The Armitstead doping thread.

[kwikki]

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.

Your main point is that Brit cyclists are fully protected and can dope with impunity.

That is kind of hilarious, posting that in a thread about a British World Champion who's NADO went to court to try and enforce a whereabouts infringement that would have led to a 4 year ban, and only failed because CAS overturned 1/3 of the infringements.

The athlete still sits on a knife edge and has her reputation tarnished.

That's some "full protection" :lol:

 

[simoni]

Re:

Your main point is that Brit cyclists are fully protected and can dope with impunity.

That is kind of hilarious, posting that in a thread about a British World Champion who's NADO went to court to try and enforce a whereabouts infringement that would have led to a 4 year ban, and only failed because CAS overturned 1/3 of the infringements.

The athlete still sits on a knife edge and has her reputation tarnished.

That's some "full protection" :lol:

Come on now, everyone knows its just a smokescreen to protect Sky.

 

[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

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.

I have no idea where you are coming from

First you say as a fact that British have special protection, based on no evidence but probably your own xenophobia witnessed by your use of the term bit and then you dismiss out of hand the fact that in Rasmusssens on words that his team where protected.

 

[burning]

@kwikki, can you give a link for your claim, even though that's true, BC just helped her in CAS anyway. For example, Contador had all sorts of help from Spanish but he still got busted and lost his case in CAS.

@del1962, There is obvious evidence like Froome getting TUE's from Zorzoli in a dodgy way, Simon Yates' ridiculous ban and this situation. And can you please explain that why Rasmussen had to flush his bloodbag in 2005 when he had full protection?

 

[kwikki]

Re:

@kwikki, can you give a link for your claim, even though that's true, BC just helped her in CAS anyway. For example, Contador had all sorts of help from Spanish but he still got busted and lost his case in CAS.

@del1962, There is obvious evidence like Froome getting TUE's from Zorzoli in a dodgy way, Simon Yates' ridiculous ban and this situation. And can you please explain that why Rasmussen had to flush his bloodbag in 2005 when he had full protection?

A link for what claim?

There is no claim, just a setting out of well-documented facts, all of which are accepted by all.

The 'claim' is by you. All I did was point out how it is in direct contradiction to known events.

 

[burning]

I am talking about the NADO stuff, I call that a claim because I did not read anything about that and it should be very easy for you to give a link if that is a clear fact as you state.

And there is no contraction, BC, which should be objective in this case, rushed in to help her and it is a fact that her statement and UKAD's statement clearly contradicts each other but lets ignore that fact.

 

[biker jk]

Re: Re:

@kwikki, can you give a link for your claim, even though that's true, BC just helped her in CAS anyway. For example, Contador had all sorts of help from Spanish but he still got busted and lost his case in CAS.

@del1962, There is obvious evidence like Froome getting TUE's from Zorzoli in a dodgy way, Simon Yates' ridiculous ban and this situation. And can you please explain that why Rasmussen had to flush his bloodbag in 2005 when he had full protection?

A link for what claim?

There is no claim, just a setting out of well-documented facts, all of which are accepted by all.

The 'claim' is by you. All I did was point out how it is in direct contradiction to known events.

There are no "well documented facts" until the CAS case evidence is published. All we have is hearsay from Armistead.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I am talking about the NADO stuff, I call that a claim because I did not read anything about that and it should be very easy for you to give a link if that is a clear fact as you state.

And there is no contraction, BC, which should be objective in this case, rushed in to help her and it is a fact that her statement and UKAD's statement clearly contradicts each other but lets ignore that fact.

Right. So you don't know what a NADO is, but you then go on to state that BC and UKAD are contradicting each other.

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

Got it yet? Maybe you should clarify who is capable of giving "full protection".

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

@kwikki, can you give a link for your claim, even though that's true, BC just helped her in CAS anyway. For example, Contador had all sorts of help from Spanish but he still got busted and lost his case in CAS.

@del1962, There is obvious evidence like Froome getting TUE's from Zorzoli in a dodgy way, Simon Yates' ridiculous ban and this situation. And can you please explain that why Rasmussen had to flush his bloodbag in 2005 when he had full protection?

