Lizzie Armisted 'cleared' to ride in Rio - 3 missed doping test violations

MPFGLB

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3718410/Lizzie-Armitstead-wins-court-fight-compete-Rio-Olympics-UK-anti-doping-wanted-four-year-ban-three-missed-tests.html

Eamonnator

Like The Daily Mail, I think you should put inverted commas around "3 missed doping tests".

Pudsy33

Dodgy. No mention of why she missed two test AFTER she made a mess of the first one. Are bodies like British Cycling supposed to fund legal battles?

MPFGLB

Eamonnator wrote: »

Like The Daily Mail, I think you should put inverted commas around "3 missed doping tests".

I am not quoting the daily mail in my heading so why do I need quotes

3 doping tests were missed ...

Joe_ Public

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Dodgy. No mention of why she missed two test AFTER she made a mess of the first one. Are bodies like British Cycling supposed to fund legal battles?

I don't know about the UK, but in Ireland isn't it the governing bodies that actually pursue doping cases against athletes with adverse test results? Seems like highly irregular practice at the very least.

MPFGLB

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Dodgy. No mention of why she missed two test AFTER she made a mess of the first one. Are bodies like British Cycling supposed to fund legal battles?

I can see the case fro the first one ...but they would have informed her ??

How did she miss another 2 ?? is it so hard to fill in your where abouts for an hour every day

If you read the article missing tests happens a bit in British Athletics

RobFowl

Google same lassies comments on Nicole Cooke ......

Pudsy33

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don't know about the UK, but in Ireland isn't it the governing bodies that actually pursue doping cases against athletes with adverse test results? Seems like highly irregular practice at the very least.

Exactly, it doesn't send out the best message

drogdub

The concerning thing to me is not the fact she was cleared. It went through the process she wasn't to blame for first one, under the rules she is allowed to compete. Fine.

What really concerns me is that this was kept quiet until she was cleared. Yet Tiernan Locke's case and Simon Yates case were both leaked. Treating big name riders differently to other riders is never a good sign.

I would be surprised if she was dirty and hope/think she's clean, one of my favourite riders. I was delighted when she won the worlds

nak

drogdub wrote: »

What really concerns me is that this was kept quiet until she was cleared. Yet Tiernan Locke's case and Simon Yates case were both leaked. Treating big name riders differently to other riders is never a good sign.

Maybe because there is a lot less media/public interest in women's cycling?

De Bhál

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Dodgy. No mention of why she missed two test AFTER she made a mess of the first one. Are bodies like British Cycling supposed to fund legal battles?

It does say why she missed the second one in the article. Family illness.

Boskowski

drogdub wrote: »

The concerning thing to me is not the fact she was cleared. It went through the process she wasn't to blame for first one, under the rules she is allowed to compete. Fine.

What really concerns me is that this was kept quiet until she was cleared. Yet Tiernan Locke's case and Simon Yates case were both leaked. Treating big name riders differently to other riders is never a good sign.

I would be surprised if she was dirty and hope/think she's clean, one of my favourite riders. I was delighted when she won the worlds

They're all taking drugs. Every single one of them.

Beasty

Boskowski wrote: »

They're all taking drugs. Every single one of them.

More comments like that from you (or anybody else) and posting privileges will be quickly withdrawn

Any questions PM me - do not respond to this warning in-thread

1bryan

drogdub wrote: »

What really concerns me is that this was kept quiet until she was cleared

It wasn't just kept quiet. Stories like this were published.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/08/lizzie-armitstead-giro-rosa-cycling-illness

She was basically banned, unbeknowst to anyone, yet claimed she wasn't participating due to illness? That doesn't seem right. Even if she was launching her legal defense at that point, did she (or her advisors) really think this story would never come out? And now that it has, do they not think things look a lot worse than if they were just transparent from day one?

This could be the most innocuous series of mistakes ever, but information about the way its being handled just leaves more questions than answers.

