Lizzie

above_the_cows

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

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!

Do you reckon if we asked nicely they'd all let us play with ADAMS for a while?

germcevoy

The_Boy wrote:

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?

Great point.

salsiccia1

Above The Cows wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

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!

Do you reckon if we asked nicely they'd all let us play with ADAMS for a while?

See if you can get a pro licence out of KNWU, then tell us how you get on

yorkshireraw

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

salsiccia1

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

Oh, absolutely. From a purely business point of view it makes perfect sense. Ethically? Not good.

dish_dash

Not great by Armitstead. Every athlete has to do ADAMS and to miss three in a year is just incompetent regardless of your personal circumstances. The situation is not helped by her 'I don't have a coach and like training by myself' stance... you can't help but feel a bit suspicious.

ContrelaMontre

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

This is why anti-doping and sport administration are segregated. I don't see an issue with British Cycling's role here.

Very disappointed in the news though. Casts a big shadow over Lizzie.

Richmond Racer 2

r0bh wrote:

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.

Not so. He missed 1 when he was at the Academy - so around 2004. That gets scrubbed after 12 months (went up to 18 months in revised WADA Code effective Jan last year), like points on your driving licence after xx years. His other one was in 2012.

I suspect MANY athletes have picked up strikes in their careers as I said in my earlier post. The issue is in allowing it to get to 3 missed tests in the same mandatory time period - thats ADRV time (unless you can get off).

ddraver

Tool

That is all

salsiccia1

ContrelaMontre wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

This is why anti-doping and sport administration are segregated. I don't see an issue with British Cycling's role here.

Very disappointed in the news though. Casts a big shadow over Lizzie.

Providing some support and legal advice is one thing, but funding her legal team is another. And would they have done this for, say, Nikki Harris?

cruff

Well, this has p1ssed me off no end. I love her as a rider, but the excuses stink. The fact she didn't challenge the first one is also highly suss

Afraid I can't feel the same about watching her race now, and the sad thing is, everything she's said in the past that made me think she was some kind of maverick (not wanting to train with her team because she prefers being on her own, not having a coach etc etc) now makes me think she's just covering sh1t up

If she is innocent, then she's a fool. The excuses look amateurish - despite the whereabouts system being pretty restrictive, it surely can't be outwith the wit of a professional athlete to stick by it - especially when it amounts to three fcuk-ups in the space of a year?

kingstongraham

If she wasn't British, no way would this pass the smell test.

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

Oh, absolutely. From a purely business point of view it makes perfect sense. Ethically? Not good.

I disagree, as Contra says above this is why testing is separated from the governing body. Unless BC knows she is a doper ( I'm not suggesting they do or that she is, I would be shocked if she were) then why shouldn't they spend money defending their athlete.

I'd find it more ethically suspect if they didn't defend an athlete in order to protect their brand from the association with doping.

yorkshireraw

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

r0bh wrote:

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.

Not so. He missed 1 when he was at the Academy - so around 2004. That gets scrubbed after 12 months (went up to 18 months in revised WADA Code effective Jan last year), like points on your driving licence after xx years. His other one was in 2012.

I suspect MANY athletes have picked up strikes in their careers as I said in my earlier post. The issue is in allowing it to get to 3 missed tests in the same mandatory time period - thats ADRV time (unless you can get off).

There was a bit of a funny case a few years back where Tim Don was banned by Triathlon for 3 missed tests, but carried on competing in athletics (running) events like the Manchester 10k. He may well have done cycling events also during his ban time. You'd think a ban applied to all sport that are WADA affiliated. Thinking about it didn't motor-CXer Femke say she was taking up running when banned from Cycling?

above_the_cows

I can't believe the hotel wasn't properly briefed that testers could turn up and they were to tell them which rooms the riders were in. This should have been clearly communicated to all staff so they could not blame the 'new shift' for not knowing.

joelsim

feltkuota wrote:

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

That'd also mean you could get in through the catflap if you lost your keys on a bender.

But seriously this really doesn't look good for a World Champion to miss 3 tests.

yorkshireraw

Also seems daft the testers didn't just insist the staff call up to the room for 'Ms Armitstead' - the hotel doesn't even need to give the room number away - just call up and say there's some people here insisting to see you.

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

Oh, absolutely. From a purely business point of view it makes perfect sense. Ethically? Not good.

I disagree, as Contra says above this is why testing is separated from the governing body. Unless BC knows she is a doper ( I'm not suggesting they do or that she is, I would be shocked if she were) then why shouldn't they spend money defending their athlete.

I'd find it more ethically suspect if they didn't defend an athlete in order to protect their brand from the association with doping.

Is it common-place for a governing body to pay for the legal defence of a rider in doping trouble? Genuine question.

joe2008

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is it common-place for a governing body to pay for the legal defence of a rider in doping trouble? Genuine question.

