Armitstead and these missed tests…

She hadn’t missed two, though, had she? It’s not like someone was knocking on the door and she wasn’t there.

She hadn’t missed two, though, had she? It’s not like someone was knocking on the door and she wasn’t there.

She had missed two, according to the rules, which is why UKAD initiated proceedings for missing the third.

At this point we have to be pedantic over the use of language. Previously she had already missed two, now she hadn’t already missed two. She has now only missed two*

*with the proviso that she only actually missed one, one was a strike due to an admin error when nobody attempted to test her.

At this point we have to be pedantic over the use of language. Previously she had already missed two, now she hadn’t already missed two. She has now only missed two*

Indeed, but it goes back to my point about unprofessionalism. As far as she was concerned at the time, she was on two strikes and then missed a third test.

I need to keep up..

Have anymore actual real factoids appeared in this thread since page 3..?

Or has it since degenerated into a tedious mud-slinging and armchair conjecture competition?

Well why mention it at all then? So you actually consider it the same as me as an irrelevant comment, not one to either condemn or commend her for. So why mention it?

Yes, I do think the circumstances are different.

Hence the statements are different. What exactly do you think she should have said (and what shouldn’t she have said)? What could she possibly have said that nobody would condemn her for? Lose if you do, lose if you don’t springs to mind, which is why the witch dunking references come out.

She has successfully appealed the first test on procedural grounds

More insinuation?

I do find this thread pretty odd: that those of us who think she’s clean but has been unprofessional are being railroaded into adopting a binary position of saint or sinner.

Leave the insinuation alone then. Plenty enough of that being done by those who apparently don’t think she’s clean, which is why the thread’s gone the way it has. My apologies if you really don’t think that way – checking back it is clear from other earlier comments that your opinion isn’t so different to mine, but you started this whole bit with “And how do you reconcile that with supposedly not being organised enough to meet dope testing requirements?” – maybe you didn’t realise that comes across as insinuating, but it does (if being organised enough to train but not organised enough for testing isn’t possible to reconcile, what else are you suggesting – given the context of your actual opinion, I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to imply here?)

I suppose where I’m coming from is that for the reasons outlined above I have no problems empathising with her being a bit disorganised, even when already sitting on 2 strikes (she has provided a plausible reason for the 3rd one even when the admin should have been a very high priority – personally I carried on racking up HMRC penalties when that should have been a far higher priority and I didn’t have a similar excuse).

There isn’t any serious need to worry about “insinuation”. We have out of comp testing and whereabouts rules because doping is easy and testing is hard. So failing to be in full compliance with whereabouts has to be treated the same as doping – anyone can say their dog ate their homework.

She’s been all-cleared despite some phuckery by a body that none of us think is totally bent. Fine. But if it becomes a pattern then she goes in the same bin as people who claim they have someone else’s blood in them because they ate their twin in the womb, and we move on.

🙂

Regardless of whether you think she’s clean or not… whether there’s something to see here or not… what I think is worth discussion is the fact that Lizzie found herself suspended from competition by UKAD on the eve of the Olympics, her fate in the hands of an appeal to CAS (who’s decision could presumably have gone the other way – we’ll have to await the Reasoned Decision to see how much it was in the balance) and she could now have been banned as a result of a doping violation, out of the Olympics, and looking at up to a 4 year ban.

You could say that “the system” worked as she’s now back to two strikes and her suspension has been lifted and she’s ok for Rio. But for someone in her position to be in this position in the first place is madness.

Indeed it does, as I wrote myself earlier. But in the aftermath of having been cleared by CAS, and shown not to have broken those rules, then 2 strikes for admin failure shouldn’t be seen the same as almost failing a drugs test for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Delgado#1988_Tour_de_France

FWIW if she had failed in her appeal, I wouldn’t think her a drug cheat (I don’t believe Tim Don was), but would have fully supported any ban she got. As mrblobby wrote, it’s madness to be in this situation.

She has successfully appealed the first test on procedural grounds
More insinuation?

Jeez, it’s a statement of bald fact. She (successfully) appealed the decision on the basis that the tester didn’t follow procedure. What else do you call it? Of course had this been a speeding ticket half of STW would have lynched her for that alone 🙄

I’m also loving the irony that you are rushing to judgement about witch hunts, etc., when no-one has, you know, actually accused her of doping yet you and mike are getting all butt hurt and shouting witch hunt, witch hunt! i.e. you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of. And you are insinuating that we are insinuating that she’s a doper. I’m sure we can make room on the witch chair for you too 😆

Also highly ironic as ‘this is a witch hunt’ was Lance Armstrongs response. It’s just so funny. And no doubt you’ll read that as I’m insinuating something just by mentioning Lance 🙄

Also enjoying the spectacle of you pair trying to shut down any discussion about her temporary suspension by UKAD with your histrionics.

The very fact that this thread is now on page 10 shows that she screwed up massively by ever getting to the position where she needed to call the Lawyers in.
Although I very much doubt that she doped, she has now cast a shadow of doubt over her career. Unless we can find someone who can explain the full facts of how the system of updating an athletes location works, there is no way of telling how avoidable this situation was. If it is as simple as logging on via an App then she has little or no excuse. I appreciate there may be times when web access is unavailable but most people would make sure that they were 100% on top of the situation if they had 1 strike, let alone 2 strikes.
There is now so much mud and smoke surrounding her lack of attention to detail that is hard not to have an element of doubt. She should never have put herself in a position where the doubt was raised.

Hmmm, wonder how she’s going to ride now. Her mental state must be messy…

I’ve been following this thread but not commented. I agree with what Matt24uk says just above ^

Believe it or not Vicky he pretty much sums up what I actually think too…