This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What's the general consensus on Lizzie Armistead having her ban lifted? She missed 3 drug tests in a 12 month period but it turns out one of the planned tests her phone was turned off which is what her appeal was based on. Why has she missed 3 tests? Why has she missed any tests? What would have happened if she was Russian?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-repr...
Post edited at 19:00
In reply to Gone for good:
Because the test teams don't try very hard to find athletes, I think. A bit like courier drivers. Only they don't (I hope) piss in a bottle and say they've taken a sample...
Because the test teams don't try very hard to find athletes, I think. A bit like courier drivers. Only they don't (I hope) piss in a bottle and say they've taken a sample...
4
In reply to Gone for good:
It seems that missing at least one test is not uncommon and not considered suspicious. Three tests ? I don't know the circumstances well enough.
It seems that missing at least one test is not uncommon and not considered suspicious. Three tests ? I don't know the circumstances well enough.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
Hold on a minute.
First test missed. Phone switched off.
Second test missed. Emergency change of plans due to a family illness.
Third test missed..f*ck knows but a professional athlete should be banned for missing 3 tests in 12 months. I smell a cover up.
Hold on a minute.
First test missed. Phone switched off.
Second test missed. Emergency change of plans due to a family illness.
Third test missed..f*ck knows but a professional athlete should be banned for missing 3 tests in 12 months. I smell a cover up.
8
4
In reply to GrahamD:
If an athlete fails three in the space of 12 months they face up to a two-year suspension. Christine Ohuruogu, the 400m runner, served a year-long ban a decade ago after missing three tests. With British Cycling coaches privately accepting that the squad is unlikely to win as many medals as four years ago, Armitstead was a crucial team member, having won not only the world championship in September but also key races like the Aviva Women’s Tour, Omloop Het Nieuwsblad and the Tour of Flanders.
If an athlete fails three in the space of 12 months they face up to a two-year suspension. Christine Ohuruogu, the 400m runner, served a year-long ban a decade ago after missing three tests. With British Cycling coaches privately accepting that the squad is unlikely to win as many medals as four years ago, Armitstead was a crucial team member, having won not only the world championship in September but also key races like the Aviva Women’s Tour, Omloop Het Nieuwsblad and the Tour of Flanders.
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Sport either either needs to take drugs seriously or not bother at all. All the excuses have been used up.
Sport either either needs to take drugs seriously or not bother at all. All the excuses have been used up.
6
2
In reply to Gone for good:
>... What would have happened if she was Russian?
She'd have no doubt been dropped from the squad, on the basis that she wasn't doing enough drugs.
>... What would have happened if she was Russian?
She'd have no doubt been dropped from the squad, on the basis that she wasn't doing enough drugs.
21
In reply to Gone for good:
Well with the phone switched off one the testers turned up at a hotel at 6am and the hotel refused to give them her room number, and her phone was off. She was tested the next day in a competition, so that seems reasonable to me.
Well with the phone switched off one the testers turned up at a hotel at 6am and the hotel refused to give them her room number, and her phone was off. She was tested the next day in a competition, so that seems reasonable to me.
11
In reply to andy:
I think the general consensus is.
Miss first test - Shit happens
Miss two tests - This shit shouldn't happen
Miss three tests - Shit, your banned for 12 months
> Well with the phone switched off one the testers turned up at a hotel at 6am and the hotel refused to give them her room number, and her phone was off. She was tested the next day in a competition, so that seems reasonable to me.
I think the general consensus is.
Miss first test - Shit happens
Miss two tests - This shit shouldn't happen
Miss three tests - Shit, your banned for 12 months
9
1
In reply to andy:
Straight out of the Lance Armstrong book of excuses.
> Well with the phone switched off one the testers turned up at a hotel at 6am and the hotel refused to give them her room number, and her phone was off. She was tested the next day in a competition, so that seems reasonable to me.
Straight out of the Lance Armstrong book of excuses.
7
8
1
1
In reply to The New NickB:
What, you missed drug tests, got banned and then came up with some lame excuse so you could compete in the Olympics?
> I've made the same mistake myself, but her name is Lizzie Armitstead.
What, you missed drug tests, got banned and then came up with some lame excuse so you could compete in the Olympics?
3
3
In reply to Gone for good:
No spelt her name wrong, but I wasn't making unsubstantiated accusations, so I would say that my lack of attention to detail was forgivable.
> What, you missed drug tests, got banned and then came up with some lame excuse so you could compete in the Olympics?
No spelt her name wrong, but I wasn't making unsubstantiated accusations, so I would say that my lack of attention to detail was forgivable.
4
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Seems to be fully substantiated. By her.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie...
> No spelt her name wrong, but I wasn't making unsubstantiated accusations,
Seems to be fully substantiated. By her.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie...
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Eh? I can't see where I've spelt her name wrong.
Nor can I see where I have made unsubstantiated accusations.
Eh? I can't see where I've spelt her name wrong.
Nor can I see where I have made unsubstantiated accusations.
Post edited at 21:15
In reply to Gone for good:
In the thread title and on another occasion in the thread. You have spelt it correctly once, but that looks like cut and paste from an article.
The jibe about Lance Armstrong doesn't really leave anyone in any doubt.
> Eh? I can't see where I've spelt her name wrong.
In the thread title and on another occasion in the thread. You have spelt it correctly once, but that looks like cut and paste from an article.
> Nor can I see where I have made unsubstantiated accusations.
The jibe about Lance Armstrong doesn't really leave anyone in any doubt.
1
1
In reply to MG:
That certainly doesn't substantiate the accusations the OP is making.
> Seems to be fully substantiated. By her.
That certainly doesn't substantiate the accusations the OP is making.
In reply to The New NickB:
It does. She missed three tests. She did nothing until her Olympic place was in jeopardy. She then came up with lame excuses, very similar to those used by many known cheats.
It does. She missed three tests. She did nothing until her Olympic place was in jeopardy. She then came up with lame excuses, very similar to those used by many known cheats.
1
3
In reply to Gone for good:
Does that re-set if you're properly tested between missed attempts? Three in a row seems suspicious, three over a period in which other proper tests are undertaken less so
> Miss first test - Shit happens
> Miss two tests - This shit shouldn't happen
> Miss three tests - Shit, your banned for 12 months
> Miss two tests - This shit shouldn't happen
> Miss three tests - Shit, your banned for 12 months
Does that re-set if you're properly tested between missed attempts? Three in a row seems suspicious, three over a period in which other proper tests are undertaken less so
5
In reply to nufkin:
No, she will have been tested many times during the year. In fact she was tested the day after on at least one of the ocassions.
> Does that re-set if you're properly tested between missed attempts? Three in a row seems suspicious, three over a period in which other proper tests are undertaken less so
No, she will have been tested many times during the year. In fact she was tested the day after on at least one of the ocassions.
1
In reply to andy:
As far as I can gather, 'phone switched off' is not an excuse as the testers are not allowed to call as this would give you prior warning of the impending test.
As far as I can gather, 'phone switched off' is not an excuse as the testers are not allowed to call as this would give you prior warning of the impending test.
In reply to The New NickB:
Ah. I see. I took the spelling from the Guardian article. My mistake!
As far as the Lance jibe goes, I can't think of any excuses that justify missing 3 tests in less than 12 months. She is a professional athlete with a support team both on and off the track. Whether she has doped or not is irrelevant. Rules are rules and should be adhered to or what's the point in having them. With the history of drugs in cycling I would have hoped for a better effort by her and British cycling.
On reflection the Lance jibe was poorly judged but I get pissed off by one rule for some.......but any gold in Rio will be tainted in a lot of people's eyes.
Ah. I see. I took the spelling from the Guardian article. My mistake!
As far as the Lance jibe goes, I can't think of any excuses that justify missing 3 tests in less than 12 months. She is a professional athlete with a support team both on and off the track. Whether she has doped or not is irrelevant. Rules are rules and should be adhered to or what's the point in having them. With the history of drugs in cycling I would have hoped for a better effort by her and British cycling.
On reflection the Lance jibe was poorly judged but I get pissed off by one rule for some.......but any gold in Rio will be tainted in a lot of people's eyes.
2
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Being tested the day after is not good enough. The whole reason to be tested without any prior warning is so that the athlete being tested can't take any masking agents or other such substances which may effect the results of the test.
Why was her appeal funded by British cycling? Why now? Maybe a ban for sheer unprofessional behaviour and stupidity would be appropriate. I'm sick of hearing poor excuses.
