&nbsp
  • Steve S

    “I have never tested positive for a banned substance.”… sounds like a different LA :)

    • Patrick Murphy

      I was very pleased that was followed with “I have never taken a banned substance”.

      • OK. But Lance said that too.

      • Andy B

        *band

      • Andy B

        *band

  • Berne Shaw

    Just should have put this out there right away. She is ok with me! I believe her now. She and her team handled this bass ackwards !!!! They created a situation that looked like a lie and or feeling above the rules. Ok now but why was this handled with so much hush hush. It created the very storm she feels hurt about

    • Neil

      Understand what you’re saying.
      But…
      Would we give the same latitude to a Russian cyclist? If not, why not?
      We are all so sceptical of any issue relating to doping, and rightly so, but I really feel as though we are incredibly inconsistent. I don’t know where I stand on this. I hate the idea of always thinking the worst of people, but have seen too many people claim all the things that Armistead is, yet end up clearly being guilty.

      • Rodrigo Diaz

        The answer is no, not to most Russian cyclists. Why? Because their system has proven to be tainted with proven systemic doping infrastructure. or the same reason, I would find it harder to believe in the Tabriz team that regularly blow World Tour riders out in Iran, or the Colombian guys that drop Quintana and Uran in the Andes. And it’s not the performance itself: it’s that those organizations have repeatedly been proven to break the rules. Read the Ignacio Velez story. In the same vein, I have no issues with flagging suspicious riders like DiLuca with extra tests. That’s just smart: focus your efforts along.

        In legal terms you call this “precedent”. It’s not the same thing, but it definitely affects us and our perception. This doesn’t give Armitstead a pass, but until further proof comes on there’s merit in saying that antidoping in Russia is much less effective than (say) in UK or France.

        • weiwentg

          I think I agree.

          We definitely do not want to be suspecting people based on nationality alone. I also do online gaming, and most of the top teams are mainland Chinese, and it’s also thought that the top players in the mainland Chinese forums were very aggressive about using cheat programs. It’s been suggested that in some teams, it was essentially mandatory to use those programs.

          I don’t want to just be suspecting any player I meet who has a Chinese name, but I think it’s fair to say that a lot of the top Chinese teams cheated pretty aggressively, and that practice definitely spread to other nationalities. Paralleling that, I think it would be fair for the public to be skeptical if a Russia-based cyclist said that they simply messed up their whereabouts forms.

          In an arbitration case, I have no idea how much weight someone’s nationality or team should or does carry if the country or team were known to have a systematic doping scheme. I’d be interested to hear if anyone knows.

        • weiwentg

          I think I agree.

          We definitely do not want to be suspecting people based on nationality alone. I also do online gaming, and most of the top teams are mainland Chinese, and it’s also thought that the top players in the mainland Chinese forums were very aggressive about using cheat programs. It’s been suggested that in some teams, it was essentially mandatory to use those programs.

          I don’t want to just be suspecting any player I meet who has a Chinese name, but I think it’s fair to say that a lot of the top Chinese teams cheated pretty aggressively, and that practice definitely spread to other nationalities. Paralleling that, I think it would be fair for the public to be skeptical if a Russia-based cyclist said that they simply messed up their whereabouts forms.

          In an arbitration case, I have no idea how much weight someone’s nationality or team should or does carry if the country or team were known to have a systematic doping scheme. I’d be interested to hear if anyone knows.

  • James_Casper

    She may have written it, but I can guarantee you 2 things:

    1. Someone has checked over it before publishing it

    2. Someone has edited it

    Phrases such as “As an 18 year old school girl, blah, blah, blah, shite, shite, shite’

    Feel the pain Lizzy. You make your bed, you lie in it.

    • david__g

      So what? Plenty of people (i.e most journalists) have someone edit and proof their writing before it is released.

      Seems a weird thing to get riled up about but I’m guessing you’re probably loving this, right?

      • James_Casper

        No … What I’m saying is Lizzie’s response has been carefully orchestrated.

        Her Facebook post is a PR exercise.

        Not riled at all. Try indifferent.

        Seems your guesses are way off the mark.

        Try again.

        • jules

          be careful not to confuse female with male cycling stars. the men have troupes of PR handlers and chaperones to wipe their arses every time they poop themselves. the women do not. elite women’s cycling is run on a shoestring. Lizzie does not even have a coach. it’s conceivable she has just badly stuffed up her whereabouts compliance. even some of the blokes, with all the help they have available, have done the same (excluding actual dopers).

