Lizzie
Comments
-
We have an application at work I'm supposed to fill in if I'm not in my normal workplace. I don't think I've ever managed to fill it in right! So I feel a bit sorry for athletes and the ADAMS thing. It sounds like a right PITA.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
davidof wrote:We have an application at work I'm supposed to fill in if I'm not in my normal workplace. I don't think I've ever managed to fill it in right! So I feel a bit sorry for athletes and the ADAMS thing. It sounds like a right PITA.
If your whole career depended on it, I think you might make more of an effort.Scott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
Markwb79 wrote:davidof wrote:We have an application at work I'm supposed to fill in if I'm not in my normal workplace. I don't think I've ever managed to fill it in right! So I feel a bit sorry for athletes and the ADAMS thing. It sounds like a right PITA.
If your whole career depended on it, I think you might make more of an effort.
It is a sack-able offense where I work.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Nicole Cooke's statement
http://nicolecooke.com/news/
How long has the whereabouts rule been in place?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
davidof wrote:We have an application at work I'm supposed to fill in if I'm not in my normal workplace. I don't think I've ever managed to fill it in right! So I feel a bit sorry for athletes and the ADAMS thing. It sounds like a right PITA.
You couldn't fill in a form saying where you'd be 1 hour a day, and it could be anywhere you nominate?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Interesting point from Inner Ring
The Inner Ring August 2, 2016 at 2:34 pm
Don’t forget the false positive aspect here, people might also specify they’ll be at X place at Y o’clock only they’re not there for whatever reason but no testers showed up because out of competition tests are rare so nothing comes of messing up the ADAMS thing from time to time“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
UKADA's guidelines state
If you are staying in a hotel, you must ensure you have clearly specified your room number in the ‘Additional Information’ section on ADAMS and where possible that the hotel room is booked in your name so any Doping Control Officer can locate you easily.
http://www.ukad.org.uk/education/athlet ... ereabouts/“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
In many hotels, even knowing the room number won't help, they have swipe access control on the lifts. You need a room 'key' (card) to get that far. I guess the DCO's would have to use the emergency stair access if they were determined.0
-
dodgy wrote:In many hotels, even knowing the room number won't help, they have swipe access control on the lifts. You need a room 'key' (card) to get that far. I guess the DCO's would have to use the emergency stair access if they were determined.
The story in this case is that the reception desk wouldn't give the testers the room number.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Not as to be so nieve, can anyone actually believe that top cyclists don't do everything humanly possible to win. What ever it takes, including taking risks. Draw your own conclusions with Lizzie.0
-
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?
Which is precisely the question I was going to ask and had to wade through 6 pages of speculation and not a lot of fact to get here.
This leads on to the next questions;
What are the dates she was tested?
How long was the maximum time between tests (given the missed one's)?
16 tests during the season is what... 273 days(?) divided by 16 is 1 test every 17 days. In all probability, the tests dates were not taken with a uniform 17 day gap but quite random.
During this time, she would have been aware of any possible random tests given that most of them would have been done with little warning.
What possible PED's could she have taken in the intervening days in the full knowledge that she could be tested anytime?
If she tested negative on all of those 16 tests, what evidence is there that she deliberately missed tests because she was taking PED's? Answer: None.
If the missed tests were alongside evidence of masking agents, then possibly but there isn't any mention.
The fact that she chooses to be train in a particular way is erroneous.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote: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?
Which is precisely the question I was going to ask and had to wade through 6 pages of speculation and not a lot of fact to get here.
This leads on to the next questions;
What are the dates she was tested?
How long was the maximum time between tests (given the missed one's)?
16 tests during the season is what... 273 days(?) divided by 16 is 1 test every 17 days. In all probability, the tests dates were not taken with a uniform 17 day gap but quite random.
During this time, she would have been aware of any possible random tests given that most of them would have been done with little warning.
What possible PED's could she have taken in the intervening days in the full knowledge that she could be tested anytime?
If she tested negative on all of those 16 tests, what evidence is there that she deliberately missed tests because she was taking PED's? Answer: None.
If the missed tests were alongside evidence of masking agents, then possibly but there isn't any mention.
The fact that she chooses to be train in a particular way is erroneous.
Surely the same could be said of the other LA, 'the most tested athlete on the planet'.
It's unbelievable that are some are still gullible enough to believe in these people.0 -
Pinno wrote: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?
Which...erroneous.joe2008 wrote:Surely the same could be said of the other LA, 'the most tested athlete on the planet'.
There was internal duplicity in the case of LA. You would have to prove duplicity in UKADA. Good luck with that.joe2008 wrote:It's unbelievable that are some are still gullible enough to believe in these people.
That's just the sentiments of an obvious cynic, which I will ignore.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think the thing to note is that missing 3 tests doesn't necessarily mean that she is doping and obviously CAS saw it that way too (and it's not like they don't uphold bans either).Pinno wrote:joe2008 wrote:It's unbelievable that are some are still gullible enough to believe in these people.
That's just the sentiments of an obvious cynic, which I will ignore.
