The Armitstead doping thread.

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Kind of exposes another problem with ADAMS / whereabouts system.

If someone is pinged for a whereabouts violation, then there should be a certain period of time - a month? - to determine if it's valid or not. After that, it no longer is a matter for debate, it's a fact.

That way, Armitage's 3rd (chronological) whereabouts failure would have been the final nail.

In practice, wouldn't that just mean you have to spend a lot more on lawyers for stuff that might never be relevant?

I think an athlete missing one test is extremely relevant. It shouldn't happen. An athlete should want to clear that missed test up ASAP if there was a legitimate and honest reason for missing the test! A silent phone is not acceptable.

In practice no professional athlete should miss a test. The ADAMS system is a top priority for all athletes on that system.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

I do that all the time when away from my family, as do many of my co-workers who travel, especially internationally.

Sometimes its the only way to get anything resembling a normal nights sleep.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

I do that all the time when away from my family, as do many of my co-workers who travel, especially internationally.

Sometimes its the only way to get anything resembling a normal nights sleep.

I cant imagine Armistead's phone is hopping all the time. I would imagine only close family and friends have her number and then they would also know not to contact her when she is away racing. I expect Armistead has an agent again so she can concentrate on racing again meaning her phone need not be on silent. Why also nominate 6am-7am as testing time if you are going to be sleeping? And if you wanted to leave the phone on silent why not have the hotel give you an alarm call at 6am?

Doesn't add up in Armistead's case. It might if she did not miss another 2 tests!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. I am away from family, including my very young daughter a lot and my phone is pretty much permanently on silent. I need to sleep, athletes even more so.

The questions you're asking will likely be covered in the reasoned decision, until then it's pointless speculation.

 

[Brian Butterfield]

If you glow, you no show.
If you no glow, you show.
if you glow and show,
show over.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. I am away from family, including my very young daughter a lot and my phone is pretty much permanently on silent. I need to sleep, athletes even more so.

The questions you're asking will likely be covered in the reasoned decision, until then it's pointless speculation.

Again, people comparing themselves to professional athletes who are a part of the ADAMS system is way off the mark. If you complete a form stating you were available at 6am, i doubt you would not make yourself available.

For those working and travelling that love to switch their phones off. Do you regularly miss your appointments that you are travelling for? I doubt it otherwise you would no longer be travelling as you would have no job.

Armistead being available at that time is part of her job, heck she gets to nominate the time!! If she needs her sleep well then she is woefully prepared and totally unorganised, which would go against everything she should have learnt under the TeamGB marginal gains attention to details mantra!

Not sure why an athlete who needs their sleep is putting 6am on their ADAMs form. Does not compute, even more so!

It is a forum for discussion.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Confirmation that the women cycling world champion is a doper. Confirmation that high level cycling officials are covering up. Confirmation that BC endorses dopers.

It's all over the press.

That proves it's a cover up

Cyclingnews today:

Considering the lip service paid to the concept of transparency in both cycling and Olympic circles, it beggars belief that the world champion and favourite for Olympic gold was provisionally suspended for an anti-doping offence in the build-up to the Games without the information being made public.

Indeed, only for the work of the Daily Mail, it seems that Armitstead’s case might never have been made public at all. According to the UCI’s anti-doping rule 14.4.3, in cases where an athlete is cleared of an anti-doping violation, “the decision may be publicly disclosed only with the consent of the Rider or Other Person who is the subject of the decision.”

And so, while CAS last week published a list of pending arbitration cases involving Russian athletes who were seeking to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympics, there is no mention anywhere on its website of the confidential Armitstead hearing.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

There's no great mystery about why the first missed test wasn't challenged at the time - it was a first missed test and therefore not perceived as threatening or as more than a minor irritation. People very often don't behave as it is assumed someone alert for every opportunity to vindicate their rights and defend their legal position might be expected to behave. There is nothing particularly suspicious about someone ignoring something irritating but not on its face dangerous until after the circumstances change.

The actually eyebrow raising part is the recklessness that her story necessarily implies when it comes to missing two further tests.

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Confirmation that the women cycling world champion is a doper. Confirmation that high level cycling officials are covering up. Confirmation that BC endorses dopers.

It's all over the press.

