The Armitstead doping thread.

[Savant12]

Re:

The reaction of her fellow riders is interesting. It seems a great deal more hostile than a top level male pro could expect from his colleagues and rivals should CAS clear one to ride. Indicative of a different culture in the women's peloton?

Or they are slightly more cautious over their glow time and/or their anti-doping agencies are less likely to schedule an OOC doping test.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The reaction of her fellow riders is interesting. It seems a great deal more hostile than a top level male pro could expect from his colleagues and rivals should CAS clear one to ride. Indicative of a different culture in the women's peloton?

She's not liked. I think that's not exactly news to people to who follow women's cycling.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

I've just read through the WADA rules, and am justifying it by giving you all a brief summary

You really need to read UKAD's rules, how UKAD bring in to play WADA's basic rules. UCI adds more, in some places, for instance. WADA rules are not really rules, they're more guidance for ADOs, the skeleton around which they construct their own rules.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

The reaction of her fellow riders is interesting. It seems a great deal more hostile than a top level male pro could expect from his colleagues and rivals should CAS clear one to ride. Indicative of a different culture in the women's peloton?

She's not liked. I think that's not exactly news to people to who follow women's cycling.

Sure, but it seems unlikely that even an unpopular male pro would get as hostile a reception. Not everyone who has ever had a brush with the doping authorities but come away without a ban on the male side of the sport is a contender for Mr Congeniality after all. Would, say, a Lars Boom or some other rider with a reputation for awkwardness get leading riders tweeting that a CAS decision in his favour was "just shameful"?

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

It appears as though the intention was to try and keep this one under the carpet.

Please. Please. RTFM. It's in UKAD's rules. 8.4.2

But I wasn't referring to UKAD, rather the athlete and the team around her. She would have been hoping this story did not reach the public domain. The withdrawal from recent races and offering up illness as a reason for same would support this theory.

The withdrawal from recent races is because she was provisionally suspended, not because of a conspiracy to hide away.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

It appears as though the intention was to try and keep this one under the carpet.

Please. Please. RTFM. It's in UKAD's rules. 8.4.2

But I wasn't referring to UKAD, rather the athlete and the team around her. She would have been hoping this story did not reach the public domain. The withdrawal from recent races and offering up illness as a reason for same would support this theory.

The withdrawal from recent races is because she was provisionally suspended, not because of a conspiracy to hide away.

Which is why she said she had an illness rather than state she was provisionally suspended..

You're good at this! lol :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It appears as though the intention was to try and keep this one under the carpet.

Please. Please. RTFM. It's in UKAD's rules. 8.4.2

But I wasn't referring to UKAD, rather the athlete and the team around her. She would have been hoping this story did not reach the public domain. The withdrawal from recent races and offering up illness as a reason for same would support this theory.

The withdrawal from recent races is because she was provisionally suspended, not because of a conspiracy to hide away.

Armistead claimed illness. I am sure she was 'sick' thinking she was facing a ban....

 

[mb2612]

Re: Re:

I've just read through the WADA rules, and am justifying it by giving you all a brief summary

You really need to read UKAD's rules, how UKAD bring in to play WADA's basic rules. UCI adds more, in some places, for instance. WADA rules are not really rules, they're more guidance for ADOs, the skeleton around which they construct their own rules.

The UKAD rules pretty much just reference the relevant sections of the WADA documents, so don't add anything that I can see. Also the CAS ruling will be based on WADA not UKAD.

Also you mentioned that CAS are making multiple rulings a day. Do they publish them all on their website?

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

It appears as though the intention was to try and keep this one under the carpet.

Please. Please. RTFM. It's in UKAD's rules. 8.4.2

But I wasn't referring to UKAD, rather the athlete and the team around her. She would have been hoping this story did not reach the public domain. The withdrawal from recent races and offering up illness as a reason for same would support this theory.

The withdrawal from recent races is because she was provisionally suspended, not because of a conspiracy to hide away.

Which is why she said she had an illness rather than state she was provisionally suspended..

You're good at this! lol :lol:

The comment in question implied her not racing was voluntary. I pointed it out it wasn't. Your point?

