- Apr 2, 2013
- 769
- 0
- 0
Re:
Yes, them's the rules. You don't have to get into whether she's clean or dirty. The whereabouts system has nothing to do with proof of clean or dirty, so it never proves anything in that regard, you can't be found to be dirty if you don't do the tests and you're not proven clean if you do them either. 3 strikes and you're out is the system and she proceeded on the basis that she had one whereabouts failure, then two and then she missed another. She is a very lucky woman, if you'll call it luck. She has acquiesced, to an extent, that she had one and then two whereabouts failures before the third. She says she wrote a letter of protest, and maybe she did, but that's been contradicted by Sapstead.
The system needs to be tightened up with limitation periods on disputing whereabouts failures. It is ridiculous that it can be circumvented like this.
kwikki said:
Yes, them's the rules. You don't have to get into whether she's clean or dirty. The whereabouts system has nothing to do with proof of clean or dirty, so it never proves anything in that regard, you can't be found to be dirty if you don't do the tests and you're not proven clean if you do them either. 3 strikes and you're out is the system and she proceeded on the basis that she had one whereabouts failure, then two and then she missed another. She is a very lucky woman, if you'll call it luck. She has acquiesced, to an extent, that she had one and then two whereabouts failures before the third. She says she wrote a letter of protest, and maybe she did, but that's been contradicted by Sapstead.
The system needs to be tightened up with limitation periods on disputing whereabouts failures. It is ridiculous that it can be circumvented like this.
- Jul 10, 2010
- 1,006
- 1
- 10,485
Re:
The whereabouts system and its sanctions are put in place because of the like of Tyler and Haven hiding under the table when he is glowing.
When the tester calls he can hide under the table once and tell the world "I am clean".
When the tester calls he can hide under the table twice and tell the world "I am clean".
But he can't do it three times. That is how the system works.
So if you are a clean athlete and you have just a single strike and are thus two minor administrative errors from blowing away your whole career and future - how would you react ? And remember, elite athletes are the types of people who can look at steak and chips on the menu and select rice, they can spend hours adjusting their position on the bike up or down a mm here or there. These are people whose whole life revolves around getting the tiniest detail right. Imagine you have become a specialist in getting details right, two tiny mistakes in the next 12 months and it will be game over, get it right for 12 months and the slate is wiped clean. Have I got anything important in my dairy for the next 12 months, turns the page - Oh look August - fly to Rio. Just what would be the reaction of a clean athlete when faced with that scenario ? If I can worry about whether my seat pin is 3mm too high, can I do whereabouts ?
kwikki said:
The whereabouts system and its sanctions are put in place because of the like of Tyler and Haven hiding under the table when he is glowing.
When the tester calls he can hide under the table once and tell the world "I am clean".
When the tester calls he can hide under the table twice and tell the world "I am clean".
But he can't do it three times. That is how the system works.
So if you are a clean athlete and you have just a single strike and are thus two minor administrative errors from blowing away your whole career and future - how would you react ? And remember, elite athletes are the types of people who can look at steak and chips on the menu and select rice, they can spend hours adjusting their position on the bike up or down a mm here or there. These are people whose whole life revolves around getting the tiniest detail right. Imagine you have become a specialist in getting details right, two tiny mistakes in the next 12 months and it will be game over, get it right for 12 months and the slate is wiped clean. Have I got anything important in my dairy for the next 12 months, turns the page - Oh look August - fly to Rio. Just what would be the reaction of a clean athlete when faced with that scenario ? If I can worry about whether my seat pin is 3mm too high, can I do whereabouts ?
- Jul 10, 2010
- 1,006
- 1
- 10,485
Re: Re:
I am not confident you read the post. According to the facts put out by UKAD of all athletes across all sports only 6 GB athletes are sat on two missed tests, so that would tend to make your claim false.
