[Closed] Armitstead and these missed tests...

Well the net result of these 3 missed tests is we have little or no confidence in anyone in the sport being clean. Not just her, the rest of them.

Does anyone think they are clean in the top mtb events ?

[quote="philxx1975"]How is it cycling news have a good idea of where everyone is going to be then?yeah. Thats useful information. A race calendar. Lots of hotel details there. FFS I've done races with a 40-50 km transfer from the hotel to the stage start. Amy idea how many hotels within 50km of each race/stage on that list?

And yes. Challenging a missed test without legal representation will end up in he said/she said and go no where. UKAD hold all the cards and will not take kindly to being told their testers are useless, the testers won't like it either.

Having been through far too many drug scandels as a fan in cycling especially in the 'pre Wiggins' era I have sadly resigned myself to two scenarios, a. they cheat, b, they use something that isn't banned yet but would be if WADA new about it. Sorry. Its just not genetically possible for Jamaica to turn out a high % of fast runners etc. unless they have Spanish sports coaches/doctors, Mo Farrah, dodgy coach/doctor, Sharapova was just hard done by of course, yada yada yada

Enjoy the spectacle but they are cheating if they can, either option a or b

And there are teenagers doping for time trials in the UK.......
So i'd be very surprised if the pointy end of the field in any cycling discipline is completely clean.

So i'd be very surprised if the pointy end of the field in any [s]cycling [/s] sporting discipline is completely clean

FTFY.

Plenty of juice in Jamaican sprinting, for example....

Much like the top end of any sport.

Beat me to it!

And to be fair, even midpack shit kickers are doing it these days.

In my era you'd be looking at 25-30 grand to get on the very bottom end of a decent program.
These days you can probably get to the same point on the risk/benefit curve for 12-1500.

Beat me to it!

I've been microdosing. All night.

On some nice stuff from Bath Ales and Red Cat Brewing. 🙂

Pick n mix and a cup of tea here 😳

Rio ferdinand got an 8 month ban for a missed test. Why does armistead get a pass for 3 missed tests? (I appreciate it's different sports/governing bodies)

Rio's was a somewhat different situation - it wasn't that he couldn't be found at the location he was supposed to be (I'm not sure whether it was even part of the same out of competition testing system), he had been found and notified of the need to take a test and then left. Which counts as missing a test rather than failing to be available.

I think it needs clarifying as it seems to keep being repeated, but Armistead has officially only failed to be available for testing twice, not 3 times. Which is the whole point.

I cant even get my expenses done and thats once a month and I doubt theres much support for managing testing or cash for challenging results in womens cycling.

Nothinng to see.

I cant even get my expenses done and thats once a month and I doubt theres much support for managing testing or cash for challenging results in womens cycling.

Nothing to see.

Oh no no no. Missing a test is smoke, 2 is a spark, 3 is fire, at that level its inexcusable imho

Lizzie responds...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armitstead-i-am-a-clean-athlete-and-an-honest-person/

Also the view of a tester...

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-control-officer-its-right-that-armitstead-was-cleared-in-her-whereabouts-case/

(Though without the text of the CAS decision I'm not sure how he can come to that conclusion.)

Lizzie winning the world champs was definitely one of the highlights from last year for me. Disappointing that she's now in the news for something so stupid. And that any result on Sunday will now inevitably be reported alongside this issue in the international press.

I am extremely wary of British Cycling and Sky, I simply am too suspicious of their 'remarkable' dominance in cycling.

BC stepped in as LA is one of their linchpins for medals and their funding [b]is[/b] dependent on winning medals. Massive conflict of interest there, just for starters. She was pulled from races due to preliminary suspension and it was notified as 'due to illness' (unlike Simon Yates...).

3 misses is either stupidity or arrogance (in my view the arrogance is there and, with BC intercedance, seems to be justified!).

Bottom line is any Olympic medal LA now wins is tainted with suspicion.

This is high level competition cycling and has been riddled with doping since forever. Nicole Cooke had something to say about that specifically wrt to the women's side in her retirement statement. There was a news story on this very website the other week from a woman mtber (sorry forget her name) that commented about being kept awake by fellow competitors running up and down the stairs in the early hours...

Sorry, but I don't believe in miracles.

3 misses is either stupidity or arrogance (in my view the arrogance is there and, with BC intercedance, seems to be justified!).

Bottom line is any Olympic medal LA now wins is tainted with suspicion.