          • Paul M

            I think Lizzy deserves the benefits of the doubt on this, and agree with you, (especially the bit about the shoestring) but to be fair, and accurate, she coaches herself by choice, so whatever results from that choice is on her.

            • jules

              she has stuffed up and I agree it’s by her choice. some people are just disorganised. I count myself among them. I’ve done some workshops that cover personality types and behavioural traits and it’s scary how accurate they can be. I don’t know Lizzie but there are definitely some people who would keep their whereabouts log updated religiously and others who’d tend to make mistakes. I suspect she is the latter – unless it’s all a ruse. I suspect it’s not a ruse in her case.

              • Paul M

                I’m right there with you. If I was in her position I would need a minder. (I’m rather FAR from organized, myself.) I genuinely believe, whatever faults Queen Lizzy may have, that she isn’t a doper. I think she’s a very talented athlete, and I hope she medals again on Sunday. Just not gold. (but only because I’m pulling for Marianne Vos.)

              • Paul M

                I’m right there with you. If I was in her position I would need a minder. (I’m rather FAR from organized, myself.) I genuinely believe, whatever faults Queen Lizzy may have, that she isn’t a doper. I think she’s a very talented athlete, and I hope she medals again on Sunday. Just not gold. (but only because I’m pulling for Marianne Vos.)

            • jules

              she has stuffed up and I agree it’s by her choice. some people are just disorganised. I count myself among them. I’ve done some workshops that cover personality types and behavioural traits and it’s scary how accurate they can be. I don’t know Lizzie but there are definitely some people who would keep their whereabouts log updated religiously and others who’d tend to make mistakes. I suspect she is the latter – unless it’s all a ruse. I suspect it’s not a ruse in her case.

          • Paul M

            I think Lizzy deserves the benefits of the doubt on this, and agree with you, (especially the bit about the shoestring) but to be fair, and accurate, she coaches herself by choice, so whatever results from that choice is on her.

        • jules

          be careful not to confuse female with male cycling stars. the men have troupes of PR handlers and chaperones to wipe their arses every time they poop themselves. the women do not. elite women’s cycling is run on a shoestring. Lizzie does not even have a coach. it’s conceivable she has just badly stuffed up her whereabouts compliance. even some of the blokes, with all the help they have available, have done the same (excluding actual dopers).

        • david__g

          For someone so indifferent you sure are commenting on the Lizzie articles a few times…

          • James_Casper

            I will S P E L L it out for you.

            I am indifferent to her Facebook response. Her response. Just that.

            That doesn’t I’m apathetic to this dodgy episode; just her “heartfelt-penned” words.

            And that doesn’t mean I can’t comment.

            Understood?

  • Legstrong

    We all know that timing is super important in doping test. I used to think she was the real deal. Hell, I was foolish enough to think the whole women’s world tour was a different animal compared to men’s. That was one of the reasons why I followed women’s cycling. Until the news about Olga… then this one. A major blow.

  • ebbe

    Wait.

    Yesterday she said, in the Daily mail, about challenging the first missed test in Sweden: “I did think about it (challenging the first ‘failure’). “But the reason I didn’t was because it was my first strike and it was very close to the World Championships, so I was travelling to America. “I also didn’t have the legal advice. It felt very much them against me. I was very naive. I went ahead to the World Championships and I didn’t want the distraction.”

    Today, on her Facebook page, she says about challenging that same first missed test in Sweden: “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.”

    So which is it? Did she contest the first missed test in Sweden when she was informed of it… or not? Contradicting yourself in two quite essential statements within one day, not the smartest thing to do.

    • jules

      there are 2 levels of challenge. 1 is to UKAD, which Lizzie made. UKAD rejected her challenge. the problem here is that Lizzie’s challenge to UKAD was made on the basis of UKAD being negligent in conducting their testing. she was asking UKAD to take the blame. UKAD declined that opportunity.

      this type of conflict of interest circumstance is one reason why the CAS exists. I would say it’s a challenge to the CAS that Lizzie was referring to when she stated she didn’t challenge the first strike.

      while I think Lizzie has, at a minimum, badly mishandled her anti-doping obligations here, it is logical that she would challenge the 1st strike after copping her 3rd strike. there’s no smoke there, in my view. there’s smoke for other reasons, but not there.