However, what we don't know is how many have had three missed tests and have had express conduct of their case at CAS or perhaps, if they are not going to Rio, their case is pending at CAS, and in the best interests of protection for the private lives of those individuals whose livelihooods have most likely been funded by the public, along with the public funding of the many, many hangers on and specialist advisors to them, also paid out of the public purse, the public are not allowed to know if they have had three strikes.
So we can either assume the pyramid AFTER ONE STRIKE (please read my post) is 6 and then 1 or it is 6 and then an unkown number possibly bigger than 6.
But you dodged my question. I did not ask about others, you had made the point in your post and I wanted you to answer, when I placed you in the system you described. You are an elite athlete and you are sat on one missed test. How are you going to react ?
kwikki said:
I am not confident you read the post. According to the facts put out by UKAD of all athletes across all sports only 6 GB athletes are sat on two missed tests, so that would tend to make your claim false.
However, what we don't know is how many have had three missed tests and have had express conduct of their case at CAS or perhaps, if they are not going to Rio, their case is pending at CAS, and in the best interests of protection for the private lives of those individuals whose livelihooods have most likely been funded by the public, along with the public funding of the many, many hangers on and specialist advisors to them, also paid out of the public purse, the public are not allowed to know if they have had three strikes.
So we can either assume the pyramid AFTER ONE STRIKE (please read my post) is 6 and then 1 or it is 6 and then an unkown number possibly bigger than 6.
But you dodged my question. I did not ask about others, you had made the point in your post and I wanted you to answer, when I placed you in the system you described. You are an elite athlete and you are sat on one missed test. How are you going to react ?
It is no proof, but it's still pretty solid evidence of doping.
In the age of Cookson, hell will freeze over before Armissedtests tests positive, so this is about as good as it gets.
In the age of Cookson, hell will freeze over before Armissedtests tests positive, so this is about as good as it gets.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 1,249
- 19
- 10,510
Re: Re:
"To "***" actually makes "make spitefully critical comments" and I agree, they aren't all from abroad and they aren't all spiteful, but they sure are critical. She knows to expect those and probably deserves some of them, but the extent of the righteous indignation will have taken most people with busy lives and other interest besides trying to prove doping very much by surprise. The procedure that entitled her to keep quiet about this was fully explained by no less than UKAD themselves:
It's quite simple and it's not underhand by any athlete entitled to the benefit of this procedure. She was provisionally suspended only. In the event, the rule violation was not deemed to have been committed. CAS so held.
You can rail against the rules, but she's not at fault in laying a smokescreen to have the benefit of that decision by UKAD.
Freddythefrog said:
"To "***" actually makes "make spitefully critical comments" and I agree, they aren't all from abroad and they aren't all spiteful, but they sure are critical. She knows to expect those and probably deserves some of them, but the extent of the righteous indignation will have taken most people with busy lives and other interest besides trying to prove doping very much by surprise. The procedure that entitled her to keep quiet about this was fully explained by no less than UKAD themselves:
It's quite simple and it's not underhand by any athlete entitled to the benefit of this procedure. She was provisionally suspended only. In the event, the rule violation was not deemed to have been committed. CAS so held.
You can rail against the rules, but she's not at fault in laying a smokescreen to have the benefit of that decision by UKAD.
- Apr 3, 2016
- 1,508
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
It's not my claim. It's the claim of the tester interviewed by ctips.
We don't know which NADO this tester works for, and therefore you cannot judge his claim by the UK stats.
As to the rest of your point, I'm not disagreeing with you. Were I an elite athlete I would avoid making mistakes, but that's me, I'm really anal about stuff like that.
The thing about this Armistead situation is that I find it highly suspicious but also highly believable. As a rule, I don't have much trust in any top professional athlete, but I don't want that to colour my judgement entirely.
The only thing I can glean from this situation is that UKAD went after her over it. They didn't just fold, and they lost in court.
Freddythefrog said:
It's not my claim. It's the claim of the tester interviewed by ctips.
