The Armitstead doping thread.

[kwikki]

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

when you consider even Chris Froome - somebody who has been put through the mill annually about being perceived as a cheat - volunteered information about his missed tests, while Lizzie is trying to bury bad news.

This is an important point, I think, and people who don't follow women's cycling and have no real knowledge of LA are missing something here. From what we've seen of her in the past, from how we can judge her personality, she does not seem to accept that she has problems, all her problems are blamed on someone else. Froome, after a couple of Tour's in which he took a pummelling, after the inhaler thing, has learned that he needs to put his hand up when he gets something wrong. LA, I wonder if even if she had been through what Froome has been through, would she be able to learn the same lesson?

Ironically the problem is, had there been transparency about the case, there mightn't be such an issue with people prying about the lack of transparency about the personal matter she is under absolutely no obligation to disclose.

As always, the cover up is far more damaging than any crime.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

This is just spaghetti!

Thank you. It was meant to be.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

In her statement she said she's been part of the whereabouts system for 9 years but she seemed able to manage compliance with it for 8 years before she needed help with it. A lot of her story makes no sense and comes across as disingenuous to me.

Without knowing how many times she was tested OOC in that period, this is just wrong. We've been told something like that in the last year she's had 16 tests or something. Given her status, given the calendar, that's not many. I know from previous research that even a few years ago there was very, very little being spent on testing in the women's peloton by the UCI. For UKAD, she's a medalist and a world champion, but we have no idea of how much of a target that actually makes her. So until we can establish some numbers, cut the crap with comments like "she's been part of the whereabouts system for 9 years but she seemed able to manage compliance with it for 8 years before she needed help with it".

 

[Dalakhani]

Re: Re:

3) Why do people have a problem with Tweets deleting?

You know the answer. You know that, if those deleted tweets disproved her claim that she was dealing with a family emergency, then she'd be a proven liar.

And, if she was a proven liar, her claims about that first missed test - phone on silent - would be in doubt. And her claims about the second test - filing error, rather than deliberate misinformation - would be in doubt.

Her whole story - that she was unlucky 3 times - would fall apart, and she'd lose almost all public support. And, instead of being unlucky, would be perceived as someone who has frequently given the wrong whereabouts info in order to cover up her doping.

But, as I said, you already know this.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The motive for wiping that tweet can only be a desire to remove evidence that contradicts the account you are going to give if anyone asks you to justify failure to do the whereabouts.

FFS, it's like Hercule Poirot just walked in. And if you know your Agatha Christie you'll know that's no compliment: he got it wrong before he eventually got it right.

Look, there are dozens of reasons to delete Tweets. If I was her, I'd delete those Tweets, because I can see how stupid the mob is when it gets its pitchforks in hand and thinks all the evidence it needs to confirm its thesis is visible (and if it isn't visible, well that just proves the theory).

Given the multiple times we have seen the madness of crowds on the internet, get used to people deleting Tweets. In fact, if BC had any brains, they'd be advising all their riders to set their Tweets to autodelete. Or move to Snapchat.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

+1

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

teflondub

As they say here in Washington, D.C., "it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up".

*like*

 

[sniper]

Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

sense of entitlement appears to be from lizzie

...claims honesty....yet? is comfortable giving misleading info why not racing

Mark L

bang on the dough mark

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

sense of entitlement appears to be from lizzie

...claims honesty....yet? is comfortable giving misleading info why not racing

Mark L

UKAD has made the point that their procedure entitles an athlete to confidentiality until a violation is proved.

I know I posted this before but this thread does go round in circles

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."

What do you expect her to have said? How do you know she was comfortable with what she may have said?

 

[sniper]

wrinkleyvet, its a strawman.
and so round and round we go indeed.

maybe you should reread ferrand prevot,s statement reflecting a wider sense of embafflement among lizzie,s competitors.
the real issue is not, can we dig into lizzies private life?
the real issues are, did she dope, did ukad and BC give her a helping hand, did lizzie get special treatment?
the evidence amassed thus far points in that direction.
ever heard of occams razor? try applying it sometime.
no more going round in circles.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

wrinkleyvet, its a strawman.
and so round and round we go indeed.

maybe you should reread ferrand prevot,s statement reflecting a wider sense of embafflement among lizzie,s competitors.
the real issue is not, can we dig into lizzies private life?
the real issues are, did she dope, did ukad and BC give her a helping hand, did lizzie get special treatment?
the evidence amassed thus far points in that direction.
ever heard of occams razor? try applying it sometime.
no more going round in circles.

Why should the pronouncements of competitors with whom she has not got on in the past be the most convincing of the various views that may be expressed? I don't buy it.

