The Armitstead doping thread.

[gooner]

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

Why would the UKAD be confused about the rules of what constitutes a no-show or not? It's their rules. It makes no sense.

Rules are open to interpretation. I read them this way, you read them that. UKAD read it that they had followed the rules. CAS said they hadn't.

hehehe, so you are reverting now your position to say the rules are unclear? After your attempt at ridiculing my question, you're taking refuge there? Weak, dude. But ok, let's clarify this: what bit was interpreted in one way by one party and the other way by the other party?

The alternative would be them engaging in persecuting athletes, lying in their reports, just for the fun of it. That also makes no sense.

Some do argue that UKAD are sometimes a bit cavalier in the way they treat athletes. And maybe they could and should have shown more understanding here, took a closer look at the first fail when LA offered her explanation. But that does not mean that they actively seek to persecute athletes. It could just mean they mess up.

How would they, though? How can the fine gentleman responsible for the test be unable to understand what the rules are? The assumption is that he has some kind of education. Makes no sense.

Is there a plausible explanation in the CAS end for the confusion about the rules? Yes, there is.

Correct. The explanation being that CAS is a court of appeal. If you reject CAS's right to overturn decisions of lower courts (here, UKAD) then you are denying athletes the right of appeal to an independent court. Do you think athletes should be denied the right of appeal to an independent court?

I don't talk about rights, I try to explain what happened. Being a higher court does not give one reason by itself. We need to check the check the rules and what happened. Are they clear?

Is there benefit in helping out an athlete in trouble, by twisting the rules a little bit, making a no-show into a no-no-show? Yes, there is: the athlete will be thankful, her federation too, so will her team, and her country's Olympic association, as she is a potential gold medalist. Being that country GB which is gaining an overwhelming amount of power in the world of sport, that explanation becomes more and more plausible.

So CAS here is acting like the Godfather, doing Bonasera a favour? Someday, and that day may never come, CAS will call upon UKAD to do a service for them? Except...well CAS is just an appeals court. What favour can you imagine - and you have demonstrated that you have a colourful imagination, so don't fail me here, please - UKAD being asked to do for CAS?

How do CAS get their funding?
Who do they owe their existence?
Who finances them more ad-hoc courts?

Explanation that makes no sense vs Explanation with plausibility. Who wins?

You're not looking for an explanation that makes sense - court of appeal overturns decision of lower court, as happens all the time in the real world - in favour of a convoluted conspiracy that feeds your need to believe that everyone is working together and everything is corrupted.

You're the one talking about conspiracies, I did not mention any. My explanation is one about institutions, their behavior, and the behavior of the individuals in them. It's not that hard to understand what I'm saying, try to not be confused next time, please.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, makes it very, very fishy indeed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Where to begin? Perhaps with the facts, Jones never lied to a Grand Jury, it was to Federal Authorties during the BALCO Investgation.

A hit. A very palpable hit. I retire from the field to tend my wounds. Insignificant as they are.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

so you are reverting now your position to say the rules are unclear?

All rules are unclear insofar as they are open to interpretation.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

Strawman.

Question is: why were those tweets between the 7th and 17th deleted?
If you say she's worried about her privacy, why would she have tweeted about private matters in the first place?

So no time to update whereabouts form, but time to tweet crap about a wedding band?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Where to begin? Perhaps with the facts, Jones never lied to a Grand Jury, it was to Federal Authorties during the BALCO Investgation.

A hit. A very palpable hit. I retire from the field to tend my wounds. Insignificant as they are.

Well, if you're implying that lying to grand jury is a routine, even by Hamilton and Landis you've lost all hope at forming a palpable argument.

If I were you, quit why you're behind :lol:

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, makes it very, very fishy indeed.

this indeed.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should know about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Gooner you're beating around the bush.
Let's cut to the chase.

Do you have anything to offer as to why she deleted those tweets between 7th-17th june?
again, if you claim it's because she's worried about her privacy, why did she tweet private stuff in the first place? Doesn't add up. The purpose of twitter is to have as many people as possible read your stuff.

And that tweet about a wedding band...deleted. Why ffs?

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, makes it very, very fishy indeed.

this indeed.

Remarkable enough I find myself in agreement with sniper. Hey the four horsemen been sighted yet?