We don't know which NADO this tester works for, and therefore you cannot judge his claim by the UK stats.
As to the rest of your point, I'm not disagreeing with you. Were I an elite athlete I would avoid making mistakes, but that's me, I'm really anal about stuff like that.
The thing about this Armistead situation is that I find it highly suspicious but also highly believable. As a rule, I don't have much trust in any top professional athlete, but I don't want that to colour my judgement entirely.
The only thing I can glean from this situation is that UKAD went after her over it. They didn't just fold, and they lost in court.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
Re: Re:
While I agree with that I also think you need to overhaul the appeals process. At first I wondered why she didn't appeal the missed test immediately, I still think she (i.e. Lizzie Armitstead) should have, but that is because she likely has the resources to do so.
The think is, these rules apply all the way down the chain of tested athletes in every participating sport and many of these people likely do not have the resources or team backing to not just fund the appeal but also fund the lawyers, travel, lost time competing/training etc. that an appeal will likely result in. In this situation I think it's highly likely people would not appeal unless they absolutely have to and I would like to see a situation where athletes are not forced to pay out every time someone else makes a mistake. There are very good ways to do this, including making the agency at fault liable for the athletes fees (and vice versa) or allowing athletes to lodge an objection within a certain time frame which means they can challenge a decision at a later date if required. I would prefer to see a system like one of these put in place, probably the later.
bewildered said:
While I agree with that I also think you need to overhaul the appeals process. At first I wondered why she didn't appeal the missed test immediately, I still think she (i.e. Lizzie Armitstead) should have, but that is because she likely has the resources to do so.
The think is, these rules apply all the way down the chain of tested athletes in every participating sport and many of these people likely do not have the resources or team backing to not just fund the appeal but also fund the lawyers, travel, lost time competing/training etc. that an appeal will likely result in. In this situation I think it's highly likely people would not appeal unless they absolutely have to and I would like to see a situation where athletes are not forced to pay out every time someone else makes a mistake. There are very good ways to do this, including making the agency at fault liable for the athletes fees (and vice versa) or allowing athletes to lodge an objection within a certain time frame which means they can challenge a decision at a later date if required. I would prefer to see a system like one of these put in place, probably the later.
Re: Re:
She probably should have done a proper appeal at the time but I can kind of understand why she wouldn't bother with the hassle.
We know she missed tests on Aug 20 and Oct 5 2015 and June 2016. Given that there was nothing done last October (i.e. she had only 2 missed tests at that time) we can surmise that she had no other missed tests between October 6th 2014 and Aug 2015 (assuming that its 3 pops in 12 months you're allowed). If the 18month period was applying (when did it move from 18 to 12 months?) then that period of no missed tests would stretch back to April 2014. Point being, missed tests weren't a habitual occurrence for her up to mid-late 2015 so she may well have been reasonably comfortable that she wasn't likely to miss another.
Even so, it does seem to be risking it - perhaps the initial response from UKAD wasn't encouraging so they decided to not bother with it.
One thing is for sure - questioning of this sort of thing is entirely valid, both with respect to the confidence we can have in Armitstead and in the testing/whereabouts process in general.
King Boonen said:
She probably should have done a proper appeal at the time but I can kind of understand why she wouldn't bother with the hassle.
We know she missed tests on Aug 20 and Oct 5 2015 and June 2016. Given that there was nothing done last October (i.e. she had only 2 missed tests at that time) we can surmise that she had no other missed tests between October 6th 2014 and Aug 2015 (assuming that its 3 pops in 12 months you're allowed). If the 18month period was applying (when did it move from 18 to 12 months?) then that period of no missed tests would stretch back to April 2014. Point being, missed tests weren't a habitual occurrence for her up to mid-late 2015 so she may well have been reasonably comfortable that she wasn't likely to miss another.
Even so, it does seem to be risking it - perhaps the initial response from UKAD wasn't encouraging so they decided to not bother with it.
