The Armitstead doping thread.

[CTQ]

PFP has used botox before the championships of France and just before leaving for Rio to treat pain. interesting to know.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Comment-pauline-ferrand-prevot-s-est-soignee-au-botox/713135?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1470384895

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

interesting to know.

Why?

 

[CTQ]

@ fmk_RoI

Why? only for me maybe, never thought about botox for treatment against muscle aches, sorry

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Lance is just an example to state that things can go wrong even though you have protection. You dont have to be overly defensive and start ad hominem attacks when someone gives an argument.

As far as I know, BC should be objective in these cases. For example, did bc helped JTL in his case? If not, then why? Maybe the reason is that their stance regarding different riders wary wildly for some reason.

a) Things didn't go wrong for Armstrong. He was protected.

b) You haven't got an argument. It's been smashed to pieces by the facts.

c) I haven't made any 'ad hominem' attack on you.

With regards to JTL, he tested positive. Why on earth would BC support somebody proved to be a doper????

You've really not got any sort of grasp on facts versus wild random speculation.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

@ fmk_RoI

Why? only for me maybe, never thought about botox for treatment against muscle aches, sorry

Is its use legal or illegal? Is its use normal or abnormal?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

UKAD IS THE NADO AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST BC IS THE EXACT POINT!

I was with this until this morning. I think I can paint another scenario that has greys in it.

You are at two missed tests and you get a third. You don't sit on your backside to "wait and see" keeping humming, hoping the letter will never arrive. You pick up the phone and start talking to BC. Where is my babysitter? Why didn't he sort it all out for me ? It is all your your fault BC ; see what you can do. ?

UK Sport need to cover their backside. If it gets out they have wiped a completely bona fide test violation off the books, they are going to be deep in the brown stuff. Sapstead will have to go. She is brazening out the Dr Bonar stuff but wobbling.

Even though I criticised the "provisional suspension" route yesterday, I was not thinking it all through. there just has to be a means of a full suspension being implemented. But yes, maybe that would then have to be recorded on the public log whereas "OK we hear you (BC & LA) , we will provisionally suspend you, that satisfies our requirements, and then you can take it to CAS. That way it is all kept out of the media.

The unknown was - how hard would UKADA/UKSport defend it at CAS ?

Now if, and that is a very big if, you had some sort of indication from the NADO that they were not going to put up anything other than token resistance at CAS, well hey, life could return to normal and you could get on racing and then when you are on the provisional suspension, sort out publishing your book and preparing for Rio. No one is going to be any the wiser.

So the decision there is one for UKSport/UKADA - how hard do they want to press back? What will a "victory" at CAS look like ? Reigning world champ and hot favourite suspended. Smoke from the gun wafting right back to the embattled senior management at BC - the story of the greatest ascendance to world domination by a GB NGB ever witnessed in our sporting history, put even further into doubt ?

Were Sapstead and Nicholl up for the tough decision ? If I were a betting man, my money would not have been on that pair going down the line of greatest resistance, even if it was morally the only route their job descriptions tell them it has to.

Look, Nicholl threw how much public money getting Readie into office at WADA ? She would know what he is like. What he is like was made crystal clear yesterday, he didn't want to challenge the Russians over the doping, his subordinate had to leak information to make it so it was near impossible for him to continue to sit on his hands. This is not a new trait for Readie. Nicholl knows Readie and she likes his style, that is why she committed so much of our public money to supporting his bid to become president.

Any takers out there for UKADA fight this one hard at CAS ?

Great post.
If UKAD were after catching athletes, they could actually test one of them positive for a change.
I'm with Burning on this one. He makes some coherent points. Even the most protected athletes are tested. The protection consists of helping atjlete avoid a ban.
This now appears to be true for Russian topathletes as much as for British.
The available evidence suggests UKADA aren't much different from RUSADA.

And if the story didn't leak nobody would have heard the story bar a PDF file 3 moms after the Olympics.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

are the rules clear? because something doesn't fit.

First the "no-show" was deemed as a no-show. Then it was deemed by the CAS as a no-no-show.

Who is right? Why has the first entity ruled it as a no-show, just to be over-ruled by the CAS?

Makes little sense that the first entity would mark as a no-show what actually wasn't. It's their responsibility to know what counts as a no-show and what doesn't!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

are the rules clear?

