Lizzie

germcevoy

Was it common knowledge that she was suspended on July 11th? News to me. Overturned UKAD's call for a ban after 3 missed tests. Seems she's gotten away with it on a technicality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... tests.html

cougie

Don't think it wasn't known.

The technicality being that the tester didn't do their job right?

germcevoy

cougie wrote:

The technicality being that the tester didn't do their job right?

Seems to be the case. Still legitimately missed two further tests. If it was a Russian athlete...

cougie

You mean the Russians with the finding of organised doping? That's a long way away from two perfectly legal missed tests in a year.

Omar Little

What great timing!

Dont think it was common knowledge, im sure illness was mentioned for missing la Course - i just assumed that was an excuse to avoid the potential for crashing.

Should BC be paying for an athletes defence on such a case? Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.

germcevoy

Omar Little wrote:

Should BC be paying for an athletes defence on such a case? Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.

This will be the main talking point. Lizzie is off the hook as far as the missed tests are concerned but BC's involvement in taking the fight to UKAD sets a precedent.

DeVlaeminck

I don't mind BC spending money on ensuring one of our best cyclists doesn't have their career ended. It's not as if they've broken any rules here and as Cougie says this isn't a technicality it's a genuine reason why that missed test should not be counted as such.

jscl

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't mind BC spending money on ensuring one of our best cyclists doesn't have their career ended. It's not as if they've broken any rules here and as Cougie says this isn't a technicality it's a genuine reason why that missed test should not be counted as such.

Wise.

This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.

See it this way... Lizzie is an employee of a business and a legal accusation is stopping her from carrying out her job, so her employer is assisting in the cost of defending so that she can get back to work. All completely legit and above board.

jedi_master

This Whereabouts rule, dailymails site explains it na dit starts "All athletes must fill out an online form, on the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), detailing where they will be for one hour each day between 6am and 11pm".

Do they have to fill this out letting them know where they will be every day of their life? So if their at home for two weeks they have to state that, then update when they go away, then when back home update it again.

Omar Little

Jedi Master wrote:

This Whereabouts rule, dailymails site explains it na dit starts "All athletes must fill out an online form, on the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), detailing where they will be for one hour each day between 6am and 11pm".

Do they have to fill this out letting them know where they will be every day of their life? So if their at home for two weeks they have to state that, then update when they go away, then when back home update it again.

Yeah they do it for 3 months in advance, it can be edited though so if plans change then it can be updated.

I think pokerface is on the adams system he'll know the ins and outs better.

jscl

Jedi Master wrote:

This Whereabouts rule, dailymails site explains it na dit starts "All athletes must fill out an online form, on the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), detailing where they will be for one hour each day between 6am and 11pm".

Do they have to fill this out letting them know where they will be every day of their life? So if their at home for two weeks they have to state that, then update when they go away, then when back home update it again.

It's not very well explained by the DM.

Basically, it's to help facilitate out-of-competition testing. You have to file them and as someone has already mentioned, you can do it several months in advance. *Some* riders aren't the best of administrators and it's not like they're riding for a WT team who has a compliance officer to handle their filings for them. Each time you incorrectly file or fail to update your location, you get a strike.

But that's not also to say that an athlete has gone months without testing, they could quite easily have been tested the next day, but you still get a strike.

It's designed to be harsh when the system isn't followed, but there's also flexibility in it if you have legitimate cause. I know someone who is a solicitor that sits on the CAS panel and these cases can be more common than you think across the board.

RichN95.

The thing with these missed whereabouts tests is we just don't know what's going on in the athlete's private life.

gsk82

Technicality or not, there's no denying that this is a major balls up by her that will now cause suspicion. Fair enough if it was the third test that was done incorrectly, but to miss a further two knowing the position she's in is at best stupid.

Richmond Racer 2

Lizzie, you absolute idiot. After receiving the UKAD letter re the first missed test, you should have been on bloody red alert, and whatever it took not to miss another.

ADAMS and the system is a pain - and I will put my house on vast majority of athletes missing tests at points in their careers.

but it comes with the territory of being a pro. Sorry love.

And I don't know who did her statement but it's a car crash. UKAD may not have followed the correct procedure for the first test attempt, but fact it that she fouled up 2 more. Hold up your hands and admit you fouled up, you didn't treat that part of your life as a pro with the same attention as your diet and fitness, and you'll always regret it. Not this 'bad UKAD, it's their fault'.

