The Armitstead doping thread.

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

no time to update whereabouts form. But plenty of time to tweet about wedding bands and then delete those tweets

Three facts need to be established for this to be true and an issue:

1) When she Tweeted (date and time) - both known
2) When the emergency arose (date and time) - date known, time not
3) When she deleted the Tweet (date and time) - neither known

We know half of what we need to know to declare this an issue. But why let a lack of information inhibit us? Fill the void with speculation tarted up as fact.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

To miss three tests though is not normal

Rosa. Misses one test that's his fault. Then UCI mess up twice in three days, bringing him to three in twelve months.

How many Rosas are there out there? We don't know, we don't get the stats. Yet still people are able to state categorically what is and what is not normal.

That's a very poor comparison you've just drawn.

In Rosa's case the tester got the completely wrong venue, in Amitstead case the tester was at the correct venue, however she wasn't available - forgetting to add her room number and put her phone on silent.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

In Rosa's case the tester got the completely wrong venue, in Amitstead case the tester was at the correct venue, however she wasn't available - forgetting to add her room number and put her phone on silent.

You're not reading what I wrote. Go back and try again. The question was how many Rosas are there out there, how often do mistakes happen and how often do they get corrected.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

In Rosa's case the tester got the completely wrong venue, in Amitstead case the tester was at the correct venue, however she wasn't available - forgetting to add her room number and put her phone on silent.

You're not reading what I wrote. Go back and try again. The question was how many Rosas are there out there, how often do mistakes happen and how often do they get corrected.

You're attempting to create a false economy.

There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers. That is, after a missed tested has occurred which was due to an error the athlete can lodged an objection once they are informed. It's fairly straightforward.

In Rosa's case, it was lodged and accepted, no need for CAS appeal. In Amistead's case she objected to the first test via an appeal to CAS once UKAD recorded the violation. Not at the time when the test was missed once she received notification.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

To miss three tests though is not normal

Rosa. Misses one test that's his fault. Then UCI mess up twice in three days, bringing him to three in twelve months.

How many Rosas are there out there? We don't know, we don't get the stats. Yet still people are able to state categorically what is and what is not normal.

Yeah, you're probably right. Half the peloton are missing three tests a year - it's normal as can be.

The apologists are really clutching at straws now.

 

[sniper]

^agreed.

and did Rosa come up with crap excuses and some halftruths and lies about illness, whilst deleting tweets, winning big races, and promoting a book in the process? Not to my recollection.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers.

Good point. Well made. Now, who do we know who recently had a missed text expunged after these rules were applied?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

In Rosa's case, it was lodged and accepted, no need for CAS appeal. In Amistead's case she objected to the first test via an appeal to CAS once UKAD recorded the violation. Not at the time when the test was missed once she received notification.

By her own account she offered UKAD an explanation which they rejected, did not follow through with a formal challenge and then (in full accordance with the WADA established rules) challenged the decision at CAS. There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Yeah, you're probably right. Half the peloton are missing three tests a year - it's normal as can be.

How you know that to be normal I do not know - would you care to share your statistics with the rest of us? TIA.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

did Rosa come up with crap excuses and some halftruths and lies about illness, whilst deleting tweets, winning big races, and promoting a book in the process? Not to my recollection.

Have you checked?

 

[burning]

If he did, I would bet my life that the anglo media would have jumped on the story, so I would assume that he did not do these stuff that sniper mentioned.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

did Rosa come up with crap excuses and some halftruths and lies about illness, whilst deleting tweets, winning big races, and promoting a book in the process? Not to my recollection.

Have you checked?

i said not to my recollection. do i need to check my recollection?
and i do trust you to have checked.
you brought him up as a recipient of false strikes.
if he did do all that, he likely wasn't a recipient of false strikes, but a recipient of correct strikes trying to eliminate/dodge said strikes under false pretenses.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

did Rosa come up with crap excuses and some halftruths and lies about illness, whilst deleting tweets, winning big races, and promoting a book in the process? Not to my recollection.

Have you checked?

i said not to my recollection. do i need to check my recollection?
and i do trust you to have checked.
you brought him up as a recipient of false strikes.
if he did do all that, he likely wasn't a recipient of false strikes, but a recipient of correct strikes trying to eliminate/dodge said strikes under false pretenses.

This is of course a complete red herring except that it is pointed out to you that Twitter has nothing to do with it, as is often the case.

The "excuse" by Armitstead of family issues was not supposed to be entitling her not to count that missed test - of course it was missed and it counts as one of the two. She apparently made the comment as a mitigating factor and may have thought people would understand it better, but of course they don't.

The only relevant factor in Armitstead's case is the first missed test that was expunged, and everyone seems so cross about that. "Escaped" perhaps, but CAS accepted that the tester did not follow the procedure to contact her. Her tweets were around the time of one of the tests that counted and I don't suppose any amount of analysis will make that any the worse or any the better. It was a fail.

