Lizzie
Comments
-
Pross wrote:With regards to the family emergency, I don't know or care what it was (the statement on that part is very muddled though, giving little bits of information whereas she could have just left it as 'it was a family emergency which I'm not prepared to discuss for privacy reasons!) but I'm not convinced this prevented her updating the information.
A few years back I received a call in work from my wife to inform me she was at the doctor with my daughter and they suspected a brain tumour. I immediately got ready to leave work but still shut my computer down, updated my boss on where I was on my projects and gave him my login details so they could check my emails. That isn't because I'm an uncaring sociopath but I knew 5 minutes wasn't going to make a difference and it seemed to be the professional thing to do. I wouldn't have got sacked if I hadn't done it and everyone would have understood. On the drive to the hospital I put in calls to people letting them know what was going on and arranging for my other daughter to be picked up from school and looked after. I'm not even a very organised person. Obviously I don't know how ADAMs works but if as some say it's a simple update via your phone surely it was possible or even a call to BC to get her contact to make the necessary changes whereupon she'd have become aware that he'd left and someone else could have sorted things out. I do have some sympathy but life as a pro cyclist is difficult and ultimately if that is your career you need to fulfill all your requirements both on and off the bike.
Nailed it.
Just my thoughts. Firstly, in this sport, the one thing we have come to realise is that historically, there is usually no smoke without fire so in that sense, it could be reasonable to suspect she wanted to avoid the tests. However, yes, we can all concur that people do indeed make mistakes, but at this level of the sport, perhaps you should not. Any athlete would be hung, drawn and quartered by both the industry and the press because, time and time again we see the usual excuses, cliches and hackneyed attempts to get out of jail wheeled out. Lance, Tyler etc etc the list is a long one.
One thing that leaps out to me, is the self confessed decision to leave British Cycling and train her own way. This smacks of Jonathan Tiernan-Locke who himself tried to do his own thing at SKY and BC before that and was soon caught out.
Personally, I really hope she is innocent but as before, no smoke without fire (maybe). Watching her interview she did not do the Lance tell tale hand signals and misdirection, use of the eyes so I *think* she may be telling the truth, but who knows ? Only her and a couple of others. Her rise was meteoric and we have seen this before, but more than likely an exceptional talent amongst some very good female riders not seen since Marion Vos.
All interesting for sure. Time will tell, though I suspect she may *retire* post Olympics.
The issue we all face as fans of the sport and cyclists ourselves is we can merely speculate, add our thoughts and discuss it, but ultimately it is another high level cycling who dunnit / did she / didn't she ? and that's just tragic for the kid/sport/fans.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Agreed, o/wise she'd be banned! Whilst CAS cleared her, there is an element of the "shaggy dog" story about why she was cleared on the last test, which won't sit well with everyone.
Hmmm, bit harsh maybe, shaggy dog story smacks a bit of made up excuse. I would like to know what happened there too - natural curiosity - but I accept that I don't have a right to every detail of her life and the details of the life of whoever had the emergency.
Yes there is an element of taking her at her word here but if she was just making it up she would be at risk of someone leaking from UKAD that she hadn't mentioned a family emergency to them so it seems a fair bet there was some truth in what she said even if we wouldn't buy it as sufficient reason to miss a test.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
bristolpete wrote:Pross wrote:With regards to the family emergency, I don't know or care what it was (the statement on that part is very muddled though, giving little bits of information whereas she could have just left it as 'it was a family emergency which I'm not prepared to discuss for privacy reasons!) but I'm not convinced this prevented her updating the information.
.
Nailed it.
Just my thoughts. Firstly, in this sport, the one thing we have come to realise is that historically, there is usually no smoke without fire so in that sense, it could be reasonable to suspect she wanted to avoid the tests. However, yes, we can all concur that people do indeed make mistakes, but at this level of the sport, perhaps you should not. Any athlete would be hung, drawn and quartered by both the industry and the press because, time and time again we see the usual excuses, cliches and hackneyed attempts to get out of jail wheeled out. Lance, Tyler etc etc the list is a long one.