Being tested the day after is not good enough. The whole reason to be tested without any prior warning is so that the athlete being tested can't take any masking agents or other such substances which may effect the results of the test.
Why was her appeal funded by British cycling? Why now? Maybe a ban for sheer unprofessional behaviour and stupidity would be appropriate. I'm sick of hearing poor excuses.
2
1
In reply to Graeme Hughes:
I know, I was just explaining to someone that a taken test does not wipe the slate clean. I would be interested to understand if this is as important longitudinal testing.
British Cycling are stating very clearly that Armitstead paid for the appeal.
> Being tested the day after is not good enough. The whole reason to be tested without any prior warning is so that the athlete being tested can't take any masking agents or other such substances which may effect the results of the test.
I know, I was just explaining to someone that a taken test does not wipe the slate clean. I would be interested to understand if this is as important longitudinal testing.
> Why was her appeal funded by British cycling? Why now? Maybe a ban for sheer unprofessional behaviour and stupidity would be appropriate. I'm sick of hearing poor excuses.
British Cycling are stating very clearly that Armitstead paid for the appeal.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
well, yes, but that isn't the whole story- from the guardian article:
When British Cycling executives heard that Armitstead, one of its top medal hopes for Rio, may be banned from the Games, it commissioned independent legal advice to assess its position.
“We paid for legal advice on our own position because there were a number of considerations as she was going through the Olympic selection process and was a podium athlete,” said a British Cycling spokesman. “That legal advice was shared with Lizzie and her team. Lizzie herself funded the actual appeal to Cas”
i expect that wasn't cheap, and was an important contribution to the wider appeal process.
UKAD don't sound very impressed at the attempt to shift the blame to them:
Despite Armitstead’s protestations that Ukad drug testers had not followed their own rules properly, chief executive Sapstead issued a robust defence of the programme, pointing out that extensive support was available to athletes to play by the rules.
“UK Anti-Doping recognises that athletes can make mistakes and that plans can change at short notice. We therefore provide a huge amount of support to athletes throughout their time on the Whereabouts programme to ensure the information they provide is accurate and submitted in a timely manner. This includes providing athletes with a dedicated member of staff to provide ongoing guidance and training on their Whereabouts responsibilities. We also offer athletes a variety of Whereabouts tools, including a dedicated website and a free mobile app, so they can easily update their Whereabouts wherever they are in the world. Athletes can even text or email changes to us in an emergency. On top of this, UKAD provides additional, escalating support to athletes who incur Whereabouts Failures which is tailored to their specific needs,” she said.
i really want to believe that british cycling in clean; but stuff like this doesn't help
> I know, I was just explaining to someone that a taken test does not wipe the slate clean. I would be interested to understand if this is as important longitudinal testing.
> British Cycling are stating very clearly that Armitstead paid for the appeal.
well, yes, but that isn't the whole story- from the guardian article:
When British Cycling executives heard that Armitstead, one of its top medal hopes for Rio, may be banned from the Games, it commissioned independent legal advice to assess its position.
“We paid for legal advice on our own position because there were a number of considerations as she was going through the Olympic selection process and was a podium athlete,” said a British Cycling spokesman. “That legal advice was shared with Lizzie and her team. Lizzie herself funded the actual appeal to Cas”
i expect that wasn't cheap, and was an important contribution to the wider appeal process.
UKAD don't sound very impressed at the attempt to shift the blame to them:
Despite Armitstead’s protestations that Ukad drug testers had not followed their own rules properly, chief executive Sapstead issued a robust defence of the programme, pointing out that extensive support was available to athletes to play by the rules.
“UK Anti-Doping recognises that athletes can make mistakes and that plans can change at short notice. We therefore provide a huge amount of support to athletes throughout their time on the Whereabouts programme to ensure the information they provide is accurate and submitted in a timely manner. This includes providing athletes with a dedicated member of staff to provide ongoing guidance and training on their Whereabouts responsibilities. We also offer athletes a variety of Whereabouts tools, including a dedicated website and a free mobile app, so they can easily update their Whereabouts wherever they are in the world. Athletes can even text or email changes to us in an emergency. On top of this, UKAD provides additional, escalating support to athletes who incur Whereabouts Failures which is tailored to their specific needs,” she said.
i really want to believe that british cycling in clean; but stuff like this doesn't help
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I think there can be a certain immaturity to do with being bad about working within a system of rules, and still expecting things to be okay (I was guilty of that myself when I was younger), which is something different to deliberately avoiding working within it to try and hide something, and nobody outside of what's been going on can accurately say what has happened, only that it can appear to be dodgy. Which is something I would agree with.
I think there can be a certain immaturity to do with being bad about working within a system of rules, and still expecting things to be okay (I was guilty of that myself when I was younger), which is something different to deliberately avoiding working within it to try and hide something, and nobody outside of what's been going on can accurately say what has happened, only that it can appear to be dodgy. Which is something I would agree with.
Post edited at 00:12
In reply to The New NickB:
Which is the whole problem...
> The Court of Arbitration in Sport disagree.
Which is the whole problem...
In reply to Gone for good:
So I think she's stupid or her and her whole team are incompetent. She had valid reasons for missing one and could have got it removed from record and avoided this.
There is. No evidence of drug taking but if she medals now there will be a question mark in my mind that she was micro dosing epo or similar before that second missed test prior to the race where as someone pointed out she passed a drugs test. What is the glow time for epo?
On the balance of probabilities I think she is clean ( with that ? ) but should be banned for the correct time due to missing 3 tests. With cycling's history and what we know about drug taking methods anything else lets the fans and other athletes down.
Cheers
Toby
So I think she's stupid or her and her whole team are incompetent. She had valid reasons for missing one and could have got it removed from record and avoided this.
There is. No evidence of drug taking but if she medals now there will be a question mark in my mind that she was micro dosing epo or similar before that second missed test prior to the race where as someone pointed out she passed a drugs test. What is the glow time for epo?
On the balance of probabilities I think she is clean ( with that ? ) but should be banned for the correct time due to missing 3 tests. With cycling's history and what we know about drug taking methods anything else lets the fans and other athletes down.
Cheers
Toby
5
In reply to MG:
Given that they have heard the evidence in full and you haven't, what makes you so certain that you are right and they are wrong.
> Which is the whole problem...
Given that they have heard the evidence in full and you haven't, what makes you so certain that you are right and they are wrong.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
The endless string of "innocent" mistakes, particularly in cycling and athletics, subsequently found to be blatant cheating. As above, either sport needs to take eradicatung drugs seriously, which means enforcing bans for mistakes, or just accept them.
The endless string of "innocent" mistakes, particularly in cycling and athletics, subsequently found to be blatant cheating. As above, either sport needs to take eradicatung drugs seriously, which means enforcing bans for mistakes, or just accept them.
2
2
In reply to MG:
Could you give some examples, I'm aware of lots of cheats, but very few of the mode you describe. Just to clarify though, you want consistency, but you are less concerned about evidence. Interesting approach.
> The endless string of "innocent" mistakes, particularly in cycling and athletics, subsequently found to be blatant cheating. As above, either sport needs to take eradicatung drugs seriously, which means enforcing bans for mistakes, or just accept them.
Could you give some examples, I'm aware of lots of cheats, but very few of the mode you describe. Just to clarify though, you want consistency, but you are less concerned about evidence. Interesting approach.
1
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Or to turn that around for a minute, every athlete who has 'cheated' in the past had plenty of 'evidence' to prove they were clean.
> Could you give some examples, I'm aware of lots of cheats, but very few of the mode you describe. Just to clarify though, you want consistency, but you are less concerned about evidence. Interesting approach.
Or to turn that around for a minute, every athlete who has 'cheated' in the past had plenty of 'evidence' to prove they were clean.
1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Im not sure I agree. No one has evidence that they are clean, they only have a lack of evidence that they have cheated.
> Or to turn that around for a minute, every athlete who has 'cheated' in the past had plenty of 'evidence' to prove they were clean.
Im not sure I agree. No one has evidence that they are clean, they only have a lack of evidence that they have cheated.
2
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Lance always held out that he was clean because of the 'evidence' he'd never tested positive.
As for your second assertion, I believe that with the sport's history any suspicion needs to be dealt with with zero tolerance. Harsh but so was the treatment meted out to the likes of Basson and Simeone by people with 'evidence'.
The cheats have better tech so for me the only way, at the minute, is to press the nuclear button.
> Im not sure I agree. No one has evidence that they are clean, they only have a lack of evidence that they have cheated.
