The Armitstead doping thread.

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

I find it bizarre that she and BC and UKAD are having a meeting back in December to ensure that she doesn't have a 3rd strike. That conversation would have been hilarious. "Well, you could stop testing ho ho ho" / "Well, you could stop doping ho ho ho"

At this point presumably she and BC were accepting the 1st missed test

How is it possible that the athlete being tested, the organization that tests the athlete & the organization that gives racing licenses all collude to avoid a missed test. Massive conflicts of interest.
There are holes in her statements about the first strike.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I find it bizarre that she and BC and UKAD are having a meeting back in December to ensure that she doesn't have a 3rd strike. That conversation would have been hilarious. "Well, you could stop testing ho ho ho" / "Well, you could stop doping ho ho ho"

At this point presumably she and BC were accepting the 1st missed test

How is it possible that the athlete being tested, the organization that tests the athlete & the organization that gives racing licenses all collude to avoid a missed test. Massive conflicts of interest.
There are holes in her statements about the first strike.

That is a very good point.

And....

This slot MUST be between the hours of 5:00am and 11:00pm and in a specified location where the testing can actually take place. This information MUST be up-to-date at all times as athletes that are not available for testing at their designated location during the 60-minutes may receive a missed test Whereabouts failure.

Athletes MUST remain in their specified location for the entire 60 minutes as the Doping Control Officer may arrive at any time.

If you need to adjust your 60-minute time slot and/or change your specified location, you should do so directly in ADAMS. You can do this online or via the ADAMS mobile phone app.

If there is an unplanned, last minute emergency change, you may text (if you have activated this function in your ADAMS profile) or email (athlete@ukad.org.uk) up to one minute before the start of your specified time slot. Patterns of last-minute Whereabouts updates may be investigated

 

[TrainTrack]

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Re:

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

Yeah, i would like that explained too.

 

[burning]

Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Why the shock? Look back at the delay between USADA's LA decision and their publishing the reasoned decision. There is a process for these things. It is a similar process to the one you will find in the public courts' system.

That's fair enough, I thought it could be published a lot quicker than that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

The system is supposed to look for patterns of late filing and last minute changes and flag those athletes. LA (the other one) used to do this. It's referenced in the body if the USADA report.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

The Rasmussen comparison is needed, especially WRT the reporting of the story, not just the similarity in excuses.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Why the shock? Look back at the delay between USADA's LA decision and their publishing the reasoned decision. There is a process for these things. It is a similar process to the one you will find in the public courts' system.

That's fair enough, I thought it could be published a lot quicker than that.

This is the problem when people need a scandal to encourage them to look at CAS.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

That would be a "filing failure", as you would have to buy the ticket in advance, if you had not updated the new location. The tester has the ability to drive to the new location and find you. If its miles away then you would get a strike.

Keep on top of updating Whereabouts information, as a pattern of last-minute Whereabouts updates could damage the chances of receiving a reduced sanction after a Whereabouts violation

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

The Rasmussen comparison is needed, especially WRT the reporting of the story, not just the similarity in excuses.

Offredo is a very good comparison as well but I guess all Brits bots will ignore these stuff and pretend that she is a proud clean Brit athlete.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

No that is right, and is in place for emergencies.
(there are some limitations of course)

Do it too often and they come after you big time though.

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

....trying to imagine how this thread would have played out if she was Russian....

Cheers

Here? More people would be defending her, either directly or by calling those riders who have criticised her hypocrites.

Can you point to an example of posters defending any Russians? Menchov, Zakarin, Ekimov?????

Back up your accusations of hypocrites!!!

Maybe he or she is thinking of the "more lame Russia bashing thread".
I don't think I have ever read anyone defending Menchov, Ekimov or Zakarin.

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Why the shock? Look back at the delay between USADA's LA decision and their publishing the reasoned decision. There is a process for these things. It is a similar process to the one you will find in the public courts' system.

That's fair enough, I thought it could be published a lot quicker than that.

This is the problem when people need a scandal to encourage them to look at CAS.

Ok, ok I get it your an expert on CAS, UKAD, USADA etc procedures and that's fair enough. However I don't have the time, interest or desire to educate myself on their procedures, I was simply asking a question, no need for the condecension.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Why the shock? Look back at the delay between USADA's LA decision and their publishing the reasoned decision. There is a process for these things. It is a similar process to the one you will find in the public courts' system.