A link for what claim?

There is no claim, just a setting out of well-documented facts, all of which are accepted by all.

The 'claim' is by you. All I did was point out how it is in direct contradiction to known events.

There are no "well documented facts" until the CAS case evidence is published. All we have is hearsay from Armistead.

Untrue.

UKAD made a statement.

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

I am talking about the NADO stuff, I call that a claim because I did not read anything about that and it should be very easy for you to give a link if that is a clear fact as you state.

And there is no contraction, BC, which should be objective in this case, rushed in to help her and it is a fact that her statement and UKAD's statement clearly contradicts each other but lets ignore that fact.

Right. So you don't know what a NADO is, but you then go on to state that BC and UKAD are contradicting each other.

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

Got it yet? Maybe you should clarify who is capable of giving "full protection".

Do you know that Lance had a positive test back in the day even though he had all sorts of protection? Full protection doesn't mean that you won't trip a wire at all, it means that you can be cleared even though you trip a wire. And it is clear that BC is protecting her just like Spanish did with Contador etc. but I guess they are much more stronger than Spanish.

Edit: You dont need to be mad while protecting your precious cyclists, you will eventually figure out what ia going on just like the Lance case.

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re: Re:

@kwikki, can you give a link for your claim, even though that's true, BC just helped her in CAS anyway. For example, Contador had all sorts of help from Spanish but he still got busted and lost his case in CAS.

@del1962, There is obvious evidence like Froome getting TUE's from Zorzoli in a dodgy way, Simon Yates' ridiculous ban and this situation. And can you please explain that why Rasmussen had to flush his bloodbag in 2005 when he had full protection?

A link for what claim?

There is no claim, just a setting out of well-documented facts, all of which are accepted by all.

The 'claim' is by you. All I did was point out how it is in direct contradiction to known events.

There are no "well documented facts" until the CAS case evidence is published. All we have is hearsay from Armistead.

Untrue.

UKAD made a statement.

Which stated that while 'respecting the outcome' they awaited the reasoned decision from CAS.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I am talking about the NADO stuff, I call that a claim because I did not read anything about that and it should be very easy for you to give a link if that is a clear fact as you state.

And there is no contraction, BC, which should be objective in this case, rushed in to help her and it is a fact that her statement and UKAD's statement clearly contradicts each other but lets ignore that fact.

Right. So you don't know what a NADO is, but you then go on to state that BC and UKAD are contradicting each other.

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

Got it yet? Maybe you should clarify who is capable of giving "full protection".

Do you know that Lance had a positive test back in the day even though he had all sorts of protection? Full protection doesn't mean that you won't trip a wire at all, it means that you can be cleared even though you trip a wire. And it is clear that BC is protecting her just like Spanish did with Contador etc. but I guess they are much more stronger than Spanish.

Edit: You dont need to be mad while protecting your precious cyclists, you will eventually figure out what ia going on just like the Lance case.

Rather than resorting to the fanboy attack and the Lance meme, try to stick to a grown up debate. It really is better for everyone.

But since you have...Armstrong never got near a CAS hearing, nor did any anti-doping authority attempt to prosecute him. Unlike Armistead, who is still 2/3 of the way to a 4 year ban. So your comparison is pretty dim.

And as for BC 'protecting' her, it's their job. The comparison with Spain is not apt. As far as I am aware the British Prime Minister hasn't made a public statement in favour of Armistead putting political pressure on UKAD.


UKAD persisted in trying to ban Armistead. The only reason Armistead isn't banned is because she took the case to CAS and disputed one of the missed tests. CAS agreed, and therefore unless you think CAS are "fully protecting" Armistead you'd have to agree that BC was correct in supporting Armistead.

 

[burning]

Lance is just an example to state that things can go wrong even though you have protection. You dont have to be overly defensive and start ad hominem attacks when someone gives an argument.

As far as I know, BC should be objective in these cases. For example, did bc helped JTL in his case? If not, then why? Maybe the reason is that their stance regarding different riders wary wildly for some reason.

