Brits don't dope?

[Ramon Koran]

Of course bc would defend one of there finest athletes in this case. It appears that the ukad was at fault and ending up with a four year sentence for one of the biggest names in British cycling would have been awful not just for the uk but cycling and the olympics. Seeing some ones carreer ruined due to negligence of another is not acceptable. Just makes me wonder why Yates wasn't defended by British cycling when he was at no fault either. Anyway the correct verdict has been given due to the circumstances and I think we can all be pleased that anti doping agency can be put into question and that athletes are not totally at the mercy of them. This landmark result leads us towards a knew era where no longer the ultra powerful doping agency runs the sport and don't have to answer questions

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

Of course they are. But is she not a professional rider. Why did they not stick up for others? Yates or JTL?

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

JTL thinks he was unfairly treated and is quite upset about it all as well. What happened when he asked BC if they could pay for a legal team to support him ?

 

[William H]

Presumably she was nade aware of the first "missed" test, even if she disagreed with it? Must have been pretty stupid or pretty desperate to miss the 3rd then.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

Of course they are. But is she not a professional rider. Why did they not stick up for others? Yates or JTL?

Misread this initially. Sorry. prhaps they did not ask for ythis assistance. I don't know.

 

[Chaddy]

Re: Re:

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

JTL thinks he was unfairly treated and is quite upset about it all as well. What happened when he asked BC if they could pay for a legal team to support him ?

Not the same situation is it?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

Of course they are. But is she not a professional rider. Why did they not stick up for others? Yates or JTL?

Really? :surprised:

"Is she not" i.e. a rhetorical question (Benotti should have used a question mark at the end of the statement) rather than "she is not" i.e. a dismissive or denigrating statement.

Lizzie is a professional, and while there isn't a huge amount of money in the women's péloton she's certainly one of the better earners in the bunch, and results-wise with good reason.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

Of course they are. But is she not a professional rider. Why did they not stick up for others? Yates or JTL?

Really? :surprised:

"Is she not" i.e. a rhetorical question (Benotti should have used a question mark at the end of the statement) rather than "she is not" i.e. a dismissive or denigrating statement.

Lizzie is a professional, and while there isn't a huge amount of money in the women's péloton she's certainly one of the better earners in the bunch, and results-wise with good reason.

Yes. I misread it and changed my post. Thanks.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Why didn't we know why she wasn't racing - this is like Femke's brother. Is this the new transparency Cookson promised ? I suppose Cookson will tell us again that the UCI are not a press agency. Which then begs the question how many other incidents to BC riders that BC held jurisdiction themselves have we not heard about whilst his hand was on the tiller at BC?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Why didn't we know why she wasn't racing - this is like Femke's brother. Is this the new transparency Cookson promised ? I suppose Cookson will tell us again that the UCI are not a press agency. Which then begs the question how many other incidents to BC riders that BC held jurisdiction themselves have we not heard about whilst his hand was on the tiller at BC?

His hand was not in the tiller at BC at any relevant time in this matter. He got the UCI job in 2013 and ceased to be BC's head. Your point seems irrelevant to the case.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

Why didn't we know why she wasn't racing - this is like Femke's brother. Is this the new transparency Cookson promised ? I suppose Cookson will tell us again that the UCI are not a press agency. Which then begs the question how many other incidents to BC riders that BC held jurisdiction themselves have we not heard about whilst his hand was on the tiller at BC?

His hand was not in the tiller at BC at any relevant time in this matter. He got the UCI job in 2013 and ceased to be BC's head. Your point seems irrelevant to the case.

Whilst at the UCI he came out with that outrageous statement. The thread is Brits don't dope ? The real question is - what has been kept from us in the past? That the current World Champion did not race in London and Paris at two very big races, because she was on a ban but that we knew nothing about it tell us all we need to know how Cookson and the BC team can lock down the press right now. So what else has been locked down ? It looks like Cookson's idea of transparency is something in line with how Pravda would have viewed "transparency" in the 1950s.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Why didn't we know why she wasn't racing - this is like Femke's brother. Is this the new transparency Cookson promised ? I suppose Cookson will tell us again that the UCI are not a press agency. Which then begs the question how many other incidents to BC riders that BC held jurisdiction themselves have we not heard about whilst his hand was on the tiller at BC?

His hand was not in the tiller at BC at any relevant time in this matter. He got the UCI job in 2013 and ceased to be BC's head. Your point seems irrelevant to the case.