Lance always held out that he was clean because of the 'evidence' he'd never tested positive.
As for your second assertion, I believe that with the sport's history any suspicion needs to be dealt with with zero tolerance. Harsh but so was the treatment meted out to the likes of Basson and Simeone by people with 'evidence'.
The cheats have better tech so for me the only way, at the minute, is to press the nuclear button.
4
In reply to The New NickB:
Easy. Just look at the track record of CAS for as long as it exists, and think about whether you would have the civil and criminal courts of your country run at the same lines, specifically with regards to selection and independence of judges, standard of evidence, etc...
The CAS is probably the most hypocritical and dodgy organization in sports, even beating most of of the individual associations or the IOC.
CB
> Given that they have heard the evidence in full and you haven't, what makes you so certain that you are right and they are wrong.
Easy. Just look at the track record of CAS for as long as it exists, and think about whether you would have the civil and criminal courts of your country run at the same lines, specifically with regards to selection and independence of judges, standard of evidence, etc...
The CAS is probably the most hypocritical and dodgy organization in sports, even beating most of of the individual associations or the IOC.
CB
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
That was a lie though, as we know now and was known by many at the time. Fictional evidence back up by the threat of legal action and other bullying tactics isn't evidence.
It's easy to be suspicious, but suspicion without evidence just results in a witch hunt, which is as unhealthy as the situation that destroyed the careers of people like Simeone and many others.
> Lance always held out that he was clean because of the 'evidence' he'd never tested positive.
That was a lie though, as we know now and was known by many at the time. Fictional evidence back up by the threat of legal action and other bullying tactics isn't evidence.
> As for your second assertion, I believe that with the sport's history any suspicion needs to be dealt with with zero tolerance. Harsh but so was the treatment meted out to the likes of Basson and Simeone by people with 'evidence'.
It's easy to be suspicious, but suspicion without evidence just results in a witch hunt, which is as unhealthy as the situation that destroyed the careers of people like Simeone and many others.
1
2
In reply to cb294:
I won't claim to be an expert, but a German Federal Court has disagreed with you on that point.
I won't claim to be an expert, but a German Federal Court has disagreed with you on that point.
1
1
In reply to Graeme Hughes:
Well it was in this case - because CAS said the testers hadn't followed the correct procedure.
Interestingly Froome also missed a test for exactly the same reason - staying in a hotel, testers asked for room number, hotel refused.
> As far as I can gather, 'phone switched off' is not an excuse as the testers are not allowed to call as this would give you prior warning of the impending test.
Well it was in this case - because CAS said the testers hadn't followed the correct procedure.
Interestingly Froome also missed a test for exactly the same reason - staying in a hotel, testers asked for room number, hotel refused.
In reply to Gone for good:
An anonymous doping control officer has backed her
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-control-officer-its-right-that-armits...
With hindsight she should have challenged the first offence, if not immediately, then at least over the winter after she'd missed the second test. But isn't hindsight wonderful. And I suspect that UKAD would have dismissed that challenge - heard a few other athletes saying that they now notify hotels that they can expect visits from testers, so she isn't the first that has been in this situation. Would she have gone to CAS at that point ?
As to all the people saying "what if she was Russian", please do more reading. The finding of the McLaren report was that the testers colluded with athletes - warning them in advance of 'surprise' tests. In fact how many other countries have sought to ban one of their top athletes for missing tests ?
That said, if she does get a medal in Rio it will be tarnished, just as her rainbow jersey is a bit grubby right now.
I wonder if she will reveal the identity of her sick relative ? It shouldn't come to this, her privacy should be respected, but you can be sure the journos will be digging
An anonymous doping control officer has backed her
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-control-officer-its-right-that-armits...
With hindsight she should have challenged the first offence, if not immediately, then at least over the winter after she'd missed the second test. But isn't hindsight wonderful. And I suspect that UKAD would have dismissed that challenge - heard a few other athletes saying that they now notify hotels that they can expect visits from testers, so she isn't the first that has been in this situation. Would she have gone to CAS at that point ?
As to all the people saying "what if she was Russian", please do more reading. The finding of the McLaren report was that the testers colluded with athletes - warning them in advance of 'surprise' tests. In fact how many other countries have sought to ban one of their top athletes for missing tests ?
That said, if she does get a medal in Rio it will be tarnished, just as her rainbow jersey is a bit grubby right now.
I wonder if she will reveal the identity of her sick relative ? It shouldn't come to this, her privacy should be respected, but you can be sure the journos will be digging
In reply to The New NickB:
On a technicality. It is an interesting case, anyway, that will probably go all the way to the supreme court and the EUCHR. The federal court delivered an absolutely surprising decision essentially stating that the state is entitled to institute separate jurisdictions for defined areas including sports, and that in its role as an appeal court for a specific case it was not in its remit to decide in this specific instance whether the CAS was fit for purpose in general.
This overturned rulings of two lower courts, and I would be surprised if it stands in the long run.
The funny thing is that the athlete in question is probably even less clean than the international association being sued or the CAS, but still I think she is right to sue. I know a bit about the case, as one of the main dossiers in defence of the athlete was generated at a neighbouring department of my university.
CB
On a technicality. It is an interesting case, anyway, that will probably go all the way to the supreme court and the EUCHR. The federal court delivered an absolutely surprising decision essentially stating that the state is entitled to institute separate jurisdictions for defined areas including sports, and that in its role as an appeal court for a specific case it was not in its remit to decide in this specific instance whether the CAS was fit for purpose in general.
This overturned rulings of two lower courts, and I would be surprised if it stands in the long run.
The funny thing is that the athlete in question is probably even less clean than the international association being sued or the CAS, but still I think she is right to sue. I know a bit about the case, as one of the main dossiers in defence of the athlete was generated at a neighbouring department of my university.
CB
In reply to Gone for good:
Wasn't it Michele Ferrari's client list that included the initials LA?
So Lance was innocent all along....? Blimey.
Wasn't it Michele Ferrari's client list that included the initials LA?
So Lance was innocent all along....? Blimey.
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Some questions answered
https://www.facebook.com/LizzieArmitstead/posts/832586116842756
(sorry for linking to facebook, it is also on Twitter but the font is so small that you can't see it)
Some questions answered
https://www.facebook.com/LizzieArmitstead/posts/832586116842756
(sorry for linking to facebook, it is also on Twitter but the font is so small that you can't see it)
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Text of FB post:
"I am writing this statement in my own words, something I have wanted to do from the very beginning. Understandably people have questions which I want to answer as openly and honest as I can. I hope people understand that speaking with journalists is a necessary part of my job, speaking directly to the public in a statement like this, which has not been ghost written or moulded by somebody else is un heard of. I want to take responsibility for this message, this is my life and not a game of headlines. I want to state the facts but also try to explain my situation further. I believe I owe this statement to sports fans, people who love sport like I do.
As an 18 year old school girl I was introduced to the whereabouts system. 9 years ago. Since then the system has evolved and developed, post October 2015 I recognised this and requested further education from UKAD, I will come back to this later.
By submitting my whereabouts I am consenting to people coming into my house or hotel and taking blood and urine samples. This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support.
To add some background before I explain the specific details of my 3 'strikes'.
I have been tested 16 times in 2016.
I have a clear and valid blood passport (a more detailed use of looking for doping violations by looking for trends vs anomalies in my blood values)
I have been tested after every victory this season.
I am on the road for around 250 days a year, with around 60 race days.
I have never tested positive for a banned substance.
I have never taken a band substance.
I will present the facts of my 3 'strikes'
Sweden 20th August 2015
UKAD are allowed a maximum of 2 weeks to inform you of a 'strike'. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.
Last week:
CAS ruled quickly and unanimously in my favour and cleared me of any wrong doing, because:
I was at the hotel I stated.
The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.
I was tested the next day, this test was negative.
Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.
Put simply I was available and willing to provide a sample for UKAD.
2nd 'strike' October 2015
Despite being reported as a 'missed test' this was in fact a 'filing failure'
UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.
A busy post world championship period meant I had no firm plans and as such was changing address and plans very quickly. I made a mistake. This was an honest mistake rather than trying to deceive anybody. A mistake that many athletes who are honest with themselves will admit to having made themselves. I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.
In December 2015 I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a 3rd potential 'strike'
Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.
Unfortunately this system fell apart on the 9th of June when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be. Simon Thornton had left BC 3 weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD. If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My over night accommodation ( the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.
