The Armitstead doping thread.

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

The system needs to be tightened up with limitation periods on disputing whereabouts failures. It is ridiculous that it can be circumvented like this.

While I agree with that I also think you need to overhaul the appeals process. At first I wondered why she didn't appeal the missed test immediately, I still think she (i.e. Lizzie Armitstead) should have, but that is because she likely has the resources to do so.

The think is, these rules apply all the way down the chain of tested athletes in every participating sport and many of these people likely do not have the resources or team backing to not just fund the appeal but also fund the lawyers, travel, lost time competing/training etc. that an appeal will likely result in. In this situation I think it's highly likely people would not appeal unless they absolutely have to and I would like to see a situation where athletes are not forced to pay out every time someone else makes a mistake. There are very good ways to do this, including making the agency at fault liable for the athletes fees (and vice versa) or allowing athletes to lodge an objection within a certain time frame which means they can challenge a decision at a later date if required. I would prefer to see a system like one of these put in place, probably the later.

Do you realize that the sum total of effort required to resolve an initial whereabouts failure (ie, a "missed test") is to write an email and send it to the anti-doping agency explaining why you missed the test?

And if your explanation is credible, a filing failure isn't recorded against you?

How long does it take you to write an email saying you were not locatable because [insert credible explanation here]? That's how long it takes and the resources involved in not accumulating a formal strike for a missed test.

Sheesh.

Joe, would you describe the level of awareness of how easy that email process is to explain away any logistical ***-up to be:

(A.) The kind of thing you would expect from a 26-year old, professional team-leading World Champion?

(B.) Not something that poor, little naive Lizzie-Wizzie could ever expect to know in the land of grown-ups?

I mean, it's not like you (the athlete in OOC testing pool) are subjected to annual continuing education sessions that explicitly tell you how to maintain and update your whereabouts via the most expeditious means.

Oh wait - you are.

And it's not like when you're notified of a filing failure, the exact steps you need to take to respond with explanation for your whereabouts failure are made clear to you.

Oh wait - they are...

 

[TeflonDub]

Lol! Thanks, Joe.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Do you know how many missed tests lesser riders have?

Happens all the time according to the tester interviewed by ctips.

P.s. Van der Breggen is the dominant rider, not Armistead.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Per CQ ranking points Anna VDB is only 9th this year. Lizzie is 3rd, behind Megan Guarnier and Emma Johansson.

Megan has done 32 race days this year. Emma J has done 46. Lizzie has done 22.

Anna van der Breggen has won one race this year (La Flèche Wallonne). Lizzie, in her 22 days of racing, has won seven (five of which were at the World Tour level). The only people to have won more than Lizzie this year are Marianne Vos (many of which have been in national calendar races) and Arlenis Sierra (who has mostly been bossing thin fields in Latin America). Guarnier (four of whose wins are in the US) and Niewiadoma (none of whose wins are at the World Tour level and two are in the nationals against weak fields) have won as many.

In the UCI Women's WorldTour rankings, Lizzie ranks 2nd behind Guarnier; van der Breggen is 6th (having just one podium - the Giro Rosa GC - beside her win at FW). Kirchmann, Longo Borghini and Stevens are all ahead of her.

Lizzie's season started with a win at Omloop, a win at Strade Bianche (WT), pulling out of Drenthe with a migraine, a win at Trofeo Binda (WT), sitting back behind a teammate's win in Gent-Wevelgem, a win in the Ronde (WT). She didn't do any of the pre-season short stage races, nor any of the mid-week Lotto Cycling Cup type races many of her competitors were doing to keep form going at that point; she was working on a strict diet of training sessions and World Tour races and it was working for her.

The only rider you could argue is the dominant rider at the moment that isn't Lizzie would be Megan Guarnier. And even then, while Megan's had an incredible year, apart from Philadelphia, none of her wins have been particularly crushingly dominant in the way Lizzie's solo in Omloop was, nor have the ones I've seen (I can't vouch for those without coverage obviously) seemed as effortless as the way she kept the chase at bay whilst still doing a number on Neff and Johansson at Binda and de Ronde.

None of this has any bearing on whether Lizzie does or doesn't cheat, though admittedly it is hard not to look at the fact that her season has consisted almost entirely of victory or sickness without the recent furore colouring your interpretation. But to say that Anna van der Breggen is the dominant rider is a long, long way from being accurate right now. If anything I'd say that Anna - and Rabo as a whole - would emerge from the season fairly disappointed if it ended tomorrow.

 

[kwikki]

Every single one of the bookmakers disagree with you.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Lol! Thanks, Joe.

Considering the 1st "Missed Test" would be recorded in ADAMS she most certainly would have received an alert (mail) in the app as well. LA claims the first she knew was when she received the letter but it would be in ADAMS the minute the doping control officer recorded it as "missed" and the reason.

