Armitstead misses drug tests

[David Martin]

UKAD have to accept that their tester messed up. How likely are they to do that? CAS accepted the evidence and they heard a lot more than you have.

She was available at the hotel, the tester messed up. The second one was a filing irregularity, not a missed test, but counts as a missed test.  The third one was a miss through not being at the location.

[giropaul]

It sounds as if some of the testers are trained in the parcels delivery model - " sorry you weren't in" when you were.
When you consider that he hectic, often changing, lifestyle of top pro cyclists the system for " I'll be here" is creaky. Cyclists don't have long " out of competition" periods nowadays, and teams move riders around like chess pieces.
She should have challenged the first test earlier, but I think we can safely assume that one or two misses are pretty standard with the system as it is. We don't know how many athletes from any sport are on one or two strikes. It's a huge leap to make assumptions that this means that they must be doping.

[chrisbainbridge]

I can understand the first one and that she did not appeal.  She was a female racing cyclist not on the GB program so was probably on minimum wage.  I would have let it slide as well.  the equation for a top lawyer is appeal = eating for 2 months.

What i do not understand is why they do not have an app on their phone telling WADA where they are at all times. Alternatively why not give them all a Spot tracker like the TCR and the tester goes to the athlete?

[citoyen]

What i do not understand is why they do not have an app on their phone telling WADA where they are at all times.

They do.

Alternatively why not give them all a Spot tracker like the TCR and the tester goes to the athlete?

Have you thought through the practical implications for the testers of trying to run the system that way?

[Jaded]

I read that there are at least 6 UK athletes on two strikes.

[mattc]

What i do not understand is why they do not have an app on their phone telling WADA where they are at all times.

They do.

What a horrible invasion of privacy. Maybe it is the only way to implement decent enforcement, but I do feel sorry for the athletes. 

(It seems inevitable that personal information will leak out of such a system to the press at some point.)

[David Martin]

What i do not understand is why they do not have an app on their phone telling WADA where they are at all times.

They do.

I thought they had an app that would let them update their ADAMS data. Real time tracking raises a completely different can of privacy worms.

[andrew_s]

She should have challenged the first test earlier/quote]According to her dad, she did appeal the first test to UKAD, but they said no. That wasn't challenged at the time because going to CAS is expensive.

[TimC]

I've watched this with some horror; it seems a bit of a train crash and a PR disaster for Lizzie. She's been quoted today as saying she understands she will forever now be under suspicion.

Personally, I believe her; that she's a bit disorganised and scatterbrained and that finances prevented earlier appeals and a family emergency eclipsed her professional responsibilities. I understand that women professional cyclists aren't well paid and probably don't have a coterie of minders to ensure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. But, while it might go some way to explaining things, it doesn't absolve her of responsibility or go anywhere towards countering the suspicions of guilt that will now and forever cloud her career. I wonder if that career will survive beyond the Olympics now? It would seem to me to be permanently stained.

[mattc]

You can never prove a negative. If people want to have suspicions, they will - even athletes without any documented glitches get mentions in these very pages for suspicious performances, or using the wrong doctor, or just riding for the wrong team. All of which are purely circumstantial.

Journalists can mention all these things (or missed tests) every time they report on Athlete X, if they choose. Free speech innit.

Is this the fault of the public, or the riders that cheated? Or both. It certainly isn't the fault of the clean riders.

Assuming anyone is clean ...

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

I've watched this with some horror; it seems a bit of a train crash and a PR disaster for Lizzie. She's been quoted today as saying she understands she will forever now be under suspicion.

Personally, I believe her; that she's a bit disorganised and scatterbrained and that finances prevented earlier appeals and a family emergency eclipsed her professional responsibilities. I understand that women professional cyclists aren't well paid and probably don't have a coterie of minders to ensure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. But, while it might go some way to explaining things, it doesn't absolve her of responsibility or go anywhere towards countering the suspicions of guilt that will now and forever cloud her career. I wonder if that career will survive beyond the Olympics now? It would seem to me to be permanently stained.

Well put.  The difficulty is that from the outside we can't determine the difference between someone who has been poorly organised and someone who has been cheating and uses the occasional missed test to avoid being tested when they fear that their blood values are out of line. 