One thing is for sure - questioning of this sort of thing is entirely valid, both with respect to the confidence we can have in Armitstead and in the testing/whereabouts process in general.
- Jul 10, 2010
- 1,006
- 1
- 10,485
Re: Re:
I don't think anyone would accuse you of being "anal" with your whole future relying on doing it right. Even the most clumsy person would smarten up their act, unless of course they just are not very good at an awful lot of things, in which case that excludes every single elite sportsperson. My points is confirmed.
Classic contradiction, how can two things which appear to be mutually exclusive exist together ? One of them is not true. Why are you in this position ? Mostly we are in this position in life because the whole scenario is not visible to us to even determine which of two versions is more likely to be true. So go back to the athlete faced with one missed test. Would it be possible for an elite athlete not to respond to the seriousness of their situation, what would cause one athlete, not 6 or not 500, just one athlete to have two missed tests and still get it wrong? What would make that athlete do something different to both yourself and myself ?
kwikki said:
I don't think anyone would accuse you of being "anal" with your whole future relying on doing it right. Even the most clumsy person would smarten up their act, unless of course they just are not very good at an awful lot of things, in which case that excludes every single elite sportsperson. My points is confirmed.
Classic contradiction, how can two things which appear to be mutually exclusive exist together ? One of them is not true. Why are you in this position ? Mostly we are in this position in life because the whole scenario is not visible to us to even determine which of two versions is more likely to be true. So go back to the athlete faced with one missed test. Would it be possible for an elite athlete not to respond to the seriousness of their situation, what would cause one athlete, not 6 or not 500, just one athlete to have two missed tests and still get it wrong? What would make that athlete do something different to both yourself and myself ?
- Jul 10, 2010
- 1,006
- 1
- 10,485
Re: Re:
Thank you for deciding to tell me what the correct definition of "to *** was". My definition was wrong.
Two points - UKAD rules. Just what sort of intellectually, incontinent, imbeciles drew those up - provisional suspension ? The whole point of an "Appeal" is to challenge a decision. By definition, that means a decision has to be made in the first place, not some "provisional" stuff. Isn't Liz Nicholl paid enough to get a decision out of her organisation ? (I would record her salary, because I expect is is slightly larger than that of the Prime Minister. but the last "organogram" ~(I jest not) held at the national archives recording the structure and salaries of staff at UKSport will not load - and is out of date - Sept 2011 ! )
This is sport, let's make it a little more serious than LA's hurt feelings that people might know she missed 3 tests and is challenging it. Let's make it murder or rape. The law works like this. The evidence is gathered, the appropriate forum for determining liability is selected and the case heard. For murder and rape it is trial, in the public forum with the decision resting with a jury. Reporting restrictions can be put in place by the judge but once the decision is made, if convicted, these restrictions are removed. The threshold for reporting restrictions are significant. I am not confident "LA's fans will not like what they find out and Kellogs might not sponsor her next year if the public really knew she missed the tests the public were paying to be conducted" would wash.
Post the DECISION, if the convicted is able to demonstrate that they have new evidence, evidence was not considered or the conduct of the trial was somehow incorrect or prejudiced, then the convicted is able to appeal the decision.
What we have here is some sort of weird made-up-special-sporty-t ype stuff. A "provisional decision" appears to be a mechanism deliberately placed in the system to allow the governance of sport to do what the governance of sport always wants to do - that is to get their decision making and verdicts behind closed doors and out of the public eye. And there is only ever one reason elements in society wish to do that, which is to enshrine power in a small elite.
Why should society not grant a falsely convicted murderer the same protection of anonymity it deems to grant a sporting star who does not subject themselves to the testing regimen society has deemed appropriate ? Think of the family of the convicted murderer, what wouldn't they give for one tenth the cover gifted to LA !
