# http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/08/news/armitstead-cleared-olympics-murky-missed-



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

''World champion Lizzie Armitstead is ready to lead the British road team in the Olympics this Sunday after being cleared of an anti-doping violation due to three missed doping controls''Armitstead cleared for Olympics in murky missed doping test case | VeloNews.com









First off, I'm a big fan of Armitstead. I was lucky enough to be on course to watch her at the London Olympics. What really struck me, was that if this was Froome or Sagan, then this would have been a major story and been all over the doping thread ... yet somehow, it's not ... ?? (well, maybe there's an old thread that's pages back, but you'd think it would have been brought back today).

Really looking forward to the olympics mens and womens road race, the mens and womens time trial and the womens xc. As for the rest of the olympics, I don't think I could really name more than a handful of other athletes competing.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I was reading about that yesterday. To me it's highly suspicious when a rider misses 3 tests in a year. The first one is (maybe) an accident, the second is negligence, the third is just downright suspicious. After the first miss, she should have been more careful, but she wasn't. That tells me she is doping, or she knows there will be no consequences to her negligent actions.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

It's a very murky case. I've read all the comments I can and all of the stories and I'm left with no real opinion.

The first strike was overturned because I guess the doping guy didn't try very hard. He showed up at a hotel, the hotel wouldn't let him up, he called her cell, she didn't answer and he just left. I guess she was tested the very next day and passed just fine. And she did contest the first strike immediately but they denied her.



> “UKAD are allowed a maximum of two weeks to inform you of a ‘strike.’ When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships,” Armitstead wrote. “I had no legal advice or external support at the time.”


Basically to fight a strike you need a legal team, it's a legal court sort of matter. Something she didn't have and didn't have time to assemble right before the worlds, she was on her way to Richmond.


The second strike wasn't even a missed test. They noted that she was not where she was supposed to be and gave her a strike for it. They didn't show up to test her, they simply saw that if they had, she wouldn't have been where she was supposed to be.



> “UKAD did not try to test me, instead this was an administrative spot check. They found an inconsistency between an overnight accommodation and a morning time slot,” she wrote.


The third strike is kind of a mess. After the second one she went to British Cycling for help to avoid a third strike. They appointed her a handler specifically for her whereabouts to avoid missing a test. Well the handler quit, didn't tell her, and nobody told her he was gone. She was counting on his help I guess. On top of that she had a "family emergency" that kept her away. This is the fishy one, this third one. She's pulling the family and privacy cards here and blaming it on some guy from British Cycling. The timing lines up perfectly with the Aviva Women's Tour as well.



Now at first I thought zero of it and didn't think she was guilty of anything wrong.



> “I am sorry for causing anyone to lose faith in sport, I am an example of what hard work and dedication can achieve. I hate dopers and what they have done to sport,” Armitstead wrote. “To any of the ‘Twitter Army’ reading this, do yourself a favour and go for a bike ride. It’s the most beautiful thing you can do to clear your mind.”


But this "twitter army" thing... what that is, is her peers mainly. The women she competes against and others in the sport. Her peers are damning her. PFP called it shameful. If so many other athletes are damning her... I have to think there's something to it. Are they insinuating she's cheating? Not really. They're mad at her for letting this happen but I don't see too many saying she's a doper.

There's the argument that micro-dosing only takes a few hours to clear, but that's a bad argument. The athlete chooses the time of day so that throws that out of the window. I don't see any valid arguments really for her doping. One thing's for sure though, she is without a doubt a dope. Dumbass.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

MMsRepBike said:


> It's a very murky case. I've read all the comments I can and all of the stories and I'm left with no real opinion.
> 
> The first strike was overturned because I guess the doping guy didn't try very hard. He showed up at a hotel, the hotel wouldn't let him up, he called her cell, she didn't answer and he just left. I guess she was tested the very next day and passed just fine. And she did contest the first strike immediately but they denied her.
> 
> ...


Well analyzed...

Its also important to note that in addition to the 3 missed tests, she was tested 16 other times over the same time period. I think most people read the headline of 3 missed tests in a year and assume that was all she as tested and she missed them, but when you realize that she was also tested 16 additional times that changes things.

I was recently in Colorado and did a training ride with a former pro women's cyclist. She said that the whereabouts program is the part of pro-cycling she's most happy to not have to deal with now. She said she never missed a test, but she was close at least once.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

I tend towards believing her today (see velo news), however if she were one of the men's riders on a pro team who'd had some busts of late (e.g. Astana, Katusha), I don't think I would believe it.

The UCI set rules, in order to be the world champ you have to win the race, but also you have to let them know where you are all the time and pass tests. It's not just the win the race that counts.