That proves it's a cover up

Cyclingnews today:

Considering the lip service paid to the concept of transparency in both cycling and Olympic circles, it beggars belief that the world champion and favourite for Olympic gold was provisionally suspended for an anti-doping offence in the build-up to the Games without the information being made public.

Indeed, only for the work of the Daily Mail, it seems that Armitstead’s case might never have been made public at all. According to the UCI’s anti-doping rule 14.4.3, in cases where an athlete is cleared of an anti-doping violation, “the decision may be publicly disclosed only with the consent of the Rider or Other Person who is the subject of the decision.”

And so, while CAS last week published a list of pending arbitration cases involving Russian athletes who were seeking to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympics, there is no mention anywhere on its website of the confidential Armitstead hearing.

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

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. I am away from family, including my very young daughter a lot and my phone is pretty much permanently on silent. I need to sleep, athletes even more so.

The questions you're asking will likely be covered in the reasoned decision, until then it's pointless speculation.

Again, people comparing themselves to professional athletes who are a part of the ADAMS system is way off the mark. If you complete a form stating you were available at 6am, i doubt you would not make yourself available.

From the reports she was available. She was in her hotel room which no doubt had a phone and definitely had a reception. Again, we need to see the reasoned decision but CAS have blamed UKAD for it, not Armitstead.

For those working and travelling that love to switch their phones off. Do you regularly miss your appointments that you are travelling for? I doubt it otherwise you would no longer be travelling as you would have no job.

Equating the ADAMS system to an appointment or meeting is silly, you only have the possibility of being tested, it's not guaranteed. In this situation she was in a place where you could reasonably expect to be woken up so it's unnecessary to have you phone turned on and beeping through the night. We'll know more with the reasoned decision but this sounds like a parcel delivery man turning up, not ringing the right bell and then disappearing.

Armistead being available at that time is part of her job, heck she gets to nominate the time!! If she needs her sleep well then she is woefully prepared and totally unorganised, which would go against everything she should have learnt under the TeamGB marginal gains attention to details mantra!

Not sure why an athlete who needs their sleep is putting 6am on their ADAMs form. Does not compute, even more so!

Again, it's perfectly reasonable for an athlete in a hotel to be asleep when someone comes to take a sample. They are accessible with a reasonable expectation that the tester will be brought to their room.

It is the other two tests that stick out more to me than this one.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

There's no great mystery about why the first missed test wasn't challenged at the time - it was a first missed test and therefore not perceived as threatening or as more than a minor irritation. People very often don't behave as it is assumed someone alert for every opportunity to vindicate their rights and defend their legal position might be expected to behave. There is nothing particularly suspicious about someone ignoring something irritating but not on its face dangerous until after the circumstances change.

The actually eyebrow raising part is the recklessness that her story necessarily implies when it comes to missing two further tests.

I would fight any missed test that wasn't my fault, purely because the implication these days is that any missed test is due to missed doping.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. I am away from family, including my very young daughter a lot and my phone is pretty much permanently on silent. I need to sleep, athletes even more so.

The questions you're asking will likely be covered in the reasoned decision, until then it's pointless speculation.

Again, people comparing themselves to professional athletes who are a part of the ADAMS system is way off the mark. If you complete a form stating you were available at 6am, i doubt you would not make yourself available.

From the reports she was available. She was in her hotel room which no doubt had a phone and definitely had a reception. Again, we need to see the reasoned decision but CAS have blamed UKAD for it, not Armitstead.

For those working and travelling that love to switch their phones off. Do you regularly miss your appointments that you are travelling for? I doubt it otherwise you would no longer be travelling as you would have no job.

Equating the ADAMS system to an appointment or meeting is silly, you only have the possibility of being tested, it's not guaranteed. In this situation she was in a place where you could reasonably expect to be woken up so it's unnecessary to have you phone turned on and beeping through the night. We'll know more with the reasoned decision but this sounds like a parcel delivery man turning up, not ringing the right bell and then disappearing.

Armistead being available at that time is part of her job, heck she gets to nominate the time!! If she needs her sleep well then she is woefully prepared and totally unorganised, which would go against everything she should have learnt under the TeamGB marginal gains attention to details mantra!

Not sure why an athlete who needs their sleep is putting 6am on their ADAMs form. Does not compute, even more so!

Again, it's perfectly reasonable for an athlete in a hotel to be asleep when someone comes to take a sample. They are accessible with a reasonable expectation that the tester will be brought to their room.