Beasty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don't know about the UK, but in Ireland isn't it the governing bodies that actually pursue doping cases against athletes with adverse test results? Seems like highly irregular practice at the very least.

To be "regular" the process should be independent of the sporting body which is what happened here

1bryan

It also wouldn't inspire much confidence in UKAD. They send a tester to a hotel. The tester asks what room Armitstead is in without revealing why they want this information. Then they leave when they don't get it?

REALLY?

Anyone would be forgiven for not believing that story but were it to be true, is that not the most incompetent tester ever? And the fate of British athletes are in the hands of people this incompetent.

dastardly00

For my own understanding of the missed tests:

• 20 August 2015: LA was staying at a team hotel, during the UCI Women’s Road World Cup in Sweden. The UKAD Doping Control Officer was refused LA’s room number at the hotel’s reception, and attempted to call LA but her phone was on silent as she was sleeping. CAS has ruled that there was “no negligence on Armitstead’s part and that she had followed procedures according to the guidelines.”
• 5 October 2015: Due to “a filing failure on ADAMS”. LA has stated that it was “an administrative oversight”.
• 9 June 2016: Caused by “an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family”.

Plastik

I was disappointed when I heard this.

Disappointed, but not surprised.

godtabh

I'm reminded of an extract from Hamilton's book about hiding on the floor when a tester came to call. He knew would be caught if test so hid. Got tested the next day and was fine.

Any time a test is missed it should be treated as a failed test. First test here might be legitimate, second one definatley not and the third is hard to tell. If she was Russian she wouldn't be going to the Olympics.

couerdelion

godtabh wrote: »

If she was Russian she wouldn't be going to the Olympics.

Thats not true.. There are rules in place about 3 missed tests brought in because of people like Hamilton.

She has successfully proved in CAS she wasn't at fault for the first one so she has no case to answer. Exactly the same as if she were from Russia or from any other country.

godtabh

couerdelion wrote: »

Thats not true.. There are rules in place about 3 missed tests brought in because of people like Hamilton.

She has successfully proved in CAS she wasn't at fault for the first one so she has no case to answer. Exactly the same as if she were from Russia or from any other country.

I'm not sure I agree. I dont think the Russian Cycling Federation would have been allowed to support a defense in the same way it has here.

Pudsy33

The dates of the missed tests are interesting. As is her social media presence around the time.

godtabh

Pudsy33 wrote: »

The dates of the missed tests are interesting. As is her social media presence around the time.

The first missed test in Sweden had her posting on twitter an hour later about breakfast/wedding stuff.

1bryan

couerdelion wrote: »

Thats not true.. There are rules in place about 3 missed tests brought in because of people like Hamilton.

She has successfully proved in CAS she wasn't at fault for the first one so she has no case to answer. Exactly the same as if she were from Russia or from any other country.

I think one thing we can be certain of is that, if she were Russian (or many other nationalities), she would not be going to the Olympics.

Joe_ Public

If you are staying in a hotel, for example, then you need to add your room number to your Whereabouts or ensure that the room is booked in your name so any Doping Control Officer can locate you easily.


From the UKAD whereabouts guidelines on its website. Seems to place the onus on the athlete for ensuring his/her availability but this obviously didn't stack up legally at CAS. I still find it strange that a hotel receptionist wouldn't call through to a guest on request, but perhaps there's a policy in operation at particular hours of the day. Or why a doping officer wouldn't identify him or herself. Area needs to be tightened up to avoid any such confusion in the future.

godtabh

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If you are staying in a hotel, for example, then you need to add your room number to your Whereabouts or ensure that the room is booked in your name so any Doping Control Officer can locate you easily.


From the UKAD whereabouts guidelines on its website. Seems to place the onus on the athlete for ensuring his/her availability but this obviously didn't stack up legally at CAS. I still find it strange that a hotel receptionist wouldn't call through to a guest on request, but perhaps there's a policy in operation at particular hours of the day. Or why a doping officer wouldn't identify him or herself. Area needs to be tightened up to avoid any such confusion in the future.

