The Armitstead doping thread.

[gooner]

@GJB123

She did say that in the Sky interview yesterday. It was private and none of other's people business to know what it was.

Fair enough your criticism and not believing her reasons for the missed tests. That's not what I'm saying.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

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?

We can't agree on anything, don't make stuff up, please. A rule is either clear or unclear, is either open to interpretation or not open to interpretation (clear).

The pertinence is to assess if the rules are clear or not. If they are, then my subsequent reasoning follows.
What part of the rules is unclear?

 

[climb4fun]

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?

It isn't and I couldn't care less. She made it our business when she offered it as an excuse for her buffoonery

 

[burning]

Gooner, you are simply not adressing Sniper and GJB's points. Can you answer why she deleted these tweets after this stuff blew up? Please dont dodge that question if you are willing to argue.

 

[burning]

@GJB123

She did say that in the Sky interview yesterday. It was private and none of other's people business to know what it was.

Then, why on earth she was tweeting these stuff? This whole story is full of holes and it is clear for me that she dodged these tests as she was glowing.

 

[gooner]

Re:

Gooner, you are simply not adressing Sniper and GJB's points. Can you answer why she deleted these tweets after this stuff blew up? Please dont dodge that question if you are willing to argue.

I responded to sniper above. I don't know.

Fair enough if you don't believe her and you think she is a cheat. I have already said that to GJB123. That's not the discussion I'm having.

This is wanting to know about an athlete's personal life in a general sense. In the case of a legit family emergency it is none of our business to know the details. As I said above, no one has taken into account the likely fact that others will be affected if this was disclosed. Sniper and GJB123 want to know the details.

Perspective out the window around here as usual.

 

[burning]

Obviously her privacy is none of our business and she does not have to make a public statement. But if you tweet a lot during these days and suddenly delete them, I would sense that she is just bsimg.

 

[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?

It isn't and I couldn't care less. She made it our business when she offered it as an excuse for her buffoonery

She did say it but then said she is entitled to privacy on the matter.

She didn't make it your business to know the details of it.

 

[gooner]

Re:

Obviously her privacy is none of our business and she does not have to make a public statement. But if you tweet a lot during these days and suddenly delete them, I would sense that she is just bsimg.

And she's to answer for that.

 

[climb4fun]

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?

It isn't and I couldn't care less. She made it our business when she offered it as an excuse for her buffoonery

She did say it but then said she is entitled to privacy on the matter.

She didn't make it your business to know the details of it.

Perhaps she should work at the supermarket so she won't need alibis for her shenanigans

 

[bewildered]

no need to get into the details of her 'family emergency'. the deleted tweets should do it

 

[SeriousSam]

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.

Yet it's entirely up to Armistead whether she reveals any details or not, just like the inferences about her doping status given what she says are entirely up to us.

It's not at all a loss of perspective to state that without further details, her story isn't remotely convincing. But of course, it's up to her whether she wants to provide people with a reason to believe her.

 

[climb4fun]

Re:

no need to get into the details of her 'family emergency'. the deleted tweets should do it

Should do what? This is over unless she "misses" another one in the next 9 or so months

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Lizzie is obviously entitled to privacy around family matters - she's just being hit with the issue that the fact she hadn't dealt with certain issues before that means that it has become far more significant and therefore there's much more pressure on her to justify herself; the context makes it harder for her however, in that she obviously doesn't want to be brandished a cheat, but the fact that all concerned managed to successfully keep her suspension under wraps until it was cleared creates the feeling among many that the public is being kept in the dark, even though if she legit had a family problem that caused the third strike, then it would be absolutely fair enough (it's then the fact the other two happened, or were not dealt with, that becomes the problem). It's difficult for her then to be upset about being brandished a cheat, when you consider even Chris Froome - somebody who has been put through the mill annually about being perceived as a cheat - volunteered information about his missed tests, while Lizzie is trying to bury bad news.

If this had all been done out in the open then certainly many people would still perceive her as a cheat, but the backlash would be less. If we'd known that she'd missed tests and one of them was for this weird hotel shenanigans she was contesting, the third was for a family emergency that happened before a decision was made on the first, and therefore she was in a race against time to get cleared for the Olympics, there might be less eyeball-rolling about her self-justification, and certainly the feedback from the women's péloton might be different, as the resentment of what's being seen as special treatment for her, which appears to be the gist of Valentina Scandolara's Orwell quote and PFP's comment once expanded to L'Équipe, would be less prominent if we already knew that a date was being set for the hearing of her case. As it was, it seems that the péloton only discovered at the same time we did; having claimed to be sick, her electing to pull out of racing when not 100%, in events often plagued by crashes, with an Olympics coming up, wasn't especially unusual, the discovery that, even if this was all an innocent mistake and she isn't a doper, she is nevertheless at least a liar, may also have coloured the péloton's reaction and response.

Ironically the problem is, had there been transparency about the case, there mightn't be such an issue with people prying about the lack of transparency about the personal matter she is under absolutely no obligation to disclose.

Although if Julien Absalon decided to tweet about it to score a cheap point...