One thing that leaps out to me, is the self confessed decision to leave British Cycling and train her own way. This smacks of Jonathan Tiernan-Locke who himself tried to do his own thing at SKY and BC before that and was soon caught out.
OK on these two points. Pross when you left your desk you had to sort your work out before you left because presumably you couldn't do it once you left. That is different to Lizzie's case - she just had to change ADAMs that day - there wasn't a point in time when she was doing one thing and suddenly realised she had to hand it over to someone else to attend to an emergency. I'm not saying she is not at fault but it's not an equivalent situation.
BritolPete - yes she preferred her own training like Tiernan Locke. Actually isn't it more like Nicole Cooke ? You can never be sure but either Cooke is the worlds best liar or she was clean. Come on let's not invent evidence where it doesn't exist.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Agreed, o/wise she'd be banned! Whilst CAS cleared her, there is an element of the "shaggy dog" story about why she was cleared on the last test, which won't sit well with everyone.
Hmmm, bit harsh maybe, shaggy dog story smacks a bit of made up excuse. I would like to know what happened there too - natural curiosity - but I accept that I don't have a right to every detail of her life and the details of the life of whoever had the emergency.
Yes there is an element of taking her at her word here but if she was just making it up she would be at risk of someone leaking from UKAD that she hadn't mentioned a family emergency to them so it seems a fair bet there was some truth in what she said even if we wouldn't buy it as sufficient reason to miss a test.
By "shaggy dog" story I mean some kind of plausible but ever so slightly unbelievable reason. The three reasons are:
1 - Phone switched off during designated testing hour. Why? If you're planning on being asleep why not specify the next hour when you're having breakfast? (Isn't some part of her story that she updated the venue but not the designated hour? Again, a bit shaggy if so claimed.)
2 - Family emergency. How many grandmothers' funerals have occurred shortly before homework is due in? And as others have said, how good an excuse is this not to send the required text in any case?
3 - It wasn't my fault, guv. On your last strike, trust no-one. Do it yourself! If a job's worth doing...
I've deliberately "spun" these unfavourably and they can of course be spun the other way (and there may be details I've omitted) but it's the cumulative effect. What was it that Oscar Wilde said?0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:bristolpete wrote:Pross wrote:With regards to the family emergency, I don't know or care what it was (the statement on that part is very muddled though, giving little bits of information whereas she could have just left it as 'it was a family emergency which I'm not prepared to discuss for privacy reasons!) but I'm not convinced this prevented her updating the information.
.
Nailed it.
Just my thoughts. Firstly, in this sport, the one thing we have come to realise is that historically, there is usually no smoke without fire so in that sense, it could be reasonable to suspect she wanted to avoid the tests. However, yes, we can all concur that people do indeed make mistakes, but at this level of the sport, perhaps you should not. Any athlete would be hung, drawn and quartered by both the industry and the press because, time and time again we see the usual excuses, cliches and hackneyed attempts to get out of jail wheeled out. Lance, Tyler etc etc the list is a long one.
One thing that leaps out to me, is the self confessed decision to leave British Cycling and train her own way. This smacks of Jonathan Tiernan-Locke who himself tried to do his own thing at SKY and BC before that and was soon caught out.
OK on these two points. Pross when you left your desk you had to sort your work out before you left because presumably you couldn't do it once you left. That is different to Lizzie's case - she just had to change ADAMs that day - there wasn't a point in time when she was doing one thing and suddenly realised she had to hand it over to someone else to attend to an emergency. I'm not saying she is not at fault but it's not an equivalent situation.
BritolPete - yes she preferred her own training like Tiernan Locke. Actually isn't it more like Nicole Cooke ? You can never be sure but either Cooke is the worlds best liar or she was clean. Come on let's not invent evidence where it doesn't exist.