Not impressed with Ms Armitstead at all.

effillo

Think it was in his book I read it but Cav once employed a friend as a sort of PA who managed to forget to update it once and he got caught out. Cav realised the dangers of this and the potential implications it could have on his career. Sacked his pal and made sure he always took care of that side of things himself so there was only ever going to be himself to blame if it all went wrong.

RoadPainter

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Lizzie, you absolute idiot. After receiving the UKAD letter re the first missed test, you should have been on bloody red alert, and whatever it took not to miss another.

ADAMS and the system is a pain - and I will put my house on vast majority of athletes missing tests at points in their careers.

but it comes with the territory of being a pro. Sorry love.

And I don't know who did her statement but it's a car crash. UKAD may not have followed the correct procedure for the first test attempt, but fact it that she fouled up 2 more. Hold up your hands and admit you fouled up, you didn't treat that part of your life as a pro with the same attention as your diet and fitness, and you'll always regret it. Not this 'bad UKAD, it's their fault'.

Not impressed with Ms Armitstead at all.

Agreed!

I have such a negative view of Christine Ohurougu as I believe she couldn't be bothered / was dodging. Very sadly Lizzie now in same position.

What was the 'administrative error' for the 2nd one?

And if the excuse for the 3rd one is true, imagine how that family member now feels after you needlessly put yourself on the edge of a ban.

wallace_and_gromit

One thing that seems odd is that her phone was supposedly switched off when the testers tried calling after being prevented from knocking on her door.

Did the testers turn up at the wrong time? If they turned up at the right time then it would be logical to assume the phone would be left on. OK, she may have been relying on hotel staff to direct the testers to her door, but if your career depends on testers making contact at the specified time then surely a backup plan of leaving a phone on would be prudent! (If I need to be up early to travel - eg going on holiday - then I set at least two alarms, and that's even though oversleeping is highly unlikely to be career-ending.)

And don't most athletes specify the time they're likely to be having breakfast e.g. 6am-7am, to minimise the chance of not being around and to minimise disruption to daily routine? It seems odd that she would nominate her time for the day to be when she would expect to be still asleep.

All rather odd, if you ask me.

wallace_and_gromit

RoadPainter wrote:

What was the 'administrative error' for the 2nd one?

There is an element of "the dog ate my homework" to this...

above_the_cows

As someone whose research regularly deals with the interface between data and surveillance I have always wanted to really see/experience how ADAMS works. I remember there being some issues in the past with the app not working properly on some smart phones making it hard for people to update their whereabouts. I'd love to see how easy it is to up-date in real-time and what sort of information it requires, how it syncs (if it does with other info) etc etc. It's an STS geek's goldmine. Dutch anti-doping had a webinar on it a few years ago and it was fascinating but hard to gauge how you would interact with ADAMS in everyday life.

r0bh

effillo wrote:

Think it was in his book I read it but Cav once employed a friend as a sort of PA who managed to forget to update it once and he got caught out. Cav realised the dangers of this and the potential implications it could have on his career. Sacked his pal and made sure he always took care of that side of things himself so there was only ever going to be himself to blame if it all went wrong.

Cav was on two missed tests for a while IIRC.

salsiccia1

It's all pretty poor, isn't it. I can imagine it must be difficult to keep up with the whereabouts system but it's part and parcel of the job.

If she wins a medal on Sunday it will be overshadowed by this.

feltkuota

If it were me I'd get myself chipped. Can't be beyond the wit of man to devise a better system.

The_Boy

So the testers called her phone and she didn't answer? Apply the Spanish athlete test to that and it all *looks* not brilliant.

Compare with Le Bon who was taking part in a race and actually available for testing at the time of one of his missed tests. I'm sure ADAMS is a ball ache, but it's part of the job.

kelliano

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

One thing that seems odd is that her phone was supposedly switched off when the testers tried calling after being prevented from knocking on her door.

Did the testers turn up at the wrong time? If they turned up at the right time then it would be logical to assume the phone would be left on. OK, she may have been relying on hotel staff to direct the testers to her door, but if your career depends on testers making contact at the specified time then surely a backup plan of leaving a phone on would be prudent! (If I need to be up early to travel - eg going on holiday - then I set at least two alarms, and that's even though oversleeping is highly unlikely to be career-ending.)