I would argue that this is typical of the governance of sport that has got sport into the mess it is in right now with new crisis in FIFA, the IAAF, the IOC and the UCI seemingly never out of crisis, regardless of leadership changes.
Then you argue she is not at fault in laying a smokescreen. I would argue that she was at fault and in being seen to be at fault, in a deliberate and calculated deception, she has not only harmed herself but actually done a lot of harm to both women's cycling and GB cycling. Innocents will suffer as a result of her selfish behaviour.
I would argue that an alternate strategy would have taken advantage of transparency, particularly if it was voluntary. The factual position is that she has not tested positive. Undoubtedly she would have brought down censure on her head. But by accepting that censure as the response to her personal failings, she may have kept the confidence of more of the public who pay so much to support their sports stars, and more of her own personal fans. All this "the dog ate my homework" and "some guy BC paid to do my job, left, and I never realised him not calling me to ask me where I was going to be, meant it wasn't getting done - just who'd have thunk it ?" type stuff is very, very poor.
wrinklyvet said:
Thank you for deciding to tell me what the correct definition of "to *** was". My definition was wrong.
Two points - UKAD rules. Just what sort of intellectually, incontinent, imbeciles drew those up - provisional suspension ? The whole point of an "Appeal" is to challenge a decision. By definition, that means a decision has to be made in the first place, not some "provisional" stuff. Isn't Liz Nicholl paid enough to get a decision out of her organisation ? (I would record her salary, because I expect is is slightly larger than that of the Prime Minister. but the last "organogram" ~(I jest not) held at the national archives recording the structure and salaries of staff at UKSport will not load - and is out of date - Sept 2011 ! )
This is sport, let's make it a little more serious than LA's hurt feelings that people might know she missed 3 tests and is challenging it. Let's make it murder or rape. The law works like this. The evidence is gathered, the appropriate forum for determining liability is selected and the case heard. For murder and rape it is trial, in the public forum with the decision resting with a jury. Reporting restrictions can be put in place by the judge but once the decision is made, if convicted, these restrictions are removed. The threshold for reporting restrictions are significant. I am not confident "LA's fans will not like what they find out and Kellogs might not sponsor her next year if the public really knew she missed the tests the public were paying to be conducted" would wash.
Post the DECISION, if the convicted is able to demonstrate that they have new evidence, evidence was not considered or the conduct of the trial was somehow incorrect or prejudiced, then the convicted is able to appeal the decision.
What we have here is some sort of weird made-up-special-sporty-t ype stuff. A "provisional decision" appears to be a mechanism deliberately placed in the system to allow the governance of sport to do what the governance of sport always wants to do - that is to get their decision making and verdicts behind closed doors and out of the public eye. And there is only ever one reason elements in society wish to do that, which is to enshrine power in a small elite.
Why should society not grant a falsely convicted murderer the same protection of anonymity it deems to grant a sporting star who does not subject themselves to the testing regimen society has deemed appropriate ? Think of the family of the convicted murderer, what wouldn't they give for one tenth the cover gifted to LA !
I would argue that this is typical of the governance of sport that has got sport into the mess it is in right now with new crisis in FIFA, the IAAF, the IOC and the UCI seemingly never out of crisis, regardless of leadership changes.
Then you argue she is not at fault in laying a smokescreen. I would argue that she was at fault and in being seen to be at fault, in a deliberate and calculated deception, she has not only harmed herself but actually done a lot of harm to both women's cycling and GB cycling. Innocents will suffer as a result of her selfish behaviour.
I would argue that an alternate strategy would have taken advantage of transparency, particularly if it was voluntary. The factual position is that she has not tested positive. Undoubtedly she would have brought down censure on her head. But by accepting that censure as the response to her personal failings, she may have kept the confidence of more of the public who pay so much to support their sports stars, and more of her own personal fans. All this "the dog ate my homework" and "some guy BC paid to do my job, left, and I never realised him not calling me to ask me where I was going to be, meant it wasn't getting done - just who'd have thunk it ?" type stuff is very, very poor.
