[Closed] Armitstead and these missed tests...

Tom Fordyce just retweeted this article of his from last year

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/33189303

Yes, don't doubt that it's an administrative headache for an athlete, but...

Had my reputation and future been dependent on getting even the smallest details right, perhaps it would have been an hourly priority. This, after all, is an athlete's chance to prove to the world that they are working their sporting wonders in a clean and fair way.

Cheers for that, Stoner, very interesting. Wouldn't fancy living to that!

But I wouldn't fancy pro-level training, either.

Cyclingtips ([url= http://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/living-with-the-whereabouts/ ]here[/url]) and Inrng ([url= http://inrng.com/2014/03/where-are-you-adams-whereabouts/ ]here[/url]) both did articles about the ADAMS system too.

I still think that with two missed tests and a possible 4 year ban as a consequence of another missed test, in the rainbow stripes, in an Olympic year, with my career and reputation on the line, i'd either be contesting the earlier misses or being absolutely fastidious about my whereabouts.

Missing one is fair enough I think, everyone makes mistakes.

Missing another is a bit silly if you've already missed one. You should really be expecting this one, but [i]maybe[/i] something got in the way.

Missing a third is bloody ridiculous and a bit suspect IMO.

Hmm.. does sound a bit strange.

She has got a cute smile though, so all is forgiven. 😀

^agree (with ads678),

however, it was the first missed one which they have had the lawyers crawl all over in an attempt to get it overturned.
has it taken this long?

the press wouldnt be playing so nice if this was a russian rider

Regardless, this kind of slack attitude towards what I consider a serious aspect of the job only detracts from any achievements that come post scandal.

I'm staggered that such a soft system exists at the very highest level of the sport, It almost certainly reduces the level of interest in the events, especially in the current climate.

Shoddy

Lots of people (including UKAD) wanting to know why she didn't challenge the first one at the time. Fair question, but is there a process of appeal to UKAD and would they have been likely to rescind it (without an appeal to CAS)? So you can understand why she didn't bother with the hassle of a challenge at that stage.

The second came soon after, so it is a bit more odd that she didn't challenge the first then - rather than having the sword of damocles hanging over her for 10 months.

If she is to be believed, the third test is one of those situations where we accept that mistakes are made. Of course, if he story turns out to be false (and you can be sure someone will be digging) then it's going to be a hard one to bluff.

be so complacent as to miss 3 in a row

What is clear is that her reputation has taken quite a hit - she needs to explain herself more fully.

Well she only contested the earlier test after she missed the 3rd test in June. Was provisionally suspended until the CAS hearing. Though that was kept very quiet indeed.

the press wouldnt be playing so nice if this was a russian rider

I assume you're only reading the UK press!

Clean - yeah right !

Missed one because they were asleep with their phone on silent, missed the other for no explained reason. Pulled out of some races at short notice.

Seems to me that to even be competitive in cycling at that level you have to compete against cheats. Hardly surprising that anyone near the top is cheating.

She might as well change her name to something sounding Russian.

Can you imagine turning up to a race clean and being expected to compete against these people - it would not be worth being clean.

Ban them for life.

Its only a bloody sport, its not like they do something that adds much to society. So ban them for life and sod the fact they wont earn a living anymore cheating at riding a bike.

The testing regime is very onerous. Give your location for every single day ! She missed one test and provided a sample the following day, one missed test was anulled and one test they said was a real miss. So really she missed one test not three.

Trying to maintain a professional racing and training schedule and manage the minute detail of your whereabouts diary is a fair challenge - in less challenging roles, people employ someone full-time to do this but a cyclist is expected to do it themselves? With her winning record she'll have received a number of tests - perhaps if they naysayers knew how many negative tests she'd done, they wouldn't be baying for her blood? Nothing to see here - move along!

What is clear is that her reputation has taken quite a hit - she needs to explain herself more fully.

Will that make any difference? She's already been judged by folk on here and elsewhere already.
People dragged Mo Farrah over the coals when he missed two in 12 months.

There's no perfect system for drugs testing and people fall foul of it through mistakes and falability quite often.
Look at Simon Yates having taken a ban and been briefly battered in the press due to his doctor not putting a TUE form in for him.

She seems to have explained herself pretty clearly, the tester made a cock up and she was tested again the next day and was clean.

Trying to maintain a professional racing and training schedule and manage the minute detail of your whereabouts diary is a fair challenge

Yet it's quite rare for a professional athlete to actually miss 3 tests in that 12 month window.