That's fair enough, I thought it could be published a lot quicker than that.

This is the problem when people need a scandal to encourage them to look at CAS.

Ok, ok I get it your an expert on CAS, UKAD, USADA etc procedures and that's fair enough. However I don't have the time, interest or desire to educate myself on their procedures, I was simply asking a question, no need for the condecension.

Don't worry about FMK, he likes to show off now and then. His information is good, not always right but most of the time he is.

 

[Nick C.]

The whole Simon Thornton BC minder thing is weird. She is the reigning World Champion in her sport. Nobody bothers to tell her the guy they, according to her, specifically gave the job of monitoring her whereabouts info gets a new job. Further, they apparently don't give those duties to his replacement. So the whereabouts monitoring failsafe system they set up for the biggest star in the women's field of their sport just slips through the cracks. Very weird.

 

[joe_papp]

Re:

Genuine question about the whereabouts system that I hope someone with experience can answer.
If you have the ability to change your details up to 1 minute before your window (per Nicole Cooke's comments), then what's to stop someone from making a change at 5.30am to say "at 6am today, I'm in Edinburgh rather than Aberdeen"?
You'd still be in compliance with the rules and regs, but would be physically unable to be tested at that time (unless someone was miraculously able to get from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in an hour).

Or have I misunderstood?

You haven't misunderstood.

You could "legally" do what you're suggesting. However, if you did this with any kind of frequency, expect the ADA to suspect you of trying to game the system and to act accordingly (ie, testing you outside of your 60min window wherever they could find you).

 

[doperhopper]

too easy to hunt pokemons if they have to file their spacetime trajectory...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

The Rasmussen comparison is needed, especially WRT the reporting of the story, not just the similarity in excuses.

Eh? Rasmussen said he was in Mexico and was then spotted training in Italy, how is that similar?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

Not really. The same violation occurred but Rasmussen out-right lied about where he was. He claimed it was an error but again that is not the same here as Armitstead was where she said she would be.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

Not really. The same violation occurred but Rasmussen out-right lied about where he was. He claimed it was an error but again that is not the same here as Armitstead was where she said she would be.

The second test, "filing failure" appears that she went to a new location for the "family emergency", which is the same as Rasmussen, who claimed he was having an affair.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

Not really. The same violation occurred but Rasmussen out-right lied about where he was. He claimed it was an error but again that is not the same here as Armitstead was where she said she would be.

The second test, "filing failure" appears that she went to a new location for the "family emergency", which is the same as Rasmussen, who claimed he was having an affair.

She has not had the second test attendance failure removed so it is completely irrelevant to why she is being allowed to compete.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Bringing up Rasmussen as a comparison, this is why we can't have sensible discussions here.

They broke the same rules, even though it is true what Rasmussen did was way more ridiculous than she did. She broke the rules and she should be punished, she is just getting a free pass because she is clearly protected.

Not really. The same violation occurred but Rasmussen out-right lied about where he was. He claimed it was an error but again that is not the same here as Armitstead was where she said she would be.

The second test, "filing failure" appears that she went to a new location for the "family emergency", which is the same as Rasmussen, who claimed he was having an affair.

She has not had the second test attendance failure removed so it is completely irrelevant to why she is being allowed to compete.

Correct, which is still the same as Rasmussen "misinformation" as to whereabouts, just the end result is different.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Correct, which is still the same as Rasmussen "misinformation" as to whereabouts, just the end result is different.

The end result is not different. It has no bearing on the first missed test which has been dismissed. Rasmussens violation for lying was not dismissed and neither was Armitsteads violation for the "family emergency". The end result is exactly the same, one of three strikes.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Don't worry about FMK, he likes to show off now and then. His information is good, not always right but most of the time he is.

Having to explain the same things over and over and over each time a new scandal erupts gets very old very quickly. Maybe there should be a manual or a FAQ, to explain to those who don't want to keep up but only dip in and out at scandal time. Things like the alphabet soup of CAS, WADA, NADOs like UKAD and USADA, UCI, NFs like BC and USAC, who each is, what they do, what they don't do. Things like how CAS works - normal procedures, expedited procedures, time taken to publish reasoned decisions etc, so people can see when things are really out of the norm. There's a lot of very basic facts get misunderstood every time a new scandal comes round and rather than checking them people like to scream blue murder.