Have you read them?

Having read them, what part is still not clear to you?

Do you actually understand the role played by CAS in this, that their remit is to judge the judgements of others, approve them when they judge they were right, overturn them when they judge they were wrong?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

And if the story didn't leak nobody would have heard the story bar a PDF file 3 moms after the Olympics.

Read the rules again. We may not even have got the PDF 3 months after the Olympics. The rules - as written by WADA and adopted by UKAD - allow for cases like this to be deep-sixed.

Where the hearing panel has determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has not been committed, the decision shall not be Publicly Disclosed unless the Athlete or other Person in charge consents to such disclosure. Where the Athlete or Person charged does not so consent, a summary of the decision may be published, provided that what is disclosed does not enable the public to identify the Athlete or other Person charged.

These are the rules. From WADA. They have been in place for quite some time now.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

are the rules clear?

Have you read them?

Having read them, what part is still not clear to you?

Do you actually understand the role played by CAS in this, that their remit is to judge the judgements of others, approve them when they judge they were right, overturn them when they judge they were wrong?

What about

are the rules clear?

is unclear to you?
is it question mark?

Explain what doesn't make sense, please, if you want to intervene.

Makes little sense that the first entity would mark as a no-show what actually wasn't. It's their responsibility to know what counts as a no-show and what doesn't!

There are two entities who clearly disagree. The question is simple: are the rules clear?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The question is simple: are the rules clear?

When you cannot read, then yes, clearly, the rules are not clear, they need to be totally rewritten to serve the needs of the illiterates amongst us.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

you can't explain it then?

Right, that's what I was expecting.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Why would UKAD mess up in what is their responsibility, assess who fails to appear in testing?

It just makes more sense one of the entities (CAS) doing a favor, like allowing a British rider to compete in the Olympics (scratch a no-show) than the other possibility which is UKAD persecuting riders, even though they commited no fault.

UKAD is a devious organization who persecutes their own athletes just for the sake of it.

That makes no sense. The world doesn't work like that.

CAS is closing their eyes in order to bank in a favor

This one makes sense. That's how the world works.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

@ fmk_RoI

Why? only for me maybe, never thought about botox for treatment against muscle aches, sorry

Is its use legal or illegal? Is its use normal or abnormal?

I am pretty sure Botox is not prohibited by name on the WADA list.

It may or may not be under one of the catch alls, but I don't think so.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

you can't explain it then?

Explain what? I have told you what CAS's role is. What other part are you deficient in clarity on?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

It may or may not be under one of the catch alls, but I don't think so.

It isn't. It is perfectly legal. And its use for this type of injury is not abnormal.

 

[Benotti69]

Brave comments from Ferrand-Prévot.

“I said the decision was shameful. I never said she took something or that she has doped," said Ferrand-Prévot.

"The rules have to be the same for everyone. Otherwise, we no longer have [anti-doping] control. I was still tested three times a week.

"She didn't show up for a test. The tester didn't find her, that's what she says. In any case, when you have three no-shows, it's you who has the problem."

Although some in the cycling community of athletes reacted on social media concerning Armitstead's whereabouts errors and CAS' final decision, most were relatively quiet.

However, Ferrand-Prevot said, "Everyone agrees with me but nobody said anything. If it happened to me, then the Federation would say, 'You're not participating in the games,' and that's it."

Ferrand-Prévot calling it but, someone should also ask Ferrand-Prévot for a comment on Longo.

 

[fmk_RoI]

She's a fellow athlete. What is she hoping to achieve by saying the CAS decision is shameful? The reality is either the whereabouts procedure is flawed allowing a strike when the athlete is where they say they are and CAS can remove the strike,or its flawed because CAS is protecting Armistead. Either way the decision isn't shameful, it's the result of an already flawed whereabouts system. Athletes should be demanding the process be reviewed by WADA.

I think that what PFP finds most shameful is that LA hasn't pulled out of the Olympics, that BC hasn't pulled her. It is the moral, ethically correct thing to do. It would also (it goes without saying) suit LA's rivals, such as PFP.

Translation? Be careful of reading too much into a statement that was aimed at stirring the ***. It's called gamesmanship.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

you can't explain it then?

