Lizzie Armitstead (Boels-Dolmans )  pictured during  stage 5 of the Giro d’Italia Internazionale Femminile 2016 (2.WWT) from Grosio to Tirano - photo Anton Vos/Cor Vos © 2016
  • Nick Squillari

    I want to hear more about the athlete stake outs and pics of parked cars!

    • Mikael_L

      Could this be the start of a new column, “The Secret Tester”?

    • Craig

      Sounds like kind of an exciting job, to me. Thinking about going for my accreditation! ;-)

    • Sean

      Those guys tailing you all day aren’t testers Nick.

      • Nick Squillari

        Bit worried about that number I keep texting my whereabouts to now…I swear the Celine Dion concert was not my choice!

        • De Mac

          Sure she wasn’t mate – we believe you…truly….

        • De Mac

          Sure she wasn’t mate – we believe you…truly….

  • david__g

    I think I want a job as a DCO.

    • jules

      sounds like wet work to me

    • jules

      sounds like wet work to me

  • Shane Ingram

    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.

  • ebbe

    This article is not very good, to say the least
    – Only one tester spoken to (not applying adversarial principles seem to be a theme with this author), anonymously (is he even real?), while we know other testers have spoken out (publicly and under their own name, which honestly adds to their credibility) to the exact opposite of what is mentioned here. Why not also speak with them? We know their name, so reaching out would be easy.
    – This anonymous tester makes many assumptions, but doesn’t even know the exact facts of what happened any more than the rest of us do, since there is no reasoned decision yet. Why provide an *expert* opinion on a case where you just don’t know what happened exactly?
    – Does this anonymous tester have any experience in Sweden? In that particular hotel? With that particular staff member?
    – No mention of the fact that “making yourself available for testing” includes answering your phone in the time slot you yourself have indicated as “available for testing”. If 6 AM is too early, then she’s completely free to choose a later time slot. It was her decision to allocate 6 AM, so “I was sleeping” is not an excuse
    – No mention of the fact that “hotel staff refusing to give room number” has in fact happened before (so it’s not as uncommon as we are lead to believe), to Chris Froome no less, who was awarded a strike and took it like a man saying: “I should have informed the hotel staff this might happen. My responsibility alone”. British Cycling have in fact taken action since to prevent this from happening again (see next point)
    – No mention of the fact Arminstead was told by British Cycling in February to include her room number in her Whereabouts, but neglected to do so. There would have been no issue at all if she just followed this advice from BC
    – No mention of the fact that the tester did not phone once, but several times
    – No mention of the fact that Arminstead was Tweeting from her mobile phone at the breakfast table of the hotel just a very short while after 7 AM (when the tester left). Did she not see the several missed calls while using her phone to tweet?
    – No mention of the fact that Arminstead neglected to return the missed call, while knowing the call happened within her specified testing time frame for that day. She know the ramifications of missing tests, so she should have been worried it might be a tester calling her during her availalbe-for-test-time-frame
    – No mention of the fact that as soon as the tester explains the reason he’s asking for the room number, it is officially no longer an unannounced test. If the tester in this article is in fact real, he should know this
    – No mention of the fact that no less than 6 other British athletes are currently at two strikes, and that another British athlete has previously used the laughable excuse “I was home but didn’t hear the doorbell” to contest a missed test
    – No mention of the fact other non-British riders gave been banned after missing three tests, even when they felt they had good excuses. These riders did not receive legal help for their countries governing body. Arminstead did, which is also conveniently omitted from this artdid
    – No mention of the fact that British Cycling is on a performance contract with their sponsors (more medals is more money), and therefore has an incentive to send Arminstead to Rio, which directlt clashes with their assignment to “police the sport”
    – No mention of the fact that it’s very easy (the article actually suggests otherwise) to contest a missed test from within ADAMS. You only need to fill out one comments field, and your contestantion is logged forever. Arminstead should have done so immediately when she missed the first test if she honestly thought it was not on her. She neglected to do so. Not having the time or legal advise is no excuse, since British Cycling employ people dedicated to helping the athlete fill out their whereabouts.
    – No mention that all three of Ms Arminstead’s missed tests are within very short time periods of major races that she all happened to win
    – No mention at all of various other athletes declaring, publicly and under their own name, that missing tests is actually quite rare, but missing two will put anybody in hyper-alert state. Missing the second should then also trigger a contestantion of the first, especially since she could have had a BC staff member do it for her. Waiting for number three and the ultimate ban is not just unprofessional, but profoundly stupid, especially considering BCs alleged attention to detail and preparation

    Even before I read this article I already guessed who wrote it. This entire article reads like nothing more than an attempt from Shane Stokes to defend the anglo-saxon rider… Again. He’ll just go on ignorimg all the facts I’ve posted above and say I’m just strolling. When in fact, it is Shane who has neglected to do his job as a journalist… Again.

    • Tricky Dicky

      Wow, you seem pretty upset. There’s a lot of interesting detail in there that I have not seen reported anywhere else. If you are in a position to share information with corroborating statements from those involved (do you know the tester?), I’m sure Shane and the others at CT would love to hear it (as would I) as it casts real doubt on LA’s position.

