[Closed] Armitstead and these missed tests...

The "two places at one time" scenario sounds like badly implemented software - if you have two different ways of entering your location for a specific time then there's something wrong - Codd Rule #1. All that's needed are four fields: location; starting time you are there; time you leave that location; reason for being there.

So:

Hotel Grande, Monaco, 1700 2016-08-04, 0900 2016-08-05, sleeping

The software checks that you don't enter overlapping times.

To enter your "testing hour" you just need a page to enter the start time of that.

When looking at data entry by users there's one mantra: KISS!

Accordion to her she's a cymbal of clean riding achievement.

When looking at data entry by users there's one mantra: KISS!

[i]jam bo - Member
did you actually read that? ^^^^[/i]

Yeap!

[i]This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support[/i]
Then:
[i]I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.[/i]
Hhmmm. Possibly disturb room mate or, Miss a test. Ooo, tough one that[b]...[/b]
Yes, calling a mobile phone may not be a prescribed method of making contact/finding a person to perform a test, but do you want to miss a test?

[i]I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.[/i]
Useless against micro-dosing.

[i]Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis.[/i]
My dog ate my home work?
Deferring responsibility isn't the correct response, more so when you're current status is two previous tests missed. (A status which was later revised after rulings on earlier attempts to test)

IIRC, both Cavendish and Froome have missed [b]a[/b] test during their pro careers, so far. However, both have clearly stated it was and always is their responsibility to ensure they are available.

The entire business of modern day, top level, sport is disappointingly dark.
Even "[i]clean[/i]" only means an athlete is manipulating their physiology in a manner which is either yet to be banned or goes as close to the edge of what is permitted as is possible to get away with.
I do not consider either approach to be in the spirit of true sportsmanship and competition.

It's not that mobiles aren't a prescribed method of contact, UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test. If they did the test would be invalid therefore there is no reason for LA to assume that they'd use it, it was an explanation as to why it wasn't heard.

[i]mrhoppy - Member
It's not that mobiles aren't a prescribed method of contact, UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test[/i]

Right 'O I'm corrected on that point.
🙂

Even "clean" only means an athlete is manipulating their physiology in a manner which is either yet to be banned or goes as close to the edge of what is permitted as is possible to get away with.
I do not consider either approach to be in the spirit of true sportsmanship and competition.

I thought the WADA rules against doping included 'practises which we'd ban if we knew about them' or words to that effect. Bit of a tricky one, where does doping start and taking suppliments stop.

The sad thing is doping is prevalent in most sports, as i understand it even in things like local club rugby. LA's facebook post seems plausible, and I genuinely belive it, but the weight of history says otherwise so there will always be doubters.

Personally I think BC should send her home end of, maybe she is clean but it just looks bad. Her statement makes it worse IMO, lines like 'I was tested the next day, this test was negative.' 🙄 We've heard it all before love. Someone should send her Tyler Hamilton's book to read.

I thought the WADA rules against doping included 'practises which we'd ban if we knew about them' or words to that effect. Bit of a tricky one, where does doping start and taking suppliments stop.

I've never heard that, but you could be right. Some teams have a 'no needles' policy now, even though it is 'legal' to inject vitamins etc, it just seems a bit dodgy.

Mind you, Wiggins used to sleep in a special tent to thicken his blood up and that's perfectly legal..............

UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test

The tester can phone, from the WADA guidelines;

If the specified location is the Athlete’s house or other place of residence, the DCO should ring any entry bell and knock on the door as soon as he/she arrives. If the Athlete does not answer, the DCO may telephone the Athlete to advise him/her of the attempt in the closing five minutes of the 60-minute period.

Froome was in exactly the same situation, in a hotel and the reception staff would not let the tester know where he was. He took it on the chin and admitted that it was the athletes responsibility to make themselves available, but he wasn't looking for a technicality to get himself off a ban.

[i]ferrals - Member
The sad thing is doping is prevalent in most sports, as i understand it even in things like local club rugby. LA's facebook post seems plausible, and I genuinely belive it, but the weight of history says otherwise so there will always be doubters.[/i]

But more than this, we have someone who, AFAIK, has had the most successful 12-18 months of their career so far, now tainted/coinciding with a history of missed or screwed up tests, during the same period of time.

So agree with Dragon, send her home because clean or no, it's the doubt which now brings it's own degree of toxicity.

Hopefully won't harm book sales....