Whilst at the UCI he came out with that outrageous statement. The thread is Brits don't dope ? The real question is - what has been kept from us in the past? That the current World Champion did not race in London and Paris at two very big races, because she was on a ban but that we knew nothing about it tell us all we need to know how Cookson and the BC team can lock down the press right now. So what else has been locked down ? It looks like Cookson's idea of transparency is something in line with how Pravda would have viewed "transparency" in the 1950s.

I don't know what the usual procedure is or ought to be so I don't intend to take you on.

But on the question of what publicity is appropriate when a case is sub judice my mind turns to the Cliff Ruichard case (relating to sexual accusations), where the BBC turned up with a helicopter to video his house being turned over, transmitted it and now have some egg on their faces after the case was dropped for lack of any credible evidence.

Do we need to know that a World Champion is appealing to CAS against a test because of maladministration by UKAD (which it turned out was what happened)? It's a matter of opinion. Too much transparency (in some circumstances) can be an undesirable thing in my opinion, but obviously not in yours. It's a question of where to draw the line.

 

[BullsFan22]

It's obvious how some posters here want to give certain groups a nice pass regarding doping and/or suspicious activity from athletes, coaches, national federation, union, politicians, yet when it's other groups involved, they are the first to cry foul play. Fancy that!

 

[wrinklyvet]

It's obvious how some posters here want to give certain groups a nice pass regarding doping and/or suspicious activity from athletes, coaches, national federation, union, politicians, yet when it's other groups involved, they are the first to cry foul play. Fancy that!

If you mean me, then to the best of my recollection I haven't. Have the others?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

You didn't fancy posting anything about her case then?

Sportsmail understands the testing official did not explain to hotel staff why he wanted to know Armitstead's room number at her team hotel in Sweden at around 6am.
Having been refused the information by the hotel, he then attempted to contact Armitstead on a mobile phone that the cyclist had put on silent while she slept.
No further attempts, it appears, were then made by the testing official and a missed test was logged with UKAD.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3718410/Lizzie-Armitstead-wins-court-fight-compete-Rio-Olympics-UK-anti-doping-wanted-four-year-ban-three-missed-tests.html#ixzz4G7ZZu6e8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No more to say. Armsistead is imo doping.

Do i believe her claim to be sleeping. Nope.

Do i trust CAS, who the head of is a Vice President of the IOC.

Why does British cycling favour some riders over others?

An Armitstead positive would be a disaster for British cycling. The amount of positive publicity Lizzie and Laura Trott bring to cycling and attracting girls to cycling is incredibly high. British cycling would do anything at this point to protect Wiggins Froome Thomas Cavendish Trott and Armitstead if they ever got busted

 

[thehog]

Funny how the marginal gains go missing when it comes to attending dope testing and filling out whereabouts forms

 

[Freddythefrog]

I don't know what the usual procedure is or ought to be so I don't intend to take you on.

But on the question of what publicity is appropriate when a case is sub judice my mind turns to the Cliff Ruichard case (relating to sexual accusations), where the BBC turned up with a helicopter to video his house being turned over, transmitted it and now have some egg on their faces after the case was dropped for lack of any credible evidence.

Do we need to know that a World Champion is appealing to CAS against a test because of maladministration by UKAD (which it turned out was what happened)? It's a matter of opinion. Too much transparency (in some circumstances) can be an undesirable thing in my opinion, but obviously not in yours. It's a question of where to draw the line.

We had Longo in the past taking "time out" and doing whereabouts violations. She never got done for anything publicly but the rumour mill was alive with all manner of plausible suggestions for her periods of not racing. Then hubster was found importing enough EPO for a team and tried to say it was for himself ! Did that even come to a conclusion in the French courts ?

Next we get Vos going awol and then on return 1.1 doing bizarre stuff like leading a team-mate out to within 50m of the line of the World Champs and pulling over and we get no plausible explanation why she was not racing at absence 2.0.

Now this. Compare and contrast Cookson and Hein. At least under Hein's reign we knew that Lance had tested positive and that the post dated TUE which was approved, was for a saddle sore cream. Perhaps only Hein and the Com panel at the Tour pretended to believe it was not complete BS, but at least we knew about it and could make up our own minds. I just think right now we don't even know who is banned - subject to legal appeal or not. In my humble opinion that makes the current regime more broken than it was 17 years ago - after all we have been through. Now that is one very bad situation and tells us more about the governance of the sport than the athletes who cheat.

btw a good attempt at reaching for Godwin's Law. Not there in one step but getting close.

 

[wrinklyvet]

I don't know what the usual procedure is or ought to be so I don't intend to take you on.

But on the question of what publicity is appropriate when a case is sub judice my mind turns to the Cliff Ruichard case (relating to sexual accusations), where the BBC turned up with a helicopter to video his house being turned over, transmitted it and now have some egg on their faces after the case was dropped for lack of any credible evidence.

Do we need to know that a World Champion is appealing to CAS against a test because of maladministration by UKAD (which it turned out was what happened)? It's a matter of opinion. Too much transparency (in some circumstances) can be an undesirable thing in my opinion, but obviously not in yours. It's a question of where to draw the line.

We had Longo in the past taking "time out" and doing whereabouts violations. She never got done for anything publicly but the rumour mill was alive with all manner of plausible suggestions for her periods of not racing. Then hubster was found importing enough EPO for a team and tried to say it was for himself ! Did that even come to a conclusion in the French courts ?

Next we get Vos going awol and then on return 1.1 doing bizarre stuff like leading a team-mate out to within 50m of the line of the World Champs and pulling over and we get no plausible explanation why she was not racing at absence 2.0.

Now this. Compare and contrast Cookson and Hein. At least under Hein's reign we knew that Lance had tested positive and that the post dated TUE which was approved, was for a saddle sore cream. Perhaps only Hein and the Com panel at the Tour pretended to believe it was not complete BS, but at least we knew about it and could make up our own minds. I just think right now we don't even know who is banned - subject to legal appeal or not. In my humble opinion that makes the current regime more broken than it was 17 years ago - after all we have been through. Now that is one very bad situation and tells us more about the governance of the sport than the athletes who cheat.

btw a good attempt at reaching for Godwin's Law. Not there in one step but getting close.

Yes, the conversation is finished and does not deserve a reply. You are the person who has thought fit to make this accusation. Nothing to do with me.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Funny how the marginal gains go missing when it comes to attending dope testing and filling out whereabouts forms

Fast asleep on those extra-fluffed pillows.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

Maybe...maybe not. Missing tests when you are traveling all over the world is pretty easy. Its not like she was hiding out, she was at a race (and being tested at that race). I, like others, would like to hear the circumstances of the other two missed tests, but this one sounds like the tester was a turd.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

BC are entitled to stick up for their own rider if she is unfairly treated, as CAS effectively decided she was.

You don't think it's amazing how quickly, quietly and efficiently this was handled? Hush now. Don't you worry. You're going to Rio...

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

Maybe...maybe not. Missing tests when you are traveling all over the world is pretty easy. Its not like she was hiding out, she was at a race (and being tested at that race). I, like others, would like to hear the circumstances of the other two missed tests, but this one sounds like the tester was a turd.

Yup. Because you pay a lot of money (from a very small budget) to fly testers around the world without training them what to do when the athlete's in their hotel room and sleeping... Makes sense. Totally legit. I mean it's one of those rare scenarios that will never happen in real life.

john Swanson

 

[BullsFan22]

Irrespective of Armitstead's appeal on whether or not her missing tests was deliberate or it was a mistake by the tester/UKAD, whoever...Michael Rasmussen's gotta be thinking, 'gosh, had I been a Brit, I wouldn't have been kicked out of the tour, would have wore yellow in Paris, perhaps gone on to seriously challenge for another yellow in Paris the following year, retire nicely with a TDF title, some good monies, and in all likelihood a sweet job as a SKY DS in future GT's!'

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

BC covering up doping, that is what I understand. You just can't miss three tests if you are clean.

Maybe...maybe not. Missing tests when you are traveling all over the world is pretty easy. Its not like she was hiding out, she was at a race (and being tested at that race). I, like others, would like to hear the circumstances of the other two missed tests, but this one sounds like the tester was a turd.

Staying at the team hotel and the tester wasn't denied entry, they then called her cell which was switched to silent (apparently).

They got that test expunged? What the actual #%!# ?! It was the team hotel not some random hotel hideaway.

 

[eyesopen]

Sportsmail understands the testing official did not explain to hotel staff why he wanted to know Armitstead's room number at her team hotel in Sweden at around 6am."
Hard to believe a sports drug tester would not mention his purpose for the visit around 6am.(btw surely they know the exact time) Who would walk up to reception and just ask for a girls room number. Doesn't seem legit. Seems similar to the Froome missed test. Maybe during critical times they only stay at hotels that can guarantee no access to outsiders.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/24/chris-froome-missed-drug-test-tour-de-france