Lizzie

Richmond Racer 2

larkim wrote:

Anyone else surprised that this has all been transacted so swiftly? To get to CAS based on a ban which might have taken place from 11th July in advance of the Olympics sounds like it was expedited quite rapidly. Would this have happened for less of a "star"?

CAS have brought in a boatload of additional tribunal panel experts recently to deal with the avalanche of pre-Rio cases (see Russia etc). So, nah, I'm not raising an eyebrow on this point. I mean, really, is that the point most worthy of comment?

Richmond Racer 2

EPC06 wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

This all seems a little melodramatic. Am I right in understanding she was tested the next day after the 1st test?

That is irrelevant.

MrSweary wrote:

The way I see it.. 1st test - Not her fault. Entirely a failure of the testing body to follow their own procedures.
2nd test - admin oversight. Doesn't sound great but these things do happen, even to organisational geniuses.
3rd test - missed because of a family medical emergency. What is wrong with this?

If here phone is on silent when she says she is available for testing, then it is her fault.

CAS have struck out UKADs first strike on the basis that they didn't follow their own processes ie made further attempts over the course of 60 mins. UKAD admitted that. If they had tried more than the once, CAS would have upheld the UKAD first strike.

above_the_cows

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

larkim

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

larkim wrote:

Anyone else surprised that this has all been transacted so swiftly? To get to CAS based on a ban which might have taken place from 11th July in advance of the Olympics sounds like it was expedited quite rapidly. Would this have happened for less of a "star"?

CAS have brought in a boatload of additional tribunal panel experts recently to deal with the avalanche of pre-Rio cases (see Russia etc). So, nah, I'm not raising an eyebrow on this point. I mean, really, is that the point most worthy of comment?

No, others have covered the more worthy points. But from (bystander) experience of seeing how long CAS often takes for cases to be heard / adjudicated on, to go from a provisional ban through to CAS so quickly is unusual Normally there'd be a provisional ban, then a local anti-doping organisation appeal hearing, then scope for a CAS hearing.

CAS have only heard 66 cycling cases since 1994, with their last one in 2013 (according to http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared ... Sport.aspx ) so this isn't a frequent occurence. Though perhaps they arbitrate on lower level issues quicker and don't count them as "cases".

My point really was that if, 3 weeks out from the Games, an "also ran" athlete in whatever sport was sanctioned for a whereabouts breach, would they also get the benefit of reaching the highest court of sport arbitration before the Games began? Possibly not?

Richmond Racer 2

^ and as I posted, they are trying to process appeals whose outcomes are dependencies for Rio places. Across a rangr of sports.

What has happened re cycling appeals and CAS through normal churn has little bearing on what is happening right now with Rio only days away.

neonriver

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

From her dads twitter

"First test challenged with UKAD - rejected. If you knew the cost of going to CAS you would hope for the best too."

the article don

Just p*ss poor timing. Smacks of stupidity/ lack of respect and taints the legacy somewhat. In this year of all years to get that wrong.....

dish_dash

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

I'm struggling to understand the timing on this whole thing. Am I right that she appealed to UKAD (about the first missed test on 20 August 2015) after she was charged on 11 July 2016, UKAD upheld their decision, and then it went to CAS who over-ruled UKAD... if so that's the case then it is a bloody tight time frame...

dinyull

YorkshireRaw wrote:

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.

And what happens when a crazed fan or stalker does this with fake ID etc?

I think it would be standard practice for hotels not to ring up to rooms unless they've been told that someone is expected.

dinyull

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 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.

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...)

Slightly different angle then - do we think BC would have done this if it were Nicole Cooke in her pomp? Again, genuine question.

Lizzie doesn't have the greatest relationship with BC if I remember correctly. She got out as soon as she could.

above_the_cows

dish_dash wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

I'm struggling to understand the timing on this whole thing. Am I right that she appealed to UKAD (about the first missed test on 20 August 2015) after she was charged on 11 July 2016, UKAD upheld their decision, and then it went to CAS who over-ruled UKAD... if so that's the case then it is a bloody tight time frame...

I think according to neonriver and Mr Armitstead's twitter it was challenged and rejected at the time with UKAD and then not taken further because of costs. After the third missed test it then became worthwhile to challenge at CAS.

neonriver wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

From her dads twitter

"First test challenged with UKAD - rejected. If you knew the cost of going to CAS you would hope for the best too."

