rules, and you need to play to those rules. Not point complaining that offside should be given, play to the whistle. If other competitors have an issue then deal with it after the race (or before if there exists enough time), don't use it as an excuse.

The treatment of the likes of Froome etc is terrible. 'Fans' running on the side of the road shouting all types of slanderous cr&p, twitter and bloggers full of people who just know this rider, or that one is defo doping, but just can't get to the facts...yet.

Sure, we all got royally screwed by Lance, whether you believed him or not the sport has paid a very high price, but we cannot just set aside all the rules on the basis of that.

pelevin

Why push it to stupid levels - hug a puppy, etc. She is, unless she's a very good actress, clearly distraught at what's happened in terms of the public view of her. Well if she's distraught at that, the bad news is that negative public view will get ramped up massively if she gets gold in the race, and she'll have a long future of that negative image being cemented in people's thoughts of her. I'd say my thought of withdrawal is a lot better for her own good than going ahead & saying, "Oh well, bring it on." If she's a feeling person as appears to be the case rather than a ruthless automaton, the bad news is as said, her experience of being a top cyclist will be soured considerably. Softening that unpleasant future makes obvious sense to me. It's got nothing to do with Froome, Lance, etc but simply the reality of her life. In that interview she's distraught at people thinking her a cheat for the rest of her career/life so it's not like I'm hypothesising her feelings regarding all this.

Leroy42

pelevin wrote: »

Why push it to stupid levels - hug a puppy, etc. She is, unless she's a very good actress, clearly distraught at what's happened in terms of the public view of her. Well if she's distraught at that, the bad news is that negative public view will get ramped up massively if she gets gold in the race, and she'll have a long future of that negative image being cemented in people's thoughts of her. I'd say my thought of withdrawal is a lot better for her own good than going ahead & saying, "Oh well, bring it on." If she's a feeling person as appears to be the case rather than a ruthless automaton, the bad news is as said, her experience of being a top cyclist will be soured considerably. Softening that unpleasant future makes obvious sense to me. It's got nothing to do with Froome, Lance, etc but simply the reality of her life. In that interview she's distraught at people thinking her a cheat for the rest of her career/life so it's not like I'm hypothesising her feelings regarding all this.

So you think her being bullied into giving up, what could be her one shot at olympic gold, her one shot that she has worked for years, just to make some others feel better is better?

It has of course nothing directly to do with Lance or Froome, but she is a cyclists and so is being held to standards and the history of cycling being what it is fans and competitors are less forgiving that they maybe (although I have no evidence of this) in other sports.

At this point, it seems that she has won the case but she may as well have lost as she can not win anyway!

BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just feel that she is 'guilty' in everyones mind no matter what she does at this point and I just think it is clearly unfair. Not only is she not being given the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, she is actually being found guilty despite being already found innocent.

Hunterbiker

Judging by that video her race prep is completely up the spout anyway. Mentally she must shot so the chance of her winning a medal aren't great. She looks knackered.
If she places then (perversly) it will be some achievement under the circumstances.

Tell me how

Hunterbiker wrote:

Judging by that video her race prep is completely up the spout anyway. Mentally she must shot so the chance of her winning a medal aren't great. She looks knackered. If she places then (perversly) it will be some achievement under the circumstances.

That's what I've been thinking. How horrendously difficult the last few days must have been and will be until she gets on a plane on Monday.

I expect her not to finish on Sunday and I say that without an ounce of glee.

pelevin

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think her being bullied into giving up, what could be her one shot at olympic gold, her one shot that she has worked for years, just to make some others feel better is better?

It has of course nothing directly to do with Lance or Froome, but she is a cyclists and so is being held to standards and the history of cycling being what it is fans and competitors are less forgiving that they maybe (although I have no evidence of this) in other sports.

At this point, it seems that she has won the case but she may as well have lost as she can not win anyway!

BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just feel that she is 'guilty' in everyones mind no matter what she does at this point and I just think it is clearly unfair. Not only is she not being given the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, she is actually being found guilty despite being already found innocent.

I've not exactly immersed myself in the story & its fallouts so I'm not sure though that many people have even suggested her what I've said, so I don't think withdrawing would amount to being bullied. Instead it would be a free decision that imo would be making the best of a pretty crap situation.
As said, I don't consider her guilty - or consider myself in a position of knowledge to have any definite opinion at all. However at I think an educated guess, regardless of not considering her guilty, my emotional response to her say getting gold would not feel positive, & I think she'd be much better off not finding herself in such an emotionally tarnished scenario. I'd guess even the British press & public would be far from celebratory, it would be all very uneasy, & just for her as a person & her future, a dignified withdrawal would have been the best path.

MediaMan

I'm in agreement with Leroy on this. She's been cleared, she should complete. The court of public opinion is not the place to decide these things.