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/Closing+an+Incomplete+Test

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Every single one of the bookmakers disagree with you.

You said Anna was the dominant rider, not that she was the favourite for the Olympic road race. The Road Race is one particular race day within 2016, and one which is more suited to Anna than to the riders who have been most dominant over the course of the whole season (of which Armitstead is one and Guarnier is the other), hence why the bookmakers have Anna as the favourite for the Road Race.

However, nobody who's paid attention to women's cycling in 2016 would call Anna the dominant rider in the péloton right now.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Every single one of the bookmakers disagree with you.

You said Anna was the dominant rider, not that she was the favourite for the Olympic road race. The Road Race is one particular race day within 2016, and one which is more suited to Anna than to the riders who have been most dominant over the course of the whole season (of which Armitstead is one and Guarnier is the other), hence why the bookmakers have Anna as the favourite for the Road Race.

However, nobody who's paid attention to women's cycling in 2016 would call Anna the dominant rider in the péloton right now.

Perhaps you didn't read the post to which I was responding?

Isn't it just typical! All these administrative problems when there is an olympic road race coming up and you are the dominant rider. Why can't these things happen when you are a lesser rider? But no, it has to happen when you are on top of the world and there is an olympics on. !

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

UKAD also defended the decision to keep the investigation out of the public domain. "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."

You can rail against the rules, but she's not at fault in laying a smokescreen to have the benefit of that decision by UKAD.

Thank you for deciding to tell me what the correct definition of "to *** was". My definition was wrong.

Two points - UKAD rules. Just what sort of intellectually, incontinent, imbeciles drew those up - provisional suspension ? The whole point of an "Appeal" is to challenge a decision. By definition, that means a decision has to be made in the first place, not some "provisional" stuff. Isn't Liz Nicholl paid enough to get a decision out of her organisation ? (I would record her salary, because I expect is is slightly larger than that of the Prime Minister. but the last "organogram" ~(I jest not) held at the national archives recording the structure and salaries of staff at UKSport will not load - and is out of date - Sept 2011 ! )

This is sport, let's make it a little more serious than LA's hurt feelings that people might know she missed 3 tests and is challenging it. Let's make it murder or rape. The law works like this. The evidence is gathered, the appropriate forum for determining liability is selected and the case heard. For murder and rape it is trial, in the public forum with the decision resting with a jury. Reporting restrictions can be put in place by the judge but once the decision is made, if convicted, these restrictions are removed. The threshold for reporting restrictions are significant. I am not confident "LA's fans will not like what they find out and Kellogs might not sponsor her next year if the public really knew she missed the tests the public were paying to be conducted" would wash.

Post the DECISION, if the convicted is able to demonstrate that they have new evidence, evidence was not considered or the conduct of the trial was somehow incorrect or prejudiced, then the convicted is able to appeal the decision.

What we have here is some sort of weird made-up-special-sporty-t ype stuff. A "provisional decision" appears to be a mechanism deliberately placed in the system to allow the governance of sport to do what the governance of sport always wants to do - that is to get their decision making and verdicts behind closed doors and out of the public eye. And there is only ever one reason elements in society wish to do that, which is to enshrine power in a small elite.

Why should society not grant a falsely convicted murderer the same protection of anonymity it deems to grant a sporting star who does not subject themselves to the testing regimen society has deemed appropriate ? Think of the family of the convicted murderer, what wouldn't they give for one tenth the cover gifted to LA !

I would argue that this is typical of the governance of sport that has got sport into the mess it is in right now with new crisis in FIFA, the IAAF, the IOC and the UCI seemingly never out of crisis, regardless of leadership changes.

Then you argue she is not at fault in laying a smokescreen. I would argue that she was at fault and in being seen to be at fault, in a deliberate and calculated deception, she has not only harmed herself but actually done a lot of harm to both women's cycling and GB cycling. Innocents will suffer as a result of her selfish behaviour.

I would argue that an alternate strategy would have taken advantage of transparency, particularly if it was voluntary. The factual position is that she has not tested positive. Undoubtedly she would have brought down censure on her head. But by accepting that censure as the response to her personal failings, she may have kept the confidence of more of the public who pay so much to support their sports stars, and more of her own personal fans. All this "the dog ate my homework" and "some guy BC paid to do my job, left, and I never realised him not calling me to ask me where I was going to be, meant it wasn't getting done - just who'd have thunk it ?" type stuff is very, very poor.

Great post. As well as being outed as a probable doper, Armitstead has shown herself to be a real coward as well. Not accepting personal responsiblity and not putting the importance of an anti-doping system above here own personal ambitions.

UKAD and British Cycling both trying to sweep doping under the carpet when it concerns a big name is by far the least surprising develpment from this saga. They are two of the least transparent organisations in professional sport.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No, I read it, I just saw it as two separate statements, both of which I felt were fair:
- there is an Olympic road race coming up
- in the last 12 months a very convincing case could be made that Armitstead is the dominant rider in the women's péloton.