The twitter comments on her statement make this place seem pretty tame.

Would be harsh for BC to send her home. Also won't happen as medals = BC funding.

I wonder what percentage of Lizzies out of competition tests these 3 "missed" ones make up. If it's 50%, maybe it's an issue. If it's 10-15%. Big deal.

I wonder what percentage of Lizzies out of competition tests these 3 "missed" ones make up. If it's 50%, maybe it's an issue. If it's 10-15%. Big deal.

Good point.

She says she was tested 16 times in 2016 so far.

She also says she was tested after every win.

She seems to have had eight wins this year (sources: palmares on Wiki, Women's Tour site).

So presumably she's had eight out of competition tests and missed three.

That's about 27% if my maths are correct.

She should publish her physiological data, like Froome did, to show that she is performing 'normally', which might silence some people.

Would be harsh for BC to send her home.

It wouldn't, if you want to be seen as being proactive and it makes a statement then it should be done, otherwise the UK just looks as murky as Russia in my book.

Solo - Member

But more than this, we have someone who, AFAIK, has had the most successful 12-18 months of their career so far, now tainted/coinciding with a history of missed or screwed up tests, during the same period of time.

Valid point, and for her personally it must be a massive blow (assuming she is clean) as se'll be aware that her sucesses are brought into question.

GhostlyMachine's point is good, would be interested to know what percentage of times test those two missed tests were.

dragon - Member

Personally I think BC should send her home end of, maybe she is clean but it just looks bad

What's the punishable level of "looks bad"? 9.1 badlooks?

[img] [/img]

She says she was tested 16 times in 2016 so far.

She also says she was tested after every win.

She seems to have had eight wins this year (sources: palmares on Wiki, Women's Tour site).

So presumably she's had eight out of competition tests and missed three.

That's about 27% if my maths are correct.

I did originally read it as being 16 times out of competition. And two of the missed tests were in 2015. So 1 in 16 or 1 in 8 for 2016 so far.

Maybe she 'forgot' about the tests as she's been out on a massive, weekend long nose-candy and MDMA fuelled bender?

[img] [/img]

FFS
There was gripeing yesterday that she hadn't made a statement so she must be guilty
Now she's made a statement and she's still being called guilty and knee-jerking that she should be sent home.

Get a grip

There's a reason decisions are made by CAS and not by people on twitter and forums who are not fully informed

It wouldn't, if you want to be seen as being proactive and it makes a statement then it should be done, otherwise the UK just looks as murky as Russia in my book.

So you've decided she's guilty even though CAS have released her to ride and UKAD have accepted the decision.

Properly boils my piss reading some of the toss on here sometimes

She should publish her physiological data, like Froome did, to show that she is performing 'normally', which might silence some people.

That did Froome no favours. All it then had was the same 'experts' being trotted out on french and italian tv to call him a cheat. They just interpreted the data how they wanted to see it.

Maybe she 'forgot' about the tests as she's been out on a massive, weekend long nose-candy and MDMA fuelled bender?

I forgot my own name after my last one of those

Me I think it's 50:50 whether she is clean or not, I don't particularly buy her excuses and cycling has had too much of this stuff in the past. If she was say Russian or African would you be so quick to confirm her innocence?

End of day CAS can clear her all they like but Team GB / BC still don't have to take her, if they want to make a statement that they are serious about stamping down on drugs or even the possibility of drugs.

I did originally read it as being 16 times out of competition. And two of the missed tests were in 2015. So 1 in 16 or 1 in 8.

I did wonder when the missed tests were as I was clickign "send post".

You may also be right that she was referring just to OOC testing, it would fit the context.

She seems to be suggesting that she is perhaps not the best organised person and also that she has suffered mental problems as a result of an unspecified family situation.

I wonder whether more compelling info was disclosed at the CAS hearing than we are getting now?

Spawn of Yorkshire is spot on. The people who see all the evidence have made their decision and said she can race.

As usual, cycling has been more open and up front than most other sports when it comes to testing, and still the nay sayers are jumping in and treading the fine legal line with their opinions.

Anyone who is so sensitive to the potential of drug related wrong doing in cycling needs to follow a different sport. Like Scrabble.

[i]MoreCashThanDash - Member
Anyone who is so sensitive to the potential of drug related wrong doing in cycling needs to follow a different sport. Like Scrabble.[/i]

Including Pro cyclists who do manage to meet their obligation to be tested?

