Armitstead and these missed tests…

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.

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.

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

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

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 ****-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?

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 proven 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

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

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

Haha, so what CAS said there is that he was wasting his time with that

Guess there might have been a placebo effect…

A cyclist transfusing manipulated blood with the aim of booting oxygen transfer but getting away with on the basis that the examining authorities couldn’t find definitive evidence in to the effects of a brand new technique isn’t exactly cut and dried as not cheating. Legally, perhaps there wasn’t enough evidence to interrupt someone’s livelihood but you’d have thought trying to dope even with a placebo must be worth something 🙂 It’s that beautiful world of technicalities that take you to the top (one assumes). Not many Riccos left nowadays 🙂

So your boss calls you into the office and tells you that you are fired as on 3 occasions he couldn’t find you as you were not where you were supposed to be. Your a bit confused so you ask for details..
First one you were at a client’s site in a meeting where you said you would be, your boss arrived at the site, forgot your name and reception wouldn’t let him in for obvious reasons. You have your phone on silent during the meeting but reception know where you are and to get you if needed.
You tell HR what happened but they said who cares.

Next time your boss says a week last tuesday you didn’t update your calendar during that family emergency when all hell was breaking loose, he didn’t want to see you, wasn’t coming to find you but you has received the company calendar policy and your in trouble.

Last one you slipped out early one day hands up your fault but it’s the first time it’s actually happened.

So you just pack your things and leave?

Two can play that game:

You are a top flight athlete and you have a major race the next day. Your preparation is pretty much complete you just need that final top up micro dose of EPO and you’re set. Only thing is your glow time means you really don’t want to be tested before 7am as you can’t be too sure. So, despite your federation sending you an email reminding to notify your national ADA your room number, you ‘forget’ and just to be sure you put your phone on silent coz let’s face it, what’s the chance the vampires with come a knocking eh?

Because, and this is rub, this would not be the first time something like the above scenario has happened in cycling. Tyler Hamiltons book describes similar dodges.

And that is the problem.

So your boss calls you into the office and tells you that you are fired as on 3 occasions he couldn’t find you as you were not where you were supposed to be. Your a bit confused so you ask for details..

I’d not be confused as I’d already have a very good understanding of the process and how important it was to my job, with it having been part of my daily life for the past few years, and at each occasion would have been informed of my “strikes” and knew exactly where I stood with it.

A cyclist transfusing manipulated blood with the aim of booting oxygen transfer but getting away with on the basis that the examining authorities couldn’t find definitive evidence in to the effects of a brand new technique isn’t exactly cut and dried as not cheating.

…

I recall reading a few years back that Ronaldo was having blood transfusions in Switzerland. When challenged, he claimed it was to speed recovery from bruising. If you google Ronaldo and blood, now you see he is a huge supporter of blood donating. All very innocent but I doubt it.

That’s why these rules need to be upheld and as clear as can be, the basic and its well known is that if you miss tests, it will be viewed negatively.

Is anyone saying she didn’t have a good understanding of the process?
As stated she has only missed one test. That’s why you get 3 strikes.
Test one ukad didn’t do their bit.
Strike 2 admin cock up which it’s a massive leap to suggest it was intentional or to hide anything.
Strike 3 missed test along with probably hundreds of other athletes.

…And that is the problem.

It’s already been pointed out that the call to the silent phone reported by the Mail doesn’t make sense. Testers apparently aren’t allowed to call athletes because that would warn them of the test.
The problem with your scenario is that the cheating athlete is therefore trying to hide by simply not recording their room number. That doesn’t seem a fool proof plan to me…

Whether or not the first “miss” was her fault, she would have known it was already counting. To miss the second was extremely careless. Knowing a third miss would result in all of this, you’d have thought she (and her team) would have been absolutely paranoid and determined to make sure it didn’t happen. That might not make her guilty of cheating but it must call into question her professionalism and whether or not she should still be supported by BC.

@scotroutes what second test?

for UKAD.
2nd ‘strike’ October 2015
Despite being reported as a ‘missed test’ this was in fact a ‘filing failure’
UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.

Carefully missing the point there….

scotroutes – Member

That might not make her guilty of cheating but it must call into question her professionalism

But the third “incident” (not the 3rd test, only the 2nd) is the one where she’s clear there was a big personal/emotional issue from outwith the sport. That doesn’t reflect on her professionalism in general; sometimes other things get in the way or come first. And you know what? That’s alright. They’re not robots.

Possibly but in many ways I’d rather take the medieval witch trials than end up on the wrong side of the Internet wada.
The outcome is she is able to race the Olympics, is not banned or accused of taking ped. If she had gone to cas a while ago none of this would be public knowledge. Maybe time to move along.

Problem is now despite being completely untrue people think she missed 3 tests.

but it must call into question her professionalism and whether or not she should still be supported by BC

the support from BC that was so professional that the guy supporting her left without telling her?

I have a rant about that and threaten to go private!

But then other female cyclist have got a bit stroppy in recent years, and found that basically that’s career over.

Problem is now despite being completely untrue people paranoid cycling fans think she missed 3 tests.

At a guess most of the general public will just assume its OK, mentiond it to my wife at breakfast, her response: “we were talking about this in work, but she’s been cleared so its all fine isnt it, sounded like a storm in a tea-cup, plus Geraint Thomas says she’s fine”

It seems just to be long term cycling fans that have the default assumption of guilt (for debatably good reason )

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).

[/endofthread]

I’m not being funny right but if some some ….no wait a minute any governing body expected me to be at their beckon call and expected me to be telling them where I am and what im doing I’d be taking a big shit in a jiffy bag and forwarding it on to the head of the org…..then stop doing anything related to that kind of pastime professional or otherwise

I’m not being funny right but you were never going to be a professional athlete really, were you?

I think this one’s running and running because nobody has any real idea if she’s on the juice – and there’s a very understandable “once-bitten-twice-shy” attitude among some followers of the sport.

Armitstead comes across in interviews as diffident, very determined and not really a people person – so I can see how she might have rubbed her competitors up the wrong way already.

The filing error one is fair enough, the rules were broken – but it signals needless complexity in the system – and it doesn’t make sense that she’d deliberately “throw” a test when the odds were heavily against her being tested on that date anyway (and indeed she wasn’t).

My understanding of doping (based mainly on Tyler H’s book, I admit) is that she’d need to be microdosing with EPO regularly, not just on one specific date.

In short – it doesn’t make sense as a strategy for cheating.