 

[zigmeister]

Sorry, even a simple statement that isn't specific in detail, yet clear enough regarding the missed test that is legit...I think is required. This is the current cycling woman's world champion we are talking about here. Not #476 in the world rankings of cycling and a nobody.

She also was going to be representing the UK at the Olympics. Your personal life is about over when you decide to make a living from public funded and publicly exposed athletics.

Also, a checked box? Ok, what about the other 2 tests she just so happen to miss? Opps...where's Waldo.

 

[thehog]

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.

This is just spaghetti!

I don't even think you understand what you just typed, lol! :lol:

 

[Freddythefrog]

Facts.
Booking a band and sorting out wedding arrangements at 17.09 on the day before you have a whereabouts failure.
The tweets are all wiped from your account and you go to CAS to appeal for this missed test to be struck out, justifying the failure as lack of time due to a family crisis.
Lies were given to the world's media justify the withdrawal from the Giro and the National GB champs - "I am ill" whereas the truth of the matter is she was currently banned from racing.

Bewildered, correct - we don't need to know the nature of any family crisis or as to whether or not it existed.

I am going to repeat myself and misquote Sir David - you don't wake up on Monday and say your are going to lie today and then get up on Tuesday and wake up and say I am going to be all ethical this day even if those around me are lying and cheating to gain advantage.

There is nothing sinister in a quite sweet and innocent tweet from a young woman planning her wedding. Indeed it could sit there on her account even with the family crisis. So the question is why on earth would anyone delete it from their account ?

The motive for wiping that tweet can only be a desire to remove evidence that contradicts the account you are going to give if anyone asks you to justify failure to do the whereabouts. That timing 17.09 - it blows her argument out of the water. And again, if she is being honest even now she just says, I messed up and it is my fault and takes the missed test on the chin and tells people it was a private matter and that is it.

But going on international media and then citing family crisis, when the facts show that you were deliberately stacking the evidence - preventing those to whom you are appealing - it was an APPEAL she was engaged in - from seeing the full facts of her situation, then that is deliberate deception. Not the first deliberate deception, but the second one that has been proved to us. Scheming deliberate deception and Snow White type character, mired in family chaos so she does not know which way to turn are mutually exclusive - fact.

I don't want to know anything about her family crisis. Wiping an email, that proved she had plenty of time available that day to conduct other routine affairs, is enough. She was on two strikes for goodness sake. She knows a single extra strike will be goodbye to all her dreams ......

........or it would be to any normal athlete. Booking a band or doing whereabouts, bit of a tough choice, tell you what - I will book the band.

I really am not starting to like the narrative that a rider with a giant sword hanging over their head - the CAS appeal, can smash the opposition in the Tour of GB , do the Giro, withdraw and then start promoting forward sales of her autobiography - before CAS sit and decide her future. Surely any reasonable person, if their fate was genuinely in the balance, would pull the book publication date back a month or two - after all - how is the story going to end ? I might need to put a chapter or two in there stating why I never did get to go to Rio and explain in.

But of course, if you are confident, because someone has indicated that although it is going to CAS, UKADA are not going to fight it, well then you can plan on nothing ever getting out. The illness at the Giro will forever be an illness. That black hole in your twitter account will never be seen by anyone. You can ride at your best in the tour of GB and use the time out from the Giro to promote your book.

No - I have no desire to find out what her "crisis" was - please keep it private. And once again, I think Sir David's words are very apt - you don't wake up on Monday and say your are going to lie today and then get up on Tuesday and wake up and say I am going to be all ethical this day even if those around me are lying and cheating to gain advantage and by doing so I will suffer.

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

no need to get into the details of her 'family emergency'. the deleted tweets should do it

Should do what? This is over unless she "misses" another one in the next 9 or so months

what i meant was, people don't want the gory details of a private family matter if it was indeed that. Rather, they would like to know if there genuinely was one and the deleted tweets might shed some light on that.

Also, I think people missed the point I made further up the thread. In her statement she said she's been part of the whereabouts system for 9 years but she seemed able to manage compliance with it for 8 years before she needed help with it. A lot of her story makes no sense and comes across as disingenuous to me.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

Lizzie is obviously entitled to privacy around family matters - she's just being hit with the issue that the fact she hadn't dealt with certain issues before that means that it has become far more significant and therefore there's much more pressure on her to justify herself; the context makes it harder for her however, in that she obviously doesn't want to be brandished a cheat, but the fact that all concerned managed to successfully keep her suspension under wraps until it was cleared creates the feeling among many that the public is being kept in the dark, even though if she legit had a family problem that caused the third strike, then it would be absolutely fair enough (it's then the fact the other two happened, or were not dealt with, that becomes the problem). It's difficult for her then to be upset about being brandished a cheat, when you consider even Chris Froome - somebody who has been put through the mill annually about being perceived as a cheat - volunteered information about his missed tests, while Lizzie is trying to bury bad news.