Lusk_Doyle

pelevin wrote: »

I've not exactly immersed myself in the story & its fallouts so I'm not sure though that many people have even suggested her what I've said, so I don't think withdrawing would amount to being bullied. Instead it would be a free decision that imo would be making the best of a pretty crap situation.
As said, I don't consider her guilty - or consider myself in a position of knowledge to have any definite opinion at all. However at I think an educated guess, regardless of not considering her guilty, my emotional response to her say getting gold would not feel positive, & I think she'd be much better off not finding herself in such an emotionally tarnished scenario. I'd guess even the British press & public would be far from celebratory, it would be all very uneasy, & just for her as a person & her future, a dignified withdrawal would have been the best path.

Surely, a pro athlete should not be making decisions on whether to compete or not based on emotion (unless in the case of a family bereavement, etc). This should be viewed in the cold hard facts.

Beasty

When someone dedicates what, 30-50% of their life to something and a few weeks before something like this crops up they are bound to be defensive and look for ways to deliver what is essentially a lifetime ambition. As a few have already pointed out she is standing on 2 missed tests. She is entitled to compete. I've mentioned already that I think she should consider herself very fortunate, but I certainly don't begrudge her that chance of glory.

NIMAN

Do we think there are any clean cyclists at the top level in sports these days?

I would severely doubt it.

Lusk_Doyle

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we think there are any clean cyclists at the top level in sports these days?

I would severely doubt it.

Its not about that.

pelevin

I'm not begrudging Armitstead anything or saying she's not entitled to compete. That's a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm not the one who's describing herself as "Devastated, absolutely devastated." That's her own words. Why is she absolutely devastated? Because of the perception of her by the public & her fellow competitors. The idea you're siding with her talking of her right to compete is imo missing the point completely. She's the one talking about things being much more important than cycling. Well imo the negativity of the world she'll find herself in terms of her sporting environment & resentment towards her will increase considerably if she gets gold. Feeling absolutely devastated because of how you're perceived doesn't sound all that enviable to me, & the reality is in the scenario of her winning gold, that perception will worsen considerably & she'll get to enjoy feeling isolated & devastated as a consequence all the more. Almost glibly just ignoring all that seems to me to be considering, no, there isn't much more important things than cycling. Feeling awful because of how you're viewed pales beneath success. Sometimes the supposedly friendly advice is far from the most helpful.

eeeee

godtabh wrote: »

Why do you think its Cromwell? do the two of them have history?

It reads very like how she speaks, she's very forthright and takes no prisoners. I don't think they've had a beef, they're both sparky people though.

I don't think LA should withdraw. The decision was made by CAS, that's the ruling and withdrawing only sates the public, rightly or wrongly (we the public don't know the entirety of the situation) that's what decisions should be based on, not Twitter vitriol.

Beasty

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we think there are any clean cyclists at the top level in sports these days?

I would severely doubt it.

Sweeping statement like this will be considered trolling in this forum, so please take care when posting. Any questions PM me - do not respond to this warning in-thread

Thanks

JK.BMC

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we think there are any clean cyclists at the top level in sports these days?

I would severely doubt it.

WHO IS 'WE' ...??????

In all seriousness I'm fairly sick and tired of this type of pregnant question; it isn't a genuine or useful question at all actually; rather a cry for acknowledgement and justification for unsubstantiated brain farting; happens a lot on cycling forums and discussions.
A bit like asking how many angels fit on the tip of a needle.

godtabh

nee wrote: »

It reads very like how she speaks, she's very forthright and takes no prisoners. I don't think they've had a beef, they're both sparky people though.

I don't think LA should withdraw. The decision was made by CAS, that's the ruling and withdrawing only sates the public, rightly or wrongly (we the public don't know the entirety of the situation) that's what decisions should be based on, not Twitter vitriol.

Look at Cromwells Instagram feed. Clearly friends

eeeee

godtabh wrote: »

Look at Cromwells Instagram feed. Clearly friends

Hmmmm, well they're both quite similar, they're both very strident in their views, and critical people, so it still wouldn't surprise me.
Maybe she's not the secret pro, she's still my guess though!

Beasty

nee wrote: »

Hmmmm, well they're both quite similar, they're both very strident in their views, and critical people, so it still wouldn't surprise me.
Maybe she's not the secret pro, she's still my guess though!

Trying to throw us off the scent are you Secret nee?

eeeee

Beasty wrote: »

Trying to throw us off the scent are you Secret nee?

Lol

Not-so-secret-unpro maybe!

Lusk_Doyle

The sock intro to each post would give it away:

"Today, I went for the yellow left foot, green right foot sock combo..."

eeeee

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

The sock intro to each post would give it away:

"Today, I went for the yellow left foot, green right foot sock combo..."

Odd socks go faster!