Nothing to see here - move along!

I do hope that's the case.

Uneasy reading and it certainly looks bad if you just read the headline.

Really need more evidence on this bit before pitchforks are deployed though...

the second seems to be an admin error on Armitstead’s behalf and the third the same, only complicated by “an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family”.

18 months of total domination of the sport and 3 missed tests in a year - don't really like the smell of that much. Shame, cos I was a big lizzie fan.

she was tested again the next day and was clean.

Which is plenty of time to have cleared some substances out of the system

As an professional athlete you need to get tested, you also need to prove to your audience your clean.

It is not hard or difficult to be available at a time each day to get tested if your job/reputation/sport depends on it.

Hard is defusing bombs in Afghanistan, or doing brain surgery in Syria.

FFS, these people ride bikes for a living, sticking to a schedule to get tested to prove your not cheating is not hard.

A bit careless of her (and others) but with that many athletes and that many tests, some cock-ups will happen. I assume she didn't bother to contest the first one immediately because she just assumed it wouldn't happen three times in a year. The last one being a family emergency (though we don't know the details) is just one of those things.

Fact is, her goal is to be one of the best cyclists in the world, they aren't necessarily the brightest or most organised of people, and the system needs to deal with that.

It's whose, not 'who's'... tsk.

Hmmm, I think if she had been called Petrova Dodgymissedtestovitch we might be seeing a wee bit more criticism...

It's whose, not 'who's'... tsk.

Lucky for Armitstead that CAS are more lenient than the STW grammar police.

She missed one test and provided a sample the following day, one missed test was anulled and one test they said was a real miss. So really she missed one test not three.

It was the first missed test that was anulled; the second was a fair cop admin failure and the third was a sudden change in plans due to family illness, so again a fair cop.

The issue is that the first should have been a pass; the tester didn't make sufficient steps to contact her (called at a team hotel, didn't identify himself correctly so the hotel refused to give him her room number, and so he called the mobile which was on silent as she was asleep)

The issue is also that given this was a failure by UKAD why it wasn't challenged and overturned at the time. I imagine it's because she / her team thought that they'd stay whiter than white in the meantime so it wouldn't matter. The counter is that you don't want ANY smoke whatsoever so if you had an incorrect missed test you'd want it cleared, which is why when she got a second strike shortly after the decision not to challenge the first is even more questionable.

Thing is - it is a very onerous system as the Fordyce article shows (although, it's part of the deal of being a top athlete) and we don't know how many are living with one or two strikes at any time - maybe it's accepted that occasionally screw ups are made and it really isn't a biggie until you get caught out. Like points on a driving licence - do 3 points really matter, you only start to worry when you have 6 or 9?

FFS, these people ride bikes for a living, sticking to a schedule to get tested to prove your not cheating is not hard.

Every single day ? It would seem easier to me to just get a pee test every week.

Hmmm, I think if she had been called Petrova Dodgymissedtestovitch we might be seeing a wee bit more criticism...

Plenty of critisim flying around here already

A significant difference between this case and the russian ones is the whole state sponsored and manadated doping thing.

No idea if anything dodgy going on or not, but those seeking to imply she's had an unusually stellar year are very wide of the mark. She's been at or near the top for ages, and let's not forget that her wins have coincided with the absence of Marianne Vos.

Hmmm, I think if she had been called Petrova Dodgymissedtestovitch we might be seeing a wee bit more criticism...

Have any Russians ever been banned under the whereabouts rule ?

Actually it would give a pretty good indication of a countries anti-doping agency if we knew how many missed tests they recorded.

A significant difference between this case and the russian ones is the whole state sponsored and manadated doping thing.

Which we didn't know anything about for years until the whistle got blown 😉

Every single day ? It would seem easier to me to just get a pee test every week.

Would be nice and easy to plan your doping around a once a week regular test.

[url= http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/article/UKAD-Statement-on-CAS-Hearing-Against-Elizabeth-Armitstead ]UKAD statement[/url] reads that they don't understand why the first violation wasn't annulled. Looks like a case of Hanlon's Razor:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

To be honest, I'm more interested in who is doing the leaking from British Cycling and what they seek to achieve. Should have rightly remained confidential since she has not received any punishment.

I don't know but do we really think that elite level sportspeople are clean or its just a game of avoiding the testing if there is a risk of anything showing up? You just need to look at a few of the boxers/ufc fighters to see they are on the juice.

