Brits don't dope?

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Some of the questions that need answering the first one being the main one:

1) Why was her legal fees funded indirectly by the British taxpayer (through British cycling)? Surely the athlete has strict liability?
2) When she stated illness as the reason for her absence from recent events, was this the actual reason or was this due to the pending anti-doping violation?
3) When did she appeal the first missed test, was it immediately or only after the 3rd missed test?
4) Why would an athlete with 'one strike' left have her phone on silent?

re 4) Wasn't the phone on silent re the first missed test?

Another question - What are the excuses for the other 2 tests? Is she appealing those as well?

Just read it again and you are right. The question remains though, she didn't know before missing the 3rd test that she would have her first strike removed and thus ran the risk of a doping ban. What was the family illness that caused her to miss the 3rd strike.

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re: Re:

Some of the questions that need answering the first one being the main one:

1) Why was her legal fees funded indirectly by the British taxpayer (through British cycling)? Surely the athlete has strict liability?
2) When she stated illness as the reason for her absence from recent events, was this the actual reason or was this due to the pending anti-doping violation?
3) When did she appeal the first missed test, was it immediately or only after the 3rd missed test?
4) Why would an athlete with 'one strike' left have her phone on silent?

re 4) Wasn't the phone on silent re the first missed test?

Another question - What are the excuses for the other 2 tests? Is she appealing those as well?

No because there is strict liability. (no laughing at the back, please). On the other two she was not where she said she would be. For the first one the argument is that she was there, and was available for testing. CAS appear to be blaming UKAD for the failure to gain access to her.

 

[thehog]

Re:

So....sorry.....I'm getting confused here.

Normally the narrative in here is that UKAD are in on the Great British Sporting Scam, and part of the corruption.

Now we have UKAD pursuing a british World Champion with a view to getting her a lengthy ban, only to be undone by CAS.

So which is it?

On the surface it looks a little that way; however it beggars belief how quickly this got itself from June 9th missed test, July 11 to the violation to a CAS hearing, whereas all other doping cases wind their way though the AD first over a number of weeks.

Of course if UKAD let her off, cynicism would be running high, alas his was bundle away by the "independent" CAS in a month.

Not matter which way you look at it, the speed of this case was impressive work.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Whenever there is a case of multiple missed tests, what is always conveniently forgotten is the many occasions that the athlete was AWOL when there was no testing that day. It is always implied that it is purely bad luck that they tested on the only occasions something went wrong with the whereabouts system

Even ignoring the apparently mishandled visit, if Armistead had say 12 random OOC tests in 365 days, the odds that the two missed tests occurred on the only two days she was absent are approx 1000 to 1. The most likely number of days she was absent would actually be approx 60

Two missed tests in a year is a major red flag. As a previous poster said, two missed tests in a year when you are already officially on strike 1 (no certainty of that being cleared by CAS) pretty much speaks for itself

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

So....sorry.....I'm getting confused here.

Normally the narrative in here is that UKAD are in on the Great British Sporting Scam, and part of the corruption.

Now we have UKAD pursuing a british World Champion with a view to getting her a lengthy ban, only to be undone by CAS.

So which is it?

On the surface it looks a little that way; however it beggars belief how quickly this got itself from June 9th missed test, July 11 to the violation to a CAS hearing, whereas all other doping cases wind their way though the AD first over a number of weeks.

Of course if UKAD let her off, cynicism would be running high, alas his was bundle away by the "independent" CAS in a month.

Not matter which way you look at it, the speed of this case was impressive work.

Missed tests, asthma meds, and recreational drugs. Exoneration or three month ban. Athlete looks innocent, ADA looks good.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Just watched the BBC breakfast 'news'. The Armitstead story mentioned her being cleared of missing a test, of course failing to mention it was the 1st of three!

Please spare a thought for us Brits who question how we've come from 'Eddie the Eagle' standard to arguably the strongest sporting nation on earth, smashing the bejesus out of known dopers on route. We are about to be subjected to a two week bombardment of patronising guff where, in the midst of daily scandals (sporting and otherwise), we will be incessantly reminded how it's British tenacity and marginal gains that outdo pesky Russians etc.

Eddie the Eagle was always an outlier, of course, as well as being great entertainment, like the African swimmer who nearly sank (country and name both escape me). But I hope the fortnight does not upset you. You could hide under a blanket.

Armitstead took full responsibility for her latter two failures in Monday night's statement, which said: 'The October 2015 failure was the result of a filing failure on ADAMS caused by an administrative oversight. Armitstead did not dispute the oversight.

'The June 2016 missed test was the result of Armitstead not updating her whereabouts on ADAMS, having had an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family.

Sounds an honest admission of error to me. What we don't know (unless anyone can spot it) is how long her appeal to CAS on the first one was pending.

You were thinking of Eric "the Eel" Moussambani.

On the subject of the latest trio of missed tests equals no sanction on appeal. As much as I can understand the first one. Once notified of missing it, as an athlete or a professional in any walk of life that first warning would place you on heightened alert for anything until the warning lapsed.

As a further two occurred in the meantime prior to the first one lapsing with an admin error for missed test two in October 2015 (which should really have meant everything was planned for the next 12 months regardless), and then due to a family emergency back in June for the third test. Apologies if there was a family emergency, however the ADAMS whereabouts system can be updated and on your last chance you still would think of updating it knowing you can be banned for missing a potential test that day.

Overall, and looking back over the amount of time I have seen her competing from her early days on the track, I smell something fishy.