Ultimately I think none of us know the full story.

adr82

Above The Cows wrote:

Ultimately I think none of us know the full story.

But we will damn well speculate wildly until we do! :P

above_the_cows

adr82 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Ultimately I think none of us know the full story.

But we will damn well speculate wildly until we do! :P

Well obviously. I should be ironing a pile of clothes before packing for my holiday but...

kelliano

neonriver wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

From her dads twitter

"First test challenged with UKAD - rejected. If you knew the cost of going to CAS you would hope for the best too."

Straight contradiction of UKAD statement.

Tangled web.

yorkshireraw

Dinyull wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

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.

And what happens when a crazed fan or stalker does this with fake ID etc?

I think it would be standard practice for hotels not to ring up to rooms unless they've been told that someone is expected.

Well you'd imagine the conversation would go:

Hotel: 'Ms Armitstead, reception here, there's some people in the lobby who have requested we call you down'
LA: 'Can you ask them who they are please?'
Hotel: 'hold the line...... they say they are from UK Anti-doping and are here to conduct a test'
LA: ' Do they have ID?'
Hotel: 'hold the line while I ask.... yes they have shown me photo ID'
LA: 'OK I will be down in 5 minutes with my team manager'.

Yes someone could mock up fake UKAD ID, but that could happen in any circs at a race, at the athletes home etc. I didn't suggest the hotel would blithely let them wander up to her room. Cyclists are pretty accessible most of the time during races etc. as it is, if someone was out to commit crazy acts.

Balance of risk suggests if someone pitches up to a public hotel lobby with UKAD photo ID (which they do carry to identify themselves to athletes when they approach them for testing post-events etc), then they're probably from UKAD.

dish_dash

kelliano wrote:

neonriver wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Silly Lizzie should have appealed the first missed test when it happened and then this would never have happened.

From her dads twitter

"First test challenged with UKAD - rejected. If you knew the cost of going to CAS you would hope for the best too."

Straight contradiction of UKAD statement.

Tangled web.

yeah... the UKAD statement isn't great either. Unclear on timings as well...

dinyull

Granted. But like I said I'd imagine it's standard practice in a lot of hotels (especially higher market hotels) that they don't randomly contact guests rooms unless the staff have been told that room 561 is expecting someone.

dav1d1

delete post

TonyCooke

Shadowrider - you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I won't attempt to surmise what the motives for your actions are, I have no psychic powers, as your writing suggest you have in respect to knowing what I am thinking. I am not at all sure correcting your opinion about what motivates me will divest you of your unfounded and incorrect opinion but in this case I will make it six comments and give it a go so that others, perhaps with more open views, can read both and make up their own minds.

I only responded on this forum because words were put in my mouth suggesting I would tell BC to "fook off". That was incorrect and I wished to correct it.

"When is the new book coming out". It isn't, there isn't one.

"(Nicole) needed some much needed publicity." Nicole needs no publicity. She has no commercial engagement in cycling or any sport, at the current time or for some years past or anything pending, however, substantive media often seek her opinion on contemporary matters as a counterpoint. For a long time her voice was a very rare counterpoint, which gives that opinion gravitas. From your writing it might well seem to be a concept you may have difficulty engaging with.

"fire in a sob story". There is a difference between a factual account and a story. When illustrating an argument, using the past to attempt to predict the future, the chasm between the use of these two devices is unbridgeable.

"Your question was purely coincidental in his post, it'd have happened anyway. " Incorrect - please see my first response in this post.

"Nicole isn't the only person who's been hard done by BC" On this point we can agree wholeheartedly. I know I can look myself in the mirror and think of the interests of girls other than Nicole I have represented to BC and Welsh Cycling in order to attempt to get a fair deal and fair level of support from the publicly funded staff, on their behalf. I trust you have a fine and honourable record in attempting to ensure that any miscarriages you have witnessed have been brought before BC in a clear and constructive manner such that they can address them. One of the worst things one can do is sit on the sidelines and just moan. In many cases there were good and capable people at both BC and Welsh Cycling who wanted to do the very best by the athletes in their charge and many had open minds about engaging with change, once the problem was placed in front of them.