This is where I believe I have the right to privacy. My personal family circumstances at the time of the test were incredibly difficult, the medical evidence provided in my case was not contested by UKAD, they accepted the circumstances I was in. UKAD did not perceive my situation to be 'extreme' enough to alleviate me of a negligence charge. A physiatrist assessment of my state of mind at the time was contrary. In my defence I was dealing with a traumatic time and i forgot to change a box on a form. I am not a robot, I am a member of a family, my commitment to them comes over and above my commitment to cycling. This will not change and as a result I will not discuss this further, our suffering does not need to be part of a public trial. I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling, I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it.
To conclude:
I currently have 1 filing failure and 1 missed test.
The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.
In the days following the revelations in the press my family and I have been the victim of some incredibly painful comments. I ask people to take a moment to put themselves in my shoes, I am an athlete trying to do my best, I am a clean athlete. I am the female road race world champion, I operate in a completely different environment to the majority of athletes in the testing pool. I am self coached, I work outside British cycling and its systems, I race for a women's team that doesn't have a budget to match a world tour men's team who have staff specifically in place to supports riders with whereabouts. I don't wish to make excuses, i made one mistake which was noticed in a 'spot check' my second strike came at a time when anybody who lives for and loves their family would understand my oversight. It's as simple as ticking the wrong box on a form.
I love sport and the values it represents, it hurts me to consider anybody questioning my performances. Integrity is something I strive for in every part of my life. I will hold my head high in Rio and do my best for Great Britain, I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport.
To any of the 'Twitter army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind."
I believe her. One missed test - the family emergency. One "filing failure" when the bloke who was supposed to help her with filling in the correct forms had left BC (without her knowledge). It sounds like the tester in the first one didn't try very hard (according to the anonymous tester) - didn't tell the hotel who they were, asked for the rooms number, weren't given it then tried ringing a mobile.
Text of FB post:
"I am writing this statement in my own words, something I have wanted to do from the very beginning. Understandably people have questions which I want to answer as openly and honest as I can. I hope people understand that speaking with journalists is a necessary part of my job, speaking directly to the public in a statement like this, which has not been ghost written or moulded by somebody else is un heard of. I want to take responsibility for this message, this is my life and not a game of headlines. I want to state the facts but also try to explain my situation further. I believe I owe this statement to sports fans, people who love sport like I do.
As an 18 year old school girl I was introduced to the whereabouts system. 9 years ago. Since then the system has evolved and developed, post October 2015 I recognised this and requested further education from UKAD, I will come back to this later.
By submitting my whereabouts I am consenting to people coming into my house or hotel and taking blood and urine samples. This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support.
To add some background before I explain the specific details of my 3 'strikes'.
I have been tested 16 times in 2016.
I have a clear and valid blood passport (a more detailed use of looking for doping violations by looking for trends vs anomalies in my blood values)
I have been tested after every victory this season.
I am on the road for around 250 days a year, with around 60 race days.
I have never tested positive for a banned substance.
I have never taken a band substance.
I will present the facts of my 3 'strikes'
Sweden 20th August 2015
UKAD are allowed a maximum of 2 weeks to inform you of a 'strike'. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.
Last week:
CAS ruled quickly and unanimously in my favour and cleared me of any wrong doing, because:
I was at the hotel I stated.
The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.
I was tested the next day, this test was negative.
Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.
Put simply I was available and willing to provide a sample for UKAD.
2nd 'strike' October 2015
Despite being reported as a 'missed test' this was in fact a 'filing failure'
UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.
A busy post world championship period meant I had no firm plans and as such was changing address and plans very quickly. I made a mistake. This was an honest mistake rather than trying to deceive anybody. A mistake that many athletes who are honest with themselves will admit to having made themselves. I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.
In December 2015 I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a 3rd potential 'strike'
Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.
Unfortunately this system fell apart on the 9th of June when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be. Simon Thornton had left BC 3 weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD. If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My over night accommodation ( the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.
This is where I believe I have the right to privacy. My personal family circumstances at the time of the test were incredibly difficult, the medical evidence provided in my case was not contested by UKAD, they accepted the circumstances I was in. UKAD did not perceive my situation to be 'extreme' enough to alleviate me of a negligence charge. A physiatrist assessment of my state of mind at the time was contrary. In my defence I was dealing with a traumatic time and i forgot to change a box on a form. I am not a robot, I am a member of a family, my commitment to them comes over and above my commitment to cycling. This will not change and as a result I will not discuss this further, our suffering does not need to be part of a public trial. I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling, I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it.
To conclude:
I currently have 1 filing failure and 1 missed test.
The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.
In the days following the revelations in the press my family and I have been the victim of some incredibly painful comments. I ask people to take a moment to put themselves in my shoes, I am an athlete trying to do my best, I am a clean athlete. I am the female road race world champion, I operate in a completely different environment to the majority of athletes in the testing pool. I am self coached, I work outside British cycling and its systems, I race for a women's team that doesn't have a budget to match a world tour men's team who have staff specifically in place to supports riders with whereabouts. I don't wish to make excuses, i made one mistake which was noticed in a 'spot check' my second strike came at a time when anybody who lives for and loves their family would understand my oversight. It's as simple as ticking the wrong box on a form.
I love sport and the values it represents, it hurts me to consider anybody questioning my performances. Integrity is something I strive for in every part of my life. I will hold my head high in Rio and do my best for Great Britain, I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport.
To any of the 'Twitter army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind."
I believe her. One missed test - the family emergency. One "filing failure" when the bloke who was supposed to help her with filling in the correct forms had left BC (without her knowledge). It sounds like the tester in the first one didn't try very hard (according to the anonymous tester) - didn't tell the hotel who they were, asked for the rooms number, weren't given it then tried ringing a mobile.
Post edited at 13:15
8
6
1
In reply to andy:
It's pointless speculating about whether it is the truth or not. The point is on many other occasions similar sob stories haven't been the truth. Either we accept drugs in sport or adopt a zero tolerance approach. Accepting mistakes (or "mistakes") simply means the whole excessive is corrupted.
It's pointless speculating about whether it is the truth or not. The point is on many other occasions similar sob stories haven't been the truth. Either we accept drugs in sport or adopt a zero tolerance approach. Accepting mistakes (or "mistakes") simply means the whole excessive is corrupted.
2
1
In reply to MG:
Even if it's the anti-doping agency making them?
> Accepting mistakes (or "mistakes") simply means the whole excessive is corrupted.
Even if it's the anti-doping agency making them?
3
In reply to andy: She's a professional athlete. She knows the conditions imposed on her as part of her chosen career and that includes being available at certain times for drugs testing. Whether or not those conditions are reasonable isn't the issue as most athletes manage to meet them.
She misses three tests for various reasons and at no point does she accept any responsibility for this. Everyone else is to blame.
If I'm not allowed to cite Lance Armstrong as a reason not to believe her can I name numerous other athletes who protested their innocence but were then proven to be drug users?
She misses three tests for various reasons and at no point does she accept any responsibility for this. Everyone else is to blame.
If I'm not allowed to cite Lance Armstrong as a reason not to believe her can I name numerous other athletes who protested their innocence but were then proven to be drug users?
1
1
In reply to baron:
If phoning a mobile is not an approved method of contact for UKAD (and this must be easily verifiable) then there's no case to answer is there? She did everything correctly and UKAD failed to make contact even though she was where she said she was
> I don't.
If phoning a mobile is not an approved method of contact for UKAD (and this must be easily verifiable) then there's no case to answer is there? She did everything correctly and UKAD failed to make contact even though she was where she said she was
5
In reply to MG:
I asked earlier, but you may have missed it. Can you name someone involved in one or two of these "many similar stories", who has later failed a test.
Only Lizzie Armitstead knows if she has taken any banned performance enhancing substances. This case is not evidence either way, it ruled on whether she contravened one of the system controls. The question relates to the first missed test and why the test was missed, it seems clear and the evidence submitted to CAS obviously supports the fact that the mistake was made by the tester, not Lizzie Armitstead.
I asked earlier, but you may have missed it. Can you name someone involved in one or two of these "many similar stories", who has later failed a test.
Only Lizzie Armitstead knows if she has taken any banned performance enhancing substances. This case is not evidence either way, it ruled on whether she contravened one of the system controls. The question relates to the first missed test and why the test was missed, it seems clear and the evidence submitted to CAS obviously supports the fact that the mistake was made by the tester, not Lizzie Armitstead.
In reply to Gone for good:
Christ on a bike, I'd last a week - I'm never where and when I'm meant to be! I don't understand the fuss - according to the rules (under which all other competitors fall) she's innocent. End of discussion.