TricrossRich said:


> Well analyzed...
> 
> Its also important to note that in addition to the 3 missed tests, she was tested 16 other times over the same time period. I think most people read the headline of 3 missed tests in a year and assume that was all she as tested and she missed them, but when you realize that she was also tested 16 additional times that changes things.
> 
> I was recently in Colorado and did a training ride with a former pro women's cyclist. She said that the whereabouts program is the part of pro-cycling she's most happy to not have to deal with now. She said she never missed a test, but she was close at least once.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Delete because it has all been said better by *MsRepBike*


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

I don't see how the second and third strikes get a pass, nor the first really. 

The athlete is ultimately responsible for keeping their ADA up to date on their whereabouts, not someone they hired. Evidence that they didn't maintain their whereabouts whether learned by testers not being able to find the athlete or just dumb luck, is evidence of a violation of the requirements none the less. You are either in compliance or you are not.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

Handbrake said:


> I don't see how the second and third strikes get a pass, nor the first really.
> 
> The athlete is ultimately responsible for keeping their ADA up to date on their whereabouts, not someone they hired. Evidence that they didn't maintain their whereabouts whether learned by testers not being able to find the athlete or just dumb luck, is evidence of a violation of the requirements none the less. You are either in compliance or you are not.


I couldn't agree more...


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

They all have valid reasons and excuses. Laughin'...


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

She doesn't get a pass on number 2 and 3. They still count. If she gets another then she is out. She has done herself and cycling a huge disservice whatever the circumstances behind these missed tests. Alarm bells (for her) should have been ringing after the first let alone the second.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

TricrossRich said:


> Well analyzed...
> 
> Its also important to note that in addition to the 3 missed tests, she was tested 16 other times over the same time period.


And how many times was Lance tested? So, whatever.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

Handbrake said:


> I don't see how the second and third strikes get a pass, nor the first really.
> 
> The athlete is ultimately responsible for keeping their ADA up to date on their whereabouts, not someone they hired. Evidence that they didn't maintain their whereabouts whether learned by testers not being able to find the athlete or just dumb luck, is evidence of a violation of the requirements none the less. You are either in compliance or you are not.





Roland44 said:


> I couldn't agree more...


The second and third strikes don't get a pass... only the first one did. But the rule is 3 missed in a year and you get a mandatory suspension. She disputed the first one, and won, so it was removed, meaning she only had 2.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

T K said:


> And how many times was Lance tested? So, whatever.


Truthfully, I don't know how many times Lane was tested, but I'm under the impression that testing is a LOT more prevalent now than it was back then. In addition to the tests, there is also the bio-passport system in place now an supposedly no one has seen any irregularities there.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

It's all so weird and hard to justify when you know what's at stake and the history of the sport. This isn't Lizzie's first year as a pro, so there are no valid excuses here. Does that mean she doped, to me no, but it raises some serious questions about what she is up to and all of the success she has had this year. Such a shame....


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't agree she should get a pass with the first one either. Any pro athlete can give instructions at the front desk of a hotel instructions for no interruptions and give the excuse the phone was on silent. Was it really on silent, or she didn't recognize the phone number and decided not to answer it just in case it is the testers.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

love4himies said:


> I don't agree she should get a pass with the first one either. Any pro athlete can give instructions at the front desk of a hotel instructions for no interruptions and give the excuse the phone was on silent. Was it really on silent, or she didn't recognize the phone number and decided not to answer it just in case it is the testers.


This very well could be a valid point, but a doping tester himself says she was right to get off.



> Speaking to CyclingTips, an international doping control officer has however said that he is ‘happy’ that Armitstead won her appeal.
> 
> Referring to the first missed test, he questioned how committed the tester was. “The guy said that he wasn’t given access at the hotel. That is quite unusual, really. If you start flashing badges that you are anti-doping anywhere on the continent, especially in a hotel that is keeping bike riders, normally the hotel will give it up.”
> 
> ...


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

love4himies said:


> I don't agree she should get a pass with the first one either. Any pro athlete can give instructions at the front desk of a hotel instructions for no interruptions and give the excuse the phone was on silent. Was it really on silent, or she didn't recognize the phone number and decided not to answer it just in case it is the testers.



PFP is with you here. 3 is 3, end of story. No bullshit let's go back and fight the first one crap. There's a problem. 

Ferrand-Prévot says rules are being bent for Armitstead | VeloNews.com


Everyone can agree that there's a problem. Not too many people seem to know exactly what that problem is though. How or why is she this careless? I guess that's the big one. She sure did **** it up.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

MMsRepBike said:


> PFP is with you here. 3 is 3, end of story. No bullshit let's go back and fight the first one crap. There's a problem.
> 
> Ferrand-Prévot says rules are being bent for Armitstead | VeloNews.com
> 
> ...