Although I must reiterate that until further notice and until I have read the CAS-versdict, I have no reason to doubt them per say. Sp if CAs feels that one of the strikes should be stricken, then by all means she is no longer in three strikes. What is still beyond me is the lame stories connected to all three strikes.

For the second one, really she as a professional athlete was too busy to properly amend her ADAMS.

For the third one, well my point is clear I think.

As for the first one, hasn't any professional athlete ever thought of instructing the hotel appropriately (and with that I mean living instructions that you can always, always be disturbed for doping controls). Also this was the night before a yearly race in Sweden so one would expect the hotels to be somewhat accustomed to doping controls taking place every now and then. Lastly, don't they learn lessons of stories like the one from Chris Froome that you should make more of an effort to get the hotel informed of what might occur?

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should know about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

Indeed. But if these same people then draw their own conclusions and treat her like a cheat, don't come crying back! If she doesn't like being labeled a cheat, tough.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

so you are reverting now your position to say the rules are unclear?

All rules are unclear insofar as they are open to interpretation.

So you now think the rules are unclear, even though just a moment ago you were shocked with the impertinence of questioning their clarity.

Fine, let's explore that. What bit is unclear in the rules?

 

[sniper]

very good points, gjb (ur post on previous page).

Another issue wrt Armissedtest:
I found it hard to believe she could be promoting her book when there was a CAS decision in the balance.
How stupid would that have looked if she'd ended up missing RIO with a ban?
It's almost as if she already knew she was going to be let off.
Impossibru, I know.

On a side, daily tweeter Paula Radcliffe stopped tweeting when the Insight team from the Sunday Times came knocking at her door.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

you're curtailing the issue.
do you have anything to offer as to why she deleted those tweets between 7th-17th june?
again, if you claim it's because she's worried about her privacy, why did she tweet private stuff in the first place? Doesn't add up. The purpose of twitter is to have as many people as possible read your stuff.

And that tweet about a wedding band...deleted. Why ffs?

I don't know but it doesn't mean there wasn't a legit family and personal issue.

Irrespective of that, the issue is that people WANT to know about an athlete's personal life. That's what I take issue it and is said in a general sense. You may not believe it, it's another thing to ask for it to be disclosed publicly. It's none of your business.

Grand wanting the truth to something, but there is some things you leave alone in querying that.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO.

Rumours? We're now citing rumours as facts? Really? We're in the twilight zone now, let's all just make up whatever kind of nonsense we want in order to support the most feeble of arguments.

I know what happened in the LA (the other one) case: a unicorn did it.

Not many believed that Juan Pelota was doping either, people were ridiculed even if they suggested the possibility. I don't think we can consider 'rumors' as simply rumors in his case anymore.

Considering both Landis and Hamiton spoke to a grand jury and provided testimony, they most likely stated the 2001 TDS story. Thus it's not a rumour but fact. Whether Armstrong actually did test positive is another story.

What we do know was Armstrong was fully aware at the time of flying too close to the sun, so there must have been some form of collusion and corroboration.

My reply was to fmk. I don't disagree with you.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, makes it very, very fishy indeed.

this indeed.

Remarkable enough I find myself in agreement with sniper. Hey the four horsemen been sighted yet?

Although I must reiterate that until further notice and until I have read the CAS-versdict, I have no reason to doubt them per say. Sp if CAs feels that one of the strikes should be stricken, then by all means she is no longer in three strikes. What is still beyond me is the lame stories connected to all three strikes.

For the second one, really she as a professional athlete was too busy to properly amend her ADAMS.

For the third one, well my point is clear I think.

As for the first one, hasn't any professional athlete ever thought of instructing the hotel appropriately (and with that I mean living instructions that you can always, always be disturbed for doping controls). Also this was the night before a yearly race in Sweden so one would expect the hotels to be somewhat accustomed to doping controls taking place every now and then. Lastly, don't they learn lessons of stories like the one from Chris Froome that you should make more of an effort to get the hotel informed of what might occur?

It's "per se"; "in itself".

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So you now think the rules are unclear, even though just a moment ago you were shocked with the impertinence of questioning their clarity.

If we can agree that, insofar as all rules are open to interpretation, all rules are unclear, what is the pertinence of questioning the clarity of the rules in this instance?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Indeed. But if this same people than draw their own conclusions and treat her like a cheat, don't come crying back! If she doesn't like being labeled a cheat, tough.

this is again bang on.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Well, if you're implying that lying to grand jury is a routine, even by Hamilton and Landis you've lost all hope at forming a palpable argument.

