Lizzie

dinyull

TailWindHome wrote:

She's doing a PR blitz today.

It's been mentioned on R5 that the whereabouts absence which had been described as private was a visit back to Ireland to visit her father in law who was/is ill due to cancer.
IIRC this is the first time this has been made public.

While obviously people are entitled to a private life, when you've 3 whereabouts violations, "I can't say as it's private" is far from convincing.

Without starting up the whole argument again, this still isn't really a valid excuse. There is a phone app which allows last minute changes to whereabouts.

*I realise your not saying it is.

Pross

She was on Breakfast, I put it in the CMS thread as she said she's never encountered bullying in BC and that whilst she felt there was sexism in the sport none of it had been personal to her (she cited the inequality in medal opportunities in Beijing and that as BC's business model is winning Olympic medals by default there were less opportunities for female cyclists). It seemed a pretty reasonable comment.

awavey

TailWindHome wrote:

She's doing a PR blitz today.

It's been mentioned on R5 that the whereabouts absence which had been described as private was a visit back to Ireland to visit her father in law who was/is ill due to cancer.
IIRC this is the first time this has been made public.

While obviously people are entitled to a private life, when you've 3 whereabouts violations, "I can't say as it's private" is far from convincing.

I dont recall it being described as a "cant say as its private" thing, it was described (probably buried in this thread somewhere so certainly not the first time its been aired) that she was in Ireland at the time for personal family reasons, that were a last minute rush, when there were potentially bigger things to consider than had she filled in the daily location stuff properly, which she was under the impression the folk at BC were keeping checks on her to make sure she did properly anyway.

it was only private in so far as I dont think we as the public necessarily should feel entitled to have those full details aired in public, unless as Lizzie has done decided to share it, as its really none of our business at the end of the day, ultimately it still counted as a valid miss whatever the extenuating personal circumstances at the time were.

awavey

Pross wrote:

She was on Breakfast, I put it in the CMS thread as she said she's never encountered bullying in BC and that whilst she felt there was sexism in the sport none of it had been personal to her (she cited the inequality in medal opportunities in Beijing and that as BC's business model is winning Olympic medals by default there were less opportunities for female cyclists). It seemed a pretty reasonable comment.

theres no iplayer kept for longer than 24hrs for Breakfast unfortunately so cant rewatch, but I know from other interviews this week around the book launch, shes said in regards to the specific question on sexism at BC.

“It’s all news to me. 2011 was the last time I was in the track programme in Manchester. Since then I’ve worn a jersey once a year at the Worlds and been very removed from it.
“I focus on my own experience and what’s happened to me. There were definitely places in previous years where things could have been run better but they are improving and throughout my career it’s only got better and better.
“But from a specific British Cycling point of view I just couldn’t comment over the last few years.”

which seems a more measured reflection, but I would absolutely encourage you or anyone, to go get and read the book and draw your own conclusions about what her view on BCs approach to equality & support for her has been like across both road and track programmes.

Pross

I think we're agreeing. Her response on Breakfast was less detailed but still measured, she wasn't critical of BC at all just pointed out that before 2012 there were less events for women in the Olympics than men and the BC policy reflected this as their 'business model' (as she put it) was to win Olympic medals as that's what funding is based on. She certainly didn't appear to have an axe to grind as some initial reports had been skewed to suggest.

kingstongraham

So an interesting answer on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 today:

JM: you had never taken any dope at all, had you?

LD: No, I've never tested positive.

cruff

Poor Lizzie. Either she is incredibly naive, incredibly unprofessional, incredibly stupid - or a doper. She can't ever really step out from the shadow of this - anything she does will be tainted with suspicion. Her results since this don't exactly fill you with confidence either (second places in the Ardennes notwithstanding, she's been a shadow of last spring's rider) and it's not difficult to see why people aren't trusting of a rider who makes seemingly deliberately disingenuous statements like the one above.

kingstongraham

It's not as if it was a hard hitting interview - that was a follow-up question to her saying "I would never cheat in any walk of life, so to have a newspaper saying that you would and having no defence against it was very traumatic", to allow her to just say "No."

mamba80

Well, if she were smart enough to pull the wool and dope, then why give an open goal to people who think all pro cyclists take drugs? perhaps she didnt consider her answer?

a simple "no i ve never taken drugs and never will" would have sufficed, but somehow i doubt it...... some would still look to find fault..... why when ever we get a world beater, do people look to drag them down?

riders cant always be winning, other riders improve, you have off days or your team mates do, so far in 2017, she has had 3 x 2nd places and a 3rd, hardly terrible.

cruff

That's the problem though. No matter what she says from now on, she'll always be tainted. I (and plenty of other people) don't believe she could have three whereabouts failures in such a short space of time when her entire livelihood depended on not having those failures. The fact that it coincided neatly with her annus mirabilis doesn't help matters. Even if she's entirely innocent, it doesn't look good.