Probably is in Russia

Richmond Racer 2

Salsiccia1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

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?

As per Daniel Friebe this AM - It's an investment from BC - part of their future funding is dependent on medals from the OG. If she take's a medal on Sunday that legal cost has paid for itself. We can debate the rights or wrongs of it but it's in BC's interest for her to be on the startline in Rio.

Oh, absolutely. From a purely business point of view it makes perfect sense. Ethically? Not good.

I disagree, as Contra says above this is why testing is separated from the governing body. Unless BC knows she is a doper ( I'm not suggesting they do or that she is, I would be shocked if she were) then why shouldn't they spend money defending their athlete.

I'd find it more ethically suspect if they didn't defend an athlete in order to protect their brand from the association with doping.

Is it common-place for a governing body to pay for the legal defence of a rider in doping trouble? Genuine question.

Depends on the athlete, the national fed and the sport. If it's one of their top athletes, it's not uncommon (and recent examples that spring immediately to mind are when the athlete tested positive...)

joelsim

joe2008 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is it common-place for a governing body to pay for the legal defence of a rider in doping trouble? Genuine question.

Probably is in Russia

Nope, in Russia the athlete pays the state to fill in the form in as negative.

joe2008

Joelsim wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is it common-place for a governing body to pay for the legal defence of a rider in doping trouble? Genuine question.

Probably is in Russia

Nope, in Russia the athlete pays the state to fill in the form in as negative.

you are right of course

tailwindhome

Above The Cows wrote:

I can't believe the hotel wasn't properly briefed that testers could turn up and they were to tell them which rooms the riders were in. This should have been clearly communicated to all staff so they could not blame the 'new shift' for not knowing.

I work in a hotel
Blaming the Front Desk is SOP.

gweeds

This time period covers her rise to becoming the best women's rider yes?

Doesn't look good does it.

joe2008

Gweeds wrote:

This time period covers her rise to becoming the best women's rider yes?

Doesn't look good does it.

and when Vos was considered the most dominant professional cyclist since Eddy Merckx

Richmond Racer 2

joe2008 wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This time period covers her rise to becoming the best women's rider yes?

Doesn't look good does it.

and when Vos was considered the most dominant professional cyclist since Eddy Merckx

Sigh. The majority time of Lizzie's rise to no 1 has been whilst Vos has been out of the sport for a very prolonged with a mystery illness.

Time for homework.

fenix

So strike 1 was put down to the Testers fault. That is clear now - the appeal decided she bore no blame.

Strikes 2 and 3 are her own fault.

I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt - the Whereabouts system does sound tricky to use - but if she's missed 2 - then she'll probably miss another one in the not too distant future too, Just depends if the time frame is kind to her or not.

above_the_cows

TailWindHome wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I can't believe the hotel wasn't properly briefed that testers could turn up and they were to tell them which rooms the riders were in. This should have been clearly communicated to all staff so they could not blame the 'new shift' for not knowing.

I work in a hotel
Blaming the Front Desk is SOP.

Yeah, it smacks of a poor excuse to me.

Richmond Racer 2

Above The Cows wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I can't believe the hotel wasn't properly briefed that testers could turn up and they were to tell them which rooms the riders were in. This should have been clearly communicated to all staff so they could not blame the 'new shift' for not knowing.

I work in a hotel
Blaming the Front Desk is SOP.

Yeah, it smacks of a poor excuse to me.

Genuine question: presumably you'd say the same re Froome's excuse for his missed test?

slowbike

So - first one wasn't her fault - Tester didn't identify him/herself adequately to the Hotel - you'd think - being in a team hotel - the Hotel staff could've contacted one of the team staff about the request - depends how it was made though. Perhaps the testers should be contacting team admin at the same time - would enable the team to ensure the testing took place and ensure contact was made with the athlete - it's possible to put DND except certain contacts on phones - so whilst the athlete wouldn't have the testers number in their phone they could have team admin on there so it would ring audibly (assuming they have a signal!) - or the testers could have a system in place where they always call from the same number - allowing the athletes to have that number programmed in their phones.

Second one - she just forgot? Bit daft - especially having got 1 miss already (even if you didn't think it was your fault) - but was she selected for testing that day and no record of where to find her - or was it just that she hadn't filed a time/location - if the latter then isn't there a warning system that alerts them (and/or team admin)? That's not difficult to do and could mean that the occaisional oversight isn't done.

Third one - family illness - not specified what it is and quite frankly we don't need to know - if it was an emergency that required her immeadiate attendance then stuff the anti doping test - heck, with a 1yo now if I got a call to say something was wrong or he needed to be picked up then I'd be there - work? if it's a problem then it isn't a problem.

So, 2 out of the 3 could have been avoided with simple technical safeguards in place. The 3rd could've been let off on appeal if it was of sufficient seriousness to be of more importance than anti-dope testing.