I think the grand jury testimonies in the BALCO case demonstrated that not everything said to a grand jury is in fact a fact, so I would not rely upon a statement being made to a grand jury as evidence of its accuracy. That's all. You're the one seeking to rely on the status of the testimony as evidence of its accuracy. And while we can agree that the stories Hamilton and Landis told the grand jury that they were told were probably told, the mere fact that Hamilton and Landis repeated them to the grand jury does not prove the substance of the stories LA told, does not prove that he popped a positive that he subsequently had hidden.

We are well off the beaten track now, in danger of a mod getting moody, arguing the LA (the first) case and not the LA (the other one) situation. None of this helps bolster the argument about protected riders (if you believe such things exist) having to take a fall because they weren't really protected.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
Indeed. But if this same people than draw their own conclusions and treat her like a cheat, don't come crying back! If she doesn't like being labeled a cheat, tough.

this is again bang on.

Oh dear, the end of times is truly upon us.

 

[climb4fun]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

you're curtailing the issue.
do you have anything to offer as to why she deleted those tweets between 7th-17th june?
again, if you claim it's because she's worried about her privacy, why did she tweet private stuff in the first place? Doesn't add up. The purpose of twitter is to have as many people as possible read your stuff.

And that tweet about a wedding band...deleted. Why ffs?

I don't know but it doesn't mean there wasn't a legit family and personal issue.

Irrespective of that, the issue is that people WANT to know about an athlete's personal life. That's what I take issue it and is said in a general sense. You may not believe it, it's another thing to ask for it to be disclosed publicly. It's none of your business.

Grand wanting the truth to something, but there is some things you leave alone in querying that.

When public entertainment is the chosen career path, expectation of privacy is pretty much silly.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should know about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

Indeed. But if these same people then draw their own conclusions and treat her like a cheat, don't come crying back! If she doesn't like being labeled a cheat, tough.

Again, you may not believe her. Of course the labels of cheat are going to come over this.

It's wanting to know her personal and family life. That goes for all athletes.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

I agree. Armistead is within her right to keep her family life to herself. It's none of our business. And people have lost perspective to ask for that to be disclosed.

It was she who offered it up as an excuse and made it sound like the lame excuse heard so many times. She could have said nothing and just stated that for private reason she was not able to adjust her ADAMS in time, but stating family emergency is actually exactly what you want to state if you want to keep people from asking further questions as they would quickly be deemed inappropriate. Combine that with her twitter feed being cleansed for said period, make sit very, very fishy indeed.

If she just stated for a private reason, the same would be said regardless.

You may see it as a lame excuse, that still doesn't mean we should know about it. In fact I don't want to know about it.

It's one of the things I agree with her on as she said in the Sky interview, she doesn't have to explain it to no one and put it in the public domain. It's her own business.

People don't like it. Tough.

Indeed. But if these same people then draw their own conclusions and treat her like a cheat, don't come crying back! If she doesn't like being labeled a cheat, tough.

Again, you may not believe her. Of course the labels of cheat are going to come over this.

It's wanting to know her personal and family life. That goes for all athletes.

Again she brought up the family emergency and she brought up that she was so distraught that people are now labeling her a cheat. From the interview:

“Devastated – absolutely devastated,” was her response when asked how she felt about the scepticism that is now coming her way.

“People are going to judge me, they’re going to judge my family. I would never cheat, not in any walk of life, I wouldn’t cheat. People will think I’m a cheat for the rest of my life and that’s because of not ticking a box on a form, and I don’t mean to make it sound trivial – it’s not – it’s a fight we all have to take responsibility for and as world champion I should take it higher than anyone else. But something happened to me and my family that I couldn’t control and that’s more important to me than cycling.”

She can't have it both ways, I would be perfectly fine if she would have said, stuff it, it is private and non of your fncking business and I accept that this and the mistakes I made will probably label me a cheat in the eyes of some or most of the followers. However, that is clearly not the line she is taking. We are to leave it alone and just take her word for it that she is not a cheater. That just ain't gonna happen.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

When public entertainment is the chosen career path, expectation of privacy is pretty much silly.

That doesn't mean I want or should know about it with regards to a sports athlete. In the case of a family emergency, it would likely include other people's privacy. How is that your business then?