 

[samhocking]

When I'm cheating on my wife, not only do I tell her what hotel I'm staying in with my mistress, but i tell her what time I'll be having some sexy time there too. So much more thrilling knowing the difference between getting caught and not getting caught is the discretion of the hotel staff.

I'd recommend it when doping too. Tell UKAD where you are when glowing and really get the full buzz of the chase hanging on an unnecessarily thin knife-edge of either ending your career or continuing it based on some stranger at reception covering your back!

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

The reaction of her fellow riders is interesting. It seems a great deal more hostile than a top level male pro could expect from his colleagues and rivals should CAS clear one to ride. Indicative of a different culture in the women's peloton?

She's not liked. I think that's not exactly news to people to who follow women's cycling.

must admit I dont follow women cycling.

who's more disliked? Vos or Lizzie?

any example about Lizzie being disliked?

not trolling, I dont follow so I am curious about what the other riders say

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yea, Lizzie has a reputation as not being the most gracious of winners, and much less gracious than that when it comes to losing.

The actual overturned test doesn't actually seem all that bad; yes, it's foolish to have your phone on silent during the hour you're availed for testing, but hey, it's her first violation of the three so fool me once and all that. You can learn from mistakes, and therefore the other two tests are of greater importance. I think Benotti tying the locality of the tests to major wins is a bit bogus, not least because she was tested in competition the day after the missed test in Sweden, as World Cup leader after the Vårgårda round, and a week before the Plouay result mentioned.

However, the circumstances of it look worse when we add in the knowledge we have about missed tests from other high level UK athletes and the info about the number of athletes to have missed tests. Katie Compton commented on having missed 3 tests in a 13 year career and each time she was on one whereabouts violation she was terrified of committing another, and it seems surprising that Lizzie would not have been similarly vigilant especially given her relative profile and the impending Olympics. As has been suggested, one would have to be either desperate or very disorganized to continue to commit violations given the prospective punishment. She's given an explanation for the third, but the second remains a question mark. And when you add in the (now somewhat misleading) info about British Cycling helping pay for it all, and that with the Yates case fresh in the memory where once more it seemed like the intention was to sort it all out without anything ever becoming public (another thing that will raise the ire of some athletes of course), that's another factor to the storm.

The other thing is that, given how selective a calendar Lizzie has run in 2016 around her Olympic bid and how unbeatable she has seemed at times, I find it difficult to believe that she's that disorganized, because her peaking has been nigh on perfect throughout the season. She didn't race before Omloop (many didn't, so that's no surprise), won, then won Strade Bianche. She didn't do any of the Lotto Cycling Cup races in Belgium that most of her competition did, and DNFed Drenthe (though a teammate won), then won the Trofeo Binda and the Ronde van Vlaanderen (she sat up in the chase in Gent-Wevelgem though again, her teammate won). It's hard to look at that the same way now. The same goes for that stretch at the end of de Ronde, when the cameras caught Emma Johansson asking her how she was feeling in their two-up break; Emma's trying to mask shortness of breath to play games, Lizzie's barely even breathing. It's explicable; Lizzie's got a less obvious game-face than Emma anyhow and is maybe better at masking it, and also because Boels had the advantage of numbers in the moves to that point (Wiggle made a few tactical errors in the early season) Lizzie had done less work to that point. But now it looks different when I think back to it. I am always going to have to admit, however, that my own personal opinions of Armitstead will colour my judgement and may make me a harsher judge than necessary.

I mean, there's still the outside chance it could all be sanguine. She's not Christine Ohourugu, who at one point in her career had run her three best times in two Olympic finals and one World Championships final. Lizzie's been a great rider for several years, but there can be no doubt that she has absolutely kicked on in the last two years.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Sure, but it seems unlikely that even an unpopular male pro would get as hostile a reception.

You are exaggerating the hostility based on a very small sample: the CN round-up lists just PFP, Katie C, Sari Saarelainen, Valentina Scandolara and Chloe Hosking, plus ex-pros BOD and Jen Copnall. I think you would get at least that many criticising Froome or Sagan or Kittell if they got three strikes and were still reprieved.

What you don't have is anyone actually defending LA.

