What are little girls made of? wrote:
Do you like reading? wrote:Women are pure of heart, sweet, innocent, and would never engage in doper-cheater behavior
Unless they are from degen countries like Russia, China, Hungary, Kenya, ..., where they learn such thinbgs from their youth in male-dominated patriarchal societies.
Maybe it runs in the family (LA).
On another note with respect to LA father beating up on the journalist who broke the story on Lizzie. It really puts Syed's whistleblowing comments in a box. As soon as a story breaks he is getting beat up on whilst he was out performing the duties for his job at the Games, being told he shouldn't be there. This is just one disgruntled family member
ancient vials wrote:
Was the CAS result "fixed"? wrote:]That's how the "industry" works.
having the number #1 women cyclist and biggest female media athlete in UK since paula radcilffe
be found deficient of a anti-doping rules violation would have been devastating to the sport and beyond.
so it clearly had to be stopped, after hushed up in first place not to be heard until the beneficiant result appeared
She's not big outside the cycling world at all in the UK.
Ennis is by far the biggest media athlete. Armistead is somewhere in the top 10 I would imagine.
Not a new idea, push some new posterlass, hyped to the max. Then hope to cash $$ in on the results (BC). Enough incentive to hide eyes from doping woes?
However, while in most cases Lizzie contributes to her own difficult relationships with other members of the péloton, certainly I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of frustration on the parts of Cooke and Pooley about the way their achievements were basically swept aside by British Cycling and Armitstead put forward as a kind of poster girl, especially after London, to the point where a BC spokesman publicly called Armitstead's win in Richmond a "breakthrough moment for women's cycling in the UK" - remarkable given that less than seven years earlier, the UK had the reigning World AND Olympic champion, begging cap in hand for a ride after sponsors dumped her team at the 11th hour.
I wouldn't blame them if so - certainly I harbour a level of bitterness about that myself, while the attempts to present her as a lovable hard-working Yorkshire lass (always lass, never woman) felt heavy-handed, forced and ran counter to my - and clearly many others' - perception of her. However, as we've learnt in the last week or so, it's certainly not an internal thing, the fact that she rubs people up the wrong way - a lot of people from a lot of different teams have expressed very negative opinions towards her that suggests it isn't just a matter of perception.
trollism wrote:
ancient vials wrote:having the number #1 women cyclist and biggest female media athlete in UK since paula radcilffe
be found deficient of a anti-doping rules violation would have been devastating to the sport and beyond.
so it clearly had to be stopped, after hushed up in first place not to be heard until the beneficiant result appeared
She's not big outside the cycling world at all in the UK.
Ennis is by far the biggest media athlete. Armistead is somewhere in the top 10 I would imagine.
Definitely Ennis is a bigger name than Armitstead, not sure where the latter would rank. Maybe at the moment she is quite well known, albeit for the 'wrong' reasons.
The media reaction after Ponferada struck me at the time. You could very much see how she'd become the golden girl and few were willing to criticise her.
Of course they might like someone who described herself as
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lizzie-armitstead-the-busy-life-of-a-new-world-champion/Lizzie Armitstead said: I’m a perfectionist and a control freak. (2015)
Oh wait, that doesn't sound like someone so mind-cluttered to deal effectively with ADAMS whereabouts, now does it?
Think UK female athletes dope? wrote:
One has to wonder, why they care what "people will think", rather than simply what is the truth!
Marketing and money. No other reasons.
Does fame cause this type of thinking, or the other way around: only those who think this way seek fame and press attention?
Image is everything. (Probably a doper too)sunken eyes wrote:
Think UK female athletes dope? wrote:One has to wonder, why they care what "people will think", rather than simply what is the truth!
Marketing and money. No other reasons.
It's difficult for her then to be upset about being brandished a cheat, when you consider even Chris Froome - somebody who has been put through the mill annually about being perceived as a cheat - volunteered information about his missed tests, while Lizzie is trying to bury bad news.
Lies were given to the world's media justify the withdrawal from the Giro and the National GB champs - "I am ill" whereas the truth of the matter is she was currently banned from racing.