 

[BullsFan22]

Missing three tests in one's entire career is interesting, but nothing out of the extraordinary, unless the timing of those missed tests was in the lead up to career best results or perhaps after them, or something of that nature. Missing three within a 12 month period is odd, to say the least. When you are part of a national federation and the Olympic delegation and/or on a professional team (doesn't need to be a pro cycling team) you are automatically tied to WADA, as your federation is. This means you essentially have to be transparent and honest about your whereabouts, even if you are not training/racing. Rasmussen lost his yellow jersey for not reporting where he was at when he needed to be tested, in fact he reported a false location (if my memory serves me right). Why should Armitstead be treated any differently? BC just wants medals out of RIO, just like London. I am sure they paid a few bob for her to be cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

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

+1. This doesn't pass the smell test.

Similar to Froome but.... It's a team hotel during the World Cup. Hotel staff would be briefed to expect testers and as you say hard to believe they did not identify themselves. Also wouldn't there have been two testers?

If they didn't have credentials then I can fully understand the hotel turning them away, it's a security issue.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

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) does provide you access to a legal team (though this is generally for public liability claims). It could be that BC has utilised her membership level benefits and offered to help with the legal fees on this basis though using it in a roundabout way as any and all monies won during the period from the 1st missed test would have needed to be refunded to the race organisers to pay to the rightful recipients, therefore utilising a loophole in the public liability rules.

 

[JibberJim]

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.

 

[Catwhoorg]

3 strikes in 18 months was a hard enough standard, when WADA changed it to 3 in 12 months I figured no-one would be getting caught out by this.

As for why it wasn't announced, to be fair UKAD are consistent in having the position iterated at the end of their statement

“It is important to note that we will not publicly disclose provisional suspensions, or disclose details of cases, until an anti-doping rule violation has deemed to have been committed, at which point information will be published on our website. This is to ensure that the rights and privacy of everyone involved are respected and to ensure the case is not unnecessarily prejudiced.”

A 3rd strike in of itself is enough to open a case, but opening a case is not the same as finding a violation.

 

[elduggo]

Re: Re:

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

+1. This doesn't pass the smell test.

Similar to Froome but.... It's a team hotel during the World Cup. Hotel staff would be briefed to expect testers and as you say hard to believe they did not identify themselves. Also wouldn't there have been two testers?

If they didn't have credentials then I can fully understand the hotel turning them away, it's a security issue.

this is another thing that makes the whole story unbelievable. My understanding is that it never even got to showing or asking for credentials. The person in question asked what room LA was in, but never said why they needed to know. And when the information was refused, they didn't identify themselves at that point. They rang her mobile phone, which was switched off. But instead of going back to hotel reception, identifying themselves as a drug tester (which I'm sure must have been a regular occurrence those couple of days, due to a major World Cup race taking place), they simply left and decided to record it as a missed-test.

Which, if true, shows that person to be both nasty and stupid.

But it also begs the question, who else was in that hotel? How many of them were tested? Or more specifically, how many weren't tested because the same hotel reception wouldn't pass on their room numbers.

This story is so unbelievable that if someone made it up you'd think them stupid.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

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.

 

[ontheroad]

She has an autiobography coming out in September presumably to capitalise on any potential success in Rio and good luck to her. I'm sure we will be able to read all about the mssed drugs tests and her reasoning in this book.

 

[JibberJim]

Re: Re:

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.

Even if they are (and I doubt it, UCI rules say licence has to be from country of residence, but it could be that the licence was issued before moving), the insurance that you were relying on for the motivation, is specifically excluded for non-residents.

 

[thehog]

Re:

She has an autiobography coming out in September presumably to capitalise on any potential success in Rio and good luck to her. I'm sure we will be able to read all about the mssed drugs tests and her reasoning in this book.

With a long diatribe on how she is committed to clean cycling

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Re: Re:

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.

Even if they are (and I doubt it, UCI rules say licence has to be from country of residence, but it could be that the licence was issued before moving), the insurance that you were relying on for the motivation, is specifically excluded for non-residents.

Which having been in the position of seeing the details within the databases at BC, makes for some very interesting reading then.

 

[gillan1969]

does anyone have a copy of the decision?

 

[wrinklyvet]

does anyone have a copy of the decision?

I believe it is not yet available.

Nicole Sapstead of UKAD said

“Ms Armitstead chose not to challenge the first and second whereabouts failures at the time they were asserted against her. At the CAS hearing, Ms Armitstead raised a defence in relation to the first whereabouts failure, which was accepted by the panel. We are awaiting the reasoned decision from the CAS panel as to why the first whereabouts failure was not upheld.”

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

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.

Even if they are (and I doubt it, UCI rules say licence has to be from country of residence, but it could be that the licence was issued before moving), the insurance that you were relying on for the motivation, is specifically excluded for non-residents.

You are right about the insurance.

However, this is the UCI rule :-

Issuing procedure
1.1.011
The licence shall be issued by the federation of the country where, according to the legislation of
that country, the applicant has his main residence at the time of application. He shall remain affiliated
to that federation until the expiry of the licence, even if he changes country of residence.

A regulation that begins like thhis is also relevant (there's a lot more to it - go and look if you like) and I think you can usually assume top professionals are riding for the right country

1.1.033
§1
For the world championships, continental championships and for teams participating in UCI
world cup events, a rider may only be selected by the federation of his nationality, regardless of the federation that issued his licence. A rider shall be subject to the regulations and disciplinary procedures of the
national federation of his nationality in all matters concerning his selection for the national team.

 

[elduggo]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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

That stinks of doping.

 

[thehog]

Re:

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

That stinks of doping.

Yes, she certainly was playing the 'ducking & weaving' game.

 

[Catwhoorg]

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 ?

Yes, its suspicious (any missed test is a little, 3 is a whole lot). But its not a slam dunk.

 

[Benotti69]

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.