Do they increase the number of tests for people who miss a test?0 -
But presumably you've never been sacked for not filling it in right... Lizzie's very nearly got herself sacked.davidof wrote:Markwb79 wrote:davidof wrote:We have an application at work I'm supposed to fill in if I'm not in my normal workplace. I don't think I've ever managed to fill it in right! So I feel a bit sorry for athletes and the ADAMS thing. It sounds like a right PITA.
If your whole career depended on it, I think you might make more of an effort.
It is a sack-able offense where I work.
Either way she's going to be stuck with the suspicion forever now anyway.0 -
YorkshireRaw wrote: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.
but unless the process has changed since Tom Fordyce http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/33189303 wrote his experience with ADAMS, they cant call you, testing cannot be done without warning if your phone alerts you first, and that must also include hotel staff calling your room up and saying hi there are some anti doping people here downstairs to see you, which does mean the whole phone on silent thing is irrelevant.
though that must make it next to impossible for UKAD to access hotels in general thesedays.all they can do is sit in the lobby for the 1hr and wait.0 -
If I've learned anything recently then my reasoning would be that it's impossible to prove that she isn't doping, so she probably is doping.
Does she have a mountain train?0 -
In many ways, as a fan, these cases are harder than failed tests. I now have literally no idea whether I can root for her or not; I'm interested to see which way my brain goes during the Olympics.0
-
Pinno wrote:Pinno wrote: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?
Which...erroneous.joe2008 wrote:Surely the same could be said of the other LA, 'the most tested athlete on the planet'.
There was internal duplicity in the case of LA. You would have to prove duplicity in UKADA. Good luck with that.joe2008 wrote:It's unbelievable that are some are still gullible enough to believe in these people.
That's just the sentiments of an obvious cynic, which I will ignore.
the flaw in your argument is we ve no idea what new drugs are being used right now or what methods are being used to mask them.
that said, is there enough money money in female sport for this to be a realistic option?0 -
-
I'm more sympathetic towards Alex Rasmussen and he still got banned. He didn't even miss one of his tests - just filed his quarterly dates late.0
-
At least Lizzie's fella is keeping a cool head...
0 -
The one thing that I find encouraging in all this is the one thing that seems to make people worried: that the first test wasn't fully challenged until three tests were missed. I can see why it looks like desperately scraping the barrel for an excuse to escape a ban, but look at it this way...:
The reason we have a ban for missing tests is due to athletes deliberately avoiding testing. Attempting to skip a test if you're worried about glow time is part and parcel of doping practice. But at the same time, those first two missed tests, for a doping athlete who knows they will be trying to avoid the testers, are get out of jail free cards. And they're hugely valuable. If you were genuinely doping and trying to avoid the testers, but had a reasonable excuse that was likely to stand up in CAS, wouldn't you go all the way with it and make sure you hadn't wasted a lifeline? You're doping, you're going to need as many as you can get.
If Lizzie was genuinely a bit blasé about it until she screwed up, perhaps that's because it's all genuine cock-up?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
^Good points. To get us back out of the soap opera we had temporarily descended into.Correlation is not causation.0
-
Maybe she's just a very forgetful person. I know some may find it impossible to believe someone should forget to do something so important but not everyone is the same - some people are very absent minded - it doesn't mean they are unintelligent and there may be some truth in the adage that genius is rarely accompanied by common sense.
Of course it may indicate she's doping but if she is you'd have to conclude that it's very likely her husband to be is at least aware of what she is doing.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
This.Above The Cows wrote:^Good points. To get us back out of the soap opera we had temporarily descended into.
It feels like we're no longer seeing a discussion on Lizzie and have simply descended in to 'You're wrong' and 'You're wrong' debates.
Ultimately, it's an administration process and much likes Simon's inhaler, this is handled usually by someone else. Whether it be in your team, a family member or representative. Not many full time pro's update their own whereabouts. Froomey's missus takes care of his and many of the TS riders have theirs filed by the team's compliance officer.
It's common practice and to be fair to Lizzie, if you have these things filed months in advance as they often are, you can easily forget to update a simple change. She isn't very organised, needs lots of hand holding, but that's OK.
This is a non-debate. Tin hat brigade. There's only a handful of athletes I reckon I could confidently say have and would not ever dope... Lizzie is one of them.Follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/scalesjason - All posts are strictly my personal view.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:The one thing that I find encouraging in all this is the one thing that seems to make people worried: that the first test wasn't fully challenged until three tests were missed. I can see why it looks like desperately scraping the barrel for an excuse to escape a ban, but look at it this way...:
The reason we have a ban for missing tests is due to athletes deliberately avoiding testing. Attempting to skip a test if you're worried about glow time is part and parcel of doping practice. But at the same time, those first two missed tests, for a doping athlete who knows they will be trying to avoid the testers, are get out of jail free cards. And they're hugely valuable. If you were genuinely doping and trying to avoid the testers, but had a reasonable excuse that was likely to stand up in CAS, wouldn't you go all the way with it and make sure you hadn't wasted a lifeline? You're doping, you're going to need as many as you can get.
If Lizzie was genuinely a bit blasé about it until she screwed up, perhaps that's because it's all genuine cock-up?
That's reaching a bit in my view.
Presumably the reason they give you three strikes is because it is easy to screw up and miss one. To miss three is negligent in the extreme.
Makes me feel pretty uncomfortable about her participation in Rio if I am being honest.0