      • ebbe

        Ok, that’s a possibility, but a very far fetched one. I say that for the following reasons:

        As far as I know you can’t challenge before CAS without challenging before UKAD (either in a letter, or in ADAMS) first. If that is the case, she would have already challenged anyway… So why didn’t she say that? Is that a misquoted by the Daily Mail? If it is, it seems one would address that specifically in the later statement.

        UKAD has stated from the beginning the first miss was not challenged at all, until eventually the ban was effected. (This may change however, you never know – but for now I’ll have to take it as it stands) Why would they say that if in fact it was contested? Out of the two, LA has the most to lose here.

        Is it even possible to contest one first or second miss before CAS? I’m not sure, but my first reaction would be: no. One miss does not result in any official “decision”, so what would you contest? The reasons I feel you should contest (to UKAD, but not to CAS) a first miss anyway (if you’re not to blame) is to a) have UKAD see they made a mistake and take away the miss or b) have it on record in case you eventually reach 3 missed. But the way I see it, you can’t even contest one miss before CAS, since one single miss never results in any official decision. Only a ban that results from a series of three misses can be contested before CAS. So as far as contesting before CAS goes, the procedure was correct I think. I’m questioning whether she did the right thing contesting before UKAD. One statement says she did, but two others say she didn’t.

        Of course I may be wrong, and if so please do enlighten me! ;-)

      • ebbe

        Ok, that’s a possibility, but a very far fetched one. I say that for the following reasons:

        As far as I know you can’t challenge before CAS without challenging before UKAD (either in a letter, or in ADAMS) first. If that is the case, she would have already challenged anyway… So why didn’t she say that? Is that a misquoted by the Daily Mail? If it is, it seems one would address that specifically in the later statement.

        UKAD has stated from the beginning the first miss was not challenged at all, until eventually the ban was effected. (This may change however, you never know – but for now I’ll have to take it as it stands) Why would they say that if in fact it was contested? Out of the two, LA has the most to lose here.

        Is it even possible to contest one first or second miss before CAS? I’m not sure, but my first reaction would be: no. One miss does not result in any official “decision”, so what would you contest? The reasons I feel you should contest (to UKAD, but not to CAS) a first miss anyway (if you’re not to blame) is to a) have UKAD see they made a mistake and take away the miss or b) have it on record in case you eventually reach 3 missed. But the way I see it, you can’t even contest one miss before CAS, since one single miss never results in any official decision. Only a ban that results from a series of three misses can be contested before CAS. So as far as contesting before CAS goes, the procedure was correct I think. I’m questioning whether she did the right thing contesting before UKAD. One statement says she did, but two others say she didn’t.

        Of course I may be wrong, and if so please do enlighten me! ;-)

  • Claud Butler

    Best of luck in Rio to Ms. Armitstead and of course to each and every one of her competitors. Hopefully this “outrage” by the ill-informed does not affect her performance at or her enjoyment of the Games.

    • James_Casper

      I’m sure LA will read your comments and be bouyed by them.

      So glad you are so informed about this matter Claud.

      • david__g

        Hey, I thought you were indifferent to all this, James!

  • Phillip Mercer

    I like Lizzie but when anyone has a family emergency, don’t we all contact our employers to let them know we won’t be in so we don’t get fired? Surely you’d do the same with anti-doping…
    I also have an issue with British Cycling helping Lizzie with her defense. They have an agreement with UKAD and not the athlete to keep the sport clean yet they helped her with her defense.
    Like I said, I like Lizzie but she got some pretty special treatment when you compare her with Johnathan Tiernan Lock. I also consider how would I feel if it was a Russian or Kazakh athlete. If their equivalent cycling bodies stepped in like this, I’m sure people would be more upset.

    • Tricky Dicky

      I broadly agree with this. I think she’s very lucky to be going to the Olympics, and even if she’s clean (and I don’t have any evidence to suggest she isn’t, just that she’s missed tests), I’m more ambivalent about her success there than I was a few days ago. In this field, I think it is important that people need to be treated consistently, and that needs to be seen to be the case – if she was anyone other than a medal contender, she would have been thrown under a bus by BC. And let’s not make this a British thing: if this was, say, Anna Meares, Cycling Australia would likely do the same to help her. I think this is why national feds need to be taken out of the equation.