Hopefully that is me (off topic - sorry) done.

larkim

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

^ and as I posted, they are trying to process appeals whose outcomes are dependencies for Rio places. Across a rangr of sports.

What has happened re cycling appeals and CAS through normal churn has little bearing on what is happening right now with Rio only days away.

To a degree you're right, with CAS focussing on both Russian competitor eligibility issues and selection / non-selection issues. But I wasn't aware that there was a specific fast track set up for anti-doping cases in general (which have the potential to be lengthy cases with disputed evidence / statements / testimony), accepting that by definition these have Olympic Games eligibility issues associated with them.

disgruntledgoat

Does smell a bit like Hamilton's dodges described in Secret Race, doesn't it?

Do we know how many OOC tests she took in that period?

dish_dash

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Does smell a bit like Hamilton's dodges described in Secret Race, doesn't it?

Do we know how many OOC tests she took in that period?

Her Dad says she's been tested 16 times this year, all clean. Not clear if that is combined OOC and In-competition or just the former...

smithy21

So they kept an accurate record of those then

neonriver

As an aside how did this become known.

The DailyHail asked for a statement from LA so she didn't announce it. Its nowhere on BC website and no statement at the time it went out so they didn't announce it. And the UKAD statement is from after the article so they didn't annonce it.

All the major scandals seems to have been reported on first by Matt Lawton at the DH. It looks like BC is a sieve at the minute and everything seems to be pouring into Matt Lawton.

dinyull

The DM seem to have someone in the know @ UKAD - Tyson Fury and his brother were outed by the Mail via UKAD too.

jscl

neonriver wrote:

As an aside how did this become known.

The DailyHail asked for a statement from LA so she didn't announce it. Its nowhere on BC website and no statement at the time it went out so they didn't announce it. And the UKAD statement is from after the article so they didn't annonce it.

All the major scandals seems to have been reported on first by Matt Lawton at the DH. It looks like BC is a sieve at the minute and everything seems to be pouring into Matt Lawton.

It actually pours in to a freelance journo based in Manchester, he just feeds the content to Matt.

Same person leaked the Yates 'doping' conviction a few months back. He's quite matey with a few of the riders, bit of back scratching with info goes on.

Richmond Racer 2

Dinyull wrote:

The DM seem to have someone in the know @ UKAD - Tyson Fury and his brother were outed by the Mail via UKAD too.

Dacre ensures his journos cash pot is always well topped-up for stories

dish_dash

So FWIW

- First missed test (now not counted) was on 20 August 2015 - the day before the World Champs TTT (Boels came 3rd). UKADA tester didn't try hard enough to find her. Am I right that reception wouldn't let them to her room and they only called her phone once - she could have been in the shower. And if at the world champs you might fairly assume that the testers would be able to find you.

- Second missed test was on 5 October 2015. She says this was an administrative error. It was 9 days after she became world champion and she didn't race again in 2015 (according to procyclingstats) after winning the stripes. A generous explanation would be that she was euphoric about winning the rainbow jersey, wasn't racing again, and relaxed a bit too much, forgetting to update ADAMS.

- Third missed test was on 9 June 2016. That's 13 days after the Boels Rental Hills Classic which she won, and 6 days before she started the Aviva Women's Tour (which she won). She came 18th on the first day. This test was missed because of "an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family". If it was as rumoured to be heart attack making a last minute change in your ADAMS might not be top of your priority.

It's an unfortunate example set by the current world champion but sounds like this could just as much be cock up rather than conspiracy.

bflk

The problem is now that she's never going to be clear of suspicion - reminds me of Mo Farah not hearing his doorbell when they came calling. Strangely though I finally warmed to Christine Ohorougu who can come across as a bit dappy (could be misleading I know) and maybe just capable of missing three in a row. Lizzie on the other hand always comes across as highly intelligent.

Bottom line, at her level your top two priorities every day on waking are (1) have I updated my whereabouts info and (2) have I checked anything I'm taking today on the latest banned drugs list. You could miss the training you had planned for the day and get over it, if you screw one of those two up you may not.

philwint

Gweeds wrote:

1 can be excused/explained. 3 not so much.

<pedant mode on>

Well 2 can (demonstrably) be explained/excused or WADA wouldn't set the limit at 3

<pedant mode off>