It's not a test every day, it's you have to inform the AD agency of your whereabouts for availability for testing each day. They could test two days in a row or not test for three months.

To be honest, I'm more interested in who is doing the leaking from British Cycling and what they seek to achieve. Should have rightly remained confidential since she has not received any punishment.

Is that right? If the case went to CAS and UKAD are awaiting the publication of the Reasoned Decision, I think this is a document that gets published for all to see on the CAS website.

Quite a few cases of British sports people get exposed when they should be treated under the confidentiality clauses and before the point that it was due to be public knowledge.
Examples that spring to mind include; Simon Yates, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke, Mo Farah, Christine Ohuruogu, Chris Froome's TUE

All ended up in the papers before it was supposed be released or in cases where it wasn't due to be released at all

To be honest, I'm more interested in who is doing the leaking from British Cycling and what they seek to achieve. Should have rightly remained confidential since she has not received any punishment.

First line of INRRNG piece...

Lizzie Armitstead has won an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport

You're not suggesting CAS decisions are/should be confidential?

... she was tested again the next day and was clean.

Well yes, but there is a reason there are unannounced out of competition tests, as well as the expected ones at the end of races ...

I don't know but do we really think that elite level sportspeople are clean

Well I can't speak for everyone, but personally I don't believe that all of them are clean - or that all of them are doping.

Honestly, it stinks. It may be that she's clean, it may be some genuine mistakes but it still stinks. And if, later down the line, it turns out she's not clean then it also implicates by association her fiance Philip Deignan who rides for Sky.

As someone who watched the whole US Postal/Lance thing almost destroy the sport I love I find this both worrying and indeed upsetting. I would be asking some very serious questions at British Cycling and Sky right now.

You're not suggesting CAS decisions are/should be confidential?

Not sure, perhaps acquittals on unpublished confidential accusations should be. You can't prove a negative, after all. See arguments regarding allegations of sexual abuse (which I also think should be confidential).

I can't understand why the first was not revoked immediately and there would be no issue. And I can certainly understand that even in an ordered life, events just turn that order upside down sometimes (and allowances are made).

There is no way I could manage that discipline in my life!

But getting a ban for missing a test because you are racing at the time and ther team didn't fill in the form properly - now that is beyond ironic! (not LA btw)

I'd like to cut her a bit of slack, but given the problems in professional sport I think you have to be naive to accept her defence without having some reservations.

guilty until proven innocent.

that's how it works for drug cheats and kiddie fiddling, at least.

was also going to say that TdF this year seemed strangely devoid of drug related issues. only one I noted was one of the stage winners being told not welcome at the olympics, but that's due to an old offence.

turned the corner? or another loads of poopoo about to hit the fan?

There is no way I could manage that discipline in my life!

You could say that level of discipline and attention to detail is the sort of stuff a professional athlete's life is likely built upon.

Maybe being more open about missed tests is the way forward, a week's grace then missed tests are posted, that way there's no hiding and you don't get the whispers and innuendo that you do with the current setup. It would concentrate the minds of those athletes who miss a test.

Innocent till proved guilty.....

But one does wonder.................................

It was broken by the daily mail and ordinarily I couldn't give a shit what they think, especially when the whereabouts system is so onerous and there really is very little money and infrastructure around women's cycling to help them with this stuff unlike mens BUT the response from her peers has been pretty damning. No ormerta there. Her peers think it stinks and I am inclined to listen to them.

BUT the response from her peers has been pretty damning. No ormerta there. Her peers think it stinks and I am inclined to listen to them.

After missing the doorbell for the first time ANY human being would say 'mate BANG AS HARD YOU NEED TO ON THE DOOR'.

If my job, career and mortgage relied on such a visit guess what?

[quote="Trimix"]FFS, these people ride bikes for a living, sticking to a schedule to get tested to prove your not cheating is not hard.LOL. Most riders won't know which hotel they are going to be in a week in advance. Let alone 3 months. And in the men's side of things most riders have a PA or team admin to fill it in for them. They have hotel bookings and race schedules in front of them. Most of the women have little or no support. Even within the BC organisation.
[quote="mrblobby"]You could say that level of discipline and attention to detail is the sort of stuff a professional athlete's life is likely built upon.not really. Most pros aren't particularly smart. Or organised. Or attentive to detail. They don't get time to develop the skills. Too busy training.