True, though there have been lots of high level riders wanting to furrow their own path, but JTL is the most recent example to compare that I could think of, but yes, others too including Cooke who to my mind is absolutely clean and she was dominant in the sport before the ante was upped. She rode like Boardman, within her limits and more often above them - clean. Others spring to mind - the maverick riders out there. But for me ultimately, I cannot judge her either way, what I have come to realise in this sport is that we have seen this time and time again. I hope she is clean and *innocent*.0 -
Although it's been said that calling the athletes mobile isn't part of the recognised procedure - so it matters not if she had the phone on silent, turned off or left it in her shoes in the kit room - as CAS has said - the first one wasn't her fault.Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've deliberately "spun" these unfavourably and they can of course be spun the other way (and there may be details I've omitted) but it's the cumulative effect. What was it that Oscar Wilde said?
By "shaggy dog" story I mean some kind of plausible but ever so slightly unbelievable reason. The three reasons are:
1 - Phone switched off during designated testing hour. Why? If you're planning on being asleep why not specify the next hour when you're having breakfast? (Isn't some part of her story that she updated the venue but not the designated hour? Again, a bit shaggy if so claimed.)
Actually - this was 3, not 2 - Funerals are planned - they may be planned at short notice - but they're still planned ... and we don't know what she did (if anything) to update the system for her whereabouts - it could be she phoned/emailed the BC guy who had (unbeknown to her) left - it could be that she didn't have signal to text or internet was down (it does happen quite frequently) and that she had to spend the next x hours driving to the family emergencyWallace and Gromit wrote:2 - Family emergency. How many grandmothers' funerals have occurred shortly before homework is due in? And as others have said, how good an excuse is this not to send the required text in any case?
Well - the autumn one was her second strike - with the first yet to be contested - so not the last one - even so, it's a silly mistake - but then we're all human - we all make silly mistakes from time to time - that's not to excuse it so the strike - as it is - should stand.Wallace and Gromit wrote:3 - It wasn't my fault, guv. On your last strike, trust no-one. Do it yourself! If a job's worth doing...0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Although it's been said that calling the athletes mobile isn't part of the recognised procedure - so it matters not if she had the phone on silent, turned off or left it in her shoes in the kit room - as CAS has said - the first one wasn't her fault.Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've deliberately "spun" these unfavourably and they can of course be spun the other way (and there may be details I've omitted) but it's the cumulative effect. What was it that Oscar Wilde said?
By "shaggy dog" story I mean some kind of plausible but ever so slightly unbelievable reason. The three reasons are:
1 - Phone switched off during designated testing hour. Why? If you're planning on being asleep why not specify the next hour when you're having breakfast? (Isn't some part of her story that she updated the venue but not the designated hour? Again, a bit shaggy if so claimed.)
Actually - this was 3, not 2 - Funerals are planned - they may be planned at short notice - but they're still planned ... and we don't know what she did (if anything) to update the system for her whereabouts - it could be she phoned/emailed the BC guy who had (unbeknown to her) left - it could be that she didn't have signal to text or internet was down (it does happen quite frequently) and that she had to spend the next x hours driving to the family emergencyWallace and Gromit wrote:2 - Family emergency. How many grandmothers' funerals have occurred shortly before homework is due in? And as others have said, how good an excuse is this not to send the required text in any case?
Well - the autumn one was her second strike - with the first yet to be contested - so not the last one - even so, it's a silly mistake - but then we're all human - we all make silly mistakes from time to time - that's not to excuse it so the strike - as it is - should stand.Wallace and Gromit wrote:3 - It wasn't my fault, guv. On your last strike, trust no-one. Do it yourself! If a job's worth doing...
Re phone, I can't get the thought out of my head that leaving your phone on during your nominated hour is a sensible precaution. After all, the tester did call it. If it had been on, this thread wouldn't exit.
Re grandmothers' funerals, I was highlighting that from a very early age, fictitious family situations are used by folk to excuse doing what they need to do, so Lizzie even mentioning it was bound to raise suspicion about that test and the others.
As I said, all the background stories are plausible, but collectively suspicion is inevitably aroused.
My particular issue with Lizzie is that she doesn't appear to have done everything she could have done to avoid the situation.0 -
After a few days thinking about this I've gone from annoyed at her, to actually thinking she's not done too much wrong.
Strike 1 was correctly struck off, it doesn't matter if the phone is on silent if that's not a correct method of contact - she was where she should have been and available. Are there lessons learnt for anti-doping as a whole, yes of course.
2 & 3 are genuinely issues and should stand as strikes. She made mistakes, she's owned up to it. 2 wasn't a missed test, which is important and not how it was originally reported. Strike 3, she just didn't do what she needed to do, regardless of circumstance. That's ok with me, it's why they have a 3 strikes rule, she messed up. Obviously we don't know the numbers, but she won't be the only person on 2 strikes right now, from any sport.
We wouldn't have heard anything about this if 1 of them hadn't happened. Should she have challenged the 1st strike at the time? Maybe, but it sounds like cost was prohibitive and I find the "hope for the best" attitude surprising but not incomprehensible.
What has clearly not helped the situation has been the ghastly reporting. From saying BC paid her legal fees, to the 2nd test being a no show on her part, we've even got the female Secret Pro rehashing all the misinformation for click bait. Now there is the tearful interview on the BBC site that isn't going to help either, just more words for people to pick apart.2020 Reilly Spectre - raw titanium
2020 Merida Reacto Disc Ltd - black on black
2015 CAAD8 105 - very green - stripped to turbo bike
2018 Planet X Exocet 2 - grey
The departed:
2017 Cervelo R3 DI2 - sold
Boardman CX Team - sold
Cannondale Synapse - broken
Cube Streamer - stolen
Boardman Road Comp - stolen0 -
I still don't get why the family emergency strike is anything to do with the failings of BC?
She said she forgot to tick a box on a form. She either had to tick the box or tell the bloke who left to do it. If she had called him surely she would have found out he had left.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:My particular issue with Lizzie is that she doesn't appear to have done everything she could have done to avoid the situation.
Indeed - but had she contested strike 1 at the time (perhaps not seen as important as it was only the first strike, it costs time & money to contest and then there's the stress and hassle that goes with it - she may have been advised to just let it go ...
Strike 2 - she's fully agreed is her fault - no problem - she's disclosed that they had conversations on how to safeguard against a 3rd - those systems in place.
Strike 3 - she's disclosed was a family emergency - so "didn't tick the required box" - benefit of the doubt here - and CAS & UKAD & BC will get the full picture - she didn't tick the box, but left a message with Missing Simon - not knowing he wasn't there (he's not going to be on 24x7 watch anyway is he?) - perhaps thinking that that was done and can now turn her attention to family - or perhaps she didn't think (depending on the emergency) - and so got another strike - I don't think she's denying it's her fault - she knows that ultimately it's her responsibility - but perhaps she feels that the safeguards put in place then removed without her knowledge contributed to it ...
As it is - it's (currently) still only 2 strikes - so she's as guilty (ie she's not) as all the other athletes with 2 strikes to their name ...0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Re phone, I can't get the thought out of my head that leaving your phone on during your nominated hour is a sensible precaution. After all, the tester did call it. If it had been on, this thread wouldn't exit.Slowbike wrote:
Although it's been said that calling the athletes mobile isn't part of the recognised procedure - so it matters not if she had the phone on silent, turned off or left it in her shoes in the kit room - as CAS has said - the first one wasn't her fault.Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've deliberately "spun" these unfavourably and they can of course be spun the other way (and there may be details I've omitted) but it's the cumulative effect. What was it that Oscar Wilde said?
By "shaggy dog" story I mean some kind of plausible but ever so slightly unbelievable reason. The three reasons are:
1 - Phone switched off during designated testing hour. Why? If you're planning on being asleep why not specify the next hour when you're having breakfast? (Isn't some part of her story that she updated the venue but not the designated hour? Again, a bit shaggy if so claimed.)
As quoted by a tester in the Rouleur article I linked upthread, and as apparently upheld by CAS, they are not allowed to make contact by mobile phone. It doesn't matter if her phone was on silent, switched off or in the next room - if their procedure says it is not an approved method of making contact then it has no bearing as the tester shouldn't have been calling it.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:As quoted by a tester in the Rouleur article I linked upthread, and as apparently upheld by CAS, they are not allowed to make contact by mobile phone. It doesn't matter if her phone was on silent, switched off or in the next room - if their procedure says it is not an approved method of making contact then it has no bearing as the tester shouldn't have been calling it.