      On the other item about Shane’s “bias”, I’ve read his articles for years, long before he got involved in CT, and to be honest I’ve always felt that he has that [un]healthy disregard for anything form the UK (being Irish…). Many “Sky” and “British Cycling” fans may even go as far as to call him a hater, so I’m not sure I buy the biased allegation. Anyway, he can look after himself.

      • ebbe

        Not upset, just pointing out the many glaring holes in this article. As I’ve done before in other articles where Shane left big holes.

        Here’s the tester who is saying the exact opposite of this article, publicly and under his own name. His position has been widely reported from the moment he posted it, and Shane could have and should have known about this, and therefore should have mentioned it https://twitter.com/OttilieQ/status/760247663115788288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

        Since I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen nothing else from Shane than siding with the english speaking riders (and by implication usually – but not always – against non-english speaking riders, persons, or organisations). Even in cases where the english speaking rider clearly made a mistake or was at the wrong side of the argument, Shane went out of his way to not question them, even defend them (and now comes the essential part, which Shane has a habit of doing) ***without giving the other side a voice***. That’s unfitting for a journalist. I’ve also seen him omit essential information that supported the case of non-english speaking riders or organisations several times. His response? “You’re just trolling”

        • Shane Stokes

          Interesting, Ebbe. I’ve had fans of English speaking riders accusing me in the past of not ‘siding’ with them. Once again you go in all guns blazing, as you have done many times in the past. This article gives a perspective, one tester’s view. That’s made very clear. It’s an opinion of one person and is not described as anything else.

          • ebbe

            I go in *facts* blazing. Just as you have done in the past, you again refuse to reply to – or disprove, which you are completely free to do – these facts. Defending the complete lack of basic (journalistic) adversarial principles by simply stating you’re forgoing adversarial principles is well… self serving to say the least, but it actually reeks of a plain old PR-spin.

            Why didn’t you reach out to the other tester who has a completely different story? Or to the several other athletes who’ve provided experiences that seem very much at odds with this article? They’ve all done so publicly and under their own names, so should be easy for you to find. If you simply couldn’t be bothered to speak to them, or if they refused, then at least you could have mentioned their tweets and blogs so the reader is offered a balanced view on this matter.

            I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for future cases of you not siding with english speakers over the facts. Looking forward to that very much ;-)

            • jules

              thanks, the discussion on this article has been completely ruined. that’s my job

              • ebbe

                You’re still free to respond to the facts I posted… Makes for a better discussion than all these personal attacks by Shane anyway ;-)

              • ebbe

                You’re still free to respond to the facts I posted… Makes for a better discussion than all these personal attacks by Shane anyway ;-)

            • jules

              thanks, the discussion on this article has been completely ruined. that’s my job

          • jakub

            The article appears under OPINION AND ANALYSIS. If this is an analysis, it is done very poorly.
            If it is an opinion and there are others riders and an another DOC publicly expressing contrasting opinions, then it isn’t very balanced and objective but clearly biased towards one side. You can hardly deny that.

            • Shane Stokes

              It’s one article; we have many on this website about the story. You want more on the various angles? Then read more than one story here. For what it’s worth, the Guardian published an interview with Rochelle Gilmore yesterday where she expresses her own view on the matter. Does that mean the Guardian is one sided? No, because it has a range of articles on the Armitstead case, which we do too. Also, again for what it’s worth, I contacted the doping control officer yesterday not knowing what he would say. Whatever he said, whether he was critical of Armistead or not, I would have published his comments. His comments don’t represent my own opinions on this matter, but I’ve done my job in getting one point of view out there which adds to the overall discussion. As for people claiming I’m biased against non English speakers, get real. I’d plenty of Armstrong fans blasting me in the past, including when I wrote about Armstrong’s bullying of Contador (a non-English speaker!) in 2009. If people make false claims about me, those comments will be deleted. Be civil, be respectful. Debate is fine, but speaking untruths about me or any other CT writer is not.

              • Shane Stokes

                I’m also not going to engage with those who are unreasonable or making false claims. I’m perfectly willing to engage with those who are prepared to engage in reasoned debate.

              • jakub

                I only expressed an opinion about the article, I didn’t make any claims about you as a person, therefore I don’t quite understand where I am speaking any untruths. I am not an journalist, but I do think that it is a nice feature of a good journalism to include several opinions on an issue, especially if they were voiced by many in public and not anonymously. That’s all I wanted to say.

                • Shane Stokes

                  And we do have several opinions on this site about the story. This one story is an interview with one person about their job, how they would have done things differently and their opinion on the Armitstead matter. Again, had he been critical of the tester or of the rider, I would have printed it. There was no bias in highlighting what he said; I’d no idea of his position until I contacted him. The comment about untruths wasn’t directed at you.

                  • jakub

                    I was just about to look on the site whether there are other opinions on the story – I didn’t find them yet. I saw the first general article announcing the whole issue, then the interview with Armitstead and finally this one. That’s mainly why I was critical. If there are others I missed – OK, then I got your point.