BUT the response from her peers has been pretty damning. No ormerta there. Her peers think it stinks and I am inclined to listen to them.

Interesting. Who's said what?

Yes please elaborate, I don't have time to trawl Twitter so can you just do it for us.

😉

So they've got to designate an hour every day for anti doping, and can change this on an app on their phone up to a minute before that hour,yet she was asleep with her phone on silent during that hour? That doesn't make sense to me. At best that's very silly at worst, well...

Let alone 3 months

You can update it the night before using the phone app.

As said, a huge number of pro's across a wide range of disciplines of various levels of professionalism manage ok.

Also as world champ and the current dominant rider and Olympic favourite, you've got to figure you're going to be pretty high on the testing list.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-react-to-the-lizzie-armitstead-case/

Prevot, Compton and a few others I don't know.

maybe the glow made LA turn the phone to silent......

Missing one is fair enough but for christ's sake she is a PROFESSIONAL athlete she knows the rules.

Missing 3 sorry she would e out of the team

She can prove her innocence she had the chance label her a doper or a suspected doper its up to her to clean up her reputation after ,she had the opportunity and literally couldnt be arsed to piss it away

As said, a huge number of pro's across a wide range of disciplines of various levels of professionalism manage ok.

maybe the glow made LA turn the phone to silent......

Notable difference from the article stoner linked that they "couldn't contact him by phone [because that's forewarning]" yet they tried to call armistead.

She could, as has been noted above, easily have given her room number up to 60 seconds in advance (and I'd assume at any point in the hour too if they try back at 15 minute intervals though that it's conjecture on my part) also i don't believe you can put the room phone on silent in any of the hotels I've stayed in - though I've not tried - and i would expect reception to try that method even of they weren't willing to give her room details.

It stinks, its not difficult for most people to know where they will be an hour a day and i'd venture almost none of us have a life as prescribed as a top athlete.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/article/chaperone-profile

its not that hard and considering you can get from one side of the world to the other in 24hours very difficult to believe she was not capable of organizing her affairs.

What was she doing chairing a COBRA meeting? even call me dave was contactable!!

I like Chloe Hosking's tweet.

It stinks

Devil's advocate; if I was a doper and knew I might need to miss a test somewhere because of the risk of testing positive, I'd jump all over the chance to get my 3 strikes reinstated over an obvious failed protocol missed test. Even if she was glowing (as i believe the vernacular goes) and so deliberately avoided the test to then be handed it back - you'd jump at it.

I subscribe to the theory that if there's the option between conspiracy and screw up, it's almost always a screw up. Certainly until evidence comes forward to suggest otherwise, and there must be dozens of tests taken given her profile in her favour. It still sucks that it wasn't dealt with immediately, and then to miss further ones is in the circumstances unforgivable, but it doesn't yet say to me drugs cheat.

Not saying a ban isn't in order - them's the rules and she didn't fulfill them, and the sudden family illness is already an allowed excuse, that's why they give you 3 strikes / year. But the ban should reflect the crime, not the insinuation.

TBH when the original test was missed i suspect the cost of getting lawyered up and going to CAS/UKAD to get it over turned was the major factor in not bothering. I mean, no one would be daft enough to miss two more tests would they.

Oh.

Let's go back and get that first one dealt with them.

Should be banned, 3 strikes and out.

Theotherjonv, what stinks here isn't the fact she may be guilty of doping and is getting away with it, its that she is guilty of breaking the rules re where abouts, not once, not twice but three times and only now that it threatens her career is it that she sees fit to call into question one of those instances. An instance which, had it made the press at the time, could have easily ruined her reputation then. Shes responded not to it being unjust but to the consequence.

Devils advocate on my part here but, going to CAS immediately would likely have meant evidence could be presented then that can't now. The hotel receptionist won't remember the conversation with the tester now but may have then. The tester will remember not being able to gain the info they needed but surely won't have recorded "i made insufficient effort to make contact" and i doubt would have recorded the conversation with reception verbatim so now can probably only say "i don't remember if i told the receptionist i was with anti doping or not". Months down the line it would be easy to create doubt whereas at the time it [i]could[/i] have been quite cut and dry

But the ban should reflect the crime, not the insinuation.

It would be interesting to actually see the CAS findings. I can't remember who it was, but I did read one a few years back, and it basically said "you got away on a technicality you cheating bastard" (a bit like the Sharapova one, while she was found guilty, the full content was a lot more damming than the somethingion)

As above, challenging the test takes a lot of time effort and money. She may well have been advised to hold off as they where confident of winning so don't spend the money (£30-50k?) unless you really have to.