And don't most athletes specify the time they're likely to be having breakfast e.g. 6am-7am, to minimise the chance of not being around and to minimise disruption to daily routine? It seems odd that she would nominate her time for the day to be when she would expect to be still asleep.

All rather odd, if you ask me.

7:42am she tweeted about having conversation with teammate over breakfast, so you'd think the UKAD agent would have been at the hotel 6am-7am.

awavey

r0bh wrote:

Cav was on two missed tests for a while IIRC.

Froome had a very similar hotel missed test,tester arrived but hotel followed their privacy protocols,and was slated for it iirc, but he immediately appealed though it never sounded like it was dropped, so be interesting to see why this was different, & equally how many in the programme are on their final strike since the rolling year + 4 year ban

I always believe in screw up than conspiracy, but it never ceases to amaze me how badly some athletes manage these things given the consequences, you'd think after strike 1 you'd be on red alert, not getting to strike 3 and hoping strike 1 is dropped

Oh well sure it will be covered in the book...

wallace_and_gromit

Above The Cows wrote:

As someone whose research regularly deals with the interface between data and surveillance I have always wanted to really see/experience how ADAMS works. I remember there being some issues in the past with the app not working properly on some smart phones making it hard for people to update their whereabouts. I'd love to see how easy it is to up-date in real-time and what sort of information it requires, how it syncs (if it does with other info) etc etc. It's an STS geek's goldmine. Dutch anti-doping had a webinar on it a few years ago and it was fascinating but hard to gauge how you would interact with ADAMS in everyday life.

I think "system issues" is a legit excuse first time, but after that surely to goodness anyone with any gumption at all will do whatever it takes to make sure their whereabouts are known by whoever needs to know. It's only a career / reputation at stake after all!

above_the_cows

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

As someone whose research regularly deals with the interface between data and surveillance I have always wanted to really see/experience how ADAMS works. I remember there being some issues in the past with the app not working properly on some smart phones making it hard for people to update their whereabouts. I'd love to see how easy it is to up-date in real-time and what sort of information it requires, how it syncs (if it does with other info) etc etc. It's an STS geek's goldmine. Dutch anti-doping had a webinar on it a few years ago and it was fascinating but hard to gauge how you would interact with ADAMS in everyday life.

I think "system issues" is a legit excuse first time, but after that surely to goodness anyone with any gumption at all will do whatever it takes to make sure their whereabouts are known by whoever needs to know. It's only a career / reputation at stake after all!

Oh I completely agree. I'm not trying to make excuses for her. I'm just fascinated to see how it all actually works.

The_Boy

You also have to wonder why she waited until strike three to challenge strike one. I'm not making it up when I say they are notified about each missed test?

salsiccia1

I'm also unimpressed with BC funding her legal team. It looks like they've used muscle to protect one of their star riders. Would they have done this if it hadn't been Lizzie Armitstead?

above_the_cows

feltkuota wrote:

If it were me I'd get myself chipped. Can't be beyond the wit of man to devise a better system.

I'm sure they can have a better system in theory but in reality there are issues of cost, administration, licensing and data protection laws. Who administers ADAMS, WADA or national anti-doping agencies? This is ultimately a transnational governance issue, it gets tricky when operating across international and sovereign levels and then add in all the tech and data issues and...

wallace_and_gromit

Above The Cows wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

As someone whose research regularly deals with the interface between data and surveillance I have always wanted to really see/experience how ADAMS works. I remember there being some issues in the past with the app not working properly on some smart phones making it hard for people to update their whereabouts. I'd love to see how easy it is to up-date in real-time and what sort of information it requires, how it syncs (if it does with other info) etc etc. It's an STS geek's goldmine. Dutch anti-doping had a webinar on it a few years ago and it was fascinating but hard to gauge how you would interact with ADAMS in everyday life.

I think "system issues" is a legit excuse first time, but after that surely to goodness anyone with any gumption at all will do whatever it takes to make sure their whereabouts are known by whoever needs to know. It's only a career / reputation at stake after all!

Oh I completely agree. I'm not trying to make excuses for her. I'm just fascinated to see how it all actually works.

That's how I'd interpreted your post. I just replied to it as my point was vaguely related!