The issue is that it in't 3; it is 2 because the tester failed to follow the correct procedure in the "first" instance so it doesn't count. That's the CAS ruling. IMV, Lizzie Armistead has been incredibly stupid and I am certain that she wouldn't have given others the benefit of the doubt but we are where we are.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

All of this looks suspicious to me. It looks a lot like it's an Olympic year and British cycling looked the other way to benefit their country and one of its brightest stars. Maybe it's not that, but somebody would have to produce some evidence to the contrary and convince me of that at this point.

Armitstead cleared for Olympics in murky missed doping test case | VeloNews.com

Lizzie Armitstead wins court fight to compete at Rio Olympics 2016 | Daily Mail Online

... and I have been a big Lizzie Armitstead fan.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Well, I confess that I am not a great Lizzie Armistead fan. IMO, she is too keen to blame others for events e.g. the Nicole Cooke controversy in the Worlds a while back and the lack of admin support in the case of these tests. I also think that she owes much of her recent run of good results due to Vos's time out but from what I've seen in the UK press and cycling forums she has been getting a pretty hard time (deservedly so, IMO). British Cycling has no involvement in these tests (that was UKAD) and although it appears they did help in the legal side of the appeal, they have no opportunity to look the other way even if they wanted to (and historically relationships between Armistead and BC haven't been good). The judgment is CAS's, although UKAD could appeal but IIRC they are still waiting to see the details.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

coldash said:


> Well, I confess that I am not a great Lizzie Armistead fan. IMO, she is too keen to blame others for events e.g. the Nicole Cooke controversy in the Worlds a while back and the lack of admin support in the case of these tests. I also think that she owes much of her recent run of good results due to Vos's time out but from what I've seen in the UK press and cycling forums she has been getting a pretty hard time (deservedly so, IMO). British Cycling has no involvement in these tests (that was UKAD) and although it appears they did help in the legal side of the appeal, they have no opportunity to look the other way even if they wanted to (and historically relationships between Armistead and BC haven't been good). The judgment is CAS's, although UKAD could appeal but IIRC they are still waiting to see the details.


I actually mean all of the British cycling/athletic/Olympic organizations as a collective. I get how it works, but my guess is that someone pretty high up in British society actually made the call on this one due to the Olympics.  It looks all sorts of fishy from the British side and smells like it too. Nothing about this is logical from my perspective.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Rashadabd said:


> I actually mean all of the British cycling/athletic/Olympic organizations as a collective. I get how it works, but my guess is that someone pretty high up in British society actually made the call on this one due to the Olympics. It looks all sorts of fishy from the British side and smells like it too. Nothing about this is logical from my perspective.


Who in "British society" whatever that is would make the call. CAS made the decision. IMO, it is all very logical. The tester didn't follow the correct procedure to be able to conduct the test in the view of CAS therefore it doesn't count as a missed test. 

The rest of it was all brought on Armistead by herself, and in that regard, I have no sympathy whatsoever ... but conspiracy to let her off? No, I haven't seen any evidence for that.


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

The whole drug testing of athletes is like a drunken game of cat and mouse, but only the cat is drunk, with one front paw missing, 3 of 5 claws missing on the remaining paw and one eye gone. If the mouse gets caught by this sorry excuse for a cat it deserves to be eaten. 
Modern day drug testing under the directive of WADA, NADO, USADA, et-al is more akin of an IQ test for the athlete, and you don't need a high IQ to pass..


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

MMsRepBike said:


> This very well could be a valid point, but a doping tester himself says she was right to get off.


But that doping control officer wasn't there. If a hotel refuses to give you access and room info, the only other way to contact the athlete is by cell phone. I have no problem with an athlete putting their cell phone on silent, but not during their "access time in out of competition or during competition at times doping control comes around. It just makes it too easy for missed testing during those times you may be glowing.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

coldash said:


> Who in "British society" whatever that is would make the call. CAS made the decision. IMO, it is all very logical. The tester didn't follow the correct procedure to be able to conduct the test in the view of CAS therefore it doesn't count as a missed test.
> 
> The rest of it was all brought on Armistead by herself, and in that regard, I have no sympathy whatsoever ... but conspiracy to let her off? No, I haven't seen any evidence for that.



I am just going to leave these right here for ya (from the articles):

"it surprised some critics that the U.K. Anti-doping did not publish the suspension or cycling’s governing body, the UCI, did not list it on its webpage for “Provisional suspensions & Anti-doping Rule Violations.” The UKAD though does not typically comment on cases before the final decisions, and the UCI may have preferred not to mention it as it was out of its jurisdiction and in the hands of the Brits."

"British Cycling’s legal team backed Armitstead’s case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against UKAD." (Nothing unusual about this at all under the circumstances I guess). 