RichN95.

Cruff wrote:

I (and plenty of other people) don't believe she could have three whereabouts failures in such a short space of time when her entire livelihood depended on not having those failures.

She didn't have three failures though. One was overturned by CAS, and another was a filing error when someone noticed she had failed to correct her whereabouts on one occasion (no-one had actually turned up to test her).

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

Cruff wrote:

I (and plenty of other people) don't believe she could have three whereabouts failures in such a short space of time when her entire livelihood depended on not having those failures.

She didn't have three failures though. One was overturned by CAS, and another was a filing error when someone noticed she had failed to correct her whereabouts on one occasion (no-one had actually turned up to test her).

That does seem unfair.

thegibdog

Cruff wrote:

Her results since this don't exactly fill you with confidence either (second places in the Ardennes notwithstanding, she's been a shadow of last spring's rider)

She's had 4 podiums this year (3 of which were 2nd behind her teammate), compared to 4 wins at this point last year. Her results have hardly fallen off a cliff.

pinno

Lizzie was on fire before the Olympics. You can't deny that. She won Strada Bianche as cool as a cucumber. I even had a thread on her. Then came the bombshell and the press and the damp squib of the Olympic road race (for her). Despite being the 'main aim for her'. For the rest of the season, there wasn't much to write home about.

All her results came early:

UCI Road World Championships
1st Gold medal blank.svg Team time trial
4th Road race
1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall The Women's Tour
1st Jersey light blue.svg Best British rider classification
1st Stage 3
1st Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
1st Strade Bianche
1st Trofeo Alfredo Binda
1st Tour of Flanders
1st Boels Rental Hills Classic
5th Road race, Olympic Games.

So far this year:

2nd Amstel Gold Race
2nd La Flèche Wallonne Féminine
2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
3rd Strade Bianche

It is without doubt that the drug scandal has had a massive effect. I do not think she is taking drugs but some of the sentiments I recall from other female pro's at the time were not good. The press were harsh. The commentator at the Olympic RR even brought it up during the race. It's a massive cloud that won't go away and I also have no doubt that it is affecting her performance.
Reading what she said about having to provide your whereabouts at all times and the schedule and the amount of time she had to spend making sure that the authorities were informed plus the fact that it was previously someone else's responsibility, it's no wonder mistakes were made.
Until she tests positive, going over the minutiae of what she said and what she should have said is just pure speculation and she is human after all.

I hope she recovers from this but thus far, it's looking like a very long and different course.

kingstongraham

mamba80 wrote:

Well, if she were smart enough to pull the wool and dope, then why give an open goal to people who think all pro cyclists take drugs? perhaps she didnt consider her answer?

a simple "no i ve never taken drugs and never will" would have sufficed, but somehow i doubt it...... some would still look to find fault..... why when ever we get a world beater, do people look to drag them down?

riders cant always be winning, other riders improve, you have off days or your team mates do, so far in 2017, she has had 3 x 2nd places and a 3rd, hardly terrible.

To that question, it would have done for me.

davidof

Pinno wrote:

It is without doubt that the drug scandal has had a massive effect. I do not think she is taking drugs but some of the sentiments I recall from other female pro's at the time were not good.

PFP? Seems her performance has suffered much more than Lizzie's following #Absalongate

RonB

But in each of those 2nd place results, teammate van der Breggen won. I know that the races have been notoriously difficult to follow, but part of me does wonder if Lizzie was riding within herself to a degree and following an agreed Boes-Dolmans plan.

yourpaceormine

TailWindHome wrote:

Was a fan, but with those shoes, she is now dead to me.
Reminds me of the vicar's daughter.

argyllflyer

Interesting interview in Pro Cycling this month - Ed Pickering didn't go easy on her for sure.

RichN95.

argyllflyer wrote:

Interesting interview in Pro Cycling this month - Ed Pickering didn't go easy on her for sure.

I don't know what anyone expects her to say that she hasn't said already. I think a lot of the questioning now is just posturing by the journalists.

thegibdog

RonB wrote:

But in each of those 2nd place results, teammate van der Breggen won. I know that the races have been notoriously difficult to follow, but part of me does wonder if Lizzie was riding within herself to a degree and following an agreed Boes-Dolmans plan.

The highlights are on the UCI's YouTube channel. Deignan was in the winning move for all 3 of them, helping set up van der Breggen for the win, before easily taking 2nd place behind her.

Hard to see how anybody who had seen the races would think that she is a shadow of her former self.