I thought Nicole Cooke's statement was very illuminating.  I also understand, through CET Junior's activities in school rowing that some of top junior rowers have regular (fortnightly was what I heard - I'm relaying things here) blood tests to ensure that they are not overtraining / monitor health etc - these are amateur athletes not a current world champion;   So I agree with her quotes today.  No matter what she achieves, there will always be a doubt in the back of my mind.  I'm not making an accusation, just expressing a feeling.   There's another athlete who served a ban for missing tests came back and won a major title with a performance 3% above their trend.  I've tried to keep that as anonymous as I can, becuase again, I'm not making an accusation.  I've no evidence.  But I do have doubt, and that's a hard thing to make go away.

[citoyen]

You can never prove a negative.

The onus is on athletes to prove they're clean, which is why missing tests is such a big deal.

Of course, tests can be beaten but missing them is not the way to do it. 

[David Martin]

You can never prove a negative.

The onus is on athletes to prove they're clean, which is why missing tests is such a big deal.

Of course, tests can be beaten but missing them is not the way to do it. 

The onus is on athletes to be available for testing. nobody can prove they are clean.

[citoyen]

The onus is on athletes to be available for testing. nobody can prove they are clean.

Ok...

The onus is on them to be available for testing and then to pass the test, which is taken as proof of being clean (although even a passed test may be superseded by other evidence).

[David Martin]

Being a pedantic scientist. CAS agreed she was ready and available for the first test, hence no case to answer. The second was a whereabouts filing error, so if the tester had turned up it would have been missed (fine, the responsibility is Armitsteads ultimately but it was BC who screwed up.) Third one was her error and a missed test.

[mattc]

The onus is on athletes to be available for testing. nobody can prove they are clean.

Ok...

The onus is on them to be available for testing and then to pass the test, which is taken as proof of being clean (although even a passed test may be superseded by other evidence).

So what you're saying is that it ISNT proof.

And meanwhile, there are plenty who are more pessimistic* than you; they will smear athletes with an impeccable
testing record.


*Or they just want more publicity for their paper/blog/mouth...

[bikenrrd]

Read Tyler Hamilton's book.  Nothing has changed.

[citoyen]

So what you're saying is that it ISNT proof.

I agree with David M on that matter.

And meanwhile, there are plenty who are more pessimistic* than you; they will smear athletes with an impeccable testing record.

Perhaps they're jaded by the "I never tested positive" mantra.

[bryn]

It's worth remembering that even top level cyclists often have to share a room with a team-mate, unlike real grown-ups. So it is understandable she had her phone on silent to avoid constant pings through the night as another spam message arrived. And then if the front desk refuse to give out a room number to the tester (as also happened to Froome)........

There is also the issue with the support being provided by British Cycling to double check that all the whereabouts data was in order - but they failed to inform Lizzie when the person doing this had left the organisation, and it seems the task had not been assigned to anyone else.  That seems like the typical organisational blunder that we have all met!

Doesn't alter the final facts of the case, but makes the events more understable rather than sinister.

Bryn

[mattc]

So, moving forwards, we are where we are, ... [MAKE HIM STOP!]

How do we think Lizzie will get on today? I imagine it's fair to describe her as:

more understable

Will her heart just not be in it? Gets in the team car after an hour?

Or will she ride her little cotton socks off, to get things out of her system?
[and only manage 3rd, due to being marked out of any chance of  a win ]

[Jock Stewart]

I've just read the Sunday Times. They did a sting on Rotich, Kenya's track and field manager. He was open to bribes to protect doping athletes, including non-Kenyans who had travelled there to train. One piece of advice he gave to athletes who missed (needed to miss) a drugs test out of competition was to use the 'family emergency' excuse. Which is what Armitstead used.

[Jock Stewart]

Has far as the race goes...

... I think she'll make an attempt to show she's trying but then disappear into the chasers or crash off.

Ot but the Men's race yesterday was exhilarating.

[Veloman]

Jock

You will have your view on Lizzie A and it appears nothing will change it.  Fine.

Others will have their view and may disagree with you; does not make them a bad person or someone who should be viewed as an idiot.  A measure of a civilised society is that disagreements may take place.  Grinding the axe may give you some level of personal satisfaction, but I can't see the point.  She has been cleared to ride by the appropriate authorities.  I wish her the best of luck in the race.

[Pingu]

...One piece of advice he gave to athletes who missed (needed to miss) a drugs test out of competition was to use the 'family emergency' excuse...

Did he also advise, 'the dog ate my homework'?

[mattc]

I'd call that A Good Day under the circs.