That's very different to this: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-c ... outs-case/
Contact by phone is allowed but is usually un-necessary.0 -
For what it is worth, my friend, who is essentially an amateur, manages to complete the whereabouts data. She also has a full time job to contend with.
It's hard to believe that it can be that hard for a pro with full support. Maybe that is the point, if you are an amateur you know you are on your own, and therefore read and follow all the instructions. She puts all medicines through some online checking system. Perhaps a pro just relies on someone else to do it.0 -
If an athlete is present in a hotel and you were a tester, would you really leave without testing that person? I wouldn't. There's no way that first tester did everything they could to contact her.
Tbh I'm sick of reading 'we've seen it all before with Lance and Hamilton etc'. Well no, it's hardly the same is it. Stories and claims from ex-employees and team mates, complicit authorities, blood transfusions on team buses, notorious doping doctors, half the peloton riding around with 49% Haemocrit etc.
People still cheat, they always will. But clean athletes will also miss tests. It doesn't mean they're cheating.
If Lizzie is clean (and I think she is), then it's really unfortunate that she'll now be forever tainted in many people's eyes. The second and third tests may have been her fault, but she was clearly let down on tests 1 and 3 by the failures of others.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:If an athlete is present in a hotel and you were a tester, would you really leave without testing that person? I wouldn't. There's no way that first tester did everything they could to contact her.
That was why CAS overturned UKAD's ban.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:For what it is worth, my friend, who is essentially an amateur, manages to complete the whereabouts data. She also has a full time job to contend with.
It's hard to believe that it can be that hard for a pro with full support. Maybe that is the point, if you are an amateur you know you are on your own, and therefore read and follow all the instructions. She puts all medicines through some online checking system. Perhaps a pro just relies on someone else to do it.
Actually - in a full time job it may well be easier - working in 1 location in an office I can tell you where I'll be between the hours of 9-5 (excluding lunch) monday-friday for 47 weeks of the year - then it's just the weekends & holiday to bother about.0 -
Well, if you have a flexible work place which doesn't mind testers waltzing in and borrowing a member of staff immediately for a while, and you don't have any meetings that would mean you would be elsewhere. I think most people simple specify a time outside of working hours e.g. the morning before work. It also means that she has to specify hostels in Chile when on slightly more low budget holidays.0
-
yup - I do have a flexible work place - testers couldn't quite waltz in - but they'd not have any difficulty getting to the front door and for someone to come and get me.
Meetings are few and far between - even then I think I'd risk it most of the time.
Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!0 -
Slowbike wrote:Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!
I think for the relatively short duration of an elite sport career, you'd need to accept that holidays would potentially be constrained by Whereabouts requirements. Same way you'd need to accept that you can't regularly go out on a "bender" or eat cr*p food all the time.
So maybe a career in elite sport is not your thing? It wouldn't be mine, though testing positive for cr*pness is more an issue for me!0 -
There's nothing stopping an athlete going on holiday. There are some rules, they just need to be followed.0
-
Slowbike wrote:yup - I do have a flexible work place - testers couldn't quite waltz in - but they'd not have any difficulty getting to the front door and for someone to come and get me.
Meetings are few and far between - even then I think I'd risk it most of the time.
Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!
Ah. The old camper van excuse.0 -
Slowbike wrote:yup - I do have a flexible work place - testers couldn't quite waltz in - but they'd not have any difficulty getting to the front door and for someone to come and get me.
Meetings are few and far between - even then I think I'd risk it most of the time.
Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!
It sounds like you have the whereabouts compliance nailed. How's the rest of being an elite athlete working out?0 -
yup - I think it could be a bit restrictive - but not hard to say where the campervan would be and just ensure I put a timeslot down that I know I'd be there ...Wallace and Gromit wrote:Slowbike wrote:Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!