So if they had thought about it properly and got the first one struck off at the start none of this would be going on and we would know nothing about it - would that taint a medal with suspicion?

I think those on here who can spot who's "juicing" from their arm chairs need to head on down to WADA to offer their expertise.

Just saw this from a comment on cycling news

Dates of missed tests

August 20th
Won Womens road works cup

October 5th
Won women's tour

June 9th
Won Aviva tour

If true that truly stinks

In the world of triathlon Tim Don got struck with the 3 missed tests stick in the early days when the system was not half as slick as it is now and we weren't all running around with computers in our pockets to make access even easier. Despite being one of the nicest and most likeable people in the sport and a prior reputation for being about as disorganised as a bowl of spaghetti with the IT skills of an ameba (i.e. if anyone was going to cock it up it was going to be Tim) his reputation never really recovered fully. LA (what unfortunate initials) has had a few quid knocked off her marketability no matter if she is innocent or not.

Missing tests like this does nothing to help anyone. She's now under suspicion, which is sad for her.

IMO it is stupid and arrogant to then say the third missed test was "out of character" and leave it at that. It was the second time she's missed a test that was her fault, so not at all out of character.

This is, unfortunately for her, symptomatic of somebody that has something to hide, which will generate further questions because of her failure to offer any form of explanation.

October 5th
Won women's tour

Which tour was that? World Champs was in late Sept, over a week before that.

If true that truly stinks

Despite the fact that she would have had a compulsory test after each victory that would have returned negative? We also don't know how many other tests she's had in that time and whether he bio-passport has raised suspicions? Some people are seeing a faint whiff of smoke and turning it into a bonfire!

Drawing parallels with Pharmstrong and Co is ridiculous, unless you're now saying that BC is in cahoots with UCI and UKAD paying-off officials and testers?

Wasn't it Michele Ferrari's client list that included the initials LA?

So Lance was probably innocent all along....? Blimey.

I am extremely wary of British Cycling and Sky, I simply am too suspicious of their 'remarkable' dominance in cycling.

I get the impression that a lot of stuff, particularly in road racing, was done for the sake of tradition, rather than because it was proven to work. For example, road racing was slow to adopt the aero benefits of skinsuits etc. I think that this, plus the fact that many people were focused on how to dope more effectively, created an opportunity for a team with a fresh approach to make considerable gains clean.

Sky are often accused of being boring, but I think that just a side effect of a very focused, meticulous approach that optimises every possible aspect. A clear example for me was Richie Porte losing time to a mechanical at a key moment in this year's Tour because his team mates didn't know what was going on and he was left at the mercy of neutral support. It was quite notable that in those stages, Sky were always riding with someone on Froome's wheel so a mechanical would have been spotted, and a team mate's bike available. Sure, it was bad luck for Porte, but Sky had a plan for dealing with that kind of bad luck.

I don't doubt that Sky are pushing the boundaries of legal doping. I just don't find it implausible that that kind of dominance was possible to achieve clean, given the context of what went before.

Despite the fact that she would have had a compulsory test after each victory that would have returned negative?

If there's anything we've learnt over the past couple of decades is that it's easy to micro dose the night before a race and have it clear of your system by the time you have the expected post race test.

We also don't know how many other tests she's had in that time and whether he bio-passport has raised suspicions?

A week after of the first missed test Lizzie tweeted...

"3rd time this week the UCI have come for some of my blood, frustrating to know some of my rivals are not even on UCI testing list."

So I'm sure she gets tested a LOT. As you'd expect from a currently dominant rider. Though could just be an increased level of targeted testing as a result of a missed test.

unless you're now saying that BC is in cahoots with UCI and UKAD paying-off officials and testers?

It does sound as if that UKAD aren't that happy with the outcome, I guess it's calling into question the diligence of one of their testers.

As for BC, it's been said before on this thread, their funding is based on medals at Olympic and World Champ events. Lizzie is a medal hope. A ban for Lizzie would mean no chance of a medal and less funding for BC.

The UCI, they have a very likeable and marketable World Champion with a previously squeaky clean image who's also favourite for Rio. Last thing they want are these sorts of stories in the press.

I don't doubt that Sky are pushing the boundaries of legal doping

Did you see the 'electrical doping' in the Horizon programme on doping??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ll97c/credits

Perfectly legal at the moment and I bet Sky are plugging all their riders in 😀

I was also impressed with the dehydrated 'clean' urine and the artificial penis that you could use to get past a dope test (not that it would have helped Lizzie 😯 )

Did you see the 'electrical doping' in the Horizon programme on doping??

Yep - that's exactly what I had in mind.

I simply am too suspicious of their 'remarkable' dominance in cycling.

part of which can be explained by having indoor facilities and a comprehensive programme of testing kids at schools for potential stars which expands the base of the pyramid artificially massively

or did you think the Go-Ride visits were for getting kids to ride to school/ shops?

testing kids at schools for potential stars

Can you imagine the LTA doing that for the next Andy Murray?

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.

Worth a read ^^^.

Sorry no. With everything around drugs and cycling I'm amazed she didn't challenge any of the missed tests at the time. Never mind the fact that she missed three.

Everyone knows doping has become more sophisticated and I cant understand how anyone didn't immediately challenge each failed test

[quote=hora ]Sorry no. With everything around drugs and cycling I'm amazed she didn't challenge any of the missed tests at the time. Never mind the fact that she missed three.
Everyone knows doping has become more sophisticated and I cant understand how anyone didn't immediately challenge each failed test

did you actually read that? ^^^^

I got to 'I am writing this statement in my own words'.

I lost interest after 3 missed tests. Sorry. Why didn't she challenge before.

I have never tested positive for a banned substance.
I have never taken a band substance.

I lost interest after 3 missed tests. Sorry. Why didn't she challenge before.

no then. just checking.

edit: are you still smarting from getting it so wrong with the other LA... 😉

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/still-blindly-defending-him-hora

I got to 'I am writing this statement in my own words'.

I lost interest after 3 missed tests. Sorry. Why didn't she challenge before.

Agreed, it's worth a read (then you'd know she did contest the first, and didn't the second because it was her fault).

Is curious that she states she did contest the first missed test. I'm sure I read that UKAD says she didn't contest it at the time. From the UKAD statement [url= http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/article/ukad-statement-on-cas-hearing-against-elizabeth-armitstead/ ]here[/url]...

"Ms Armitstead chose not to challenge the first and second Whereabouts Failures at the time they were asserted against her. "

I don't quite understand the details of the 2nd either. So she was where she said she was going to be that night, but wasn't actually there at time she'd stated. And this wasn't discovered by someone actually coming to test her but someone cross checking some paperwork?

hora - Member
I got to 'I am writing this statement in my own words'.
I lost interest after 3 missed tests

I think the 2nd was an issue where she'd updated her whereabouts for evening/night but not morning (or vice versa) so she couldn't have been in one or the other place. Wasn't tested so it wasn't picked up until an audit flagged it.

I don't quite understand the details of the 2nd either. So she was where she said she was going to be that night, but wasn't actually there at time she'd stated. And this wasn't discovered by someone actually coming to test her but someone cross checking some paperwork?

I believe you have to say where you will be spending the night and where exactly you will be for the one hour testing window. If it would be impossible to be at both in a spot check it's a failure (so for example if she said she was in a hotel in Athens the night before but had stated she would at the manchester velodrome at 7-8am it would be deemed impossible). She had updated one but not the other making an impossible combination.

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.

The 'strike' for an issue found in an audit is a interesting one. I'm not sure that I'm entirely in agreement with retrospective action being taken, if the tester had gone and no-one was there fine, if ukad picked it up at the time fine but that seems not quite right. Now them's the rules so the strike stands but I'm just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a 'proper' missed test.

Now them's the rules so the strike stands but I'm just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a 'proper' missed test.

It has to be that way otherwise there's the fairly obvious way of escaping a test by updating one location but not the other and then blaming an admin / technical error.

I would like to know what UKAD's reaction to a missed test is, is it...

1 missed test creates an increased testing regime, 2 missed tests and we are all over you like a cheap nylon suit.

Or just continue as normal.

and the UCI do target riders. Riccardo Ricci after his performance in the Giro.

"I have never tested positive for a banned substance." I thought this was the Armstrong defence.........

crazy-legs - Member

Now them's the rules so the strike stands but I'm just not sure it should be treated in the same way as a 'proper' missed test.

It has to be that way otherwise there's the fairly obvious way of escaping a test by updating one location but not the other and then blaming an admin / technical error.

I dont think it does as an admin error doesn't absolve you of any liability and if tester arrives and you aren't where you say you should be it is a missed test admin or not. There is an argument that a good system ought to flag up dissimilar locations between night time and am slots but that's by the by.

Retrospectively auditing locations even if no test had been scheduled and then applying a missed test is odd. It's a bit like if a tree falls in the wood and no-one is about ...

"I have never tested positive for a banned substance." I thought this was the Armstrong defence.........

I thought this was the Armstrong defence.........

I have never taken a band substance.

I have never taken a band substance.

maybe she swallowed a [i]tuba [/i]something

I have never taken a band substance.

If she'd been better at recorder-ing her whereabouts she's not have viola-ted the rules 🙂

I have never taken a band substance.

SHe's been tested for ELO?

You-phoney-um?

If only somebody had been around to cello the rules

You'd think her coach would have [piano] forte that.

It's things like this that make [s]jury trials[/s] lynchmobs dangerous

FTFY

The "two places at one time" scenario sounds like badly implemented software - if you have two different ways of entering your location for a specific time then there's something wrong - Codd Rule #1. All that's needed are four fields: location; starting time you are there; time you leave that location; reason for being there.

So:

Hotel Grande, Monaco, 1700 2016-08-04, 0900 2016-08-05, sleeping

The software checks that you don't enter overlapping times.

To enter your "testing hour" you just need a page to enter the start time of that.

When looking at data entry by users there's one mantra: KISS!

Accordion to her she's a cymbal of clean riding achievement.

When looking at data entry by users there's one mantra: KISS!

[i]jam bo - Member
did you actually read that? ^^^^[/i]

Yeap!

[i]This is a part of my sport that I accept and whole heartedly support[/i]
Then:
[i]I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate.[/i]
Hhmmm. Possibly disturb room mate or, Miss a test. Ooo, tough one that[b]...[/b]
Yes, calling a mobile phone may not be a prescribed method of making contact/finding a person to perform a test, but do you want to miss a test?

[i]I was Tested by UKAD later that week and produced a negative result.[/i]
Useless against micro-dosing.

[i]Simon Thornton from British Cycling was put in place to check my whereabouts on a bi weekly basis.[/i]
My dog ate my home work?
Deferring responsibility isn't the correct response, more so when you're current status is two previous tests missed. (A status which was later revised after rulings on earlier attempts to test)

IIRC, both Cavendish and Froome have missed [b]a[/b] test during their pro careers, so far. However, both have clearly stated it was and always is their responsibility to ensure they are available.

The entire business of modern day, top level, sport is disappointingly dark.
Even "[i]clean[/i]" only means an athlete is manipulating their physiology in a manner which is either yet to be banned or goes as close to the edge of what is permitted as is possible to get away with.
I do not consider either approach to be in the spirit of true sportsmanship and competition.

It's not that mobiles aren't a prescribed method of contact, UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test. If they did the test would be invalid therefore there is no reason for LA to assume that they'd use it, it was an explanation as to why it wasn't heard.

[i]mrhoppy - Member
It's not that mobiles aren't a prescribed method of contact, UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test[/i]

Right 'O I'm corrected on that point.
🙂

Even "clean" only means an athlete is manipulating their physiology in a manner which is either yet to be banned or goes as close to the edge of what is permitted as is possible to get away with.
I do not consider either approach to be in the spirit of true sportsmanship and competition.

I thought the WADA rules against doping included 'practises which we'd ban if we knew about them' or words to that effect. Bit of a tricky one, where does doping start and taking suppliments stop.

The sad thing is doping is prevalent in most sports, as i understand it even in things like local club rugby. LA's facebook post seems plausible, and I genuinely belive it, but the weight of history says otherwise so there will always be doubters.

Personally I think BC should send her home end of, maybe she is clean but it just looks bad. Her statement makes it worse IMO, lines like 'I was tested the next day, this test was negative.' 🙄 We've heard it all before love. Someone should send her Tyler Hamilton's book to read.

I thought the WADA rules against doping included 'practises which we'd ban if we knew about them' or words to that effect. Bit of a tricky one, where does doping start and taking suppliments stop.

I've never heard that, but you could be right. Some teams have a 'no needles' policy now, even though it is 'legal' to inject vitamins etc, it just seems a bit dodgy.

Mind you, Wiggins used to sleep in a special tent to thicken his blood up and that's perfectly legal..............

UKAD cannot call on the mobile as it constitutes advance notification of a test

The tester can phone, from the WADA guidelines;

If the specified location is the Athlete’s house or other place of residence, the DCO should ring any entry bell and knock on the door as soon as he/she arrives. If the Athlete does not answer, the DCO may telephone the Athlete to advise him/her of the attempt in the closing five minutes of the 60-minute period.

Froome was in exactly the same situation, in a hotel and the reception staff would not let the tester know where he was. He took it on the chin and admitted that it was the athletes responsibility to make themselves available, but he wasn't looking for a technicality to get himself off a ban.

[i]ferrals - Member
The sad thing is doping is prevalent in most sports, as i understand it even in things like local club rugby. LA's facebook post seems plausible, and I genuinely belive it, but the weight of history says otherwise so there will always be doubters.[/i]

But more than this, we have someone who, AFAIK, has had the most successful 12-18 months of their career so far, now tainted/coinciding with a history of missed or screwed up tests, during the same period of time.

So agree with Dragon, send her home because clean or no, it's the doubt which now brings it's own degree of toxicity.

Hopefully won't harm book sales....

The twitter comments on her statement make this place seem pretty tame.

Would be harsh for BC to send her home. Also won't happen as medals = BC funding.

I wonder what percentage of Lizzies out of competition tests these 3 "missed" ones make up. If it's 50%, maybe it's an issue. If it's 10-15%. Big deal.

I wonder what percentage of Lizzies out of competition tests these 3 "missed" ones make up. If it's 50%, maybe it's an issue. If it's 10-15%. Big deal.

Good point.

She says she was tested 16 times in 2016 so far.

She also says she was tested after every win.

She seems to have had eight wins this year (sources: palmares on Wiki, Women's Tour site).

So presumably she's had eight out of competition tests and missed three.

That's about 27% if my maths are correct.

She should publish her physiological data, like Froome did, to show that she is performing 'normally', which might silence some people.

Would be harsh for BC to send her home.

It wouldn't, if you want to be seen as being proactive and it makes a statement then it should be done, otherwise the UK just looks as murky as Russia in my book.

Solo - Member

But more than this, we have someone who, AFAIK, has had the most successful 12-18 months of their career so far, now tainted/coinciding with a history of missed or screwed up tests, during the same period of time.

Valid point, and for her personally it must be a massive blow (assuming she is clean) as se'll be aware that her sucesses are brought into question.

GhostlyMachine's point is good, would be interested to know what percentage of times test those two missed tests were.

dragon - Member

Personally I think BC should send her home end of, maybe she is clean but it just looks bad

What's the punishable level of "looks bad"? 9.1 badlooks?

[img] [/img]

She says she was tested 16 times in 2016 so far.

She also says she was tested after every win.

She seems to have had eight wins this year (sources: palmares on Wiki, Women's Tour site).

So presumably she's had eight out of competition tests and missed three.

That's about 27% if my maths are correct.

I did originally read it as being 16 times out of competition. And two of the missed tests were in 2015. So 1 in 16 or 1 in 8 for 2016 so far.

Maybe she 'forgot' about the tests as she's been out on a massive, weekend long nose-candy and MDMA fuelled bender?

[img] [/img]

FFS
There was gripeing yesterday that she hadn't made a statement so she must be guilty
Now she's made a statement and she's still being called guilty and knee-jerking that she should be sent home.

Get a grip

There's a reason decisions are made by CAS and not by people on twitter and forums who are not fully informed

It wouldn't, if you want to be seen as being proactive and it makes a statement then it should be done, otherwise the UK just looks as murky as Russia in my book.

So you've decided she's guilty even though CAS have released her to ride and UKAD have accepted the decision.

Properly boils my piss reading some of the toss on here sometimes

She should publish her physiological data, like Froome did, to show that she is performing 'normally', which might silence some people.

That did Froome no favours. All it then had was the same 'experts' being trotted out on french and italian tv to call him a cheat. They just interpreted the data how they wanted to see it.

Maybe she 'forgot' about the tests as she's been out on a massive, weekend long nose-candy and MDMA fuelled bender?

I forgot my own name after my last one of those

Me I think it's 50:50 whether she is clean or not, I don't particularly buy her excuses and cycling has had too much of this stuff in the past. If she was say Russian or African would you be so quick to confirm her innocence?

End of day CAS can clear her all they like but Team GB / BC still don't have to take her, if they want to make a statement that they are serious about stamping down on drugs or even the possibility of drugs.