Double standard by BBC commentators: Denounce Sun Yang, but hype up Lizzie Armistead (and ignore missed drug tests)

all CHINADA had to do was write a retroactive TUE for trimetazidine (it's his medication for the "angina pectoris" heart problem presumably), but instead they banned the doctor for a year.

The difference between this and US/UK "anti"doping is DEVASTATING.

Typical cover up by the third world brits. UK has perfected the state run doping program.

The (non state-run) BBC

Hopeless semantics. It's like those "independent corporations whose sole client is the federal government" that exist in USA. Do you really think the "BBC Trust" (the official operator) is going to go against its funding source? The word "run" obviously means "money-influenced" here. Oh wait, more semantics! The "British license fee payers" actually own/run the BBC! Except that NO ONE would pay for this license if not for the government forcing it down their throats. About as much as the "ticket holders" run Chelsea.

Shell game wrote:

The (non state-run) BBC

Hopeless semantics. It's like those "independent corporations whose sole client is the federal government" that exist in USA. Do you really think the "BBC Trust" (the official operator) is going to go against its funding source? The word "run" obviously means "money-influenced" here. Oh wait, more semantics! The "British license fee payers" actually own/run the BBC! Except that NO ONE would pay for this license if not for the government forcing it down their throats. About as much as the "ticket holders" run Chelsea.

That's what you took from my post.

I'm presuming you agree with the rest of it.

Shell game wrote:

The (non state-run) BBC

Hopeless semantics. It's like those "independent corporations whose sole client is the federal government" that exist in USA. Do you really think the "BBC Trust" (the official operator) is going to go against its funding source? The word "run" obviously means "money-influenced" here. Oh wait, more semantics! The "British license fee payers" actually own/run the BBC! Except that NO ONE would pay for this license if not for the government forcing it down their throats. About as much as the "ticket holders" run Chelsea.

Don't forget the unaccounted millions£€ the EU dumped into the BBC. Betcha THAT helped the impartiality.

Metric Miler wrote:

sgnjssyjmdm wrote:

Anything to say here, Metric Miler?

Yeah, I'll ask you too.

Are you watching the BBC from the UK?

I'll take your silence to mean you are not watching from the UK.

So essentially you are using my taxes and TV licence fee I pay out of my own pocket to enjoy the BBCs Olympic content, and then complaining about it?

I think maybe just stick to the NBC or shut the fck up.

BBC has to appear impartial as much as possible.

Indeed! Has to APPEAR impartial! So it's just a "game" to the execs. Puppetteering us plebes, while they in their right-elited minds decide what/how to report. Just as long as you can split the populace close to 50/50 for/against, it's all "impartial". Aren't such transparently obvious media propaganda techniques taught in UK schools, so people can be warned against them? Oh wait, those are also full of the state indoctrination.

More shell games wrote:

BBC has to appear impartial as much as possible.

Indeed! Has to APPEAR impartial! So it's just a "game" to the execs. Puppetteering us plebes, while they in their right-elited minds decide what/how to report. Just as long as you can split the populace close to 50/50 for/against, it's all "impartial". Aren't such transparently obvious media propaganda techniques taught in UK schools, so people can be warned against them? Oh wait, those are also full of the state indoctrination.

You're boring. Are you that insecure that you need to change handles after every post?

I can't imagine a right-minded person would think the BBC has been "impartial" regarding Armitstead. Mind you, other Brit media has been more on the ball.

Positive articles/media

Rio 2016: Lizzie Armitstead insists she would never cheat

Armitstead defends missed drugs tests

Rio 2016 Olympics: Lizzie Armitstead defends missed drugs tests ("I hate dopers")

Varnish 'really upset' for Armitstead. (Radio5, BBC)

Cyclists (TeamGB) speak in support of Lizzie Armitstead, (conveniently ignoring those who speak otherwise)

"Armistead is clean, no doubt" - Thomas

'No doubt Armitstead is a clean athlete' (Radio5, BBC)

Rio 2016: Lizzie Armitstead says people will doubt her forever ("emotional" sobstory, no comments from competitors)

Negative... *crickets* ...

That's right, NOTHING. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not even a perfunctory article from UKAD's side of things. How's that for "impartial"?? Or at least APPEARing so, due UK fanatics.

Comparatively, down under, first link (SBS): The Lizzie Armitstead case kinda stinks

She is, of course, a principal BBC SPOTY contender. (Sports Personality of the Year)

So you have to expect special treatment.

Another name change? Very insecure.

Those 'positive' stories are interviews with other cyclists. That's not an opinion either way, they're asking questions and reporting the answers. Just because they're supporting her doesn't mean anything in terms of their impartiality.

West is best, NOT wrote:

all CHINADA had to do was write a retroactive TUE for trimetazidine (it's his medication for the "angina pectoris" heart problem presumably), but instead they banned the doctor for a year.

The difference between this and US/UK "anti"doping is DEVASTATING.

+1

In regards to the first test, only Armitstead's version of events has been reported.

Hopefully the CAS Reasoned Decision will clear this up. UKAD/Sapstead currently appears bound by silence, unlike Armitstead who can preen for the press. Probably the anti-dopers should look into that aspect, make it easier for both sides to talk, once one side has pre-empted by the media/press route.

Lizzie Armitstead whined: I also didn't have the legal advice. It felt very much them against me. I was very naive."UKAD rebutted: On top of this, UKAD provides additional, escalating support to athletes who incur whereabouts failures which is tailored to their specific needs.Boo-hoo. "Them against me", when they set up a whole team to help her cope? And they would have given her legal advice?

The questions ? mount wrote:British Cycling is a national sports organisation which should be taking an objective position on cases such as these, not passing on advice to the rider involved.

Maybe British Cycling only has to "appear" to be objective. :) As you noted, it took an Aussie press to point this out. Epic fail by the supposed guardians of British culture, the self-appointed BBC.

Has it helped out a rider like this before?

Or just the ones who are hot favourites to win gold?

Pretty much a circular helping. The dopers are naturally and obvious the ones who become "hot favourites", so the national association works to "help" them more than others, enraging others who are not "helped" so much. Until it all blows up in the media.

Especially as it is dependent on National Lottery funding

So you are saying that widows and orphans are being deprived, due to LA's whereabouts failures and subsequent decision to use Brit Cycling money (rather than her pro team) in a legal battle to boost her gold medal hopes. Why am I not surprised the UK fans see her as a hero?

Public money is my money too wrote:

Why am I not surprised the UK fans see her as a hero?

The brits do love their cheaters. bobblehead, robert young, doorbell mo, doorbell lizzie

West is best, NOT wrote:

The difference between this and US/UK "anti"doping is DEVASTATING.

What exactly is it you think UKAD should have done differently in this case?

British Teeth wrote:

Public money is my money too wrote:

Why am I not surprised the UK fans see her as a hero?

The brits do love their cheaters. bobblehead, robert young, doorbell mo, doorbell lizzie

What British fans? Cycling fans? You mean that bunch that are completely indifferent to whether their favourite stars are doped up or not?

Don't try these pathetic straw man arguments. You just make up some shit and then claim that it is terrible that a whole country of 70 million people support what you made up!