I think for the relatively short duration of an elite sport career, you'd need to accept that holidays would potentially be constrained by Whereabouts requirements.
er ... I've never been on a bender ... no really ... and cr@p food - don't tend to eat too badly ...Wallace and Gromit wrote:Same way you'd need to accept that you can't regularly go out on a "bender" or eat cr*p food all the time.
I think I'm a bit past a career in elite sport ... they wouldn't need to test me for crapness eitherWallace and Gromit wrote:So maybe a career in elite sport is not your thing? It wouldn't be mine, though testing positive for cr*pness is more an issue for me!
0 -
Slowbike wrote:
yup - I think it could be a bit restrictive - but not hard to say where the campervan would be and just ensure I put a timeslot down that I know I'd be there ...Wallace and Gromit wrote:Slowbike wrote:Holidays - I'd have to put where I'd be in a campervan - in the middle of nowhere, usually without a mobile signal!
I think for the relatively short duration of an elite sport career, you'd need to accept that holidays would potentially be constrained by Whereabouts requirements.
er ... I've never been on a bender ... no really ... and cr@p food - don't tend to eat too badly ...Wallace and Gromit wrote:Same way you'd need to accept that you can't regularly go out on a "bender" or eat cr*p food all the time.
I think I'm a bit past a career in elite sport ... they wouldn't need to test me for crapness eitherWallace and Gromit wrote:So maybe a career in elite sport is not your thing? It wouldn't be mine, though testing positive for cr*pness is more an issue for me!
Joking aside, no-one's saying there aren't major impositions on elite sportsmen. But no-one makes them pursue such an outlet, so it's hard to be too sympathetic. There's always the "Real World" / "Civvy Street" if it's all too much.0 -
Bottom line in my mind is that she's had 2 strikes not 3. The 1st one was quite correctly overturned. Whether she was niaive in not appealing immediately is a separate issue.
Unless we know what the overall percentage of athletes on 2 strikes is, and the sorts of reasons they give, we cannot make any real judgement.
Personally I think it should be 2 strikes not 3, 1 mistake is unfortunate 2 is careless. Obviously extenuating circumstances can always be appealed.
Let's be honest, CAS made the right decision here, in contrast to "steakgate".0 -
Am I wrong in thinking Lizzie contested the first strike with UKAD at the time but didn't go further at the time when UKAD said tough, ie go to CAS, because of the cost?
Strike 2 was plain stupid on her part.
Strike 3 - without knowing more none of us can tell. Maybe in due course she'll contest that one, maybe not.
Shame is, as she has acknowledged herself, that she'll be forever tainted by this episode, and it happened in her WC year.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Am I wrong in thinking Lizzie contested the first strike with UKAD at the time but didn't go further at the time when UKAD said tough, ie go to CAS, because of the cost?
.
It seems that way, but she hasn't been clear on it all of the time.
She's only had two strikes, CAS know far more than us and voided the first.
It was kept private because those are the rules.
I don't know why don't people are getting their kickers in a twist... Yes I do... The look at me I'm outraged generation."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Odd, since both stories quote anonymous DCOs... Shane Stokes is widely known to be a reliable journalist right?Wallace and Gromit wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:As quoted by a tester in the Rouleur article I linked upthread, and as apparently upheld by CAS, they are not allowed to make contact by mobile phone. It doesn't matter if her phone was on silent, switched off or in the next room - if their procedure says it is not an approved method of making contact then it has no bearing as the tester shouldn't have been calling it.
That's very different to this: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-c ... outs-case/
Contact by phone is allowed but is usually un-necessary.
In either case, CAS have said that incident does not count as a missed test.0 -
CAS will let anyone in to the Olympics.0
-
Anyway, in the words of Justin Timberlake "the damage is done so I guess I'll be leaving".
In a matter of days she has gone from being the inspirational female rider to many
"Look there is Lizzy A - god, she is such a great bike rider."
to
"Look, there is Lizzie A. Shame, I thought she was class, but maybe we were wrong. Was she doping ? Dunno, but she'll be judged forever".
She will never escape the mud thrown now I suspect. We know this sport too well.0