- Aug 12, 2009
- 2,814
- 110
- 11,680
Re: Re:
to be fair we are not the control group...its every other athlete in the testing pool who didn't find themselves in her position...which is a lot (caveated with the ones we may not know about)
Freddythefrog said:
to be fair we are not the control group...its every other athlete in the testing pool who didn't find themselves in her position...which is a lot (caveated with the ones we may not know about)
- Mar 3, 2013
- 1,249
- 19
- 10,510
This whole case begs the question (leaving aside accusations): if we take what LA has said at face value, the system of testers having a mobile number that the athlete may not recognise and thus ignore isn't ideal. Perhaps WADA/UKAD could give unique numbers to the testers that would show up on all UK licenced pro athletes' phones as a particular code so they'd know if something was wrong in a case like this.
(yes I know there's a potential conflict of interest if the athletes use the knowledge of the phone numbers get too close to the testers, but what is the alternative)
(yes I know there's a potential conflict of interest if the athletes use the knowledge of the phone numbers get too close to the testers, but what is the alternative)
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
It would appear so; the interview released this morning from the former head of WADA investigations is telling. Reads like a Radcliffe/Mo/Lizze playbook
https://www.propublica.org/article/olympics-top-investigator-secret-efforts-undermine-russian-doping-probe?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1470279227
Benotti69 said:
It would appear so; the interview released this morning from the former head of WADA investigations is telling. Reads like a Radcliffe/Mo/Lizze playbook
https://www.propublica.org/article/olympics-top-investigator-secret-efforts-undermine-russian-doping-probe?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1470279227
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
auline Ferrand-Prévot et le jugement «honteux» concernant Lizzie Armitstead
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Pauline-ferrand-prevot-et-le-jugement-honteux-concernant-lizzie-armitstead/713018?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Pauline-ferrand-prevot-et-le-jugement-honteux-concernant-lizzie-armitstead/713018?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Re: Re:
thehog said:samhocking said:
So, she now put the hotel room phone on silent? That can be done?
I get the sense you're making this up as you go along...
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Re: Re:
The phone in her room is her mobile and is on silent. We know this already Hog!
thehog said:samhocking said:
So, she now put the hotel room phone on silent? That can be done?
I get the sense you're making this up as you go along...
The phone in her room is her mobile and is on silent. We know this already Hog!
- May 13, 2009
- 1,872
- 367
- 11,180
Re: Re:
And if your explanation is credible, a filing failure isn't recorded against you?
How long does it take you to write an email saying you were not locatable because [insert credible explanation here]? That's how long it takes and the resources involved in not accumulating a formal strike for a missed test.
Sheesh.
Do you realize that the sum total of effort required to resolve an initial whereabouts failure (ie, a "missed test") is to write an email and send it to the anti-doping agency explaining why you missed the test?King Boonen said:
And if your explanation is credible, a filing failure isn't recorded against you?
How long does it take you to write an email saying you were not locatable because [insert credible explanation here]? That's how long it takes and the resources involved in not accumulating a formal strike for a missed test.
Sheesh.
Wow. The hassle of composing and sending an email...simoni said:
- Aug 14, 2015
- 245
- 1
- 3,030
Re: Re:
Joe, would you describe the level of awareness of how easy that email process is to explain away any logistical ***-up to be:
(A.) The kind of thing you would expect from a 26-year old, professional team-leading World Champion?
(B.) Not something that poor, little naive Lizzie-Wizzie could ever expect to know in the land of grown-ups?
joe_papp said:
Joe, would you describe the level of awareness of how easy that email process is to explain away any logistical ***-up to be:
(A.) The kind of thing you would expect from a 26-year old, professional team-leading World Champion?
(B.) Not something that poor, little naive Lizzie-Wizzie could ever expect to know in the land of grown-ups?
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram