You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[quote=dragon ]Worth noting that CAS only let her off because of the 1st test. They didn't accept her excuses for missing the 2nd & 3rd. Which begs the question are they still 'live' and is she only one missed test away from a ban still?
My understanding is that she didn't try and use any excuses for the 2nd and 3rd incidents as she knew (possibly following legal advice) that she was bang to rights for those - whereas she did apparently query the first one at the time, even if not going so far as the formal process of disputing it. So yes she is on 2 strikes until October.
Like others on here I'm really not seeing all the smoke (and assuming fire) that some of the keyboard warriors are. I'm curious which of the 2 occasions where she's had a miss recorded against her she was microdosing the day before a race and trying to avoid the testers - was it the post worlds one in October, or the Thursday in June this year a week before the Aviva British Tour?
She's one of us and a nice white lass - must be ok surely? 😯
"We" don't do that sort of thing.
Nice insinuation THM. What she isn't is from some country where doping is endemic, nor is there any evidence at all linking her to doping. If she was from a different country I'd simply not be interested enough to look into all the details to establish for myself whether or not anything looked suspicious. Do you think it looks suspicious and that she was trying to avoid the testers, and what is your basis for that?
Nice insinuation THM. What she isn't is from some country where doping is endemic
Of course, as I said "we" don't do that kind of thing do we? We are Persll pure....
Try reading, try comprehending, try not snipping relevant context and once you can manage that try not posting strawmen
Lizzie has been cleared to ride by everyone who actually counts. Those people who actually have all the facts to make that decision. 7 pages of mostly bile and ill informed rubbish from STW posters ( honourable exceptions not included ) I very much get the impression that some on here want successful athletes to fall foul of doping regs, guilty or not !! Why I don't know, maybe be looking for flaws in others it somehow masks their own dull humdrum existence 🙁
Ok. I can sleep easy knowing that we are the good guys of pro sport. Phew....
teamhurtmore - Member
Ok. I can sleep easy knowing that we are the good guys of pro sport. Phew....
I think the main point thm is that if it wasn't for the inept tester we would know nothing about this and would be sleeping easy. People are making connections that would be dismissed on a jhj conspiracy thread as if they are fact.
Isn't funny how Lizzie always has someone else to blame, this time it's an 'inept tester'. Maybe he failed to up grade his crystal ball to discerned her undisclosed room number.
You buy into the cycling is clean now (which version are we on now, I remember the post Festina version when they magicked up a backdated TUE for Armstrongs steroid test, I'm pretty sure that was version 1.0) that's fine, you're satisfied. Sorry, but I'm not.
And we are not producing things as 'fact' we are saying there are different possible narratives to explain what after all was a temporary(/provisional?) suspension FFS! And this was beaten after legal advice which was provided (sorry, 'shared') by her cycling federation (who have a vested financial interest FFS). But you're right, it's all explained, inept tester. Move along now, nothing to see....
It seems to me you are failing to see [i]any[/i] smoke because it's [i]all[/i] being blown up your arse.
Whilst I think Lizzie is clean and should be going to Rio she should accept a large part of the responsibility for the situation she's found herself in. Even the missed test that was expunged she was partly at fault for by not following guidance on providing room numbers.
She seems to have gone into victim mode and on the defensive, possibly forced into it as the Mail etc. are out for blood but it ends up with her coming across as disingenuous
As Tyler Hamilton said in his book it is better to miss tests/not be available than get caught doping. You get caught doping and your career is over, no money, no sponsorship......He also mentioned doctors prescribing things, cortisone i think under the therapitic medical loophole.
I find it really difficult for you to be at the top of your physical sport without assistance, and not just cycling. But things like athletics and boxing.
You buy into the cycling is clean now (which version are we on now, I remember the post Festina version when they magicked up a backdated TUE for Armstrongs steroid test, I'm pretty sure that was version 1.0) that's fine, you're satisfied. Sorry, but I'm not.
So ARE you accusing her of doping, then?
So ARE you accusing her of doping, then?
No, but I acknowledge the possibility that she might be which all you fanboy koolaid drinkers seem to think is impossible. I don't believe that doping has been eradicated from cycling (i.e. Not believing in the we are all clean now that you guys seem to accept as gospel). So if there's still doping, hey, it's just possible that she [i]might[/i] be. Apparently this counts as a witch hunt! Or is it simply a thoughtcrime?
It's also possible that she's the victim of BC's apparent contempt for female cyclists (and mountain bikers) and they've left her Insufficiently supported and she's just simply ****ed things up. Because she [i]has[/i] ****ed things up (hence the original suspension). Remember that small fact? It was the AD authorities that sanctioned her for anti-doping irregularities (albeit failure to present for testing than for failing a test).
Even the missed test that was expunged she was partly at fault for by not following guidance on providing room numbers.
Fantastic guidance, but how few hotels on earth run on a system where you could get an allocated room number before check-in? While other testers have stated openly that the tester in this case doesn't seem to have made reasonable efforts to contact her (they reckon that once you start flashing anti-doping credentials then the hotel staff invariably contact the guest)
In other news, BBC hour long programme about Mo Farah last night, off season training in Ethiopia, no discussion of the testing regime that seemingly doesn't exist out there, makes you think, eh?
all you fanboy koolaid drinkers seem to think is impossible
The reason this thread's now on page eight is because nobody apart from Lizzie (and possibly her dealer) know if she's actually doping.
I understand it may be harder to admit uncertainty than to adopt blind faith on one side or the other, but that's what the situation calls for.
No, but I acknowledge the possibility that she might be which all you fanboy koolaid drinkers seem to think is impossible. I don't believe that doping has been eradicated from cycling
Ok just working from the facts here.
First test massive cock up on the testers behalf. They didn't do their job correctly. CAS accepted it and ruled that.
2nd Not an actual test was short notice change of plans due to personal family reasons, updated on system not the other.
3rd Missed test - her PA had left without anyone telling her.
There may not be smoke without fire but is this actually smoke?
In the world of "beyond resonable doubt" she is walking free here
on the balance of probability she is fine
the only world where she isn't is the I'm not calling her a doper but you know she is.... witch hunt proportions.
You can update the details into the Whereabouts app easy enough though once you've checked in (and yes that should be a priority as a professional athlete).
Whilst I think Lizzie is clean and should be going to Rio she should accept a large part of the responsibility for the situation she's found herself in.
This +1.
Ok just working from the facts here.
First test massive cock up on the testers behalf. They didn't do their job correctly. CAS accepted it and ruled that.
2nd Not an actual test was short notice change of plans due to personal family reasons, updated on system not the other.
3rd Missed test - her PA had left without anyone telling her.There may not be smoke without fire but is this actually smoke?
In the world of "beyond resonable doubt" she is walking free here
on the balance of probability she is fine
the only world where she isn't is the I'm not calling her a doper but you know she is.... witch hunt proportions.
This^^^^
I'm not calling her a doper but you know she is....
Go on, quote me where I say I know she's a doper. Because I deliberately haven't as I categorically don't know. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of your little rant.
And btw you missed out in the first case how LA massively cocked up by NOT ADVISING ANTI DOPING CORRECTLY OF HER WHEREABOUTS (i.e. room number) which is how all this started in the first place. [b]She[/b] didn't do [b]her[/b] job properly either. You know, seen as [b]you're[/b] throwing blame around.
I understand it may be harder to admit uncertainty than to adopt blind faith on one side or the other, but that's what the situation calls for.
Exactly, I'm accepting the uncertainty.
"we" don't do that kind of thing do we?
Junior time trial champ admitted doping
Even the winner of last years Gorrick 12:12 was cheating 😯
metalheart - MemberNo, but I acknowledge the possibility that she might be which all you fanboy koolaid drinkers seem to think is impossible.
I haven't seen a single post that suggests this tbh. What most people are saying is, there's no evidence of doping. There's no evidence of intentional test evasion. There's lots of misunderstanding/intentional misrepresentation (even on here people are still saying "3 missed tests". As someone said above, we're not even in "no smoke without fire" territory, we're in "hey, can you smell smoke" "Mmm, maybe, I can smell something unusual". And even if we were at "no smoke without fire" that's [i]still[/i] not enough. It's basically nothing at all.
[url= http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/15234/10523336/lizzie-armitstead-says-she-can-look-fellow-olympic-athletes-in-the-eye ]Interview with Lizzie on Sky[/url]
Exactly, I'm accepting the uncertainty.
Fair enough, your comment above seemed very jaundiced on the subject and as if you were presuming guilt.
I doubt anyone here thinks we should not be sceptical about cyclists, riders are still getting busted so we all know it's happening.
2nd Not an actual test was short notice change of plans due to personal family reasons, updated on system not the other.
3rd Missed test - her PA had left without anyone telling her.
It is the 3rd test she is claiming family reasons and the UKAD don't accept it as an excuse.
Likewise it is solely the athletes responsibly you can't blame your PA, manager, coach or dog etc.
A short notice change of plans can be updated.
Thing is these rules are in place to stop doping, because we know how easy it is and as such they should be upheld.
. There's no (hard) evidence of doping, I can fully agree with that.there's no evidence of doping.
how do you prove intent? There's the 'missed' tests (or filing failure) on three occasions resulting in a suspension. That is fact. One missed test has been struck off by the CAS. You (or I) have no way of knowing LAs intent.There's no evidence of intentional test evasion
If Lizzie wasn't British (say she was Spanish for instance) would you accept things as readily then? Because if she was Russian.... Well....
In other news, BBC hour long programme about Mo Farah last night, off season training in Ethiopia, no discussion of the testing regime that seemingly doesn't exist out there, makes you think, eh?
Thats true, Kenya has only just been removed from WADAs non compliant list, until 2006, doping was 'legal' in Spain, Russia, enough said, Sharapova, football wont even test during major events as FIFA/UEFA doctors will step in to fix it etc.
Basically, sport is corrupt. As cycling fans, we get kicked the hardest and the most often, Lizzie and every other cyclist should follow laws to the letter. The fact they dont and in this case, she didnt means she is either arrogant, stupid or hiding something.
Read this, if she wins gold, it will be a sour win. All because she didnt upload a room number, she is a cretin
Lizzie has been cleared to ride by everyone who actually counts
Only after a legal team paid by her went to CAS, thats quite significant I think. She couldnt be bothered to update her whereabouts but could be bothered to use lawyers to clear her to compete with CAS
Fair enough, your comment above seemed very jaundiced on the subject and as if you were presuming guilt.
I [i]am[/i] very jaundiced, the sport I loved has been so tarnished I find it hard to believe in anyone 100% anymore.
However, I'm not presuming guilt in this case as any 'evidence' is purely circumstantial. My misgivings are stated though.
If it was all a big conspiracy [jivebunny mode]then this is exactly the kind of situation you'd get![/jivebunny mode]
Makes you think.... 😉
There's so much historical baggage in all sports but particularly cycling that unless an athlete never misses a test, never fails a test (either at the time or in the recent incidents of retesting several years later) and is seen (and believed) to be whiter than white that there'll inevitably be some suspicion.
To a degree the current semi-secret testing regimen plays in to the hands of the doubters. If missed tests were announced at the time they could be explained/contested there and then rather than wait until the possibility of a third missed test. If the missed test stood then *everyone* including the athlete would be aware of the fact.
Cycling is, in a way, a victim of its own success in tackling doping so openly: everyone points to cycling saying "another cyclist caught taking drugs" whilst ignoring the fact that their chosen sport doesn't have a problem because they don't test as thoroughly, Football only signed up to the WADA code in 2014 for instance. Wikipedia states testers only appeared at 32 out of 3500 league games in the 1999-2000 which is equivalent to them turning up on one day in three years' worth of TdFs, Vueltas and Giros.
Ok just working from the facts here.
First test massive cock up on the testers behalf. They didn't do their job correctly. CAS accepted it and ruled that
I understand the first test, she was in her Hotel room when the tester turned up but had her phone on silent out of respect for her room mate so missed his call. Not a massive cock up, actually yes, a massive cock up by her. But they did their job correctly, you could be forgiven for saying she swerved a test that day...
I understand the first test, she was in her Hotel room when the tester turned up but had her phone on silent out of respect for her room mate so missed his call. Not a massive cock up, actually yes, a massive cock up by her. But they did their job correctly, you could be forgiven for saying she swerved a test that day...
Not really. Athlete's aren't under any obligation to leave their phone on. The finding was apparently that the tester didn't do enough to locate her according to UKAD protocols. Though we'll have to await the publication of the CAS Reasoned Decision as I don't believe the discrepancy between what they did do what they should have done is clear at present.
When I started this thread I really wasn't pointing a finger of doping suspicion at Armitstead. It really was more out of incredulity that she could have put herself in this situation at such a critical time in her career.
metalheart - MemberIf Lizzie wasn't British (say she was Spanish for instance) would you accept things as readily then? Because if she was Russian.... Well
I couldn't give a crap that she's british. Or that she's a cyclist- road cycling's boring. I mean, I only know about all this because it's in the news and we're talking about it, and that's only happened because she's british... But it doesn't make any difference to me thinking "this is obvious bullshit"
I love that hiring lawyers to defend yourself, and winning, is seen as suspicious 😆
If missed tests were announced at the time they could be explained/contested there and then rather than wait until the possibility of a third missed test.
You can contest it at the time, she just didn't, it was her choice.
You can contest it at the time, she just didn't, it was her choice.
Well... she says she did, UKAD says she didn't 😕
@dragon - yes but the point I'm making that you either missed or ignored is that the missed test isn't made public. Doing so would "focus" the mind of the athlete not to miss another one.
Imagine if, in football, the issuing of yellow cards weren't public and also stuck with a player for a year. Then a player suddenly gets sent off at their third yellow card because no-one knew about the first two.
dragon - MemberYou can contest it at the time, she just didn't, it was her choice.
Which is perfectly reasonable; having an issue with one test isn't a major issue so it's easy to see why you might let it slide rather than incurring significant costs, distracting yourself from your training, etc. Then, when circumstances changed, she acted on those new circumstances. It doens't, or shouldn't, affect the big picture- strike, succesful appeal.
TBH I'm not sure it would make a difference, surely the thought of being banned should be enough.
I love that hiring lawyers to defend yourself, and winning, is seen as suspicious
Nope, it's that her cycling federation took legal advice independently then 'shared' this with her that's suspicious.
Not that there's a possible conflict of interest what with BC funding being dependent on the medal haul (or otherwise) or anything and Lizzie being a central pillar in achieving this. Oh no. Nothing to see here, move along now please.... 
Is going round in circles a bit this thread!
Though if I were Lizzie and I was having probably the biggest year of my career, what with Rio coming up, being World Champ, defending my World Cup title, etc. And I had two silly strikes against my name that I believed I wasn't to blame for, knowing that one more and I'd be suspended with a real risk of a 4 year ban... I think I'd have pro-actively challenged that first whereabouts failure before it became a big problem!
You'd also think that when she met with BC to put together a plan to deal with the issue of her being on two strikes (as she says she did in her statement) that one of the first actions would have been to challenge that first strike.
It's just really baffling how it was allowed to get this far.
BC might have been feeling a bit guilty that the guy they assigned to help her had left and no one had told her.
My understanding is that tests 2 and 3 hinged on inconsistent data being input and he was supposed to spot this.
But what sort of shit system allows input of inconsistent data, let alone penalises you for the mistake ?
They might indeed chris, but I'd also imagine they were shitting themselves at losing a prized asset (and by extension possibly their jobs).
I think I'd have pro-actively challenged that first whereabouts failure before it became a big problem!
She says she did contest it immediately, but UKAD rejected her case and stood by it's officer. It's only after the crucial third case that she got a lawyer in and went to CAS. With hindsight she should have gone to CAS earlier, but it isn't cheap.
If Lizzie wasn't British (say she was Spanish for instance) would you accept things as readily then? Because if she was Russian.... Well
We know that Russia had (has?) a state-sponsored doping programme, so why wouldn't we regard Russian athletes with more suspicion?
It's just really baffling how it was allowed to get this far.
Indeed. Did you watch the interview with her I posted up there?
Seems like she might have been having a hard time personally, which may explain (but not excuse) some of the oversights.
There's a reasoned decision to come from CAS apparently.
British Cycling in "Supporting Female Cyclist" shocker !
She met with BC to put an action plan in place after the second failure in order to avoid this situation arising (according to her statement.) So assume that would have been end of last year. One of those actions seems to have been assigning some chap to double check her Whereabouts entries (who stopped doing this a few weeks back and is now being blamed for this it seems.) I just wonder why they didn't decide to also challenge the first failure at that meeting? Would have seemed an obvious thing to do and would have reduced the risk considerably.
She says she did contest it immediately, but UKAD rejected her case and stood by it's officer.
Again... UKAD says she did [b]not[/b] contest it at the time. This is contrary to her statement.
I really think it's appalling how so many think it's ok to condemn someone on such scanty evidence and sensational headlines. This is her whole career being steadily destroyed by a bunch of keyboard warriors. I think she's such an inspirational athlete yet everyone seems so keen to drag her down.
I'd hate to be a public figure, the population seem hell bent on destroying anything at all special just to make themselves feel better about their own mediocrity.
I think its appalling that a professional that relies on us to ride a bike for a living can miss something as simple as a drugs test.
[img] 
[/img]
No matter what anyone says or how she is tested from now on some people will treat her like a cheat.
Those same people have no idea who else is on 2 strikes.
Where are you going to be every day for the next year Trimix? Don't forget to update us every time your plans change.
Want to nip out for a spot of lunch with a friend? make sure you fill in a form first.
Tough gig if you ask me.
Worth noting other athletes have queried why she didn't challenge the 1st strike earlier, it isn't just keyboard warriors.
it's ok to condemn someone on such scanty evidence and sensational headlines.
Well it was enough for UKAD to start proceedings, so the authorities thought it was iffy. As it is CAS threw it out, but it isn't scant evidence. The wherabouts system is essential to reduce drug taking, it wasn't invented just to make athletes lives harder. All ex-dopers have said the biggest prevention is out of competition testing, and this is part of that system.
Id imagine there is quite a big file on this which the qualified people will be looking at rather than couple of sentences on the internet.
Well it was enough for UKAD to start proceedings, so the authorities thought it was iffy.
Or they operate in a black and white world
No matter what anyone says or how she is tested from now on some people will treat her like a cheat.
Suspect most of those people probably were of that frame of mind with regards to most professional cyclists (or athletes in general) before this news came out. Only thing now is that they have an incident to hang that on.
Id imagine there is quite a big file on this which the qualified people will be looking at rather than couple of sentences on the internet.
Indeed. It seems even UKAD aren't convinced and are awaiting an explanation in the CAS Reasoned Decision.
IMO that points more towards innocent ineptitude. She got a no show for incident 1, it costs money to lawyer up and she didn't intend to miss any others so she let it be, if she was doping and may have to "play the system" at a later time I'd expect her to immediately try to get that incident revoked.She couldnt be bothered to update her whereabouts but could be bothered to use lawyers to clear her to compete with CAS
Some ineptitude in her whereabouts thing, some serious facepalm in choosing her wording for the statement. BC and their funding means there's a conflict there so should be kept out of the process.
If it was someone from another country I wouldn't have read 9 pages and probably wouldn't have commented either way.
On balance of probability I reckon she's probably clean, but hey believing any cyclist after a fulsome history drug cheats is a bit of a leap of faith. But I'm sure there are plenty of clean riders about and some of them are winning stuff.
Want to know my whereabouts all year:
If my career depended on it,
If my public reputation depended on it,
If my competitors respect depended on it,
If my sponsors money depended on it.............it would be easy and it would be done without fail.
It is not that hard to do on your own. If I needed help doing it I would get the help needed.
Failure to do these simple things in an environment of cheats will naturally raise suspicion. Especially if its covered up / or repeated.
[quote=metalheart ]No, but I acknowledge the possibility that she might be which all you fanboy koolaid drinkers seem to think is impossible.
It's kind of already been done, but I did really enjoy the combination of strawman and ad-hom in a single sentence.
mikewsmith sums up the attitude of some here quite neatly with that pic - it seems she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Apparently it's dodgy that she didn't challenge the first one at the time. Yet apparently it's also dodgy that she used lawyers at CAS to get her off now.
No, I don't think there is no chance she is on the juice. However I also don't think there is any evidence that she is, hence to me she is just as clean as she was before and just as clean as every other rider. Of course there have to be rules to avoid people deliberately missing tests and these have to be applied rigidly - which is what has happened here, with CAS ruling that she isn't guilty of an offence. However at that point it seems reasonable to look at the nuances of the reasons for the misses and this is where I'm personally immediately striking off the October one as being totally irrelevant - have any of those condemning her actually considered whether that "miss" is any evidence at all of her being on the juice?
BTW where has this thing about the room number which some are now mentioning come from? I'm not seeing any mention of that in any of the main reports, the only place apart from here I've seen it come up is that dodgy indy opinion piece. My understanding is that there's no requirement to provide a room number, that it's not routinely something other athletes do, and that it's standard procedure for a tester to ask reception for the room number.
[quote=D0NK ]IMO that points more towards innocent ineptitude. She got a no show for incident 1, it costs money to lawyer up and she didn't intend to miss any others so she let it be, if she was doping and may have to "play the system" at a later time I'd expect her to immediately try to get that incident revoked.
Exactly my thoughts on that - her failure to chase it up at the time points more to her being innocent than guilty. Unless of course it's all a double bluff?
Can I just summarise where I am on this?
Test 1: she was exactly where she said she would be and available for testing, nobody ever knocked on her door, through no fault of hers the tester failed to make sufficient effort to contact her
Test 2: post/out of season, no benefit to her in doping then - though nobody actually attempted to test her anyway and she got a strike for a failure to update the system properly which appears to have been picked up post event?
Test 3: she may or may not have a valid reason/excuse, though not one that I'm buying based upon evidence given, that seems a fair strike
So me personal feeling is that she has one real strike for one real missed test - something which it seems has happened to most athletes, because they're not all as organised as trimix.
No, I don't think there is no chance she is on the juice. However I also don't think there is any evidence that she is, hence to me she is just as clean as she was before and just as clean as every other rider.
This for me too.
As for this incident. I just see it as a calamitous series of events, seemingly all badly managed, that could have been avoided, but that she will now unfortunately always be associated with. And that for those understandably cynical types, casts a shadow over her achievements.
Test 1
I don't think the info is out there currently to understand what happened here fully. Need to wait for CAS to publish.
post/out of season, no benefit to her in doping then
Seriously? The benefits to doping out of season is huge. Train harder, longer, recover quicker, etc.
Actually I'm not organised, but my wife is 🙂
I think its appalling that a professional that relies on us to ride a bike for a living can miss something as simple as a drugs test.
Me too - good job she only missed one, hey.
[quote=mrblobby ]Seriously? The benefits to doping out of season is huge. Train harder, longer, recover quicker, etc.
I get that, but the point is that it was immediately after the end of the season (hence "post season") and she was partying, not training. Though as mentioned, they didn't attempt to test her anyway - so she's being penalised for an administrative error in a period when the testers weren't interested (I'm assuming they focus their tests rather than just doing them randomly, and they didn't see much point in testing her then). If it had been December or January my attitude would be somewhat different.
At least that is my understanding based mainly on EA's statement - though given the date of the discrepancy (I'm not going to call it a test, because it wasn't) her statement seems entirely plausible.
I know it might seem obvious, but if she was truly organised enough to be successfully doping, she would not have missed the tests in the first place. I strongly suspect that those who are cheating are going to be better at maintaining their whereabouts - and hence changing them as needed during a "glowing" (never hear it called that at work!) than those who are not.
Nothing to see here....
I know it might seem obvious, but if she was truly organised enough...
To say she's probably just not very organised is most likely doing her a massive disservice given that she's organised her life and training (self coached) sufficiently to be the best in the world at what she does.
To say she's probably just not very organised is most likely doing her a massive disservice given that she's organised her life and training (self coached) sufficiently to be the best in the world at what she does.
And how do you reconcile that with supposedly not being organised enough to meet dope testing requirements?
What I meant was that I don't think she's up there at the top of the organisational tree. "Self coached" can mean a lot of things. Given her obvious talent, I can't comment on her discipline - riding lots and racing more is a valid training strategy 😉 . But my point still stands. I think that if one is cheating one would need to be more meticulous.
[img] 
[/img]
And how do you reconcile that with supposedly not being organised enough to meet dope testing requirements?
Two mistakes, one admin, one under the duress of a family issue. Mrs Pondo would be very happy indeed if that was the limit of my annual admin screw ups.
I think the point of those seeing smoke and assuming fire is that she isn't disorganised at all, simply deliberately avoiding tests. Though I'd then come back to that October discrepancy, which would appear far, far more likely to be a failure of organisation than a deliberate attempt to avoid the testers whilst partying.
Two mistakes, one admin, one under the duress of a family issue. Mrs Pondo would be very happy indeed if that was the limit of my annual admin screw ups.
Mrs Ransos would say the same about me. Thing is, I'm not a professional athlete who would lose his entire career through three mistakes.
Thing is, I'm not a professional athlete who would lose his entire career through three mistakes.
True but as posted previously I'm guessing most people don't spend that long on the road.
Why are we still talking about this* - the powers that be have made their decision. To keep going over and over the same ground for days is doing nothing more than dragging her name through the mud when - as far as I'm aware and no one has alleged otherwise - other than two "properly" missed tests, there doesn't seem to be any genuine rumours about her performance.
Loads of athletes in loads of sports are on two strikes. Not hearing their names being bandied about and reputations tarnished.
She's always been up there with the best, and her main rival has been out of action the last year or so - of course she's getting the best results of her life.
*Yes, I know the irony!
[quote=ransos ]Thing is, I'm not a professional athlete who would lose his entire career through three mistakes.
But what if you were?
I reckon I can cover this one. Despite probably not having huge amounts of natural talent, I had enough and enough dedication to compete and win at a fairly elite level. All self coached and organised enough to manage training to achieve that. Allowing for differences in circumstances I probably wasn't much worse at organising my training than EA. Yet a complete organisational disaster otherwise, I've ended up getting fined for late tax returns amongst other things (thank god they told me I no longer had to do those). I managed to make my way to races with all the right kit most of the time, but not without lots of stress before and my team-mates could comment on my pre-race organisational panic. If I had been good enough to be on the drug testing programme then I'm sure I'd have ended up with a ban for 3 strikes unless I got outside help.
If I had been good enough to be on the drug testing programme then I'm sure I'd have ended up with a ban for 3 strikes unless I got outside help.
Which, as I understand it, is what the top pros do. I believe Mark Cavendish fired his assistant over a single missed test. But compare and contrast his response with Armitstead:
[i]"It was my mistake. I was with a film crew for the BBC and Giro d'Italia on Mount Etna. It was a simple, genuine administrative error. Of course I totally understand the importance of testing in sport. I was tested by the UCI [cycling's world governing body] a couple of weeks before that and twice in the fortnight after and had around 60 tests in all last year. It's part of the job and it's my job to make sure I don't miss another."[/i]
It appears she had some outside help and he had left without her knowledge. In what way do you feel EA's response is different to Cav's?
At this point I'm resisting the urge to find the duck wood floating sketch....
It appears she had some outside help and he had left without her knowledge. In what way do you feel EA's response is different to Cav's?
Cav's response was a simple mea culpa with no reference to testing clean etc as evidence (edit: I suppose arguably he did). I think taking it on the chin, apologizing and moving on would've been a better strategy for her.
It's also the case that he was responding to a single missed test with no UKAD involvement.
[quote=ransos ]Cav's response was a simple mea culpa with no reference to testing clean etc.
Apart from this bit you mean: "I was tested by the UCI [cycling's world governing body] a couple of weeks before that and twice in the fortnight after and had around 60 tests in all last year." - or do you think he was pointing out that he'd tested positive?
Clearly we're back to witch dunking with claims of testing clean being seen as incriminating.
It's also the case that he was responding to a single missed test with no UKAD involvement.
Ah, so the difference is that the circumstances are different? Cav hadn't needed to go to CAS and wasn't responding to the outcome of a successful case there.
Clearly we're back to witch dunking with claims of testing clean being seen as incriminating.
Only in your mind. In fact, I'm saying that it isn't a defence.
Ah, so the difference is that the circumstances are different? Cav hadn't needed to go to CAS and wasn't responding to the outcome of a successful case there.
Yes, I do think the circumstances are different. Armitstead was in the situation of having missed two tests, then missing a third. I'd argue that's significantly different to Cav (or Froome's) cases of a single missed test.
The authoritative body then initiated proceedings. She has successfully appealed the first test on procedural grounds and we await the publication of the reason why.
I do find this thread pretty odd: that those of us who think she's clean but has been unprofessional are being railroaded into adopting a binary position of saint or sinner. So do us a favour and quit the silly witch-drowning references, would you?