Richmond Racer 2

yourpaceormine wrote:

Was a fan, but with those shoes, she is now dead to me.
Reminds me of the vicar's daughter.

Oh god, you went there :shock:

ddraver

KingstonGraham wrote:

So an interesting answer on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 today:

JM: you had never taken any dope at all, had you?

LD: No, I've never tested positive.

A lot of twaliban testing positive for still having Lance Armstrong living permanently rent free in thier heads...

Pross

thegibdog wrote:

RonB wrote:

But in each of those 2nd place results, teammate van der Breggen won. I know that the races have been notoriously difficult to follow, but part of me does wonder if Lizzie was riding within herself to a degree and following an agreed Boes-Dolmans plan.

The highlights are on the UCI's YouTube channel. Deignan was in the winning move for all 3 of them, helping set up van der Breggen for the win, before easily taking 2nd place behind her.

Hard to see how anybody who had seen the races would think that she is a shadow of her former self.

Yep, I think I'd settle for three 2nds and a 3rd in a world class field. 5th at the Olympics was better than I had expected in the circumstances.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

argyllflyer wrote:

Interesting interview in Pro Cycling this month - Ed Pickering didn't go easy on her for sure.

I don't know what anyone expects her to say that she hasn't said already. I think a lot of the questioning now is just posturing by the journalists.

To be fair, she's choosing to do the media circuit to promote her book so she has to expect the obvious questions. It's not like she's being hounded while trying to keep her head down and get on with racing.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

argyllflyer wrote:

Interesting interview in Pro Cycling this month - Ed Pickering didn't go easy on her for sure.

I don't know what anyone expects her to say that she hasn't said already. I think a lot of the questioning now is just posturing by the journalists.

To be fair, she's choosing to do the media circuit to promote her book so she has to expect the obvious questions. It's not like she's being hounded while trying to keep her head down and get on with racing.

True in this case. But wait for July and the same old questions being asked to the same old riders for quotes for the same old articles.

A more interesting interviewer however would realise that everyone would ask LA/D the same questions and find a more original angle.

No_Ta_Doctor

Saying "Never tested positive" is an entirely imaginary issue. The only problem with it is that it's a trigger for some sections of the anti-doping social media community (referred to above as The Twaliban). After all, that's what Lance said.

Yes, we know it's a fairly slim measure of confidence in cleanliness, but it's actually the only objective evidence an athlete can present. The rest is just "I'm not that sort of person" (Lance said that) "It's all hard work" (Lance said that) "Cutting edge tech/training" (Lance said that).

It really doesn't leave a lot of possibilities for explaining how you can be good on a bike without doping.

kingstongraham

ddraver wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

So an interesting answer on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 today:

JM: you had never taken any dope at all, had you?

LD: No, I've never tested positive.

A lot of twaliban testing positive for still having Lance Armstrong living permanently rent free in thier heads...

Have you listened to the interview? It's a really weird response, especially in context.

It does imply an equivalence between not doping and not testing positive. Which proves nothing, of course.

salsiccia1

KingstonGraham wrote:

ddraver wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

So an interesting answer on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 today:

JM: you had never taken any dope at all, had you?

LD: No, I've never tested positive.

A lot of twaliban testing positive for still having Lance Armstrong living permanently rent free in thier heads...

Have you listened to the interview? It's a really weird response, especially in context.

It does imply an equivalence between not doping and not testing positive. Which proves nothing, of course.

Haven't listened to the interview; but might she be referring to the missed tests, and her perception of public opinion is that missed tests = positive?

pinno

It's here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05139r9

...and Fordyce's whereabouts trial:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/33189303

Not a good article and not that revealing TBH.

Lizzie seems relaxed, she's not defensive. She's cool about the whole episode - she definitely does not protest too much. She' doesn't even sound bitter. It's not the interview of a guilty person.

3 missed tests, 1 was a straight miss and she made no excuses about it, 1 was because the tester in a hotel in Sweden did not say he was there to test Lizzie, the hotel staff worked to the same confidentiality as would have been afforded any other guest and the other was due to an illness with Philip Deignan's father.
The judge on the arbitration committee was a 'hard liner' but despite this, threw the case out. That is the most fundamental fact.

Time will tell; In 10 years time when she has retired and the drug testing of old samples continues, evolves and improves and when finally they will say that she never tested positive. Until then, we have to put up with the detractors nit picking over the subjective nuances and speculating.

I hold her up in such high regard as one of the UK's best sport people but more importantly, one of the best female road cyclists in the world. Why can't the past be in the past and she can move onwards and upwards?
I hope she keeps winning just so she p1sses off the detractors as they jump up and down and chuck the toys put of their holier-than-thou prams.