BC will have to get busy. Based on the way they responded to Suttongate, expect the likes of Boardman and Millar and Wiggins to be quoted tomorrow saying how wonderful LA is...

 

[thehog]

When I'm cheating on my wife, not only do I tell her what hotel I'm staying in with my mistress, but i tell her what time I'll be having some sexy time there too. So much more thrilling knowing the difference between getting caught and not getting caught is the discretion of the hotel staff.

I'd recommend it when doping too. Tell UKAD where you are when glowing and really get the full buzz of the chase hanging on an unnecessarily thin knife-edge of either ending your career or continuing it based on some stranger at reception covering your back!

That's a very poor analogy because she wasn't training away on her own, she was at the team hotel for a World Cup race, which included a TTT. She was always going to be at the team hotel, the only issue was the chance of being tested the day before the race at 6am (if microdosed the night before at 11pm). The tester came, phone went to silent...

Perhaps try again...

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

The reaction of her fellow riders is interesting. It seems a great deal more hostile than a top level male pro could expect from his colleagues and rivals should CAS clear one to ride. Indicative of a different culture in the women's peloton?

It also struck me that the levels of omertà appear to be not as high. At moments like this, you can often gauge from the comments/silence of other athletes their attitude towards doping in general.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Nicole Cooke's response is worth reading. It's almost a work of art for the way it doesn't comment much about LA but still damns her: http://nicolecooke.com/news/

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Yea, Lizzie has a reputation as not being the most gracious of winners, and much less gracious than that when it comes to losing.

The actual overturned test doesn't actually seem all that bad; yes, it's foolish to have your phone on silent during the hour you're availed for testing, but hey, it's her first violation of the three so fool me once and all that. You can learn from mistakes, and therefore the other two tests are of greater importance. I think Benotti tying the locality of the tests to major wins is a bit bogus, not least because she was tested in competition the day after the missed test in Sweden, as World Cup leader after the Vårgårda round, and a week before the Plouay result mentioned.

However, the circumstances of it look worse when we add in the knowledge we have about missed tests from other high level UK athletes and the info about the number of athletes to have missed tests. Katie Compton commented on having missed 3 tests in a 13 year career and each time she was on one whereabouts violation she was terrified of committing another, and it seems surprising that Lizzie would not have been similarly vigilant especially given her relative profile and the impending Olympics. As has been suggested, one would have to be either desperate or very disorganized to continue to commit violations given the prospective punishment. She's given an explanation for the third, but the second remains a question mark. And when you add in the (now somewhat misleading) info about British Cycling helping pay for it all, and that with the Yates case fresh in the memory where once more it seemed like the intention was to sort it all out without anything ever becoming public (another thing that will raise the ire of some athletes of course), that's another factor to the storm.

The other thing is that, given how selective a calendar Lizzie has run in 2016 around her Olympic bid and how unbeatable she has seemed at times, I find it difficult to believe that she's that disorganized, because her peaking has been nigh on perfect throughout the season. She didn't race before Omloop (many didn't, so that's no surprise), won, then won Strade Bianche. She didn't do any of the Lotto Cycling Cup races in Belgium that most of her competition did, and DNFed Drenthe (though a teammate won), then won the Trofeo Binda and the Ronde van Vlaanderen (she sat up in the chase in Gent-Wevelgem though again, her teammate won). It's hard to look at that the same way now. The same goes for that stretch at the end of de Ronde, when the cameras caught Emma Johansson asking her how she was feeling in their two-up break; Emma's trying to mask shortness of breath to play games, Lizzie's barely even breathing. It's explicable; Lizzie's got a less obvious game-face than Emma anyhow and is maybe better at masking it, and also because Boels had the advantage of numbers in the moves to that point (Wiggle made a few tactical errors in the early season) Lizzie had done less work to that point. But now it looks different when I think back to it. I am always going to have to admit, however, that my own personal opinions of Armitstead will colour my judgement and may make me a harsher judge than necessary.

I mean, there's still the outside chance it could all be sanguine. She's not Christine Ohourugu, who at one point in her career had run her three best times in two Olympic finals and one World Championships final. Lizzie's been a great rider for several years, but there can be no doubt that she has absolutely kicked on in the last two years.