[i]There's a reason decisions are made by CAS and not by people on twitter and forums who are not fully informed[/i]

yep, and it's also the same reason why we shouldn't hold referendums 🙂

Why don't these athletes just carry a tracker provided by the drugs testing body, the the body would know where they are all the time.

There's some cheap but decent ones on amazon.

Or they could do something similar with their phones.

Get's rid of this whereabouts bolloxs.

Its all a bit of an over reaction IMO
She messed up admin on one test and had family issues on another and CAS threw the other one out.

Not seen any evidence to suggest she was/is doping from anyone and she is clear to compete

Good luck to her- hope she brings back a gold and people get off her back

Its all a bit of an over reaction IMO
She messed up admin on one test and had family issues on another and CAS threw the other one out.

Not seen any evidence to suggest she was/is doping from anyone and she is clear to compete

Good luck to her- hope she brings back a gold and people get off her back

That may well be, but, we would never have got to 5 pages unless we could announce her guilt based upon our own assumptions.

To win the athletes have to compete against cheats.
The organisation looking after her is paid to get medals.

Those looking to catch cheats need to be independent, well funded and smart.

The sports reputation is based on how the audience see it. Most of them see it as a reputation spoiled by cheats.

TurnerGuy - Member
Why don't these athletes just carry a tracker provided by the drugs testing body, the the body would know where they are all the time.
There's some cheap but decent ones on amazon.
Or they could do something similar with their phones.
Get's rid of this whereabouts bolloxs.

Because a tracker doesn't enable UKAD to get testers sent to locations to test the athletes. They need to know where theyre going to be not where they are.

Because a tracker doesn't enable UKAD to get testers sent to locations to test the athletes. They need to know where theyre going to be not where they are.

yes but clearly it is a bollox system and is causing a lotof mistrust.

Using a tracker has even more of the threat of a random test about it.

I think CAS probably got the correct ruling based on what has come out about the first test.

The problem for me is the way the whole thing has been handled. Why did LA and Boels Dolmans lie about LA being pulled from races? Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?

"Please believe me, I'm just a good honest person...

..well, apart from the pack of lies I trotted out last week. But forget about that, I'm really telling the truth now. Honest"

WAT?

And that Facebook post is a complete crock. FFS, just say you ****ed-up the the missed tests. All this stuff about being tested the next day - everyone knows that means nothing if you're trying to hide the fact you're glowing! And give it up with the sob stories, it just makes it look like a diversionary tactic.

Complete amateur hour.

yes but clearly it is a bollox system and is causing a lotof mistrust.

Is it? How many are on the system and how many miss 3 tests and 12 months?

[quote=MikeWW ]Its all a bit of an over reaction IMO
She messed up admin on one test and had family issues on another and CAS threw the other one out.
Not seen any evidence to suggest she was/is doping from anyone and she is clear to compete
Good luck to her- hope she brings back a gold and people get off her back

This. When I first read this thread last night I thought it was all a bit pitchforks, but it's been even worse since her statement.

I've already pointed it out, but still folks are ignoring it - she hasn't officially missed 3 tests, only 2, CAS (who have a lot more evidence than anybody on here or twitter) have ruled she was available for the other one. Though it now seems one of those 2 she missed wasn't a test and she wasn't scheduled for testing and if anything it's a system failure for which the athlete is held responsible (rightly because it has to be that way, but the system should be better).

Then we get stupid comments on here linking her "missed tests" with big results - when just to pick the one in October, it was after the World champs at which she was tested, in a post season period where she was socialising rather than training hard - if she had been doping for the worlds and it wasn't picked up in the post race test it wouldn't have been picked up a couple of weeks later either. I get the impression some here are hoping she is on the juice.

BTW can we stop abbreviating her to LA - it's rather disconcerting given the subject and I keep getting confused (who even started that - I'm assuming her initials are actually EA?)

Pro cycling is a farce (and always has been) and Lizzie's little slips will do nothing to restore peoples' confidence in the 'sport'.

Most of them are cheating, some are better at it than others.

UKAD accept the decision, CAS are satisfied with the evidence presented. If she's doping, she'll be caught, if not, she can carry on. Yes, this has been bloody awkward and embarrassing, but imagine how horrible all this is for an innocent (til [b]proven[/b] guilty), stressed out, somewhat disorganised cyclist on the eve of the Olympics.
If she'd been suffering from depression or something similar, as has been alluded to, one of the main symptoms is lack of motivation and not seeing the point in simple day to day tasks, like keeping her calendar up to date.
Not blindly defending her, but life is complicated and none of us are perfect.