If you read it as one statement, I see where you're coming from, however, I would have thought that it would be an odd turn of phrase to use "the dominant rider" as a synonym for "the favourite for this particular race", mainly as there aren't too many such one-day races on the women's calendar; the final climb is steeper than the longer climbs seen in the likes of Binda, and the climb is steeper for longer than the kind of terrain Armitstead usually excels in. And, you know, there are many, many races on the calendar in which the rider who has been the most successful is not the favourite (for an extreme example, Cancellara was the dominant TT rider in 2009-10 but if he'd started the Giro nobody would make him favourite for Kronplatz). And Lizzie's calendar has for years steered clear of the more sustained climbing races other than the Giro which she doesn't tend to ride for GC, so predicting her performance here is more difficult than in many other races. And because the turn of phrase made much more sense to me when I read it as Armitstead being the dominant rider in the world right now and there being an Olympic road race coming up, that's what I based my response to your statement on.

 

[kwikki]

I rather lazily used the other poster's turn of phrase.

Sorry if it caused consternation

 

[Benotti69]

Armistead in an interview claims "i have not cheated my competitors"......the fans dont matter. But she is right. Doping is rife.

https://twitter.com/SSbike/status/761316145270026244

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

The system needs to be tightened up with limitation periods on disputing whereabouts failures. It is ridiculous that it can be circumvented like this.

While I agree with that I also think you need to overhaul the appeals process. At first I wondered why she didn't appeal the missed test immediately, I still think she (i.e. Lizzie Armitstead) should have, but that is because she likely has the resources to do so.

The think is, these rules apply all the way down the chain of tested athletes in every participating sport and many of these people likely do not have the resources or team backing to not just fund the appeal but also fund the lawyers, travel, lost time competing/training etc. that an appeal will likely result in. In this situation I think it's highly likely people would not appeal unless they absolutely have to and I would like to see a situation where athletes are not forced to pay out every time someone else makes a mistake. There are very good ways to do this, including making the agency at fault liable for the athletes fees (and vice versa) or allowing athletes to lodge an objection within a certain time frame which means they can challenge a decision at a later date if required. I would prefer to see a system like one of these put in place, probably the later.

Do you realize that the sum total of effort required to resolve an initial whereabouts failure (ie, a "missed test") is to write an email and send it to the anti-doping agency explaining why you missed the test?

And if your explanation is credible, a filing failure isn't recorded against you?

How long does it take you to write an email saying you were not locatable because [insert credible explanation here]? That's how long it takes and the resources involved in not accumulating a formal strike for a missed test.

Sheesh.

She probably should have done a proper appeal at the time but I can kind of understand why she wouldn't bother with the hassle...

Wow. The hassle of composing and sending an email...

Certainly sounds straightfwd enough but I think I read somewhere that she did just that back in the autumn but it was refused. Can't seem to lay my hands on the article right now. So presumably didnt/wouldnt go through the CAS stage at that point.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

18 pages about a nice Sky girl allready? The new Marianne Vos? Women dont dope guys, the just miss tests, period.

 

[pastronef]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

18 pages about a nice Sky girl allready? The new Marianne Vos? Women dont dope guys, the just miss tests, period.

Last word in that^^ referring to biopassport. :geek:

Vos is rumoured to have tested positive and faked injury. I dont know.

 

[BullsFan22]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re: Re:

Typically if you've been marked down for a missed test, you wouldn't find out you have missed it until you receive the letter which is usually around two weeks.later.

The way I read Lizzies statement, was the UKAD officer asked reception for Armisteads room number and of course no hotel will give you a room number against just a name. The officer then called Armisteads room and I would assume this was from the receptionists phone. Assuming no voicemail was left, Armistead simply had a missed call from reception.
We now know Armistead did appeal via letter to UKAD after the first missed test though.
The thing is, Strict conditions mean that further appeal to the CAS from UKAD would be unlikely to be accepted, so unless they appeal, well never know now.

So, she now put the hotel room phone on silent? That can be done?

I get the sense you're making this up as you go along...

Cannot be a missed call from Reception . Reception would always call on hotel intercom to the room directly waking up the people. Missed call has to be from testers phone to LA's Mobile.

 

[IndianCyclist]

I will also lay a major portion of LA's escape onto the UKAD, Why haven't they standardized procedure so that it cannot be challenged in court. Why haven't WADA issued the std guidelines. Why is appeal for a missed test rejected by UKAD without proper investigation.
Message for UCI - Make everything transparent otherwise this sport is not going to be credible even in the next 100 years. Missed tests, provisional suspension, TUE, doping/blood/urine test values need to be made public. In the twitter age, the greatest fear that any athlete has is trial by media/public as it hurts sponsorship of that athlete. Making everything public force the athlete to become extremely cautious and will help to prevent lot of doping. It is the best deterrent other than direct policing.