I dont think it is bogus that she avoided tests before wins. I dont attribute it to locality, just the importance of those wins and the proximity of missed tests. Testing the day after missing a test means little, as the tests are near to useless and are well recognised as an IQ test rather than a rigorous test of PED use. An hour can make all the difference in glow times.

Nicole Cooke wrote a good piece on her website.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Also you mentioned that CAS are making multiple rulings a day. Do they publish them all on their website?

The usual rules appear to be applying.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

not trolling, I dont follow so I am curious about what the other riders say

Sorry, if you're the sort who only wants to follow when there's a scandal then I am soooo the wrong person to be seeking an education from.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

I dont think it is bogus that she avoided tests before wins. I dont attribute it to locality, just the importance of those wins and the proximity of missed tests. Testing the day after missing a test means little, as the tests are near to useless and are well recognised as an IQ test rather than a rigorous test of PED use. An hour can make all the difference in glow times.

Nicole Cooke wrote a good piece on her website.

If all of the tests were before wins, that would be fine, but you're gilding the lily here. The test in Sweden was not before Plouay, it was before Vårgårda. The second test wasn't before a big win, it was two weeks after the World Championships. The third test was not that long before the Women's Tour, but really only two of the three tests show that correlation, and those are the two that we've been offered explanations for (regardless of whether you believe them).

There's plenty of points to be made against Armitstead here, but in the absence of further info, especially eg. on when other tests were taken where she did comply with the whereabouts system, correlating the missed tests to races that are only in the approximate vicinity is reaching a bit.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

not trolling, I dont follow so I am curious about what the other riders say

Sorry, if you're the sort who only wants to follow when there's a scandal then I am soooo the wrong person to be seeking an education from.

can't argue with that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The actual overturned test doesn't actually seem all that bad; yes, it's foolish to have your phone on silent during the hour you're availed for testing, but hey, it's her first violation of the three so fool me once and all that. You can learn from mistakes

I've already queried this earlier, I'm going to query it again, esp as the moral to be drawn from the same is more explicit here: how do we know this was her first missed test? We know it was the first of the trio that triggered UKAD action. But we do not know how many other tests she missed before that. We do not know that it was her first. So fool me once...doesn't work here.

 

[mb2612]

Re: Re:

Also you mentioned that CAS are making multiple rulings a day. Do they publish them all on their website?

The usual rules appear to be applying.

I'm not sure what you mean? I've gone through their website and can't see any where near that amount. It would be great if you could provide a link.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

However, the circumstances of it look worse when we add in the knowledge we have about missed tests from other high level UK athletes and the info about the number of athletes to have missed tests. Katie Compton commented on having missed 3 tests in a 13 year career and each time she was on one whereabouts violation she was terrified of committing another, and it seems surprising that Lizzie would not have been similarly vigilant especially given her relative profile and the impending Olympics. As has been suggested, one would have to be either desperate or very disorganized to continue to commit violations given the prospective punishment. She's given an explanation for the third, but the second remains a question mark. And when you add in the (now somewhat misleading) info about British Cycling helping pay for it all, and that with the Yates case fresh in the memory where once more it seemed like the intention was to sort it all out without anything ever becoming public (another thing that will raise the ire of some athletes of course), that's another factor to the storm.

I think the actual UKAD stats are more useful that a couple of anecdotes and personal stories. The people who can and do repeatedly *** up are not as quick to tell the world about it as others.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

The actual overturned test doesn't actually seem all that bad; yes, it's foolish to have your phone on silent during the hour you're availed for testing, but hey, it's her first violation of the three so fool me once and all that. You can learn from mistakes

I've already queried this earlier, I'm going to query it again, esp as the moral to be drawn from the same is more explicit here: how do we know this was her first missed test? We know it was the first of the trio that triggered UKAD action. But we do not know how many other tests she missed before that. We do not know that it was her first. So fool me once...doesn't work here.

That was me operating on a "best case scenario" - if she's already missed tests before that, then things change. I was using it as an illustration that "this case on its own could be explained away, but when placed in the context of many other such incidents, people's eyebrows could - and should - be raised". The same argument I used in July 2012 over four years ago, in fact: while each individual tree is explicable, there's a forest growing mighty quickly.