Log in:  

Register

The Armitstead doping thread.

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

13 Apr 2017 17:57

thehog wrote:You really do like to create your own drama don't you :lol:


For once in my life I agree with you
This is the main reason why posting in this section of the forum isn't worth it. The attitudes.

Anyway, nevermind. I'll see myself out.
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,485
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re: Re:

13 Apr 2017 20:31

thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:
GuyIncognito wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:Which part of it needs explaining to you? It seems pretty straightforward to me.


Fine, link me a source then, please


I believe you'll be wasting your time, FMK has managed to make 15 posts telling everyone that he's doesn't have time to post links :cool:
If GuyInCognoto had simply said that was what he needed a link to ... I made it as clear as I could to him that I didn't understand his question. Maybe I should draw pictures next time?


Or with all the spare time you have on your hands just print the excerpts form the book or link them. It's not that hard.

You really do like to create your own drama don't you :lol:
Hog, whatever your problem is, build a bridge and get over it. You asked for excerpts from the book, I politely declined. You've already dismissed what I've said about the book, it not fitting with your world view, why would you want more, just so you can dismiss that too? As for printing the book: it's a book Hog, it doesn't have a print switch, it's already printed.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

13 Apr 2017 20:32

GuyIncognito wrote:
thehog wrote:You really do like to create your own drama don't you :lol:


For once in my life I agree with you
This is the main reason why posting in this section of the forum isn't worth it. The attitudes.

Anyway, nevermind. I'll see myself out.
You coulda just explained precisely what it was you needed, like I asked you to, several times. So shoulder some of the blame here, eh? It's not that heavy a load for you.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

13 Apr 2017 21:18

GuyIncognito wrote:
thehog wrote:You really do like to create your own drama don't you :lol:


For once in my life I agree with you
This is the main reason why posting in this section of the forum isn't worth it. The attitudes.

Anyway, nevermind. I'll see myself out.



Yes, best to ignore FMK, he'll just keep going and going then retreat to twitter to tell everyone how he is smarter than everyone in the Clinic. It's rather boring and judging by this thread no one is listening.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

17 Apr 2017 15:01

Returning to the only part of Deignan's story that seems to have caught people's attention, the dirty dancing thing:
Deignan's criticism of Vaughters is also based on two incidents. The first has been much reported - erroneously, in one key fact - and concerns a pre-season training camp in 2011, where the male and female Garmin-Cervélo teams came together. On one evening the 22-year-old Deignan was woken in her hotel room after eleven:
"It was one of the management, saying 'You need to come downstairs - there is a party for one of the male riders.' My reaction was 'Fine. Why? OK.'

"I went down to the bar and discovered that I was the only girl in the room. I was left with no choice but to take part in a dance competition with the birthday boy in front of everybody, with all the other male riders sitting on bar stools in a line watching the two of us. It was a sort of Wii game where you follow the moves on a computer screen and you have to stand on a mat with your feet at the right spots; that was it, and then I was allowed to go to bed."
You can understand the offence that this must have caused. Until you learn that the person responsible for that knock on Deignan's door was Louise Donald, who has this to say of the incident:
"I was in charge of the team camps in the 2011 season, and I was present at both team camps in Spain in 2011. That was the year we had a professional women's team joining us, and I wanted to make sure they were included in various team activities, including birthday parties. Regarding the incident Lizzie has described in her book, I can honestly say I only wanted the women to be included in Dave Zabriskie's birthday party."

Deets and more...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

17 Apr 2017 18:51

The problem is that it was reported - as you say erroneously - as if it was to do with the BC sexism issue, where it appears to be something entirely separate. Perhaps the story was misconstrued, perhaps people jumped to conclusions based on the details they had on the story and the things already in the public which led to it being reported that way. I certainly thought from the article I read on it that it referred back to the Halford's days or the national team, and my post on the Sutton thread that you c+ped into here for context was based on that understanding.

Personally, I haven't read Lizzie's book, so I can only run on what has been reported, so if I've only perpetuated a misconception, then that's my bad. I also am not in any position to comment on which stories have been circulated into the press and which haven't, because I don't know what other stories the book deals with. The issue is that I'm not a fan of hers, personally, and rightly or wrongly she has given me the impression throughout her career of being somebody out for themselves and who has a tendency when things don't go her way to find somebody else to blame; quick to take the credit when it goes right, quick to apportion blame when it doesn't. The fallout from the testing thing, both among fans and, critically, among the women's péloton, showed that I'm far from alone in my interpretation of her, which runs counter to the image that has been attempted to be presented, whether by her or by others (certainly the way she has wanted to present herself has not always run harmoniously with the image others have wanted to present of her). As a result I always find her more prepared (i.e. not heat-of-the-moment) interviews to come across as disingenuous, and the way you describe her book ("It is therefore wholly regrettable that she says so little about actual sport itself in the pages of Steadfast, has so little to say about actual races, and instead uses the book to settle some petty scores and engage in an exercise in reinvention") suggests to me not an inconsiderable amount of opportunism and barely-disguised PR which is one of the things that's always made her seem unlikable to me; trying to prevent the tide of PR turning against her and dissociating herself from potentially harmful associations if the walls start to crumble while simultaneously being scathing of those who fought against the tide long before her (which is how I interpret your summation) isn't all that surprising. Because pettiness, blaming others, and pushing a favorable agenda is exactly what I would expect from her, and therefore I don't think I could enjoy reading her book, nor could I read it while maintaining objectivity.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,958
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