It is the other two tests that stick out more to me than this one.

Yes, exactly. I sometimes wonder if some of our fellow Clinic denizens have ever actually met a human being, given the behaviour they seem to expect from athletes. There's nothing inherently incredible about any part of Armitstead's account of the first missed test. Which presumably is why CAS has no problem accepting it. The part I'm interested in is the other two tests, once she already had a mark against her.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. I am away from family, including my very young daughter a lot and my phone is pretty much permanently on silent. I need to sleep, athletes even more so.

The questions you're asking will likely be covered in the reasoned decision, until then it's pointless speculation.

Again, people comparing themselves to professional athletes who are a part of the ADAMS system is way off the mark. If you complete a form stating you were available at 6am, i doubt you would not make yourself available.

From the reports she was available. She was in her hotel room which no doubt had a phone and definitely had a reception. Again, we need to see the reasoned decision but CAS have blamed UKAD for it, not Armitstead.

For those working and travelling that love to switch their phones off. Do you regularly miss your appointments that you are travelling for? I doubt it otherwise you would no longer be travelling as you would have no job.

Equating the ADAMS system to an appointment or meeting is silly, you only have the possibility of being tested, it's not guaranteed. In this situation she was in a place where you could reasonably expect to be woken up so it's unnecessary to have you phone turned on and beeping through the night. We'll know more with the reasoned decision but this sounds like a parcel delivery man turning up, not ringing the right bell and then disappearing.

Armistead being available at that time is part of her job, heck she gets to nominate the time!! If she needs her sleep well then she is woefully prepared and totally unorganised, which would go against everything she should have learnt under the TeamGB marginal gains attention to details mantra!

Not sure why an athlete who needs their sleep is putting 6am on their ADAMs form. Does not compute, even more so!

Again, it's perfectly reasonable for an athlete in a hotel to be asleep when someone comes to take a sample. They are accessible with a reasonable expectation that the tester will be brought to their room.

It is the other two tests that stick out more to me than this one.

CAS don't "blame" UKAD, that's not what they conclude. What they do conclude is that the athlete would not be held accountable for the missed test because the tester did not follow the protocol for informing the athlete that they have a test due or the athlete was incapacitated in some way for a test.

It appears LA, stated that tester did not identify themselves to the hotel reception (not sure how she would know this) and when the tester called her cell phone it was on silent (again not sure how she would prove this a year after the fact).

 

[TrainTrack]

Re: Re:

Kind of exposes another problem with ADAMS / whereabouts system.

If someone is pinged for a whereabouts violation, then there should be a certain period of time - a month? - to determine if it's valid or not. After that, it no longer is a matter for debate, it's a fact.

That way, Armitage's 3rd (chronological) whereabouts failure would have been the final nail.

In practice, wouldn't that just mean you have to spend a lot more on lawyers for stuff that might never be relevant?

No, I don't think so - athletes have the opportunity to dispute a test at any time, privately, without the need to go to CAS. (It only went to CAS in this case as a 3rd test triggered a suspension.) But it should be perfectly reasonable for this not to be an open-ended timebound thing - either there's a matter for dispute, or there isn't.

It's highly unlikely that you'd not bother to dispute something as potentially critical as this if you felt it was incorrect. And if your attitude was "stuff it, I've got another 2 chances, I'll not screw up again", and you screwed up twice - well, you deserve everything that should be coming to you.

Not to get stuff overturned 9 months later.

 

[Brian Butterfield]

A pro-rider should be up and about the latest 6.00am, doing stretches or something. Even I can haul myself out of bed by 6.30am to drink SKY Instant Marginal Gains Coffee whilst "checking in" with The Clinic Forum...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

CAS don't "blame" UKAD, that's not what they conclude. What they do conclude is that the athlete would not be held accountable for the missed test because the tester did not follow the protocol for informing the athlete that they have a test due or the athlete was incapacitated in some way for a test.

It appears LA, stated that tester did not identify themselves to the hotel reception (not sure how she would know this) and when the tester called her cell phone it was on silent (again not sure how she would prove this a year after the fact).

Apologises for not using precise language, I'm pretty sure you get the point though.

Phone records would show if she was called and the reception staff are likely to mention to a guest that someone was asking for their room number.