Very interesting. Puts a negative tint on Queen Lizzie as some of her detractors in British Cycling are calling her.

I wouldn't put any blame on the hotel. They are a hotel and nothing more.

1bryan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If you are staying in a hotel, for example, then you need to add your room number to your Whereabouts or ensure that the room is booked in your name so any Doping Control Officer can locate you easily.


From the UKAD whereabouts guidelines on its website. Seems to place the onus on the athlete for ensuring his/her availability but this obviously didn't stack up legally at CAS. I still find it strange that a hotel receptionist wouldn't call through to a guest on request, but perhaps there's a policy in operation at particular hours of the day. Or why a doping officer wouldn't identify him or herself. Area needs to be tightened up to avoid any such confusion in the future.

This was during the World Championships though. I'm guessing there were many athletes staying there. If the hotel had guidelines about contacting a guest, and those guidelines were going to possibly cause a 'guest' to miss a doping test, would they not relax those rules for the duration of that event?

It'd be different if she were off somewhere on her own doing a training block.

Sorry, but I'm having huge difficulty getting this to add up.

greenspurs

Pudsy33 wrote: »

The dates of the missed tests are interesting. As is her social media presence around the time.

What do you mean?
She was posting from where she was supposed to be ?
or from somewhere she wasn't supposed to be?

Team GB, taking moral high ground while wallowed in the mud same as the rest.

Pudsy33

greenspurs wrote: »

What do you mean?
She was posting from where she was supposed to be ?
or from somewhere she wasn't supposed to be?

She was tweeting around the time of the missed test.

godtabh

1bryan wrote: »

This was during the World Championships though. I'm guessing there were many athletes staying there. If the hotel had guidelines about contacting a guest, and those guidelines were going to possibly cause a 'guest' to miss a doping test, would they not relax those rules for the duration of that event?

It'd be different if she were off somewhere on her own doing a training block.

Sorry, but I'm having huge difficulty getting this to add up.

Not when the onus is on the rider to note which room they are staying in.

Joe_ Public

godtabh wrote: »

Not when the onus is on the rider to note which room they are staying in.

The guidelines say OR ensure it's booked in their name. Would avoid any ambiguity if it said to put the room number on ADAMS but may not be entirely practical as they'll only get the number when they book in.

The whole thing is very curious and hard to get your head around just looking at the bare facts. I presume the CAS judgement will be published so we can see how exactly the arguments played out at the hearing.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

To be "regular" the process should be independent of the sporting body which is what happened here

Am very uncomfortable with her appeal to CAS being supported by BC.

JTL couldn't appeal to CAS because he couldn't afford it and was cut loose by same BC.

Either BC making judgements or treating higher profile cyclists preferentially. Eitehr way not good.

gordongekko

greenspurs wrote: »

What do you mean?
She was posting from where she was supposed to be ?
or from somewhere she wasn't supposed to be?

She was posting from an Iphone around the time she claimed her phone was off/ silent

RobFowl

gordongekko wrote: »

She was posting from an Iphone around the time she claimed her phone was off/ silent

As I understand she was phoned at 0600 but was tweeting from phone at 0742. Don't know about you but I'm usually out cold at 0600 but awake at 0742 !

jinkypolly

Pudsy33 wrote: »

She was tweeting around the time of the missed test.

gordongekko wrote: »

She was posting from an Iphone around the time she claimed her phone was off/ silent

"around the time" is extremely vague when considering it's importance in this context. Could you give us the exact times the tweeting/phone use happened in relation to the time the tester tried to contact her?

RobFowl

jinkypolly wrote: »

"around the time" is extremely vague when considering it's importance in this context. Could you give us the exact times the tweeting/phone use happened in relation to the time the tester tried to contact her?

Sorry can't be more exact

RobFowl wrote: »

As I understand she was phoned at 0600 but was tweeting from phone at 0742.

jinkypolly

RobFowl wrote: »

Sorry can't be more exact

Ha, it is all about timing.