Re:

17 Apr 2017 19:41

Libertine Seguros wrote:The problem is that it was reported - as you say erroneously - as if it was to do with the BC sexism issue, where it appears to be something entirely separate. Perhaps the story was misconstrued, perhaps people jumped to conclusions based on the details they had on the story and the things already in the public which led to it being reported that way. I certainly thought from the article I read on it that it referred back to the Halford's days or the national team, and my post on the Sutton thread that you c+ped into here for context was based on that understanding.

Personally, I haven't read Lizzie's book, so I can only run on what has been reported, so if I've only perpetuated a misconception, then that's my bad. I also am not in any position to comment on which stories have been circulated into the press and which haven't, because I don't know what other stories the book deals with. The issue is that I'm not a fan of hers, personally, and rightly or wrongly she has given me the impression throughout her career of being somebody out for themselves and who has a tendency when things don't go her way to find somebody else to blame; quick to take the credit when it goes right, quick to apportion blame when it doesn't. The fallout from the testing thing, both among fans and, critically, among the women's péloton, showed that I'm far from alone in my interpretation of her, which runs counter to the image that has been attempted to be presented, whether by her or by others (certainly the way she has wanted to present herself has not always run harmoniously with the image others have wanted to present of her). As a result I always find her more prepared (i.e. not heat-of-the-moment) interviews to come across as disingenuous, and the way you describe her book ("It is therefore wholly regrettable that she says so little about actual sport itself in the pages of Steadfast, has so little to say about actual races, and instead uses the book to settle some petty scores and engage in an exercise in reinvention") suggests to me not an inconsiderable amount of opportunism and barely-disguised PR which is one of the things that's always made her seem unlikable to me; trying to prevent the tide of PR turning against her and dissociating herself from potentially harmful associations if the walls start to crumble while simultaneously being scathing of those who fought against the tide long before her (which is how I interpret your summation) isn't all that surprising. Because pettiness, blaming others, and pushing a favorable agenda is exactly what I would expect from her, and therefore I don't think I could enjoy reading her book, nor could I read it while maintaining objectivity.
The only person to be blamed for the 19/Halfords confusion is the guy who did the interview, Simon Hattenstone. Certainly I did the same calculation you did and put the story in her Halfords year. I even asked Rob H and Tom S to deny it. Which they did. I then saw another report which said it was Cervelo, which was odd as then Phil Deignan would gave been there. Anyway, we now know it's Garmin-Cervelo. And Vaughters disputes it. Maybe the Guardian will actually correct their error.

(I'll reply to the rest tomorrow - I hate trying trying to type replies here on a phone.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

18 Apr 2017 11:54

Libertine Seguros wrote:The issue is that I'm not a fan of hers, personally, and rightly or wrongly she has given me the impression throughout her career of being somebody out for themselves and who has a tendency when things don't go her way to find somebody else to blame; quick to take the credit when it goes right, quick to apportion blame when it doesn't.
The way she deals with Copenhagen in the book confirms that: blame Cooke, not herself. Oddly, she glosses over Ponferada, where if my memory is correct, Marianne Vos was on the receiving end of both barrels. But as she notes in the book, Vos is such a classy rider.

That - blame others for errors, credit herself when things go right - also pretty much describes the way she treats British Cycling in the book. You said before that she was one of the chosen ones. In the book she works to show she was independent of BC, did not rely on them in any way. She criticises them for the lack of parity between men and women on the road (at Olympics and World Championships, where they are both scoring the same, the women arguably ahead with better quality results), she criticises them for lack of planning, she criticises them for all the things you would criticise them for. Except, she fails to criticise herself for not being pro-active. So on the day of the Richmond Worlds when the management were off at the Juniors, they're at fault, she has no responsibility for not having ensured that there was an hour-by-hour plan for that morning (the sort of plan a trade team would have, for example). She actually talks of retreating back into her bubble, of being happy when BC isn't in contact with her. The help she was given for whereabouts is a perfect example: she didn't know he'd left because she'd stopped contacting him, she didn't like contacting him.
Libertine Seguros wrote:the way she has wanted to present herself has not always run harmoniously with the image others have wanted to present of her
And here you have her actually working against the image someone has decided she should try to present. She's being presented as outspoken, willing to challenge authority, yet throughout the book she backs away from the criticisms she makes of BC, and in the media reporting of it so far she's doing the exact same. You read the book and you want the real Lizzie Deignan to please stand up.
Libertine Seguros wrote:therefore I don't think I could enjoy reading her book, nor could I read it while maintaining objectivity.
There's nothing in it I actively enjoyed (the Kenrotts book, say, is actually enjoyable, in a sick sort of way, it's so ridiculous you do laugh). There's no snappy lines that stick in the memory, there's no great descriptions of races (Bill Strickland did Johan Bruyneel's autobiog and wrote a beautiful race sequence - you don't have to like the book to enjoy the writing). About the only 'revelatory' thing in it is that she wants to sprog and she wants to sprog bigly, so - to put words in her mouth - the biological clock is ticking on her career. And, unlike Jessica Ennis-Hill (or Laura Kenny) once she starts dropping the sprogs, she doesn't plan returning to cycling. Will that be before Yorkshire 2019? She doesn't say. But nor does she set Yorkshire as a target. You shouldn't have to read a bland book just to get that, you could just wait for the OK/Hello interview (I never realised until recently that OK/Hello have a thing for Laura Kenny and Lizzie Deignan - my culturally life is so lacking in diversity).
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