      There remain some questions for curious journalists and members of the “twitter army” (why inflame by saying that?). For example, one just jumps off the page in her own statement: if BC and her had a “bi-weekly” whereabouts checking protocol in place (ie she checks in with her contact every two weeks to confirm where she’s going to be and that this is consistent with her ADAMS declaration), how is it she doesn’t know for 3 weeks that the guy she talks to bi-weekly isn’t there any more?

      So, what can she do now? Saying “I’m clean, believe me” sounds crap. “I got tested the next day” is utter shite for reasons anyone familiar with doping in cycling over the last 20 years knows. So, I suspect she’ll lie low. Personally, I’d release my blood passport details and expand upon her “emergency” (which might buy a bit more sympathy if the public see that it’s genuine) and then perhaps tweet every night about where she’s staying!

      Finally, I’m keen to see how the peloton (especially Emma Pooley) ride on Sunday – they don’t come much more “anti-doping” than her. Will she be a willing domestique or will she just rider for herself now?

    • Tricky Dicky

      I broadly agree with this. I think she’s very lucky to be going to the Olympics, and even if she’s clean (and I don’t have any evidence to suggest she isn’t, just that she’s missed tests), I’m more ambivalent about her success there than I was a few days ago. In this field, I think it is important that people need to be treated consistently, and that needs to be seen to be the case – if she was anyone other than a medal contender, she would have been thrown under a bus by BC. And let’s not make this a British thing: if this was, say, Anna Meares, Cycling Australia would likely do the same to help her. I think this is why national feds need to be taken out of the equation.

      There remain some questions for curious journalists and members of the “twitter army” (why inflame by saying that?). For example, one just jumps off the page in her own statement: if BC and her had a “bi-weekly” whereabouts checking protocol in place (ie she checks in with her contact every two weeks to confirm where she’s going to be and that this is consistent with her ADAMS declaration), how is it she doesn’t know for 3 weeks that the guy she talks to bi-weekly isn’t there any more?

      So, what can she do now? Saying “I’m clean, believe me” sounds crap. “I got tested the next day” is utter shite for reasons anyone familiar with doping in cycling over the last 20 years knows. So, I suspect she’ll lie low. Personally, I’d release my blood passport details and expand upon her “emergency” (which might buy a bit more sympathy if the public see that it’s genuine) and then perhaps tweet every night about where she’s staying!

      Finally, I’m keen to see how the peloton (especially Emma Pooley) ride on Sunday – they don’t come much more “anti-doping” than her. Will she be a willing domestique or will she just rider for herself now?

  • Lisa Eriksson

    Lizzie is clean. I believe her. She is the best damn female bike racer out there!!

    • Andy B

      Surely Vos is a better pick for that mantle :)

      • Paul M

        Vos. Is. Boss.

      • Paul M

        Vos. Is. Boss.

    • Andy B

      Surely Vos is a better pick for that mantle :)

  • Shane Ingram

    Its naive to believe that those at the top of their chosen field are disorganised. You get one strike, your on high alert, get two and notifying of your whereabouts becomes about the top priority. Get a third strike and people who want to believe in fairytales start talking about how some people are just disorganised as though the previous two strikes wouldnt have had any effect on focussing the mind in this area.Sure some people are useless. But believing World champions who have two strikes against their name are just absent minded about notification their whereabouts? C’mon. The most likely scenario is something quite different.

  • Shane Ingram

    Its naive to believe that those at the top of their chosen field are disorganised. You get one strike, your on high alert, get two and notifying of your whereabouts becomes about the top priority. Get a third strike and people who want to believe in fairytales start talking about how some people are just disorganised as though the previous two strikes wouldnt have had any effect on focussing the mind in this area.Sure some people are useless. But believing World champions who have two strikes against their name are just absent minded about notification their whereabouts? C’mon. The most likely scenario is something quite different.

  • jstevez

    Once? Ok it happens, twice? hum!! But 3 fu***ng times you avoided the test? Of course you’re juiced.

  • jstevez

    Once? Ok it happens, twice? hum!! But 3 fu***ng times you avoided the test? Of course you’re juiced.

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

21 NEW ARTICLES
December 10, 2016
December 9, 2016
December 8, 2016
December 7, 2016
December 6, 2016