 

[rekhyt]

Re: Re:

I would fight any missed test that wasn't my fault, purely because the implication these days is that any missed test is due to missed doping.

Exactly. She didn't do it for an unkown reason. She also didn't after missing yet another test. Only after she was suspended she was looking for a reason it wasn't her fault.
Also, you can't expect the hotel to tell some random person a room number or call a guest at 6am. Sometimes they will, sometimes they just won't. That's why you better not have your phone on silent.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

I would fight any missed test that wasn't my fault, purely because the implication these days is that any missed test is due to missed doping.

I suspect that's because you are looking at the issue from the perspective of a Clinic poster, rather than from the perspective of an athlete who regards testing as a somewhat irritating part of the background music to your life. Missed tests happen reasonably often. The three missed tests equals a violation system exists precisely on that understanding - pretty much everyone will miss one eventually. It's not something that causes panic and it's not something that you need to defend your name over.

More generally, I can tell you with absolute certainty that most people, most of the time, do not behave as vigilant pursuers of their legal rights at the first opportunity and every one thereafter. They often ignore things, let them slide, until they become an issue. What you believe you would or what I believe I would do (I'm a cantankerous pedant in many ways) shouldn't be taken as a starting point for determining what is or isn't "suspicious". Not immediately fighting the first missed test may have been unwise, but it was not in and of itself suspicious.

The interesting part is the later two missed tests.

 

[TrainTrack]

Re: Re:

In this case she was where she said she was and accessible though. I think it's highly likely she was not glowing at the time of this missed test, the other two are more indicative of that. The real question is why she didn't bother to challenge it as soon as it came up?

I disagree. She was not accessible. She was not tested. Athletes don't switch phones on to silent. That is unprofessional. She avoided a test. She claimed her phone was on silent, but how can it be proved? When one is away from family one doesn't switch a phone to silent, never mind a professional athlete who is on the OOC system. Why was some of her team not able to do something to gain access to Lizzie to get her up for the test? Was she in the hotel on her own? Managers? Soignuers? Mechanics? No one was up preparing for the day?

I do that all the time when away from my family, as do many of my co-workers who travel, especially internationally.

Sometimes its the only way to get anything resembling a normal nights sleep.

I cant imagine Armistead's phone is hopping all the time. I would imagine only close family and friends have her number and then they would also know not to contact her when she is away racing. I expect Armistead has an agent again so she can concentrate on racing again meaning her phone need not be on silent. Why also nominate 6am-7am as testing time if you are going to be sleeping? And if you wanted to leave the phone on silent why not have the hotel give you an alarm call at 6am?

Doesn't add up in Armistead's case. It might if she did not miss another 2 tests!

Remember, this was the first test that she missed. Personally - I have my phone automatically set to be on silent from 10pm to 7am - it's a common feature you can activate on an iphone, for example - I'm sure other models can too. I don't find it odd that she was asleep at 6am, or that the phone was on silent.

I DO find it odd that she didn't dispute the test until 9 months later, after she'd missed 3 whereabouts tests. That's just suspicious.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

https://twitter.com/johnarmitstead/status/760429225119715329

the question was asked about how many tests Lizzie has had this year

Per the above tweet:
that would be 16, but it doesn't say how many IC or OOC.

I have no idea of the connection of John to Lizzie (if any), so that number cannot be taken as 100% accurate either.

This is a Tweet from the same halfwit brother who says he appealed the first violation when she didn't? Well that's a 100% confidence booster in these parts, isn't it?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Isn't having your phone on silent taking yourself off grid, hence unavailable for testing?

Armistead not credible.

Doping.

Seriously, please, please, please show me the rule that says having your phone on silent - or off - is a rule violation. Please. I'm begging you.

 

[70kmph]

Completely bogus

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

If someone is pinged for a whereabouts violation, then there should be a certain period of time - a month? - to determine if it's valid or not. After that, it no longer is a matter for debate, it's a fact.

There is time. There is a process. Please, educate yourself, read the rules, read those with knowledge, before making these observations. This system has been in place for quite some time now.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

She has to give a one-hour-window for the day, is asleep and has her phone on silent. Her fault if she misses the test, imo. Prob would have pulled of a Mo if the tester had acutally knocked on her door.

If only we could get CAS panels picked from the Clinic...