27 Apr 2017 11:08

Interviewed on the BBC this morning, this exchange was class:
- Because you had never taken any dope at all, had you?
- No. I never tested positive
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: The Armitstead doping thread.

27 Apr 2017 13:41

heart_attack_man wrote:
joe_papp wrote:People should understand how drug tests work before they condemn athletes

As an athlete who has been involved in doping procedures for years – and who came close to missing tests – I feel compelled to defend cyclist Lizzie Armitstead

By James Willstrop for Willstrop’s World, part of the Guardian Sport Network

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/willstrop-s-world/2016/aug/18/rio-2016-olympics-cycling-drugs-lizzie-armitstead

...As a professional athlete who has been involved in doping procedures for many years and has been tested untold times, I have to say, without knowing Lizzie, I feel compelled to defend her. If nothing else, she deserves to have someone show another side to it all. My own hunch is that she is not a doping cheat and that she made a mistake. Something that has not often been noted in reflections of commentators over the past weeks, is that in 2016 alone Armitstead faced 16 tests and all of them were clean...


Nice. I want this guy in my corner lol...


She faced 16 tests... Target testing? Would be interesting to see her passport released. Perhaps she'd be kind enough. :rolleyes: :D


She won a lot and was tested as a result of that.

This wasn't 16 OOC tests which would strongly suggest target testing.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,932
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re:

27 Apr 2017 16:18

fmk_RoI wrote:Interviewed on the BBC this morning, this exchange was class:
- Because you had never taken any dope at all, had you?
- No. I never tested positive

and what's wrong with that? I thought you lot would have loved that, I thought you guys only had problems with riders claiming they are clean when you all know they are dirty, lizzie is just playing the game within the made up clinic rules...Enjoy it
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,121
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

27 Apr 2017 16:50

We've heard that affirmation of the consequent before I'm pretty sure . Nothing like evasive answers...
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

Re: Re:

27 Apr 2017 17:17

rick james wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:Interviewed on the BBC this morning, this exchange was class:
- Because you had never taken any dope at all, had you?
- No. I never tested positive

and what's wrong with that? I thought you lot would have loved that, I thought you guys only had problems with riders claiming they are clean when you all know they are dirty, lizzie is just playing the game within the made up clinic rules...Enjoy it
You might need to explain that one to me in simple English and with graphics, cause even when I went and got a step-ladder and checked again, that totally went over my head...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

27 Apr 2017 18:18

i thought it was really funny....................

spoken like a true champion....lizzie knows the score it's not about

the doping..............but not getting caught

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

Re: Re:

27 Apr 2017 21:00

rick james wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:Interviewed on the BBC this morning, this exchange was class:
- Because you had never taken any dope at all, had you?
- No. I never tested positive

and what's wrong with that? I thought you lot would have loved that, I thought you guys only had problems with riders claiming they are clean when you all know they are dirty, lizzie is just playing the game within the made up clinic rules...Enjoy it


Attacking the clinic is a fail. It does not speak as one voice. Thinking it does says more about your thought process.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,036
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: The Armitstead doping thread.

27 Apr 2017 21:21

:D

Image
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: The Armitstead doping thread.

28 Apr 2017 10:10

thehog wrote::D

Image
The funny thing - it's actually bloody hilarious really - about the reasons for the third failure that she doesn't really want to go into is that, while those reasons are still the basis for her continuing to keep the CAS judgement (officially) secret (despite the leak), she goes into them in detail, great detail, in her book.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

29 Apr 2017 11:12

Another monster solo attack going on right now...
therealthing
Junior Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: 27 Apr 2016 19:54

Re: The Armitstead doping thread.

10 Jun 2017 08:35

Poor Lizzie is having a mare at the Womens Tour of Britain. About 13mins down on GC, nowhere to be seen.

Yet NOTHING is said about it. Apart from her impressive TDY win, she is far from the explosive and dominate rider from last year before all the missed test stuff came out
User avatar MartinGT
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,209
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 20:48

10 Jun 2017 09:18

i was thinking likewise...........but was waiting race finish

it's not as though her performance in the ovo tour has been lacklustre...............but wor lizzie
has been completely invisible...............in her 'home' race

............following a real fall off in results since she was 'rumbled'

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, meat puppet and 15 guests

Back to top