The Armitstead doping thread.

[fmk_RoI]

CAS can't be trusted? http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-sabotage-alleged-in-testing-of-alex-schwazer/

 

[thehog]

Re:

Exactly, that's what's so messed up with how it works at the moment. The voluntariness of the athlete is a presumption which isn't based on reality. The legal relationship should therefore be recognised as Criminal law and the due process protections afforded to athletes should reflect this instead of how it works currently which is essentially Private Contract Law where CAS, WADA & UKAD (all anti-doping agencys for that matter) don't actually review the rules which they are enforcing. Edit: and so are essentially all an anti-doping monopoly on athletes livelihoods.

Not criminal law but CPR - Civil Procedure rules should be applied. The Woolf reforms in the UK enabled the lower courts and arbitration hearing to be organized formally. It also made it easier for everyday humans to represent themselves.

The Pechstein case showed that CAS at times can be unfair or more to the point not equipped at dealing with complex cases with regards to the law, science and human biology.

Landis's case with regards to the USADA hearing demonstrated without recognized Civil Procedure Rules it becomes a mockery of the justice system. LeMond refusing to be cross-examined and using Joe Papp wouldn't pass the mustard in any court in the world.

Evidence and discovery would go a long way to making CAS fairer.

After exhausting her options at the CAS, Pechstein brought her case to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The tribunal also rejected her case. Next, she sued the ISU in German civil court, claiming $4.6 million in damages from the 2009 suspension. “It’s an athlete’s constitutional right to choose his or her judge,” Pechstein’s lawyer told the BBC. “My client was almost ruined by the wrongful acts of the International Skating Union. A case such as this must be dealt with by a civil court.” That’s where her case gained momentum.

In its January 15 ruling, the Oberlandesgericht argued that the way the CAS selects arbitrators may have violated Pechstein’s rights under German antitrust law.

 

[sniper]

Re:

CAS can't be trusted? http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-sabotage-alleged-in-testing-of-alex-schwazer/

This def deserves its own thread. Crazy, if true.
Also, Donati coaching Schwazer??

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

CAS can't be trusted? http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-sabotage-alleged-in-testing-of-alex-schwazer/

This def deserves its own thread. Crazy, if true.
Also, Donati coaching Schwazer??

Was Schwazer not a Ferrari client?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

CAS can't be trusted? http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-sabotage-alleged-in-testing-of-alex-schwazer/

Schwazer’s coach, Sandro Donati, helped uncover state sponsored doping in Italy in the 1980s.

Not surprised they'd pick Schwarzer out of the herd of dopers.

Remember that CAS has little independence. Some of the lawyers work for the sports federations. Also Hog's comments are what I've found as well.

Bottom line: It's a very biased system. If the federation (who starts the arbitration) likes you, well, things go well from start to finish. (Armistead a current example) If they don't like you...

 

[MartinGT]

Good to to @ukantidoping Athlete Committee member @PooleyEmma in today's #Rio2016 cycling time trial.

Would love to know her thoughts on Armitstead

 

[mr61%]

I think Pooley's actions on Sunday made it pretty clear what she thinks of Armitstead. Was sort of hoping she would do an 'Armitstead' on Armitstead on the final climb and fly past her without allowing her to get on her wheel. Payback for Glasgow 2014. Probably best she saved a bit for today though.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Is anyone able to offer any practical insight into admin spot-checks ? e.g. how often they are carried out, whether it is just for athletes with "strikes" or everyone, and how it is actually done - a bit of detective work, calling hotels, monitoring social media ?
(To recap, Lizzie's 2nd whereabouts failure was apparently a filing failure as a result of an admin spot-check which proved that she wasn't where she said she would be)

 

[Catwhoorg]

According to Lizzie in at least one article it was a paperwork exercise.

There was a mismatch between the overnight location (which goes for the previous day) and the 6am location for the hour window. (Changed one but not the other is the likely cause)

Probably flagged on a routine database query run by a sysadmin at UKAD. No visit involved.

Simply NOT having all the coming quarters whereabouts filed by the due date causes a strike.
(Which is both understandable, and odd at the same time, as you are form filling knowing its going to have to change as race programs adjust etc)

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re:

According to Lizzie in at least one article it was a paperwork exercise.

There was a mismatch between the overnight location (which goes for the previous day) and the 6am location for the hour window. (Changed one but not the other is the likely cause)

Probably flagged on a routine database query run by a sysadmin at UKAD. No visit involved.

Simply NOT having all the coming quarters whereabouts filed by the due date causes a strike.
(Which is both understandable, and odd at the same time, as you are form filling knowing its going to have to change as race programs adjust etc)

Thanks. To me an admin spot-check would suggest more of a random check of something that couldn't be easily programmed but if that is indeed the way it is set up and what happened in this case then I wonder what would have happened if she had challenged it. In my view, if you can write some simple code to check for entries that are not feasible then that check should happen at the data entry stage. In other words it should not be possible for athletes to make "impossible" entries - at least without getting a clear warning message

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

According to Lizzie in at least one article it was a paperwork exercise.

There was a mismatch between the overnight location (which goes for the previous day) and the 6am location for the hour window. (Changed one but not the other is the likely cause)

Probably flagged on a routine database query run by a sysadmin at UKAD. No visit involved.