In the case of Rosa:-

“Then, on June 23 and 25 last month, there was a misunderstanding with the UCI inspectors sent to perform tests ahead of the Italian Championships. They got the wrong place and so it was a question of procedural error rather than missed tests.

“But it wasn’t a question of rider error and the episode was clarified. So there’s no case: Diego Rosa can duly participate in the Olympic road race.”

Whether he tweeted, deleted, stood on his head or turned somersaults, it would make no difference. The error was not his, just as in the Armitstead case the expunged "missed" test was found not to be her fault.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers.

Good point. Well made. Now, who do we know who recently had a missed text expunged after these rules were applied?

What we await is "how" the rules were applied in this case. Not if the rules were applied.

What is in question is how she got herself into this position and what were the reasons behind the test being expunged.

It's really not difficult to understand.

 

[DFA123]

Armitstead apologists using a former Androni and current Astana rider getting cleared in a completely different situation to indirectly defend their compromised hero.

This is desperate stuff.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Armitstead apologists using a former Androni and current Astana rider getting cleared in a completely different situation to indirectly defend their compromised hero.

This is desperate stuff.

Not so. burning wrote this on the Astana thread.

I think Sky would not pick him up because of this stuff and I would love to see brit bots defending Rosa like they are doing with Lizzie, especially if he does not go to Sky.

I am happy to defend Rosa - it was not his fault. I am also entitled to the same view about Armitstead. I am not even sure the Rosa case went to CAS as the reports don't seem to say, but I accept nonetheless without any reservation that it was not his fault.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Armitstead apologists using a former Androni and current Astana rider getting cleared in a completely different situation to indirectly defend their compromised hero.

This is desperate stuff.

It certainly appears that way. "The rules were applied ok! so please stop talking it" :surprised:

 

[sniper]

it's no longer as much about the missed tests and the validity of Armistest's excuses, as it is about the evidence suggesting (she knew) she was in the clear zone well before the CAS ruling.
UKAD and BC had her back and she knew it. They just had to get their stories straight and lined up.
Hence the deleted tweets. And voila, for Armistest it was back to winning races, promoting a book and preparing her wedding, all that after the third strike but before the CAS hearing.
No worries.

Rosa? I don't doubt that his envelope was thick enough to convince UCI it was their own fault, not Rosa's. But that case has zero bearing on Armistest's case. Indeed bringing him up in defense of Armistest is desperate.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

it's no longer as much about the missed tests and the validity of Armistest's excuses, as it is about the evidence suggesting (she knew) she was in the clear zone well before the CAS ruling.
UKAD and BC had her back and she knew it. They just had to get their stories straight and lined up.
Hence the deleted tweets. And voila, for Armistest it was back to winning races, promoting a book and preparing her wedding, all that after the third strike but before the CAS hearing.
No worries.

Rosa? I don't doubt that his envelope was thick enough to convince UCI it was their own fault, not Rosa's. But that case has zero bearing on Armistest's case. Indeed bringing him up in defense of Armistest is desperate.

I don't bring him up in defence of Armitstead. The principle is identical all the same.

You say it is about the evidence suggesting (she knew) she was in the clear zone well before the CAS ruling. Well there's no way you will know.

You have had to move on to that as there's no doubt that the CAS was the right tribunal to decide the real issue and it's just as well that it was not decided by the hanging panel of the Clinic.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
You say it is about the evidence suggesting (she knew) she was in the clear zone well before the CAS ruling. Well there's no way you will know.

how do you know?
is all potential evidence neatly burried and deleted?
seems you know better than i do how such things get shoved under the carpet effectively and without trace.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

...
You say it is about the evidence suggesting (she knew) she was in the clear zone well before the CAS ruling. Well there's no way you will know.

how do you know?
is all potential evidence neatly burried and deleted?
seems you know better than i do how such things get shoved under the carpet effectively and without trace.

My hunch is as valid as yours, but if this interests you so much I expect you will keep at it!

 

[Der Effe]

Being British really equals a get-out-of-jail-free card nowadays.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers.

Good point. Well made. Now, who do we know who recently had a missed text expunged after these rules were applied?

The WADA rules - not some extra 'guidance' that UKAD provided, that many people here seem to want to say are the rules. It's the WADA rules that govern this case, not anything else.

 

[Chaddy]

Re:

Being British really equals a get-out-of-jail-free card nowadays.

With our superior ability in riding bikes and sports administration I expect nothing less.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There are rules in place to correct mistakes made by testers.

Good point. Well made. Now, who do we know who recently had a missed text expunged after these rules were applied?

The WADA rules - not some extra 'guidance' that UKAD provided, that many people here seem to want to say are the rules. It's the WADA rules that govern this case, not anything else.

True and if you were a clean athlete you would have no issue in supplying a room number. If you are doping and attempting to avoid testing, you don't provide a room number and put phone to silent.

Or you're just totally incompetent doing everything but update whereabouts.