"It remains unclear why Armitstead did not decide to contest the first missed anti-doping test soon after it happened, why British Cycling gave her legal backing, or why cycling’s governing body kept the case unlisted."

"But with the support of a legal team backed by British Cycling, Armitstead went up against UKAD at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 21 and successfully had the first of the three failures struck from her record, citing what CAS agreed was an administrative error by her accusers.
That has enabled the hugely gifted Armitstead to race in Rio on Sunday as one of the favourites for gold."

"Ferrand-Prévot, who will also compete in mountain biking in Rio, insisted that she would not have been treated similarly by the French cycling federation had she missed three tests."

“If that happened to me I’d be told: ‘Pauline, you’re not going to the Games’,” she said. “The rules have to be respected, otherwise it’s a free for all.”


Believe what makes you comfortable though. This doesn't go down like this if it is not an Olympics year in my opinion. My guess is someone important made a call.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Yes, I've read all that before and it supports what I've posted. PFP is correct in saying that the rules have to be enforced and that is what CAS have done. According to these rules there are 2 missed tests and PFP is wrong to claim there are 3.

PVP, deliberately misses the point that it isn't the federation's call on this. They can't overrule a CAS decision without ending up in court themselves

I don't see any evidence supporting a "Mr Big" in any of this. I just see a major screw-up by a professional athlete who should have know better and a) should have contested the "first" test immediately (she might have actually done this but didn't appeal against UKAD's decision) and b) should have been paranoid about the possibility of missing any future tests

I don't expect she and PFP will be sending each other Christmas cards.


----------



## jaggrin (Feb 18, 2011)

Change the name to Froome and all that think there is nothing there would have pitchforks and a rope hunting himbdown


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

jaggrin said:


> Change the name to Froome and all that think there is nothing there would have pitchforks and a rope hunting himbdown


And not believing a word of what he says. I too think somebody made a call and got the first missed test dismissed. It was missed because they didn't think the doping control officer did enough to get to her room (that's subjective, IMO) and contacting by cell phone is not an approved way to contact athletes.

In her own words: Armitstead explains whereabouts case | Ella



> Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate


But it seems what UKAD is stating is not in line with what Lizzie is stating:

UKAD stated she didn't try to fight the first one:

Armitstead avoids Rio ban after winning UK Anti-Doping Court case | Ella



> “Ms Armitstead chose not to challenge the first and second Whereabouts Failures at the time they were asserted against her. At the CAS hearing, Ms Armitstead raised a defence in relation to the first Whereabouts Failure, which was accepted by the Panel,” the UKAD statement reads. “We are awaiting the Reasoned Decision from the CAS Panel as to why the first Whereabouts Failure was not upheld.”


But she said she did:

In her own words: Armitstead explains whereabouts case | Ella



> UKAD are allowed a maximum of 2 weeks to inform you of a ‘strike’. When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.


And finally, what is "reasonable"?? Breaking into the hotel?



> The DCO didn’t do what was reasonable or necessary to find me.


She states, she was where she said she would be, but to me, that's not good enough and it wasn't good enough for other athletes, otherwise they could just use the excuse, I didn't hear 1. the doorbell, 2. the phone, it was on silent, or ....


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

It makes no difference what people think is reasonable. The CAS decision stands. The "first" test missed test has been judged not to be a missed test. I am interested in seeing the CAS rationale. In the meantime it is what it is. FWIW, I would have been equally content with the CAS decision had it gone the other way, if the evidence supported this. 

Meantime, just who is "Mr Big" making these phone calls. I hope the recipients have their phones switched to silent, just in case.

Irrespective of the CAS decision, it is still a monumental screw up on Armistead's part. I can't really believe the apparent complacency.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Armitstead is very fortunate. The British track athlete Christine Ohuruogou served a one year ban from British Olympic Association for breaking the 3 strikes rules. No suspicion of doping but 'them's the rules, you broke them, you get a ban'. I don't see any material difference here with what Ohurugou claimed were mix ups with hotel bookings and sloppy admin. She dodged a bullet.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

poetically, no medal for Armitsted this year. Though she had a real chance being tantalizing close to the winning group a handful of km from the finish


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

sir duke said:


> Armitstead is very fortunate. The British track athlete Christine Ohuruogou served a one year ban from British Olympic Association for breaking the 3 strikes rules. No suspicion of doping but 'them's the rules, you broke them, you get a ban'. I don't see any material difference here with what Ohurugou claimed were mix ups with hotel bookings and sloppy admin. She dodged a bullet.


which is why I expected the British to pull her card. But they didn't.
I found it odd


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

atpjunkie said:


> which is why I expected the British to pull her card. But they didn't.
> I found it odd


Me too...


----------