Christ on a bike, I'd last a week - I'm never where and when I'm meant to be! I don't understand the fuss - according to the rules (under which all other competitors fall) she's innocent. End of discussion.
5
In reply to baron:
I'll do that for you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
> If I'm not allowed to cite Lance Armstrong as a reason not to believe her can I name numerous other athletes who protested their innocence but were then proven to be drug users?
I'll do that for you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
1
In reply to baron:
> She misses three tests for various reasons
No she didn't, she missed one, she fails to keep her whereabouts up to date for the other charge against her and in the first case UKAD missed her.Post edited at 13:38
In reply to Tyler:
I can understand the first missed test even if I think she should share some responsibility for missing this test but she missed another two tests as well. The rules are very clear. If my living depended on me notifying somebody of my whereabouts I'd be texting them every five minutes!
I can understand the first missed test even if I think she should share some responsibility for missing this test but she missed another two tests as well. The rules are very clear. If my living depended on me notifying somebody of my whereabouts I'd be texting them every five minutes!
1
In reply to The New NickB:
There's hundreds of them. Some variant of I didn't know it was banned, I didn't know it was in <drink>, I forgot my phone. Most recently Shapapova, for example. Some good ones here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/jan/25/joy-of-six-worst-doping-...
And of course Lance Armstrong, although of course you would rather delete that from the record, I know.
> I asked earlier, but you may have missed it. Can you name someone involved in one or two of these "many similar stories", who has later failed a test.
There's hundreds of them. Some variant of I didn't know it was banned, I didn't know it was in <drink>, I forgot my phone. Most recently Shapapova, for example. Some good ones here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/jan/25/joy-of-six-worst-doping-...
And of course Lance Armstrong, although of course you would rather delete that from the record, I know.
There is a partial fix that would pick up some admin mistakes. A phone app that compares current location with the locations in the online reporting system to see if the athlete is in the right place at the right time.
Also something in the reporting system to make sure overnight location is plausibly within travel time of testing location should have picked up familly emergency discrepancy as soon as an incompatible location was entered.
Ultimately it is the athlete's responsibility rather than the responsibility of a guy at British cycling or an app.
Also something in the reporting system to make sure overnight location is plausibly within travel time of testing location should have picked up familly emergency discrepancy as soon as an incompatible location was entered.
Ultimately it is the athlete's responsibility rather than the responsibility of a guy at British cycling or an app.
In reply to baron:
They are, three missed tests and you get a ban. She missed two.
> I can understand the first missed test even if I think she should share some responsibility for missing this test but she missed another two tests as well. The rules are very clear.
They are, three missed tests and you get a ban. She missed two.
2
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
What does it prove exactly, that cycling has a long history of doping, hardly news to anyone. All those people were caught doping or later admitted it. I'm sure many hundreds of others got away with it. Many of those caught will have claimed their innocence.
Lizzie Armitstead has not been accused of doping, she does not have to claim her innocence. She admits to two counts of missed tests (one wasn't a test, but it still counts), she gives some mitigation for her two missed tests, she does not have to do this, but obviously felt she needed to. Two missed tests you are asking for trouble, but you have not broken any rules.
What does it prove exactly, that cycling has a long history of doping, hardly news to anyone. All those people were caught doping or later admitted it. I'm sure many hundreds of others got away with it. Many of those caught will have claimed their innocence.
Lizzie Armitstead has not been accused of doping, she does not have to claim her innocence. She admits to two counts of missed tests (one wasn't a test, but it still counts), she gives some mitigation for her two missed tests, she does not have to do this, but obviously felt she needed to. Two missed tests you are asking for trouble, but you have not broken any rules.
In reply to Tyler:
Isn't that an easy way to avoid tests? If keeping your whereabouts up to date is a requirement, I'm pretty sure it should be classed as a missed one.
> she fails to keep her whereabouts up to date for the other charge against her
Isn't that an easy way to avoid tests? If keeping your whereabouts up to date is a requirement, I'm pretty sure it should be classed as a missed one.
In reply to Tyler:
She missed three but managed to shift the blame onto the drugs tester. As nobody has seen the actual ruling on this (as far as I am aware) then we will have to wait and see why the tester was to blame according to CAS.
There's still time for her to miss another test.
She missed three but managed to shift the blame onto the drugs tester. As nobody has seen the actual ruling on this (as far as I am aware) then we will have to wait and see why the tester was to blame according to CAS.
There's still time for her to miss another test.
1
7
In reply to MG:
We can talk about Armstrong, like the examples above, it has not relevance to Armitstead's case. Given what you have posted, I can see that you might struggle to understand that.
To be clear, Armitstead has not failed a test* and has not been accused of taking banned performance enhancing drugs. She was accused of a breach of the whereabouts system. CAS have ruled that the testing body was at fault on one of those occasions, so she has not accrued three missed tests, so not broken the rules.
* Armstrong claimed to have never failed a drugs test, but he failed at least three and these where covered up. He was also operating prior to whereabouts and missed dozens of tests.
> There's hundreds of them. Some variant of I didn't know it was banned, I didn't know it was in <drink>, I forgot my phone. Most recently Shapapova, for example. Some good ones here
> And of course Lance Armstrong, although of course you would rather delete that from the record, I know.
We can talk about Armstrong, like the examples above, it has not relevance to Armitstead's case. Given what you have posted, I can see that you might struggle to understand that.
To be clear, Armitstead has not failed a test* and has not been accused of taking banned performance enhancing drugs. She was accused of a breach of the whereabouts system. CAS have ruled that the testing body was at fault on one of those occasions, so she has not accrued three missed tests, so not broken the rules.
* Armstrong claimed to have never failed a drugs test, but he failed at least three and these where covered up. He was also operating prior to whereabouts and missed dozens of tests.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
But it's not just about breaking the rules. It's about credibility. Especially given cycling's past history. People want to believe in clean athletes but some of these athletes don't make it easy. Armitstead is making it really difficult to believe her even if she is within the rules.
But it's not just about breaking the rules. It's about credibility. Especially given cycling's past history. People want to believe in clean athletes but some of these athletes don't make it easy. Armitstead is making it really difficult to believe her even if she is within the rules.
In reply to The New NickB:
>
Not true, Tyler Hamilton gives a very good description of how exactly they played the whereabouts game.
>
> He was also operating prior to whereabouts and missed dozens of tests.
Not true, Tyler Hamilton gives a very good description of how exactly they played the whereabouts game.
1
In reply to baron:
You sound hopeful that she will miss another test? Look, the rules say she is innocent, so deal with it and take your prejudice elsewhere.
You sound hopeful that she will miss another test? Look, the rules say she is innocent, so deal with it and take your prejudice elsewhere.
4
In reply to The New NickB:
Ah, of course not! The world starts again after each doping revelation for Believers. I understand that. For others, like me, this sort of thing just makes us less and less interested in competitive sport, which is a pity as it can be quite fun and entertaining when it is credible.
> We can talk about Armstrong, like the examples above, it has not relevance to Armitstead's case.
Ah, of course not! The world starts again after each doping revelation for Believers. I understand that. For others, like me, this sort of thing just makes us less and less interested in competitive sport, which is a pity as it can be quite fun and entertaining when it is credible.
In reply to Gone for good:
I had a really weird dream last night.
I was at the Olympics with my friend who was a female cyclist who has served a doping ban. She had specifically asked me to be there to give her support.
I watched her, from trackside, come last in her first heat and she came off the track crying and asking why ‘they’ had given her this bike to ride. All the other cyclists had top of the range carbon jobs and British Cycling had issued her with a mountain bike from Halfords to ride in the race. It was obvious that they had it in for her because of the ban.
I demanded to see the IOC officials so I could track down the gits who had done this. My friend was in bits. The young ‘jobsworth’ I had to speak to refused to accept my pass as valid and also wouldn’t let me know who to contact about the humiliation that had been dished out so unfairly (she HAD been cleared to ride).
I told him I’d like to punch his lights out……
……and then it all went hazy and I woke up worried about possible arrest for threatening behaviour. I remembered I had only said ‘I would like’ to punch him rather than ‘I was going to’ punch him as mitigation should it come to court.
Now. My question is should I blame:
a. Lizzie Armitstead
b. The drugs
c. The pizza with additional Jalapenos I had for tea
I had a really weird dream last night.
I was at the Olympics with my friend who was a female cyclist who has served a doping ban. She had specifically asked me to be there to give her support.