As for BC, she is a prominent member of the Olympics team and she is of course a BC member. They shared with her and her legal team the legal advice they had obtained for themselves and I can't see why they should not.

UKAD gave her no helping hand - the appeal to CAS was against a UKAD black mark. It succeeded because UKAD could not show the procedure had been followed - or is that the conspiracy you claim?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

Shocking isn't it? People actually wanting the transparency Cookson promised to deliver

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

I think some consistency and transparency from the UCI and I suppose from BC and UKAD is needed, no?

 

[Vladivar]

Re:

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
.

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
.

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

What is a family crisis? A death, a divorce, debts?

Anyone who has actually gone through a family crisis like death or a cancer diagnoses knows you become exceptionally organized and matter of fact, as Jobs said "you get your affairs in order".

You don't spend the next few days cleaning up social media.

My take is you have no idea.

 

[Benotti69]

If people read what Jack Robertson told David Epstein, they would not be showing much sympathy to anyone in sport right now who is not completely transparent.

 

[sniper]

As pointed out above by another poster, everything Armissedtest did in between her third strike and the CAS ruling (i.e. winning races, the book promotion, deleting tweets) suggests she knew beforehand that she was going to be let off and that UKAD wasn't going to fight it.
This is growing into a pretty clear cut case of Russian style doping cover-up.
It's rather unlikely that Lizzie was the first to get such special treatment, nor will she be the last.

Even a sleuth must have figure out by now why UK sports were so keen on getting Cookson and Reedie and Coe in key governmental positions.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

Read what I wrote. It is an entirely innocent and appropriate tweet, quite nice in fact.

I don't think this is going any further. There is a theory offering greater depth and there is very little evidence to support it. The system is not transparent so we have no idea if anything like this has ever happened before. We all have opinions and I am more than willing to accept that what is proposed, could be wrong, exactly as FMK describes. But on the basis that what I have been fed about a withdrawal from the Giro and illness, was given in the full knowledge it was a lie designed to deceive, I am more skeptical than I would normally be.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
.

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

She deleted more than 1 tweet.

Why?

Armistead has not been transparent or honest. To date her actions mirror those who have been caught doping.

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

I think some consistency and transparency from the UCI and I suppose from BC and UKAD is needed, no?

No, it is not needed when it is good for brit riders and they could get special treatment whenever necessary.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Amazing sense of entitlement from the forum army.

I think some consistency and transparency from the UCI and I suppose from BC and UKAD is needed, no?

No, it is not needed when it is good for brit riders and they could get special treatment whenever necessary.

Well, that's a transparent comment!

 

[Vladivar]

Re: Re:

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
.

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

What is a family crisis? A death, a divorce, debts?

Anyone who has actually gone through a family crisis like death or a cancer diagnoses knows you become exceptionally organized and matter of fact, as Jobs said "you get your affairs in order".

You don't spend the next few days cleaning up social media.

My take is you have no idea.

Quite the expert i see on family issues. You think.

 

[Vladivar]

Re: Re:

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
.

At 17.10 on that day she could have heard about the family crises news and perhaps she thought "tweeting" about her wedding was insensitive and deleted.

Perhaps you have never had a family crisis and are therefore unaware how people may react.

She deleted more than 1 tweet.

Why?

Armistead has not been transparent or honest. To date her actions mirror those who have been caught doping.

Perhaps because her tweets about her wedding did not fit her families circumstances.

Her actions may mirror those who have been caught but she has not and she has reasonable excuses why as CAS agreed.

I do hope she wins Gold

 

[TheSpud]

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."

Ferrand-Prévot calling it but, someone should also ask Ferrand-Prévot for a comment on Longo.

Here comes the Benotti-doctrine again:
1. You cannot (claim to) be clean and be friends with known dopers or risk being called a hypocrite or far worse.
2. Also you cannot be in the same picture with both you and the known doper laughing, holding or shaking hands, embracing or generally appearing to have a good time together or risk being called a hypocrite or far worse.
3. If one finds oneself inadvertently in the same picture with known doper it can only while the known doper's face is among contact with you fast approaching fists or risk called a hypocrite or far worse.
4. You cannot call a known doper your friend without the explicit caveat that you know they have doped and you seriously condemn there previous behavior but nevertheless you do like them. Failure to do so will lead to risk of being called a hypocrite or far worse.

I mean, really, is that the best you can come up with?

Ha ha - brilliant, that is Benotti all over. But you did miss one thing - if all else fails just end your post with "points to doping' , 'stinks of doping' , 'lies' , or just 'doping'. That way it must be so ...