stage-3 Giro d’Italia Internazionale Femminile 2016
  • Shane Stokes

    Here’s a different perspective on the case. An experienced tester speaks out at what he believes was a slipshod attempt to test her in August of last year. Interesting to read the lengths he will go to in order to carry out his own tests… https://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/doping-control-officer-its-right-that-armitstead-was-cleared-in-her-whereabouts-case/

    • jules

      that certainly appears to validate the CAS decision to overturn the 1st strike. but her reputation will still be damaged due to the other 2.

    • Shane Ingram

      Thanks Shane, I read your article and while very interesting, the tester’s opinion doesn’t really defend LA’s actions. A reasonable person will struggle to believe that a person makes it to the top of their chosen field while being air-headed and dis-organised (referring to the inability to inform of their whereabouts). LA must be highly disciplined to be a world champion. To not contest the first strike is one thing, to then go on allow two more strikes is well, not defendable IMHO.

  • jules

    I admire Lizzie and wish her all the best. I prefer to believe she’s clean and honest. But she’s let herself down here. No matter, we all do at times.

    • Gavin Adkins

      I agree, but I reflexively cringe when anyone proclaims that they are an “honest person”. My experience is that statements of that kind are routinely accompanied by a lie or half-truth.

      • jules

        you’re right. dopers are practiced at sounding like clean athletes. it swings both ways – there’s nothing she can say that will help here. ‘i’ve been tested so much’ doesn’t help. but it doesn’t mean she’s a doper.

        • Laurens

          Yeah, I hardly pay attention to those remarks. You know every doper says they’re not so it’s meaningless. Tough for the people that actually mean it but that’s how it is.
          I still think it’s hard for people to flat out lie though. Saying ‘I never used any prohibited enhancement methods’ is a lot harder than saying you have been tested a lot. That’s something I look for when accused athletes speak.

          • jules

            I strongly agree with you Laurens. I also believe you can read a lot into when an athlete talks passionately about anti-doping. Cadel Evans is someone who has discussed anti-doping. I don’t believe he is that disingenuous that he would go out of his way to fabricate antipathy to doping when he was secretly doping himself.

            if anyone could have done that, it was Lance who many have ‘diagnosed’ as a sociopath. but even Lance couldn’t help but try and stick to the truth “I’ve never tested positive” and before he was exposed – focused on trying to discourage others from broaching the topic.

            it’s very hard to flat out lie about that stuff in circumstances other than defending against accusations. when you’re accused, denying is a defensive reaction – you are protecting yourself. but going on the front foot – that’s dangerous, if you’re doping. most dopers just don’t want to discuss doping. take Valvderde “it’s in the past, no one doubts my performances now, next question!”

      • Dave

        Same as when Queensland had ‘the smart state’ as the slogan on their number plates. If you have to say it…

      • Anthony

        Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences with women. Sorry bro.

        • Gavin Adkins

          Not especially, no. Men do it too.

        • Gavin Adkins

          Not especially, no. Men do it too.

    • Laurens

      I really wanted to believe in someone else’s innocence too. Someone who also said “I’m one of the most tested athletes in the world.”

      • jules

        probably not carefully thought out, that line!

    • Lopekal

      Well shes the one of the most tested athletes in the world and has never failed a drugs test.

    • Lopekal

      Well shes the one of the most tested athletes in the world and has never failed a drugs test.

  • donncha

    “I’m one of the most tested athletes in the world.”

    Hmm, seem to have heard that somewhere before… :-)

    Interesting thing is that her Dad got on Twitter last night to claim that she DID appeal the first missed test shortly after it happened, but that UKAD knocked the appeal back and she didn’t take it to CAS at that stage because it costs too much money. Either way, three missed tests in 12 months in the lead up to Olympics and when she has been smashing it on the WT doesn’t look good.

    • Laurens

      You shouldn’t confuse the things LA said with what LA says! Oh wait, that didn’t come out right… ;-)

    • Dave

      You’d think that having one strike would have been a good reminder to toe the line a bit more carefully.

      You’d think that having an appeal rejected and getting a second strike (putting her just one family emergency away from a ban) should have been panic stations, if not for her personally then at least from her agent and team manager.

      To get a third in those circumstances is gross negligence. Only time (i.e. the next 10 weeks, she is still sitting on two missed tests) will tell if the one month suspension disrupting her Olympic preparation should be enough motivation to get herself organised.

    • Lopekal

      “Either way, three missed tests in 12 months in the lead up to Olympics”

      *cough* 10 months *cough*

    • Lopekal

      “Either way, three missed tests in 12 months in the lead up to Olympics”

      *cough* 10 months *cough*

  • Gavin Adkins

    This whole thing did remind me of Chris Juul-Jensen’s article in Rouler about this topic, which is a cracker: https://rouleur.cc/journal/racing/chris-juul-jensen-doping-inspector-calls

    • david__g

      Everything the Joker does is fantastic, even just existing.

    • david__g

      Everything the Joker does is fantastic, even just existing.

  • De Mac

    Whether or not she has taken banned substances – I’m hoping for ‘not’ – this doesn’t appear to be a confidence inspitring series of circumstances….

  • pedr09

    Missed 3 tests = out. The first one should count as she had the chance to appeal it and didn’t. That shows either a disregard for the Whereabouts program or the understanding that she would be protected or favoured if it came to it. Neither are remotely acceptable.

    • James_Casper

      I agree with this.

      Why didn’t she appeal the first missed test after she missed the second? That’s the first thing I would’ve done.