Simply NOT having all the coming quarters whereabouts filed by the due date causes a strike.
(Which is both understandable, and odd at the same time, as you are form filling knowing its going to have to change as race programs adjust etc)

Thanks. To me an admin spot-check would suggest more of a random check of something that couldn't be easily programmed but if that is indeed the way it is set up and what happened in this case then I wonder what would have happened if she had challenged it. In my view, if you can write some simple code to check for entries that are not feasible then that check should happen at the data entry stage. In other words it should not be possible for athletes to make "impossible" entries - at least without getting a clear warning message

The ADAMS system automatically notifies you when you have an error or mismatch in filing. Its all in the user guide which means she is not only doping but probably a little dim as well.

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/ADAMS+User+Guide+for+Athletes

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

According to Lizzie in at least one article it was a paperwork exercise.

There was a mismatch between the overnight location (which goes for the previous day) and the 6am location for the hour window. (Changed one but not the other is the likely cause)

Probably flagged on a routine database query run by a sysadmin at UKAD. No visit involved.

Simply NOT having all the coming quarters whereabouts filed by the due date causes a strike.
(Which is both understandable, and odd at the same time, as you are form filling knowing its going to have to change as race programs adjust etc)

Thanks. To me an admin spot-check would suggest more of a random check of something that couldn't be easily programmed but if that is indeed the way it is set up and what happened in this case then I wonder what would have happened if she had challenged it. In my view, if you can write some simple code to check for entries that are not feasible then that check should happen at the data entry stage. In other words it should not be possible for athletes to make "impossible" entries - at least without getting a clear warning message

You can change the data right up to the last minute.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

According to Lizzie in at least one article it was a paperwork exercise.

There was a mismatch between the overnight location (which goes for the previous day) and the 6am location for the hour window. (Changed one but not the other is the likely cause)

Probably flagged on a routine database query run by a sysadmin at UKAD. No visit involved.

Simply NOT having all the coming quarters whereabouts filed by the due date causes a strike.
(Which is both understandable, and odd at the same time, as you are form filling knowing its going to have to change as race programs adjust etc)

Thanks. To me an admin spot-check would suggest more of a random check of something that couldn't be easily programmed but if that is indeed the way it is set up and what happened in this case then I wonder what would have happened if she had challenged it. In my view, if you can write some simple code to check for entries that are not feasible then that check should happen at the data entry stage. In other words it should not be possible for athletes to make "impossible" entries - at least without getting a clear warning message

You can change the data right up to the last minute.

I'm not sure I see the relevance

 

[Catwhoorg]

Its MUCH harder to code error checks when the data can be in such flux at any time.

Possible but much harder.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Its MUCH harder to code error checks when the data can be in such flux at any time.

Possible but much harder.

To add to this, what happens with determined dopers is they abuse this feature to avoid tests. It's mentioned in the CIRC report.

I think one of Lance's minions actually put down in print he ran out the back door at a surprise test. Then changing his whereabouts because, you know, suddenly and immediately going "on vacation" is perfectly normal.

Again, she would have us believe someone as determined and fastidious as a world champion would need to be just somehow mishandled her whereabouts over a period of months.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I think one of Lance's minions actually put down in print he ran out the back door at a surprise test. Then changing his whereabouts because, you know, suddenly and immediately going "on vacation" is perfectly normal.

Again, she would have us believe someone as determined and fastidious as a world champion would need to be just somehow mishandled her whereabouts over a period of months.

You file a full three months in advance. Changing because you "suddenly and immediately" go on vacation is not nearly as absurd as you try to suggest it is.

Further, it has been stated several times up thread but clearly needs re-stating: multiple last-minute changes get noticed, did then and do now. Read the USADA report - not CIRC - for what it has to say about LA's abuse of the whereabouts system.

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong's abuse of the whereabouts system never affected him. He never got banned for it. Armistead wants something similar it would appear.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

He never got banned for it.

Could you cite the relevant rule he broke? And - I'm really sorry to have to ask this - how can you complain he never got banned for infringing this imaginary rule when it is insisted hereabouts that LA had the UCI in his pocket, was chief of the Protected Ones?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

He never got banned for it.

Could you cite the relevant rule he broke? And - I'm really sorry to have to ask this - how can you complain he never got banned for infringing this imaginary rule when it is insisted hereabouts that LA had the UCI in his pocket, was chief of the Protected Ones?

why would these two be incompatible?
One can complain about LA not getting banned, and one can insist LA had the UCI in his pocket, all at the same time, can one not?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

One can complain about LA not getting banned, and one can insist LA had the UCI in his pocket, all at the same time, can one not?

One can - and one will - do as one wants. But one should be aware that one's argument is a tad redundant. The superior offence covers the inferior one. Unless of course one doesn't really believe the superior offence to have been real.

 

[Cannibal72]

Oh FFS people stop using those initials.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I was watching the livestream of the track and was reminded of this.

It is worth remembering that Gregory Bauge (FR) had a backdated 12 months suspension (so results for 2011 nullifed) for whereabouts failures. LA isn't alone in having difficulty with her paperwork.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Changing because you "suddenly and immediately" go on vacation is not nearly as absurd as you try to suggest it is.

Hmm, yes, right after a call from the test collector.. " I think I'll go to Gran Canaria... Right now..."

Seems legit.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

He never got banned for it.

Could you cite the relevant rule he broke? And - I'm really sorry to have to ask this - how can you complain he never got banned for infringing this imaginary rule when it is insisted hereabouts that LA had the UCI in his pocket, was chief of the Protected Ones?

You aint sorry at all.

 

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

Landis's case with regards to the USADA hearing demonstrated without recognized Civil Procedure Rules it becomes a mockery of the justice system. LeMond refusing to be cross-examined and using Joe Papp wouldn't pass the mustard in any court in the world.

Whatever.