There is nothing sinister in a quite sweet and innocent tweet from a young woman planning her wedding. Indeed it could sit there on her account even with the family crisis. So the question is why on earth would anyone delete it from their account?
I don't want to know anything about her family crisis. Wiping an email (actually a tweet), that proved she had plenty of time available that day to conduct other routine affairs, is enough. She was on two strikes for goodness sake. She knows a single extra strike will be goodbye to all her dreams ......
........or it would be to any normal athlete.
if you are confident, because someone has indicated that although it is going to CAS, UKADA are not going to fight it (hint hint), well then you can plan on nothing ever getting out. The illness at the Giro will forever be an illness. That black hole in your twitter account will never be seen by anyone. You can ride at your best in the tour of GB and use the time out from the Giro to promote your book.
Was the CAS result "fixed"? wrote: No worries
I was with this until this morning. I think I can paint another scenario that has greys in it.
You are at two missed tests and you get a third. You don't sit on your backside to "wait and see" keeping humming, hoping the letter will never arrive. You pick up the phone and start talking to BC (British Cycleing). Where is my babysitter? Why didn't he sort it all out for me ? It is all your your fault BC ; see what you can do. ?
UK Sport need to cover their backside. If it gets out they have wiped a completely bona fide test violation off the books, they are going to be deep in the brown stuff. Sapstead will have to go. She is brazening out the Dr Bonar stuff but wobbling.
Even though I criticised the "provisional suspension" route yesterday, I was not thinking it all through. there just has to be a means of a full suspension being implemented. But yes, maybe that would then have to be recorded on the public log whereas "OK we hear you (BC & LA) , we will provisionally suspend you, that satisfies our requirements, and then you can take it to CAS. That way it is all kept out of the media.
The unknown was - how hard would UKADA/UKSport defend it at CAS ?
Now if, and that is a very big if, you had some sort of indication from the NADO that they were not going to put up anything other than token resistance at CAS, well hey, life could return to normal and you could get on racing and then when you are on the provisional suspension, sort out publishing your book and preparing for Rio. No one is going to be any the wiser.
So the decision there is one for UKSport/UKADA - how hard do they want to press back? What will a "victory" at CAS look like ? Reigning world champ and hot favourite suspended. Smoke from the gun wafting right back to the embattled senior management at BC - the story of the greatest ascendance to world domination by a GB NGB ever witnessed in our sporting history, put even further into doubt ?
Were Sapstead and Nicholl up for the tough decision ? If I were a betting man, my money would not have been on that pair going down the line of greatest resistance, even if it was morally the only route their job descriptions tell them it has to.
Look, Nicholl threw how much public money getting Readie into office at WADA ? She would know what he is like. What he is like was made crystal clear yesterday, he didn't want to challenge the Russians over the doping, his subordinate had to leak information to make it so it was near impossible for him to continue to sit on his hands. This is not a new trait for Readie. Nicholl knows Readie and she likes his style, that is why she committed so much of our public money to supporting his bid to become president.
[quote]Any takers out there for UKADA fight this one hard at CAS ?
If UKAD were after catching athletes, they could actually test one of them positive for a change.
Even the most protected athletes are tested. The protection consists of helping atjlete avoid a ban.
This now appears to be true for Russian topathletes as much as for British.
The available evidence suggests UKADA aren't much different from RUSADA.
things can go wrong even though you have protection.
And if the story didn't leak nobody would have heard the story bar a PDF file 3 months after the Olympics
Going back to whereabouts failure #1 (overturned by CAS)
Do you realize that the sum total of effort required to resolve an initial whereabouts failure (ie, a "missed test") is to write an email and send it to the anti-doping agency explaining why you missed the test?
And if your explanation is credible, a filing failure isn't recorded against you?
How long does it take you to write an email saying you were not locatable because [insert credible explanation here]? That's how long it takes and the resources involved in not accumulating a formal strike for a missed test.
Sheesh.
So LA sends e-mail to UKAD, saying she was in some hotel in Sweden, but the inspector bloke didn't try hard to find her.