 

[SeriousSam]

Brave comments from Ferrand-Prévot.

“I said the decision was shameful. I never said she took something or that she has doped," said Ferrand-Prévot.

"The rules have to be the same for everyone. Otherwise, we no longer have [anti-doping] control. I was still tested three times a week.

"She didn't show up for a test. The tester didn't find her, that's what she says. In any case, when you have three no-shows, it's you who has the problem."

Although some in the cycling community of athletes reacted on social media concerning Armitstead's whereabouts errors and CAS' final decision, most were relatively quiet.

However, Ferrand-Prevot said, "Everyone agrees with me but nobody said anything. If it happened to me, then the Federation would say, 'You're not participating in the games,' and that's it."

 

[glassmoon]

PFP got burned
https://twitter.com/FERRANDPREVOT/status/760266326015414272

 

[samhocking]

She's a fellow athlete. What is she hoping to achieve by saying the CAS decision is shameful? The reality is either the whereabouts procedure is flawed allowing a strike when the athlete is where they say they are and CAS can remove the strike,or its flawed because CAS is protecting Armistead. Either way the decision isn't shameful, it's the result of an already flawed whereabouts system. Athletes should be demanding the process be reviewed by WADA.

 

[Tienus]

She's a fellow athlete. What is she hoping to achieve by saying the CAS decision is shameful?

Because of omerta there aren't that many outspoken cyclist. There seems to be an exception if riders feel they would have been treated differently.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

I was with this until this morning. I think I can paint another scenario that has greys in it.

You are at two missed tests and you get a third. You don't sit on your backside to "wait and see" keeping humming, hoping the letter will never arrive. You pick up the phone and start talking to BC. Where is my babysitter? Why didn't he sort it all out for me ? It is all your your fault BC ; see what you can do. ?

UK Sport need to cover their backside. If it gets out they have wiped a completely bona fide test violation off the books, they are going to be deep in the brown stuff. Sapstead will have to go. She is brazening out the Dr Bonar stuff but wobbling.

Even though I criticised the "provisional suspension" route yesterday, I was not thinking it all through. there just has to be a means of a full suspension being implemented. But yes, maybe that would then have to be recorded on the public log whereas "OK we hear you (BC & LA) , we will provisionally suspend you, that satisfies our requirements, and then you can take it to CAS. That way it is all kept out of the media.

The unknown was - how hard would UKADA/UKSport defend it at CAS ?

Now if, and that is a very big if, you had some sort of indication from the NADO that they were not going to put up anything other than token resistance at CAS, well hey, life could return to normal and you could get on racing and then when you are on the provisional suspension, sort out publishing your book and preparing for Rio. No one is going to be any the wiser.

So the decision there is one for UKSport/UKADA - how hard do they want to press back? What will a "victory" at CAS look like ? Reigning world champ and hot favourite suspended. Smoke from the gun wafting right back to the embattled senior management at BC - the story of the greatest ascendance to world domination by a GB NGB ever witnessed in our sporting history, put even further into doubt ?

Were Sapstead and Nicholl up for the tough decision ? If I were a betting man, my money would not have been on that pair going down the line of greatest resistance, even if it was morally the only route their job descriptions tell them it has to.

Look, Nicholl threw how much public money getting Readie into office at WADA ? She would know what he is like. What he is like was made crystal clear yesterday, he didn't want to challenge the Russians over the doping, his subordinate had to leak information to make it so it was near impossible for him to continue to sit on his hands. This is not a new trait for Readie. Nicholl knows Readie and she likes his style, that is why she committed so much of our public money to supporting his bid to become president.

Any takers out there for UKADA fight this one hard at CAS ?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Right. So you don't know what a NADO is, but you then go on to state that BC and UKAD are contradicting each other.

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

Throw the towel in K, they don't want to know the truth, they don't want to argue armed with facts, they ignore facts, they ignore truth, they just want to wail and moan.