I now see why the quoted posters were being vague, the real times are not 'controversial' at all.

1bryan

RobFowl wrote: »

As I understand she was phoned at 0600 but was tweeting from phone at 0742. Don't know about you but I'm usually out cold at 0600 but awake at 0742 !

the timestamp on screenshots of the tweet that I saw said 7:42am, but twitter timestamps with your time (as opposed to the senders time). It was a tweet from a UK account that I saw, so you need to factor in the 1 hour time difference.

Still, 42 minutes is plenty of time to be up and about.

What was more curious is that the following day she tweeted about how some of her rivals weren't being tested.

All looks very curious in hindsight.

RobFowl

1bryan wrote: »

the timestamp on screenshots of the tweet that I saw said 7:42am, but twitter timestamps with your time (as opposed to the senders time). It was a tweet from a UK account that I saw, so you need to factor in the 1 hour time difference.

Still, 42 minutes is plenty of time to be up and about.

What was more curious is that the following day she tweeted about how some of her rivals weren't being tested.

All looks very curious in hindsight.

Dodgy as f*ck IMO

greenspurs

Has she 'taken a break' from twitter ??

Pudsy33

I wasn't aware of the exact times, that seems reasonable to be fair.

RobFowl

Had lost interest in Rio after the IOC/Russian climbdown but any lingering interest gone after this (note will still watch and cheer Nico/Dan and Sharon )

godtabh

I'll watch the mens Road Race and thats about it. Clearly other things at play

RobFowl

godtabh wrote: »

I'll watch the mens Road Race and thats about it. Clearly other things at play

Womens keirin too please and maybe womens TP because of ex Irish international Ciara Horne

MPFGLB

I don't really understand all this about tweeting times

Surely the issue is if you fill in a whereabouts form (and it is only for an hour on that day I believe ???) then you must make yourself available in that hour ....i.e. have your phone switched on and charged or inform hotel reception that you can be disturbed in that hour

Or am I missing something....at best this is disregard for the process

Macy0161

nak wrote: »

Maybe because there is a lot less media/public interest in women's cycling?

She's a bigger name than JTL anyway (although him being a Sky rider obviously a factor).

I'm a bit conflicted about the whole episode. I can see how you could easily forget to update it/ change it, but then I know full well if it was certain male riders that would generally raise an eyebrow, I wouldn't be having a belt of it. I guess that's why it's 3 in 12 months, rather than an automatic ban (for whereabouts - I think it is automatic for failing to produce at other tests).

Genuine mistakes or not, like Yates, that's her somewhat tarnished, especially after the year she's had. Which if you are clean, that is still a pretty big punishment imo.

Engaged to Philip - she must be clean though! :pac:

Pudsy33

MPFGLB wrote: »

I don't really understand all this about tweeting times

Surely the issue is if you fill in a whereabouts form (and it is only for an hour on that day I believe ???) then you must make yourself available in that hour ....i.e. have your phone switched on and charged or inform hotel reception that you can be disturbed in that hour

Or am I missing something....at best this is disregard for the process

Dead right. If you say you're going to be free for an hour, I'd think the least you could do is to keep your phone on.

Macy0161

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Dead right. If you say you're going to be free for an hour, I'd think the least you could do is to keep your phone on.

I assume she couldn't turn off the hotel room phone? CAS have accepted that the UKAD rep didn't follow correct procedure - that's more explainable than the mistakes in updating whereabouts info for me.

godtabh

RobFowl wrote: »

Womens keirin too please and maybe womens TP because of ex Irish international Ciara Horne

Very little interest in track. No nothing about it but if its on and there is an Irish interest I may watch it.

Joe_ Public

godtabh wrote: »

Very little interest in track. No nothing about it but if its on and there is an Irish interest I may watch it.

I like the track events, especially the keiran and the madison although they dropped the latter from the Olympic programme sadly.