As for her competitors making a fuss ? Gamesmanship, sour grapes ? I have many French friends who think thewhile team GB / Sky outfit are on the sauce as they keep winning

Lizzie's issues aside; [s]CAS[/s] [b]UKAD[/b] don't exactly seem on the ball in these scenarios. If it was my job to go get a sample from a high profile athlete, then having made the trip to the hotel I might be a little more persistent than trying the phone and then seemingly giving up. Maybe try, the team manager, the team doctor, the team mates, etc etc.

Whilst it maybe the responsibility of the athlete to be available for testing surely they should also make a concerted effort to get the tests done and put any questions to bed.

I think you are mixing up CAS and UKAD.

Yup, good point! UKAD it is.

Missing these tests really doesn't do her image as a clean cyclist any good at all.

I must say that I find it quite strange how she was suspended from competing but BC seemed to keep it very quiet. Surely they must've known that it would all come out at some point and all end up looking incredibly suspicious?

Phillip Deignan and Pauline Ferrand-prevot on Twitter.....

Fran Millar needs to take his phone off him.

With respect to the matter of not challenging the first missed test finding at the time being due to costs, one of the cyclingnews articles states [i]'It's relevant to note that athletes can challenge the missed test right away (and do not need to go to CAS and spend money to do so)'[/i]

Phillip Deignan and Pauline Ferrand-prevot on Twitter.....
Fran Millar needs to take his phone off him.

Wouldn't be the first time Fran's had to order some tweets deleted!

It's worth noting that as for it not getting out until now that's actually the system working for once isn't it? For once there was no leak, at least not until the very last minute.

LOL. Most riders won't know which hotel they are going to be in a week in advance

really

http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/calendar/

How is it cycling news have a good idea of where everyone is going to be then?

I'd probably even hazard a guess a hotel or team buss nearby

Getting nasty...!

[img] [/img]

The married man in question being MTB fast person Absalon.

Three strikes is a significant event, whatever the reasons, and I think there are some important questions to be asked about this story, but they shouldn't be obscured by a lot of irrelevant noise.

I don't see any evil conspiracy to conceal the case. It went through due process, and there is no reason why it should have been publicised before that process was completed.

As previous posters have suggested, the simplest explanation for not challenging Test 1 earlier is that Armistead wasn't expecting two more failed tests, so why bother with the significant expense, admin and legal process involved in appealing? Just chalk it up to experience and move on. You might argue that Armistead wouldn't be worried about one strike because she's clean, or if you think she's been naughty, because she was confident she wasn't going to be caught by a dope test.

I can follow the narrative for Test 2 and Test 3. If you read Tom Fordyce's article and comments by other athletes, logging all the details of your future location and managing changes is not a trivial task. Michael Hutchinson gave an example: Would you know the out of hours door access code for your accommodation two weeks in advance? It's part of your job as an athlete, but people will make mistakes. Sometimes stuff just happens, like Armistead's reported family emergency, and the probability of such an event is not influenced by previous missed tests.

It's the story around Test 1, as it has been reported, that is a bit puzzling. It seems odd that a UKAD tester goes all the way to Sweden and then appears to make such a limited effort to locate Armistead. As pointed out by others, there's also a conflict between the reported attempt to contact her by mobile, and Tom Fordyce's piece which states that athlete's mobile numbers cannot be used by testers because they could give prior warning. Possibly just sloppy reporting by the Daily Mail (perish the thought) but it would be interesting to have a clearer view of what happened at Test 1

With respect to the matter of not challenging the first missed test finding at the time being due to costs, one of the cyclingnews articles states 'It's relevant to note that athletes can challenge the missed test right away (and do not need to go to CAS and spend money to do so)'

That's interesting. However, even if it's easy to [b]challenge[/b] the test right away, I find it hard to believe it's straightforward taking that challenge to conclusion without money, time and lawyers. Surely CAS aren't just going to reply by email saying you are in the clear!

And in the men's side of things most riders have a PA or team admin to fill it in for them.

Also for this, wasn't it Cav who had an assistant cock up doing this for him resulting in one missed test and a load of PR grief. I'm sure I recall him saying that it's now about the only bit of admin he does himself and makes sure it's 100% accurate given that his career, livelihood and reputation rests on it.