Explain what? I have told you what CAS's role is. What other part are you deficient in clarity on?

Why are you pretending I did not make a point?

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Lance is just an example to state that things can go wrong even though you have protection. You dont have to be overly defensive and start ad hominem attacks when someone gives an argument.

As far as I know, BC should be objective in these cases. For example, did bc helped JTL in his case? If not, then why? Maybe the reason is that their stance regarding different riders wary wildly for some reason.

a) Things didn't go wrong for Armstrong. He was protected.

b) You haven't got an argument. It's been smashed to pieces by the facts.

c) I haven't made any 'ad hominem' attack on you.

With regards to JTL, he tested positive. Why on earth would BC support somebody proved to be a doper????

You've really not got any sort of grasp on facts versus wild random speculation.

Oh my god, you just don't get the points. Let me explain to you like I would explain to a 5 year old, because apparently that's your capacity.

Lance, who has exponentially more protection than Lizzie, still got into some trouble by a positive test. I never said they got into same level of trouble, I am just saying that something can go wrong even though you have all sorts of protection. Can you understand that? Do you get it? I guess you won't but I would try my best to educate you.

How on earth it is smashed? I am saying that BC is protecting her and your answer is "LOLZ YOUR POINT IS SMASHEDZZ THESE ARE THE FACTS LOLZ" Seriously, if you want to argue, please go ahead, otherwise just go to a kindergarten or whatevever.

By the way, JTL got banned because of passport, not because he got tested positive. So, maybe it was a machine calibration error? Kreuziger just got away from a passport case? Impey got away from a positive? Again, why didn't BC defend him? Get your facts straight before you even claim that you smash something. You can smash some toys in a playground because looks like you are only capable of smashing that wih your limited knowledge and capacity to argue. And yes, I started using ad hominem attacks because you are clearly unable to argue properly, so I am adressing in a way that you deserve.

 

[Nick C.]

Re:

PFP got burned
https://twitter.com/FERRANDPREVOT/status/760266326015414272

Example #39879 as to why people don't like sticking their necks out and speaking up.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Why are you pretending I did not make a point?

What are you talking about now? You needed the role of CAS explained to you. I explained it. You suggest the rules are unclear without indicating whether you have read them or not or where the lack of clarity is. Now you say you made a point? Bully for you, I say, bully for you. Pat yourself on the back and raise a glass of sherry, why don't you?

 

[GJB123]

Brave comments from Ferrand-Prévot.

“I said the decision was shameful. I never said she took something or that she has doped," said Ferrand-Prévot.

"The rules have to be the same for everyone. Otherwise, we no longer have [anti-doping] control. I was still tested three times a week.

"She didn't show up for a test. The tester didn't find her, that's what she says. In any case, when you have three no-shows, it's you who has the problem."

Although some in the cycling community of athletes reacted on social media concerning Armitstead's whereabouts errors and CAS' final decision, most were relatively quiet.

However, Ferrand-Prevot said, "Everyone agrees with me but nobody said anything. If it happened to me, then the Federation would say, 'You're not participating in the games,' and that's it."

Ferrand-Prévot calling it but, someone should also ask Ferrand-Prévot for a comment on Longo.

Here comes the Benotti-doctrine again:
1. You cannot (claim to) be clean and be friends with known dopers or risk being called a hypocrite or far worse.
2. Also you cannot be in the same picture with both you and the known doper laughing, holding or shaking hands, embracing or generally appearing to have a good time together or risk being called a hypocrite or far worse.
3. If one finds oneself inadvertently in the same picture with known doper it can only be while the known doper's face is making contact with you fast approaching fists or you risk being called a hypocrite or far worse.
4. You cannot call a known doper your friend without the explicit caveat that you know they have doped and you seriously condemn there previous behavior but nevertheless you do like them. Failure to do so will lead to risk of being called a hypocrite or far worse.

I mean, really, is that the best you can come up with?

 

[burning]

Still, many people support her as well. She is clearly right that this situation is just shameful and awful and Deignan's *** tweet further adds up to the shame as well. If Lizzie has any sort of integrity, she would withdraw from races but I guess she is just being arrogant.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Lance, who has exponentially more protection than Lizzie, still got into some trouble by a positive test.

When?