Brits don't dope?

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So Armistead did not challenge the 1st missed test till she missed the 3rd.

That stinks of doping.

An alternative explanation, is why put yourself through the stress and cost of challenging something which may not have any consequences, until it actually matters ?

Sorry, but if you are clean, it matters then and there that you challenge the missed test. No stress should be involved. Yes there is a cost, but then you think it is more important to do the right thing. She only has to be available 1 hour a day. Not acceptable to miss one test let alone 3.

Doping.

 

[glassmoon]

Re:

So Armistead did not challenge the 1st missed test till she missed the 3rd.

That stinks of doping.

especially if she claims to be totally anti-doping from the bottom of her heart

 

[Chaddy]

Re:

Interesting that Brit Cycling have broken rule 21.4.3.

21.4.3. "The National Federations shall cooperate with investigations conducted by any Anti-doping Organization with authority to conduct such investigation"

So why did British Cycling side with the athlete against the Anti-doping Organization?

Only one answer to that. Doping.

Have they not co-operated?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Interesting that Brit Cycling have broken rule 21.4.3.

21.4.3. "The National Federations shall cooperate with investigations conducted by any Anti-doping Organization with authority to conduct such investigation"

So why did British Cycling side with the athlete against the Anti-doping Organization?

Only one answer to that. Doping.

Have they not co-operated?

No in my opinion. They have taken the side of the athlete who gave lame excuse of her mobile phone was on silent at the time of her 1 hour she had t make herself available. That is not acceptable in my opinion. Anti-doping did not accept that as an excuse, hence the need for Armistead to take it to CAS, where BC defended her against the AD.

 

[Chaddy]

So they've not broken any rules then? They've cooperated fully but disagreed with the findings and taken it to an independent court.

 

[mb2612]

So for me the key questions are:
1) how many times was she tested ooc in the last year? 3 misses out of 20 is very different from 3 out of 3
2) the third missed test was on the 9th of June. Why was she allowed to race, and win, the tour of Britain on the 19th of June.
3) she oddly withdrew from the Giro midstage on the 9th of July. Given it's exactly a month after the previous test was this related?
4) why was she allowed to challenge a result from a year ago, despite not challenging it at the time?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

So for me the key questions are:
1) how many times was she tested ooc in the last year? 3 misses out of 20 is very different from 3 out of 3
2) the third missed test was on the 9th of June. Why was she allowed to race, and win, the tour of Britain on the 19th of June.
3) she oddly withdrew from the Giro midstage on the 9th of July. Given it's exactly a month after the previous test was this related?
4) why was she allowed to challenge a result from a year ago, despite not challenging it at the time?

Re your second point, I expect it was because she was charged by UKAD with three whereabouts failures on July 11, leading to a suspension pending disciplinary action. Until she was charged she (like anyone else in that situation) would have been free to race.
Re your last point, I don't think there is any reason that would prevent her taking the decision when she did.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

Did they? It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

 

[richb15]

Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

even in a car that wont drive, there are parts that still function perfectly well

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

On the point of the legal funding, a British Cycling membership at Gold level (which as a pro athlete in a UCI team Lizzie will have, same as many amateurs too mind, depends what you want to pay).

Armistead is not resident in the UK, so she cannot be a member of British Cycling, she has to be a member of her local federation.

Incorrect, for example, David Millar was resident of France and Spain whilst a member of British Cycling. Geraint Thomas is currently classed as a resident of Monaco and is a member of British Cycling.

can you clarify this please? Does being a member of British Cycling equate to holding a British cycling licence?

I recall reading something in Nicole Cooke's autobiog about how she likened herself and Armitstead in the sense that neither of them were part of the British Cycling system. That they both had to go abroad and make their own way.

She was possibly talking about British Cycling's high-performance system (or whatever that's called), but it'd be good to get that clarified.

I know you definitely don't need to be resident in the country to hold a license in that country, but just wondering about the nuances here. Thanks.

I think your third paragraph is likely to be correct.

Any form of British Cycling membership confers the right to a race licence and in fact the lowest form, bronze membership, gives a provisional licence. This is not enough for most purposes and racing members will pay extra to have a full race licence.

So it's not right that "a member of British Cycling equate to holding a British cycling licence" but you can't have the licence without membership.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

Did they? It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

Or more to the point, isn't making your phone "unavailable" a violation?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

So for me the key questions are:
1) how many times was she tested ooc in the last year? 3 misses out of 20 is very different from 3 out of 3
2) the third missed test was on the 9th of June. Why was she allowed to race, and win, the tour of Britain on the 19th of June.
3) she oddly withdrew from the Giro midstage on the 9th of July. Given it's exactly a month after the previous test was this related?
4) why was she allowed to challenge a result from a year ago, despite not challenging it at the time?

Answering this in the new Lizze thread

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Can someone clarify the process, please?

She was charged on 11th July following a third missed test on 9th June. Is this the usual length of time between missing a test and notification. If not how soon is a cyclist notified?

Also every report refers to the tester. Surely they travel in pairs. I'd assume this to be the case for purposes of corroboration and do recall this from my viewing of 'The Armstrong Lie'

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

Did they? It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

So they have the power to bury the Boner whistle-blower (...even though the blower carried on blowing and went public to the detriment of UKAD)

....but they don't have the power to bury a missed test conducted by one of their own?

That really doesn't make sense. If they'd buried it, nobody would be any the wiser.

What we are faced with now is a bit of a pong. Nobody comes out of this looking good.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

CAS have expedited procedures in place for the Games. They've been racing through cases recently. Do try and keep up to date, please.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

Did they? It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

So they have the power to bury the Boner whistle-blower (...even though the blower carried on blowing and went public to the detriment of UKAD)

....but they don't have the power to bury a missed test conducted by one of their own?

That really doesn't make sense. If they'd buried it, nobody would be any the wiser.

What we are faced with now is a bit of a pong.Nobody comes out of this looking good.

Totally agree, Lizzie will forever have suspicion about her now, UKAD at best look incompetent.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

UKAD could have deep-sixed the first test a year ago had they been there to protect the chosen few.

LA didn't have to prove anything with her phone: she had to prove UKAD didn't follow the rules.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

even in a car that wont drive, there are parts that still function perfectly well

Right, the exception that proves the rule. LA actually proved that UKAD protect GB athletes.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

CAS have expedited procedures in place for the Games. They've been racing through cases recently. Do try and keep up to date, please.

11 cases per week apparently

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Or more to the point, isn't making your phone "unavailable" a violation?

I hardly think so. It's a lousy excuse and I doubt it would work. But as I've said, she didn't have to rely on that, all she had to prove was that UKAD's testers hadn't done their job right, according to their own rules.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Someone help me. UKAD deep-sixed the Bonar investigation cause they supporting UK doping. So why did they try and bust a major medal hope like LA?

Did they? It would appear they allowed this one to shoot through to CAS in record time to remove the sense of nepotism from UKAD.

They had to do something once the 3rd test was missed, they couldn't avoid it. The 1st missed test and reasons stated are rather dubious. As tough as CAS has been in the past they certainly let this one through the net - ie How did LA prove her phone was on silent?

So they have the power to bury the Boner whistle-blower (...even though the blower carried on blowing and went public to the detriment of UKAD)

....but they don't have the power to bury a missed test conducted by one of their own?

That really doesn't make sense. If they'd buried it, nobody would be any the wiser.

What we are faced with now is a bit of a pong.Nobody comes out of this looking good.

Totally agree, Lizzie will forever have suspicion about her now, UKAD at best look incompetent.

The Guardian published a pretty scathing article on Armistead today.

Of course, the clinic narrative is that all British media outlets are flag wavers for British doping athletes so I must be mistaken

Read it for yourself here:

Lizzie Armitstead did not challenge missed drugs test until Rio place threatened

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-reprieve-questioned-fellow-athletes?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Of course, the clinic narrative is that all British media outlets are flag wavers for British doping athletes so I must be mistaken

Ollie Holt's Twitter timeline is worth a scan for the British media people he's re-tweeted and their comments - a lot of them negative - on LA.

https://twitter.com/OllieHolt22

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Of course, the clinic narrative is that all British media outlets are flag wavers for British doping athletes so I must be mistaken

Ollie Holt's Twitter timeline is worth a scan for the British media people he's re-tweeted and their comments - a lot of them negative - on LA.

https://twitter.com/OllieHolt22

Holt is among a few credible British journalists. Sadly there are too many of the other kind.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Of course, the clinic narrative is that all British media outlets are flag wavers for British doping athletes so I must be mistaken

Ollie Holt's Twitter timeline is worth a scan for the British media people he's re-tweeted and their comments - a lot of them negative - on LA.

https://twitter.com/OllieHolt22

Including Matthew Syed :lol:

https://twitter.com/OllieHolt22/status/760410808425836545

He's right, of course.

Despite the bullsh1t I read on this forum on a daily basis, those of us who live here know that the media are hungry for doping stories. I've yet to read a piece from a UK source that is sympathetic to Armistead....and rightly so, in my view.