I watched her, from trackside, come last in her first heat and she came off the track crying and asking why ‘they’ had given her this bike to ride. All the other cyclists had top of the range carbon jobs and British Cycling had issued her with a mountain bike from Halfords to ride in the race. It was obvious that they had it in for her because of the ban.
I demanded to see the IOC officials so I could track down the gits who had done this. My friend was in bits. The young ‘jobsworth’ I had to speak to refused to accept my pass as valid and also wouldn’t let me know who to contact about the humiliation that had been dished out so unfairly (she HAD been cleared to ride).
I told him I’d like to punch his lights out……
……and then it all went hazy and I woke up worried about possible arrest for threatening behaviour. I remembered I had only said ‘I would like’ to punch him rather than ‘I was going to’ punch him as mitigation should it come to court.
Now. My question is should I blame:
a. Lizzie Armitstead
b. The drugs
c. The pizza with additional Jalapenos I had for tea
2
In reply to danm:
Of course I'm not hoping that she'll miss another test but given the events of the past year would I bet against it?
If wanting athletes not just to compete clean but to be seen to be doing so is prejudice then I'm guilty.
Of course I'm not hoping that she'll miss another test but given the events of the past year would I bet against it?
If wanting athletes not just to compete clean but to be seen to be doing so is prejudice then I'm guilty.
In reply to Gone for good:
Something that really puzzles me in all this is the way the story surfaced in the first place. I mean, a reigning world champion on three missed tests (prior to an appeal) should have been front page news shouldn't it ?
Something that really puzzles me in all this is the way the story surfaced in the first place. I mean, a reigning world champion on three missed tests (prior to an appeal) should have been front page news shouldn't it ?
In reply to Swirly:
Yes, I've read his book. Very different system though wasn't it.
> Not true, Tyler Hamilton gives a very good description of how exactly they played the whereabouts game.
Yes, I've read his book. Very different system though wasn't it.
In reply to Gone for good:
http://nicolecooke.com/news/
Very interesting read. Draw your own conclusion. I've drawn mine, which is she probably isn't a doper, but it's three strikes. And that means a ban. Anything else and credibility is lost.
http://nicolecooke.com/news/
Very interesting read. Draw your own conclusion. I've drawn mine, which is she probably isn't a doper, but it's three strikes. And that means a ban. Anything else and credibility is lost.
In reply to The New NickB:
It proves everything and nothing. Cycling whether it likes it or not, is seen as the sport with the biggest problem. As Nicole Cooke states in the link I posted on another reply, it's the athlete's job to get tested. End of. I'd bet Lizzie isn't a doper, but tough. In cycling, for a while at least, it has to be guilty until proven otherwise.
We're seeing amateur racers doping at nothing better than club level. That's a problem.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/06/feature/totally-amateur_408457
> What does it prove exactly, that cycling has a long history of doping, hardly news to anyone. All those people were caught doping or later admitted it. I'm sure many hundreds of others got away with it. Many of those caught will have claimed their innocence.
> Lizzie Armitstead has not been accused of doping, she does not have to claim her innocence. She admits to two counts of missed tests (one wasn't a test, but it still counts), she gives some mitigation for her two missed tests, she does not have to do this, but obviously felt she needed to. Two missed tests you are asking for trouble, but you have not broken any rules.
It proves everything and nothing. Cycling whether it likes it or not, is seen as the sport with the biggest problem. As Nicole Cooke states in the link I posted on another reply, it's the athlete's job to get tested. End of. I'd bet Lizzie isn't a doper, but tough. In cycling, for a while at least, it has to be guilty until proven otherwise.
We're seeing amateur racers doping at nothing better than club level. That's a problem.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/06/feature/totally-amateur_408457
Post edited at 14:24
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
To be fair, Cooke and Armitstead had a few issues when they were on the same team, and Cooke has never been shy of settling scores.
I agree that 3 strikes should mean a ban, but I also think everyone has a right to an appeal and a fair hearing. She has been exonerated on one of those 3 strikes, so she is down to 2. Ergo, no ban.
As to credibility, maybe greater transparency would help. She says she's been tested 16 times this year - probably more than a tennis player in a lifetime - but how many of those were out of comp ? Also how many were by UKAD and how many by UCI
Meanwhile is Pauline Ferrand Prevot in the french team for Sunday ? Would make things spicy !
To be fair, Cooke and Armitstead had a few issues when they were on the same team, and Cooke has never been shy of settling scores.
I agree that 3 strikes should mean a ban, but I also think everyone has a right to an appeal and a fair hearing. She has been exonerated on one of those 3 strikes, so she is down to 2. Ergo, no ban.
As to credibility, maybe greater transparency would help. She says she's been tested 16 times this year - probably more than a tennis player in a lifetime - but how many of those were out of comp ? Also how many were by UKAD and how many by UCI
Meanwhile is Pauline Ferrand Prevot in the french team for Sunday ? Would make things spicy !
2
In reply to Gone for good:
This just came on Fb from LLizzi Armistead.
Doesn't sound like the three strikes are as bad as are being portrayed.
Worth considering that being on the go for 250 days a year is considerably different to not being in "at the weekend" or whatever comparison to "normal " life we try and make.
I am writing this statement in my own words, something I have wanted to do from the very beginning. Understandably people have questions which I want to answer as openly and honest as I can. I hope people understand that speaking with journalists is a necessary part of my job, speaking directly to the public in a statement like this, which has not been ghost written or moulded by somebody else is un heard of. I want to take responsibility for this message, this is my life and not a game of headlines. I want to state the facts but also try to explain my situation further. I believe I owe this statement to sports fans, people who love sport like I do.
As an 18 year old school girl I was introduced to the whereabouts system. 9 years ago. Since then the system has evolved and developed, post October 2015 I recognised this and requested further education from UKAD, I will come back to this later.
By submitting my whereabouts I am consenting to people coming into my house or hotel and taking blood and urine samples. This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support.
To add some background before I explain the specific details of my 3 'strikes'.
I have been tested 16 times in 2016.
I have a clear and valid blood passport (a more detailed use of looking for doping violations by looking for trends vs anomalies in my blood values)
I have been tested after every victory this season.
I am on the road for around 250 days a year, with around 60 race days.
I have never tested positive for a banned substance.
I have never taken a band substance.
I will present the facts of my 3 'strikes'
Sweden 20th August 2015
UKAD are allowed a maximum of 2 weeks to inform you of a 'strike'. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.
Last week:
CAS ruled quickly and unanimously in my favour and cleared me of any wrong doing, because:
I was at the hotel I stated.
The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.
I was tested the next day, this test was negative.
Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.
Put simply I was available and willing to provide a sample for UKAD.
2nd 'strike' October 2015
Despite being reported as a 'missed test' this was in fact a 'filing failure'
UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.
A busy post world championship period meant I had no firm plans and as such was changing address and plans very quickly. I made a mistake. This was an honest mistake rather than trying to deceive anybody. A mistake that many athletes who are honest with themselves will admit to having made themselves. I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.
In December 2015 I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a 3rd potential 'strike'
Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.
Unfortunately this system fell apart on the 9th of June when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be. Simon Thornton had left BC 3 weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD. If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My over night accommodation ( the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.
This is where I believe I have the right to privacy. My personal family circumstances at the time of the test were incredibly difficult, the medical evidence provided in my case was not contested by UKAD, they accepted the circumstances I was in. UKAD did not perceive my situation to be 'extreme' enough to alleviate me of a negligence charge. A physiatrist assessment of my state of mind at the time was contrary. In my defence I was dealing with a traumatic time and i forgot to change a box on a form. I am not a robot, I am a member of a family, my commitment to them comes over and above my commitment to cycling. This will not change and as a result I will not discuss this further, our suffering does not need to be part of a public trial. I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling, I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it.
To conclude:
I currently have 1 filing failure and 1 missed test.
The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.
In the days following the revelations in the press my family and I have been the victim of some incredibly painful comments. I ask people to take a moment to put themselves in my shoes, I am an athlete trying to do my best, I am a clean athlete. I am the female road race world champion, I operate in a completely different environment to the majority of athletes in the testing pool. I am self coached, I work outside British cycling and its systems, I race for a women's team that doesn't have a budget to match a world tour men's team who have staff specifically in place to supports riders with whereabouts. I don't wish to make excuses, i made one mistake which was noticed in a 'spot check' my second strike came at a time when anybody who lives for and loves their family would understand my oversight. It's as simple as ticking the wrong box on a form.