 

[gillan1969]

She's a fellow athlete. What is she hoping to achieve by saying the CAS decision is shameful? The reality is either the whereabouts procedure is flawed allowing a strike when the athlete is where they say they are and CAS can remove the strike,or its flawed because CAS is protecting Armistead. Either way the decision isn't shameful, it's the result of an already flawed whereabouts system. Athletes should be demanding the process be reviewed by WADA.

we don't know if its shameful or not as we've not seen it

perhaps as a fellow cyclist on the circuit she knows more than we do and is therefore in a better position to call something shameful?

point taken about the flawed system though....

 

[hfer07]

just another proof that UKAD is protecting their national cyclists in full cooperation with the UCI....

 

[GJB123]

I haven't read through all of the new pages since my last visit to this topic (with laryngitis and all), but are we any wiser on cataclysmic family emergency prevented her from updating ADAMS properly for the third strike. I appreciate that privacy is involved but if for example it was the "mere" death of the family dog or cat, I have a harder time reconciling that with not updating your ADAMS when you are already on two strikes and possibly losing your livelihood, passion and career. It would have been so much better if had come out straight away with a real tear jerker that was proven correct than this whole privacy and silence thing.

 

[fmk_RoI]

perhaps as a fellow cyclist on the circuit she knows more than we do and is therefore in a better position to call something shameful?

And perhaps she's just (fairly) taking a pop to settle an old score, such as the post 2014 Worlds war of words (there are others, plenty of others, that fuel the fire).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

I was with this until this morning. I think I can paint another scenario that has greys in it.

You are at two missed tests and you get a third. You don't sit on your backside to "wait and see" keeping humming, hoping the letter will never arrive. You pick up the phone and start talking to BC. Where is my babysitter? Why didn't he sort it all out for me ? It is all your your fault BC ; see what you can do. ?

UK Sport need to cover their backside. If it gets out they have wiped a completely bona fide test violation off the books, they are going to be deep in the brown stuff. Sapstead will have to go. She is brazening out the Dr Bonar stuff but wobbling.

Even though I criticised the "provisional suspension" route yesterday, I was not thinking it all through. there just has to be a means of a full suspension being implemented. But yes, maybe that would then have to be recorded on the public log whereas "OK we hear you (BC & LA) , we will provisionally suspend you, that satisfies our requirements, and then you can take it to CAS. That way it is all kept out of the media.

The unknown was - how hard would UKADA/UKSport defend it at CAS ?

Now if, and that is a very big if, you had some sort of indication from the NADO that they were not going to put up anything other than token resistance at CAS, well hey, life could return to normal and you could get on racing and then when you are on the provisional suspension, sort out publishing your book and preparing for Rio. No one is going to be any the wiser.

So the decision there is one for UKSport/UKADA - how hard do they want to press back? What will a "victory" at CAS look like ? Reigning world champ and hot favourite suspended. Smoke from the gun wafting right back to the embattled senior management at BC - the story of the greatest ascendance to world domination by a GB NGB ever witnessed in our sporting history, put even further into doubt ?

Were Sapstead and Nicholl up for the tough decision ? If I were a betting man, my money would not have been on that pair going down the line of greatest resistance, even if it was morally the only route their job descriptions tell them it has to.

Look, Nicholl threw how much public money getting Readie into office at WADA ? She would know what he is like. What he is like was made crystal clear yesterday, he didn't want to challenge the Russians over the doping, his subordinate had to leak information to make it so it was near impossible for him to continue to sit on his hands. This is not a new trait for Readie. Nicholl knows Readie and she likes his style, that is why she committed so much of our public money to supporting his bid to become president.

Any takers out there for UKADA fight this one hard at CAS ?

Great post.
If UKAD were after catching athletes, they could actually test one of them positive for a change.
I'm with Burning on this one. He makes some coherent points. Even the most protected athletes are tested. The protection consists of helping atjlete avoid a ban.
This now appears to be true for Russian topathletes as much as for British.
The available evidence suggests UKADA aren't much different from RUSADA.

 

[fmk_RoI]

just another proof that UKAD is protecting their national cyclists in full cooperation with the UCI....

What role did UCI play in this?