 

[TeflonDub]

Re:

Armistead in an interview claims "i have not cheated my competitors"......the fans dont matter. But she is right. Doping is rife.

https://twitter.com/SSbike/status/761316145270026244

Lizzie did not come across as somebody who had just been exonerated after an embarrassing little misunderstanding got cleared up. She's the one who mentioned she will have questions asked of her for the rest of her life. I don't think she's thinking about the CAS ruling. She realizes that whatever narrative she had created in her mind to justify whatever measures she was taking to be competitive has just been blown up and now she isn't sure who she is as a person. The old "methinks she doth protest too much" feeling is unmistakable.

One benefit of the doubt I will give her for the personal turmoil she showed in that interview was the spanner that Deignan threw in the works talking about Ferrand-Prevot's love life. Knowing that you have to face all your work colleagues after your idiot fiancé showed up drunk at the Christmas party and shouted for all to hear that the boss was having an affair would give anybody a knot in their stomach. She may not have been the most popular in the peloton, so adding that baggage to every day of her professional life must be a head-wrecker.

 

[blaxland]

What a shame another top level cyclist has missed a test or two.guess she is lucky she is on team sky.lol.looks like im cheering for Emma Johansson in rio

 

[burning]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

I miss the "ouch" part as everyone who has been watching cycling for a while knows Rasmussen's history and yes, he had to hide to charge up as he did not have full protection unlike brit cyclists. Btw, dimspace is a class a skybot, so his opinions are pretty much worthless to me and I guess that it is worthless for many other people as well.

 

[pastronef]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

I miss the "ouch" part as everyone who has been watching cycling for a while knows Rasmussen's history and yes, he had to hide to charge up as he did not have full protection unlike brit cyclists. Btw, dimspace is a class a skybot, so his opinions are pretty much worthless to me and I guess that it is worthless for many other people as well.

thank you for letting us know that.

 

[del1962]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

I miss the "ouch" part as everyone who has been watching cycling for a while knows Rasmussen's history and yes, he had to hide to charge up as he did not have full protection unlike brit cyclists. Btw, dimspace is a class a skybot, so his opinions are pretty much worthless to me and I guess that it is worthless for many other people as well.

According to Rasmussen’s testimony, Leinders met with Zorzoli, and following the meeting, Rasmussen was assured by Leinders that “Rabobank was a team that had ‘butter on its head’ … meaning that all the problems, doping related problems the team had, would slide off. And he called me the most protected rider in the race.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/01/news/rasmussen-testimony-implicates-mario-zorzoli-ucis-chief-medical-officer_359005#k3biGKRQgwZH330H.99

As the quote above, Rasmussen had full protection

And you use of the terms skybot and brit bot makes you arguments look both rabid and weak

 

[burning]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

I miss the "ouch" part as everyone who has been watching cycling for a while knows Rasmussen's history and yes, he had to hide to charge up as he did not have full protection unlike brit cyclists. Btw, dimspace is a class a skybot, so his opinions are pretty much worthless to me and I guess that it is worthless for many other people as well.

thank you for letting us know that.

I guess you are just happy ignore my main point. By the way, you are welcome.

 

[burning]

https://www.twitter.com/dimspace/status/761295271087206402

‏1) @SkyNews
IOC President Thomas Bach says that Olympic cheaters "have nowhere to hide" #Rio2016

2) @MRasmussen1974
Sorry to bring it to you , Bach. You don't have to hide in order to cheat. #Rio2016

3) @dimspace
Is saying you are in Mexico when you are in Italy technically "hiding" ?

Ouch. Was there a reply from the chicken?

I miss the "ouch" part as everyone who has been watching cycling for a while knows Rasmussen's history and yes, he had to hide to charge up as he did not have full protection unlike brit cyclists. Btw, dimspace is a class a skybot, so his opinions are pretty much worthless to me and I guess that it is worthless for many other people as well.

According to Rasmussen’s testimony, Leinders met with Zorzoli, and following the meeting, Rasmussen was assured by Leinders that “Rabobank was a team that had ‘butter on its head’ … meaning that all the problems, doping related problems the team had, would slide off. And he called me the most protected rider in the race.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/01/news/rasmussen-testimony-implicates-mario-zorzoli-ucis-chief-medical-officer_359005#k3biGKRQgwZH330H.99

As the quote above, Rasmussen had full protection

And you use of the terms skybot and brit bot makes you arguments look both rabid and weak

I guess he had full protection when he had to flush his blood bag in 2005 and got kicked out in 2007. By the way, you should find this article really funny as Zorzoli supplies Froome TUE's whenever it is necessary.