I love sport and the values it represents, it hurts me to consider anybody questioning my performances. Integrity is something I strive for in every part of my life. I will hold my head high in Rio and do my best for Great Britain, I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport.
To any of the 'Twitter army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind.
This just came on Fb from LLizzi Armistead.
Doesn't sound like the three strikes are as bad as are being portrayed.
Worth considering that being on the go for 250 days a year is considerably different to not being in "at the weekend" or whatever comparison to "normal " life we try and make.
I am writing this statement in my own words, something I have wanted to do from the very beginning. Understandably people have questions which I want to answer as openly and honest as I can. I hope people understand that speaking with journalists is a necessary part of my job, speaking directly to the public in a statement like this, which has not been ghost written or moulded by somebody else is un heard of. I want to take responsibility for this message, this is my life and not a game of headlines. I want to state the facts but also try to explain my situation further. I believe I owe this statement to sports fans, people who love sport like I do.
As an 18 year old school girl I was introduced to the whereabouts system. 9 years ago. Since then the system has evolved and developed, post October 2015 I recognised this and requested further education from UKAD, I will come back to this later.
By submitting my whereabouts I am consenting to people coming into my house or hotel and taking blood and urine samples. This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support.
To add some background before I explain the specific details of my 3 'strikes'.
I have been tested 16 times in 2016.
I have a clear and valid blood passport (a more detailed use of looking for doping violations by looking for trends vs anomalies in my blood values)
I have been tested after every victory this season.
I am on the road for around 250 days a year, with around 60 race days.
I have never tested positive for a banned substance.
I have never taken a band substance.
I will present the facts of my 3 'strikes'
Sweden 20th August 2015
UKAD are allowed a maximum of 2 weeks to inform you of a 'strike'. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.
Last week:
CAS ruled quickly and unanimously in my favour and cleared me of any wrong doing, because:
I was at the hotel I stated.
The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.
I was tested the next day, this test was negative.
Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.
Put simply I was available and willing to provide a sample for UKAD.
2nd 'strike' October 2015
Despite being reported as a 'missed test' this was in fact a 'filing failure'
UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot.
A busy post world championship period meant I had no firm plans and as such was changing address and plans very quickly. I made a mistake. This was an honest mistake rather than trying to deceive anybody. A mistake that many athletes who are honest with themselves will admit to having made themselves. I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.
In December 2015 I met with UKAD and British cycling to discuss a support plan in order to avoid a 3rd potential 'strike'
Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis. We had regular contact and he would help me with any problems, effectively he was a fail safe mechanism. Since meeting with UKAD my whereabouts updates have been as detailed and specific as they can possibly be. Going as far as I can in describing my locations to avoid any further issues.
Unfortunately this system fell apart on the 9th of June when UKAD tried to test me in my hour slot and I was not where I had stated I would be. Simon Thornton had left BC 3 weeks prior to my strike without anybody informing me. We worked under a policy of 'no news was good news' as outlined in my support plan with UKAD. If Simon was still in place the following oversight could have been prevented. My over night accommodation ( the bed in which I was sleeping the morning of the test) was correct, but I had failed to change the one hour testing slot, it was clearly impossible to be in both locations.
This is where I believe I have the right to privacy. My personal family circumstances at the time of the test were incredibly difficult, the medical evidence provided in my case was not contested by UKAD, they accepted the circumstances I was in. UKAD did not perceive my situation to be 'extreme' enough to alleviate me of a negligence charge. A physiatrist assessment of my state of mind at the time was contrary. In my defence I was dealing with a traumatic time and i forgot to change a box on a form. I am not a robot, I am a member of a family, my commitment to them comes over and above my commitment to cycling. This will not change and as a result I will not discuss this further, our suffering does not need to be part of a public trial. I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling, I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it.
To conclude:
I currently have 1 filing failure and 1 missed test.
The reason this hasn't been discussed publicly until now is because I had the right to a fair trial at CAS, it is clear sensationalised headlines have a detrimental effect to any legal case.
In the days following the revelations in the press my family and I have been the victim of some incredibly painful comments. I ask people to take a moment to put themselves in my shoes, I am an athlete trying to do my best, I am a clean athlete. I am the female road race world champion, I operate in a completely different environment to the majority of athletes in the testing pool. I am self coached, I work outside British cycling and its systems, I race for a women's team that doesn't have a budget to match a world tour men's team who have staff specifically in place to supports riders with whereabouts. I don't wish to make excuses, i made one mistake which was noticed in a 'spot check' my second strike came at a time when anybody who lives for and loves their family would understand my oversight. It's as simple as ticking the wrong box on a form.
I love sport and the values it represents, it hurts me to consider anybody questioning my performances. Integrity is something I strive for in every part of my life. I will hold my head high in Rio and do my best for Great Britain, I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport.
To any of the 'Twitter army' reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It's the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind.
1
In reply to baron:
So we should ban the odd athlete even when they haven't broken the rules just to demonstrate that they are being tough on cheats?
> But it's not just about breaking the rules. It's about credibility. Especially given cycling's past history.
So we should ban the odd athlete even when they haven't broken the rules just to demonstrate that they are being tough on cheats?
1
2
In reply to off-duty:
ummm... same as I posted at 1308...
It's why I believe her - it just sounds believable (but sloppy for a pro athlete - however she's not a BC rider so doesn't have a lot of the support they do.
ummm... same as I posted at 1308...
It's why I believe her - it just sounds believable (but sloppy for a pro athlete - however she's not a BC rider so doesn't have a lot of the support they do.
In reply to danm:
I suspect that would be different if your million quid a year income was on the line. Unless youve got something to hide
> Christ on a bike, I'd last a week - I'm never where and when I'm meant to be! I don't understand the fuss
I suspect that would be different if your million quid a year income was on the line. Unless youve got something to hide
1
1
In reply to Indy:
Isn't that her real name?
> Unlike alledged rapist suspected dopers get annonimity.
Isn't that her real name?
1
In reply to Indy:
I suspect her income is much less than million quid a year - there is very little money in womens' cycling, even for the world champ
I suspect her income is much less than million quid a year - there is very little money in womens' cycling, even for the world champ
1
In reply to off-duty:
Its tricky though since some drugs do go through the system rather quickly and so getting retested the next day would make all the difference.
> Worth considering that being on the go for 250 days a year is considerably different to not being in "at the weekend" or whatever comparison to "normal " life we try and make.
Its tricky though since some drugs do go through the system rather quickly and so getting retested the next day would make all the difference.
1
In reply to Indy:
She isn't a suspected doper though, she missed tests.
> Unlike alledged rapist suspected dopers get annonimity.
She isn't a suspected doper though, she missed tests.
In reply to Tyler:
If the CAS say she didn't miss a test deliberately then she won't be banned. In my opinion she should withdraw from the olympics. Of course she won't as she seems to thinks she's done nothing wrong. It's interesting, to me at least, to compare her reaction to missing 2 (3) tests to that of Cavendish and Froome who missed one each.
If the CAS say she didn't miss a test deliberately then she won't be banned. In my opinion she should withdraw from the olympics. Of course she won't as she seems to thinks she's done nothing wrong. It's interesting, to me at least, to compare her reaction to missing 2 (3) tests to that of Cavendish and Froome who missed one each.
3
In reply to baron:
I completely agree. Whatever the reasons for missing the tests she has failed to uphold the rules and should voluntarily declare herself unavailable for Rio. A little contrition goes a long way with the general public. I think her Facebook post goes way to far in defending her case.
Thou doth protesteth too much.
> If the CAS say she didn't miss a test deliberately then she won't be banned. In my opinion she should withdraw from the olympics. Of course she won't as she seems to thinks she's done nothing wrong. It's interesting, to me at least, to compare her reaction to missing 2 (3) tests to that of Cavendish and Froome who missed one each.
I completely agree. Whatever the reasons for missing the tests she has failed to uphold the rules and should voluntarily declare herself unavailable for Rio. A little contrition goes a long way with the general public. I think her Facebook post goes way to far in defending her case.
Thou doth protesteth too much.
2
In reply to Gone for good:
She IS upholding the rules. She is a bit damned if she does, damned if she doesn't withdraw now. A withdrawal would be taken as a tacit implication of guilt in some quarters. Best if, officially at least, that decision didn't appear to be in her hands
> I completely agree. Whatever the reasons for missing the tests she has failed to uphold the rules and should voluntarily declare herself unavailable for Rio.