I am extremely wary of British Cycling and Sky, I simply am too suspicious of their 'remarkable' dominance in cycling.

They don't dominate cycling. BC have had some once in a generation track riders and are now struggling somewhat for results and SKY pump a ton of money in to building an unassailable team for one race a year.

Bottom line is any Olympic medal LA now wins is tainted with suspicion.

You'd be naive to think any medal isn't likely tainted and "doping" in elite sport is black and white. Who was the winner of the last Olympic men's RR? What was everyone's reaction? "Meh".... and that included even higher levels of alleged cheating in the final run in than normal 🙂

She should publish her physiological data, like Froome did, to show that she is performing 'normally', which might silence some people.

If people want to believe you are clean/ cheating they will regardless of any data. It isn't as though data can't be manipulated in the same way as any other test- it is just a PR exercise, same as Froome.

otherwise the UK just looks as murky as Russia in my book.

All the Russia stuff is political... again lets not be naive and think they are special

There was gripeing yesterday that she hadn't made a statement so she must be guilty
Now she's made a statement and she's still being called guilty and knee-jerking that she should be sent home.

Get a grip

There's a reason decisions are made by CAS and not by people on twitter and forums who are not fully informed

Totally agree.

To be honest seeing the Pros being just as much keyboard warriors as the rest of us on Twitter etc is funny. Didn't realise Absalon was a bit of a dirt bag for example although if you believe the supposed quotes from a former coach of Philip D as a "wild man for the prostitutes" then the twitter battle must be somewhat equal...

Bit of a tricky one, where does doping start and taking suppliments stop

I'm very sceptical about pro cycling, but you catch cheats with hard evidence, and all the uninformed internet speculation and outrage just clouds the issue.

1. The testers failed to contact Armistead in one instance. Their responsibility.

2. Armistead failed to record her whereabouts correctly once. Her responsibility.

3. Armistead missed one test. Her responsibility.

Armistead was bang to rights for 2 and 3. No dispute, the system worked and she was caught. UKAD appear to have messed up in case 1, no evidence so far that Armistead was at fault.

I'd like to know more about what happened on that first test, but anything else is just idle speculation at the moment.

It's not tricky. There's a proscribed substance list. If it's not on the list, you can take it.

Not really, there's a fair amount you can do which isn't "on the list" but can achieve the same results by the similar methods. Good recent example is Kittel and the black UV treatment of blood to be transfused. Yes it was eventually ruled "legal" at the time but only on a technicality of not having the data to be able to prove it did definitely boost oxygen transfer. Judge that how you will. Or TUE abuse. Or taking a ton of cortisone before a big race and going from "normal" to skeletal. Just because you can find a technicality around the rules doesn't mean there isn't sufficient grey to test your morals even if you escape a ban.

Not really, there's a fair amount you can do which isn't "on the list" but can achieve the same results by the similar methods.

That's exactly what I said. If it is not on the list you can take it or do it.

Sports governing bodies are continually looking at what is out there, and the proscribed list changes over time as new substances and techniques are added to it. One of the UK anti-doping experts was interviewed on the radio last week, and spoke about how they are already developing techniques to detect gene therapy, which he expects to be added to the testing regime eventually.

For TUE, again there is a defined process, and if you follow that correctly, you can take approved medicines. There may well be a case to be made that TUE rules should be tightened if it is demonstrated that people are not taking the drugs for health reasons, but until the authorities do that, you are not breaking any rules if you follow the current process correctly.

...Kittel and the black UV treatment of blood to be transfused. Yes it was eventually ruled "legal" at the time but only on a technicality of not having the data to be able to prove it did definitely boost oxygen transfer. Judge that how you will

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-rules-uv-light-blood-treatments-in-germany-were-not-doping/
[i]"According to the CAS, the WADA forbids blood manipulation only when it serves to increase oxygen transfer, an effect which is not proven in this case, and therefore does not meet the requirements for a forbidden method.
The CAS also ruled that the athlete involved did not act negligently or deliberately."[/i]

I'd judge that as the authorities examining a new treatment that was not banned, and deciding that there was no reason to ban it.