If this had all been done out in the open then certainly many people would still perceive her as a cheat, but the backlash would be less. If we'd known that she'd missed tests and one of them was for this weird hotel shenanigans she was contesting, the third was for a family emergency that happened before a decision was made on the first, and therefore she was in a race against time to get cleared for the Olympics, there might be less eyeball-rolling about her self-justification, and certainly the feedback from the women's péloton might be different, as the resentment of what's being seen as special treatment for her, which appears to be the gist of Valentina Scandolara's Orwell quote and PFP's comment once expanded to L'Équipe, would be less prominent if we already knew that a date was being set for the hearing of her case. As it was, it seems that the péloton only discovered at the same time we did; having claimed to be sick, her electing to pull out of racing when not 100%, in events often plagued by crashes, with an Olympics coming up, wasn't especially unusual, the discovery that, even if this was all an innocent mistake and she isn't a doper, she is nevertheless at least a liar, may also have coloured the péloton's reaction and response.

Ironically the problem is, had there been transparency about the case, there mightn't be such an issue with people prying about the lack of transparency about the personal matter she is under absolutely no obligation to disclose.

Although if Julien Absalon decided to tweet about it to score a cheap point...

I couldn't have summarized it better and more succinct myself. But then again that is what we have come to expect of you LS!

 

[Catwhoorg]

Wasn't the family crisis the 3rd (now 2nd) strike, not the one taken down by CAS (when she was at the hotel for an event) ?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

We can't agree on anything, don't make stuff up, please. A rule is either clear or unclear, is either open to interpretation or not open to interpretation (clear).

The pertinence is to assess if the rules are clear or not. If they are, then my subsequent reasoning follows.
What part of the rules is unclear?

Crikey, even when you agree with someone they get upset. Last time, and then I'm walking away from this: if you think there is a lack of clarity in the rules, either in the general manner in which rules are open to interpretation or in a specific manner based on your reading of the rules, it would be of great benefit if you could actually detail the specific area where you think clarity is lacking. If you want to publicly "assess if the rules are clear or not" then help people, be clear, detail the areas where you think the lack of clarity arises. Otherwise, well the rules go on for pages and pages and pages, across multiple documents, if you're hoping people will guess the specific rule(s) you have a problem with, the odds aren't very good.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Gooner, you are simply not adressing Sniper and GJB's points. Can you answer why she deleted these tweets after this stuff blew up? Please dont dodge that question if you are willing to argue.

1) Apart from the one Tweet screengrabbed, can anyone produce any evidence that she actually did delete multiple Tweets and provide any evidence as to the quantity that is being talked about?

2) After looking at the way the internet's army of forensic experts have reacted to the screengrabbed Tweet, I think deleting Tweets is actually a good idea. We've too many examples of the madness of crowds on the internet, from Reddit and the Boston bombers to more recent events. Given limited information and a thesis they are determined to prove - as opposed to establishing the facts - the net's forensic experts have a known tendency to not just get it wrong, but to do so spectacularly, often at unnecessary (emotional) cost to others.

3) Why do people have a problem with Tweets deleting? Is Twitter meant to be some sort of permanent record?

 

[kwikki]

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.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless.

In amongst the giant tantrum you are asking me why BC (British cycling) didn't protect a South African and a Czech rider. :lol:

Errr....let me think about it for a bit

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

This is wanting to know about an athlete's personal life in a general sense. In the case of a legit family emergency it is none of our business to know the details. As I said above, no one has taken into account the likely fact that others will be affected if this was disclosed. Sniper and GJB123 want to know the details.

Gooner's right here. Do we have a right to know if an athlete has, say, a miscarriage? If an athlete has mental health problems? Where does an athlete's privacy end and 'our' right to know begin? Sure, we'll gossip about people, wonder who that athlete who nearly got expelled from school was and the like. But most of us can agree - I think - that (for eg) Philip Deignan overstepped the line when he Tweeted about PFP's private life. Yes, many times we are going to find out about these things. But we have no right to demand to be told about them. No right at all.

 

[TeflonDub]

Re: Re:

Gooner, you are simply not adressing Sniper and GJB's points. Can you answer why she deleted these tweets after this stuff blew up? Please dont dodge that question if you are willing to argue.

1) Apart from the one Tweet screengrabbed, can anyone produce any evidence that she actually did delete multiple Tweets and provide any evidence as to the quantity that is being talked about?

2) After looking at the way the internet's army of forensic experts have reacted to the screengrabbed Tweet, I think deleting Tweets is actually a good idea. We've too many examples of the madness of crowds on the internet, from Reddit and the Boston bombers to more recent events. Given limited information and a thesis they are determined to prove - as opposed to establishing the facts - the net's forensic experts have a known tendency to not just get it wrong, but to do so spectacularly, often at unnecessary (emotional) cost to others.

3) Why do people have a problem with Tweets deleting? Is Twitter meant to be some sort of permanent record?

I agree with points 1 and 2, but deleting evidence that contradicts a self-created narrative of personal turmoil designed to insulate her from suspicion is not the action of somebody with nothing to hide (as opposed to something private they are under no obligation to reveal).

As they say here in Washington, D.C., "it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up".