      Smart move though playing the “them against me, the victim” card.

      • Shane Ingram

        Agree as well. I was a fan but I can’t swallow the excuse. Put yourself in her shoes, why would you let it reach three strikes? Her reason/excuse can only only be swallowed by those that want to believe. Looking at it objectively, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, its most likely to be…..

    • Dave

      She says that she did appeal that missed test to UKAD, but the appeal was knocked back and not appealed to CAS. There could be cause for UKAD to make a civil law appeal on CAS not having the grounds to change that decision, as decisions need to be appealed to CAS within one month of being made.

      She should have taken it on the chin and got herself organised after that one, rather than missing a second test only six weeks later to leave her facing 46 nervous weeks sitting just one “family emergency” away from a four year ADRV suspension.

    • Tom Wells

      According to her dad, she did appeal the first one but it was rejected and it was too expensive to go to CAS at the time for one missed test.

      I’d like to think she’s clean. It’s well within the realms of possibility that she and her management have been too complacent which has caused this mess. It’s just as likely she’s guilty as well though.

  • Tzanchan77

    Very disappointed. I watch and follow women’s cycling primarily, and hoped that it is a cleaner sport. It’s great to see how it is growing and gathering steam, Nicole Cook was not very supportive of her missing 3 tests. She said she missed one test in 14 years of competition, If a lot of top cyclists were missing tests, one could say, that the process is messed up, but we don’t see that with others.

  • Dave

    The Daily Mail is claiming to have seen an email from British Cycling to their riders advising them to include their hotel room number in their ADAMS information. Any chance of CT asking a few other riders for confirmation of this?

    • jules

      bear in mind that at some hotels you can’t gain access to rooms without assistance of staff or the guest/athlete.

    • Tom Wells

      In all fairness, The Daily Mail makes so much stuff up that you can’t take them seriously. It’s not a newspaper, it’s a gossip column.

      • Dave

        And that’s why I suggested the claim should be verified. You can’t just ignore it because you don’t like the messenger.

        They seem to have a good leaker inside British Cycling though, this isn’t the first big one this year.

  • Mark

    Good to see her accepting some of the responsibility in missing the three tests. Oh wait, that was a “not my fault” argued through lawyers.

  • David Simons

    LA used to say things like that all the time, endlessly, over and over and over again……. That’s LA Lance Armstrong of course, but LA sure is a coincidence.

  • Alex Heinrichs

    Why do we have rules? If they won´t be apply for everyone, some people shouldn´t be surprised about the reactions regarding the credibility of their sport. But Olympia seems to be place with a lot of exceptions to certain “groups”.

  • Cruz er

    “It’s been really difficult to concentrate on training, nutrition and
    recovery — all the little details — but I haven’t let anything slip,”
    she reassured.
    “I went ahead to the World Championships and I didn’t want the distraction,” Armitstead said.

    On the one hand, she claims she is meticulous.
    On the other, something that can get her banned is a distraction?

    She claims she’s on her own, but is legally backed by British Cycling. No mention of that.

    I don’t see anything in her statements because it’s the actions you look at, not the excuses.
    The timeline of her missed tests is also disturbing.

    No other professional cyclist at that level seems to have any problem with this.

    Nor do I see any class in her boyfriend Sky’s Deigan attacking Pauline Prevot’s personal life which has NOTHING to do with cycling nor any other athlete, just because she chose to speak her mind on CYCLING concerns. No class in a growing list of ugliness out of Sky.

    Thank god Pauline Prevot’s and Nicole Cooke’s of the world are out there to speak on these issues and give context. They don’t deserve to be attacked about irrelevant personal matters, just as Armistead refuses to talk about her family personal matters that are actually relevant to the case! Hipocrisy knows no bounds.

  • Cruz er

    “It’s been really difficult to concentrate on training, nutrition and
    recovery — all the little details — but I haven’t let anything slip,”
    she reassured.
    “I went ahead to the World Championships and I didn’t want the distraction,” Armitstead said.

    On the one hand, she claims she is meticulous.
    On the other, something that can get her banned is a distraction?

    She claims she’s on her own, but is legally backed by British Cycling. No mention of that.

    I don’t see anything in her statements because it’s the actions you look at, not the excuses.
    The timeline of her missed tests is also disturbing.

    No other professional cyclist at that level seems to have any problem with this.

    Nor do I see any class in her boyfriend Sky’s Deigan attacking Pauline Prevot’s personal life which has NOTHING to do with cycling nor any other athlete, just because she chose to speak her mind on CYCLING concerns. No class in a growing list of ugliness out of Sky.

    Thank god Pauline Prevot’s and Nicole Cooke’s of the world are out there to speak on these issues and give context. They don’t deserve to be attacked about irrelevant personal matters, just as Armistead refuses to talk about her family personal matters that are actually relevant to the case! Hipocrisy knows no bounds.

  • Kevin

    Regarding Lizzie’s statements, I am not in a position to judge if she’s racing clean or not. The published reasons of why she withdrew from the Giro Rosa, National Championships and La Course to focus on the Olympics lead me to believe there are degrees of deception. She has yet to justify her failings in enough detail but that’s her prerogative. I’m not convinced she’s an honest person nor a person who is capable of taking the responsibilities of a World Champion or figurehead of the women’s cycling movement seriously. Other past champions have represented this honor better.

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

18 NEW ARTICLES
December 10, 2016
December 9, 2016
December 8, 2016
December 7, 2016