She IS upholding the rules. She is a bit damned if she does, damned if she doesn't withdraw now. A withdrawal would be taken as a tacit implication of guilt in some quarters. Best if, officially at least, that decision didn't appear to be in her hands
1
In reply to GrahamD:
She was banned. She (and Team GB) has manipulated the rules to serve her purpose. I don't understand why so many people are defending her.
I am not saying she is a doper but if it looks like a cover up and smells like a cover up and sounds like a cover up......well, you can draw your own conclusions.
> She IS upholding the rules. She is a bit damned if she does, damned if she doesn't withdraw now. A withdrawal would be taken as a tacit implication of guilt in some quarters. Best if, officially at least, that decision didn't appear to be in her hands
She was banned. She (and Team GB) has manipulated the rules to serve her purpose. I don't understand why so many people are defending her.
I am not saying she is a doper but if it looks like a cover up and smells like a cover up and sounds like a cover up......well, you can draw your own conclusions.
3
7
In reply to Gone for good:
Because you are making stuff up. Like you made up the tale about misspelling her name by copying a Guardian article.
She was temporarily suspended subject to the appeal process, she was never handed a ban. She appealed, which she has every right to do. The CAS found unanimously in her favour. It wasn't a manipulation of the rules, it wasn't a legal loophole. The tester did not do their job properly, there was nothing that Armitstead or any other athlete could do about that.
It is far from ideal that she has 2 missed tests, but she is not alone, the reason that the rule is three strikes is that it can be very hard to adher 100% to the whereabouts systems.
> She was banned. She (and Team GB) has manipulated the rules to serve her purpose. I don't understand why so many people are defending her.
Because you are making stuff up. Like you made up the tale about misspelling her name by copying a Guardian article.
She was temporarily suspended subject to the appeal process, she was never handed a ban. She appealed, which she has every right to do. The CAS found unanimously in her favour. It wasn't a manipulation of the rules, it wasn't a legal loophole. The tester did not do their job properly, there was nothing that Armitstead or any other athlete could do about that.
It is far from ideal that she has 2 missed tests, but she is not alone, the reason that the rule is three strikes is that it can be very hard to adher 100% to the whereabouts systems.
4
1
In reply to Gone for good:
If pretty much any top professional is winning in any sport they're probably doping.
I wish that wasn't the case but I'm sure it is.
Yours cynically,
BB
If pretty much any top professional is winning in any sport they're probably doping.
I wish that wasn't the case but I'm sure it is.
Yours cynically,
BB
Post edited at 19:33
2
6
In reply to The New NickB:
While I can see the difficulty in always being where you are supposed to be, although many people in other jobs seem to manage, can she not text to change the time up to one minute before said time?
While I can see the difficulty in always being where you are supposed to be, although many people in other jobs seem to manage, can she not text to change the time up to one minute before said time?
In reply to baron:
She did NOT miss 3 tests, she missed 2, one of them being because of a family emergency. The 3rd "missed test" was not a missed test because the tester failed to follow procedure, not her. Simple. No cover up. Nothing to see here.
She did NOT miss 3 tests, she missed 2, one of them being because of a family emergency. The 3rd "missed test" was not a missed test because the tester failed to follow procedure, not her. Simple. No cover up. Nothing to see here.
4
In reply to baron:
Lots of people are on one and two missed tests. It's far from ideal, but that is why you get three strikes, not one.
> While I can see the difficulty in always being where you are supposed to be, although many people in other jobs seem to manage, can she not text to change the time up to one minute before said time?
Lots of people are on one and two missed tests. It's far from ideal, but that is why you get three strikes, not one.
In reply to The New NickB:
If you bother reading the Guardian link I posted you will see her name appears as Armistead.
UK Anti-Doping recognises that athletes can make mistakes and that plans can change at short notice. We therefore provide a huge amount of support to athletes throughout their time on the Whereabouts programme to ensure the information they provide is accurate and submitted in a timely manner. This includes providing athletes with a dedicated member of staff to provide ongoing guidance and training on their Whereabouts responsibilities. We also offer athletes a variety of whereabouts tools, including a dedicated website and a free mobile app, so they can easily update their whereabouts wherever they are in the world. Athletes can even text or email changes to us in an emergency. On top of this, Ukad provides additional, escalating support to athletes who incur whereabouts failures which is tailored to their specific needs,” she said
It is far from ideal that she has 2 missed tests, but she is not alone, the reason that the rule is three strikes is that it can be very hard to adher 100% to the whereabouts systems.
That I'm afraid is pure rubbish.
> Because you are making stuff up. Like you made up the tale about misspelling her name by copying a Guardian article.
If you bother reading the Guardian link I posted you will see her name appears as Armistead.
> She was temporarily suspended subject to the appeal process, she was never handed a ban. She appealed, which she has every right to do. The CAS found unanimously in her favour. It wasn't a manipulation of the rules, it wasn't a legal loophole. The tester did not do their job properly, there was nothing that Armitstead or any other athlete could do about that.
UK Anti-Doping recognises that athletes can make mistakes and that plans can change at short notice. We therefore provide a huge amount of support to athletes throughout their time on the Whereabouts programme to ensure the information they provide is accurate and submitted in a timely manner. This includes providing athletes with a dedicated member of staff to provide ongoing guidance and training on their Whereabouts responsibilities. We also offer athletes a variety of whereabouts tools, including a dedicated website and a free mobile app, so they can easily update their whereabouts wherever they are in the world. Athletes can even text or email changes to us in an emergency. On top of this, Ukad provides additional, escalating support to athletes who incur whereabouts failures which is tailored to their specific needs,” she said
It is far from ideal that she has 2 missed tests, but she is not alone, the reason that the rule is three strikes is that it can be very hard to adher 100% to the whereabouts systems.
That I'm afraid is pure rubbish.
3
In reply to The New NickB:
And because 'lots of people' have missed one or two tests including, apparently, six British athletes on two strikes, some people, myself included, have grave doubts over how many athletes are not clean.
If you are a user of illegal drugs in sport then missing a drugs test or not being where you said you would be enable you to avoid being caught.
If you are clean but miss a test or aren't in the right place then it might be reasonable for a cynic to assume you have something to hide.
The system isn't perfect but as I've said before some athletes really don't help themselves by their actions.
And because 'lots of people' have missed one or two tests including, apparently, six British athletes on two strikes, some people, myself included, have grave doubts over how many athletes are not clean.
If you are a user of illegal drugs in sport then missing a drugs test or not being where you said you would be enable you to avoid being caught.
If you are clean but miss a test or aren't in the right place then it might be reasonable for a cynic to assume you have something to hide.
The system isn't perfect but as I've said before some athletes really don't help themselves by their actions.
3
4
In reply to Gone for good:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-repr...
This one, I read the article, not the link. Where they spell it correctly. Did you read the article? I'm guessing this where you have been going wrong all day.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-repr...
This one, I read the article, not the link. Where they spell it correctly. Did you read the article? I'm guessing this where you have been going wrong all day.
3
In reply to Gone for good:
Sorry but she should be banded she did not appeal for the 1 one until after the 3 one.
why do we have a drug cheat on TV as a cycling expert.
Sorry but she should be banded she did not appeal for the 1 one until after the 3 one.
why do we have a drug cheat on TV as a cycling expert.
5
In reply to PhilH:
She did originally question the first test with UKAD but it was dismissed. It was challenged and the challenge was upheld by CAS.
The second was part of a random check. She got her date and times wrong. It was classed as an admin error but a strike all the same
Third was hands up. She plead mitigating circumstances but it was understandably classed as a strike.
She is guilty of being a muppet, but not a doper.
There is a big difference.
For others, using the Lance anology is the cycling equivalent of Godwins
And her initials are EA.
She did originally question the first test with UKAD but it was dismissed. It was challenged and the challenge was upheld by CAS.
The second was part of a random check. She got her date and times wrong. It was classed as an admin error but a strike all the same
Third was hands up. She plead mitigating circumstances but it was understandably classed as a strike.
She is guilty of being a muppet, but not a doper.
There is a big difference.
For others, using the Lance anology is the cycling equivalent of Godwins
And her initials are EA.
Post edited at 21:29
6
In reply to PhilH:
Presumably because he's a cycling expert - years at the top as a pro, articulate, insightful, remorseful and able to provide information on doping from an insider's position.
I don't think Lizzie Armitstead dopes, FWIW.
Presumably because he's a cycling expert - years at the top as a pro, articulate, insightful, remorseful and able to provide information on doping from an insider's position.
I don't think Lizzie Armitstead dopes, FWIW.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...