UKAD turns this excuse down! (no reason not to play by the rules at this point).
So, at that point, they (UKAD) ensured that the proper protocol was followed by Inspector Bloke, and this was really strike #1. But months later the story has to be changed! (after WaF #3). When the case is going to CAS, WaF #1 has to be overturned (LA being a "protected" athlete by the system), so "suddenly" Inspector Bloke changes his story (or had "memory relapses")!
As easy as that. See how how anti-doping "controls" are overcome?
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that 85% of the posts on this thread are from the same person who keeps changing his username?
Reminder .
She had one missed test.
The first alleged violation was overthrown by CAS with he having no fault . It was the tester that failed up.Name and shame him.
It may be that with due diligence that you can always comply with 100% whereabouts compliance but WADA do accept that two errors in a year are not an offence .But I am still astonished that the breaches in human rights are seemed acceptable and wonder how long it will be that such are challenged in the courts .
Soccer players won't have home visits nor Disney land ones .UKad won't ban them because if this as they know they will lose and testing will fall apart :
Birmingham wrote:
Reminder .
She had one missed test.
...
But I am still astonished that the breaches in human rights are seemed acceptable
The first missed test story changed to let her off altogether. That's the outrage in this story. And, quite typical treatment of a favored athlete.
You need to stop with the "human rights" angle. When an athlete joins an IOC affiliated sports federation like the UCI/BC, they agree to be tested. It's really that simple.
Pop pop
Just cos you sign to join a IOC type sports club with associated rules it does not mean that you sign your rights away .
In English and most Euro countries this is the case .
You can't have a rule that says we have special health and safety rules and the rules that the rest of the county have to follow don't apply .
Just look at the problems track has with H and S and even how it effects training .
Ditto sports rules that allow gender or racial discrimination ; you just can't override the laws and rights of a country .
So if they agree to be tested but such testing breaches human rights laws then human rights wins .Lets assume that testing requires body cavity searches ; I think even you would think that such is a breach ,even though a good case could be presented for cavity searches esp with women.(no comment on outcome with a few 800 m runners )
Please explain the error of this argument !
Beeeno Cookie wrote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that 85% of the posts on this thread are from the same person who keeps changing his username?
I think like 85% of it was copied from the forums.cyclingnews.com thread, but I learned some things, like about the book deal. This is probably multiple 6-figures, and I can see why it would cause it to be kicked up to a higher level.
Also, it gave some insight to the inner workings of the system, and how the power brokers can make decisions when they need to, and the "vanishing whereabouts failure" methodology.
What I learned, is about the only logical explanation is that 'Ukad' higherups pushed the panic button sometime after the 3rd whereabouts failure, and it was agreed the way out was to engage a collusive lawsuit to CAS by all sides.
As was pointed out somewhere else, CAS just hears the testimony. So if Ukad decides not to present their best case (just claim/admit the tester screwed up, without direct testimony from him), then bob's your uncle, and LA gets off.
I don't think 'Ukad' had to pick a dubious arbitrator with special instructions or anything, it's easy enough to play "no contest" without that.
What I would like to see from the testing agencies is a list not only of missed whereabouts, but also how many missed whereabouts were subsequently "waived" due to a finding of no fault by the athlete.
At least in bulk numbers, if it is too private. What percentage of whereabouts failures are overturned, is that a basic enough question?
I'm fascinated by what was going on between 20 August 2015 and 5 October 2015. That is a short period and she managed to miss/dodge two tests.
What is special about that 6-7 week period?
I'm fascinated by what was going on between 20 August 2015 and 5 October 2015. That is a short period and she managed to miss/dodge two tests.
What is special about that 6-7 week period?
Well, she competed and finished 3rd (time trial) in the Swedish event right after the first test. Then a week later she won a French event (Plouay-Bretagne).
And umm... Cough. She won the world road champs in September (26th). Uncough.
And was 2nd in the world time trial champ a week before. Burp.
It is strange that she missed the Oct 5 test, as basically September ended the season until late February, but maybe that's the way drug cycles work.