                    • Shane Stokes

                      Sorry Jakub, I should have been more clear. There’s a contrasting opinion from Nicole Cooke in the Daily News Digest. I was trying to track her down yesterday, then she published a personal comment rather than speak to the various journalists who were seeking interviews. There are also other pieces talking about the near miss. I’m still trying to get more opinions on the story but, at this point in time, not many are giving a contrasting opinion. The problem is that the reasoned decision is not available and so people are presumably reluctant to make a judgement on a case where only part of the story is known at this point in time. Rest assured that myself or the Ella writers will aim to keep writing about this story as it develops.

                    • jakub

                      Allright, thanks for your response. To not be only critical, I find it nice that you try to address such comments here. Not many journalists do so ;)

                    • Shane Stokes

                      No problem Jakub… glad to engage once the debate is reasoned!

                    • Richard DeGarmo

                      When the original rule was passed to have out of competition testing, and getting a blood sample off season to set standards to help find dopers that did not test positive (blood doping does not give a positive test result), it was not envisioned it would lead to athletes having to constantly send in their locations. The intent is to catch more cheaters, but being an athlete should not take away certain personal rights we all have. What if a government required all people to have a tracking device? It would allow them to find criminals, lost children, and many other positive uses, but at what cost? Would you do it? I know I wouldn’t.

        • Tricky Dicky

          That particular poster is a “she” I think based on her pictures? I had taken from your earlier outburst that you knew something specific about the actual tester in LA’s case. I don’t think this person was, just another tester who was giving her view on what can happen. I didn’t read anything particularly inconsistent with Shane’s story to be honest. I suggest you read other sites if you find Shane and other CT publications so poor. Personally, INRNG and CT are my two go-to sites.

          • ebbe

            You are correct, it’s a she. Not that that discounts her experiences in any way. And no, I don’t know anything about the original UKAD tester, neither does anybody else involved in “the public debate” by the way. However, it is quite clear that the various tweets of this other tester I linked to are in contrast with the article.

            I’ve seen Shane defend english speakers at the expense of non english speakers, even when the facts were clearly against the english speaker. Never the other way around. I’ve seen him attack non english speakers without facts. Never english speakers. I’ve seen him ignore facts that supported the case of non english speakers. Never for english speakers. But I honestly very much look forward to being proven wrong in the future!

            I’m merely posting a few facts (which Shane is still free to disprove, btw) that Shane should have mentioned for his article to be considered balanced. I’m not pretending to have intimate knowledge of everything he has written, admitted. But if we go that way, Shane calling me a troll is also in no way based on thorough research of all my work either ;-) And sure, Sky fans may think he doesn’t side with them enough, but honestly they tend to have a warped sense of reality anyway.

            INRNG is great indeed, precisely because Mr Ring focusses on facts as a starting point for discussion, and is not afraid to admit there are always two sides to any story, and essentially… also give both sides *equal attention* before trying to reach a reasoned conclusion.

            • jakub

              I second that. Once I’ve given a benefit of doubt to Kreuziger’s explanation under one of Shane’s articles here about his doping case. To my surprise, Shane went straight after me, asking me to disclose whether I am a part of Kreuziger’s legal team.

          • Shane Stokes

            For what it’s worth, I didn’t see tweets from another tester about this case. Until it was mentioned here, I was unaware that any other tester had commented on Twitter about it. Also, as stated above, I tried to get CAS’s reasoned decision yesterday in order to do a different, detailed piece, but CAS told me that the reasoned decision is not available at this point in time.

          • Shane Stokes

            Thanks Tricky, glad to hear about the go-to sites. INRNG is one of mine.

          • ebbe

            Just thought you might like to know I did reply to your comment, but it seems Shane has deleted it. Even though there was absolutely nothing abusive at all in my comment, Shane evidently feels the need to censor people’s comments containing information relevant to the article. He can’t take a little criticism, even though I invited him to an exchange in facts. That’s on him.

            Shane also does not seem to realise that I’m actually agreeing with him quite a lot. I’ve upvoted many of his comments. And what does he offer as thanks for doing so, and for offering information that he did not have when writing the article? My comments censored/deleted.

            • Shane Stokes

              Ebbe, if you unfairly and inaccurately accuse me of bias again I’ll delete the comment once more. You are welcome to debate, but not to defame. I’m tired of you coming on here and ranting about me, and also accusing me of being prejudiced against non-English speakers. That’s utterly inaccurate, and insulting. I don’t engage with you because of this kind of nonsense. Please stop.

  • On Your Bike

    why are you quoting what the Daily Mail says !! go and read Lizzi’s OWN statement on her OWN FaceBook page…

    • Shane Stokes

      Emm…the statement was put up in the past hour. This article was published yesterday.

  • Paul Jakma

    It is worth bearing in mind we have only a newspaper report, which may be basing its report largely on Armistead’s version of events. The CAS written decision, which should have a more complete picture of the facts, is eagerly awaited.

    • Shane Stokes

      Hi Paul, yes – I tried to get that yesterday from CAS but they said they have nothing at this point. It’s disappointing as the reasoned decision would give a much clearer picture of things.

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

13 NEW ARTICLES
December 6, 2016
December 5, 2016
December 3, 2016