Armitstead and these missed tests…

My over night 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.

The reading of it is she had to declare whereabouts and a location for a test to be carried out. She updated the location she was but not the testing location. Hence not being in 2 places at once. The problem was found in a paperwork check not in a test and nobody scheduled her for a test or tried to test her that day. So definitely pitchfork time

The ‘strike’ for an issue found in an audit is a interesting one. I’m not sure that I’m entirely in agreement with retrospective action being taken, if the tester had gone and no-one was there fine, if ukad picked it up at the time fine but that seems not quite right. Now them’s the rules so the strike stands but I’m just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a ‘proper’ missed test.

Now them’s the rules so the strike stands but I’m just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a ‘proper’ missed test.

It has to be that way otherwise there’s the fairly obvious way of escaping a test by updating one location but not the other and then blaming an admin / technical error.

I would like to know what UKAD’s reaction to a missed test is, is it…

1 missed test creates an increased testing regime, 2 missed tests and we are all over you like a cheap nylon suit.

Or just continue as normal.

and the UCI do target riders. Riccardo Ricci after his performance in the Giro.

“I have never tested positive for a banned substance.” I thought this was the Armstrong defence………

crazy-legs – Member

Now them’s the rules so the strike stands but I’m just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a ‘proper’ missed test.

It has to be that way otherwise there’s the fairly obvious way of escaping a test by updating one location but not the other and then blaming an admin / technical error.[/quote]

I dont think it does as an admin error doesn’t absolve you of any liability and if tester arrives and you aren’t where you say you should be it is a missed test admin or not. There is an argument that a good system ought to flag up dissimilar locations between night time and am slots but that’s by the by.

Retrospectively auditing locations even if no test had been scheduled and then applying a missed test is odd. It’s a bit like if a tree falls in the wood and no-one is about …

“I have never tested positive for a banned substance.” I thought this was the Armstrong defence………

And also the line used by clean athletes the world over.

I thought this was the Armstrong defence………

Only if not followed up immediately by

I have never taken a band substance.

🙄 (though it would have had more impact if she had got the spelling right!)

I have never taken a band substance.

maybe she swallowed a tuba something

I have never taken a band substance.

If she’d been better at recorder-ing her whereabouts she’s not have viola-ted the rules 🙂

I have never taken a band substance.

SHe’s been tested for ELO?

You-phoney-um?

If only somebody had been around to cello the rules

You’d think her coach would have [piano] forte that.

It’s things like this that make jury trials lynchmobs dangerous

FTFY

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!

And if Strava user and tinder can get you a bike race, laid and a ride home by knowing where you are then ukad should probably look into it.

jam bo – Member
did you actually read that? ^^^^

Yeap!

This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support
Then:
I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.
Hhmmm. Possibly disturb room mate or, Miss a test. Ooo, tough one that…
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 was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.
Useless against micro-dosing.

Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis.
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 a 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 “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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.