From the CYCLINGNEWS forum: How Hard it REALLY IS to miss a test, they will track you down at DisneyWorld(tm)

Nothing special wrote:

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?

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.

Yes, just found this now as I've had the time to do a bit of research.

I wasn't sure if she was just being incompetent for the first two tests, but the fact that she achieved possibly the most significant result of her career in between those two missed tests has taken me off the fence.

cleans wrote:

Nothing special wrote:

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.

Yes, just found this now as I've had the time to do a bit of research.

I wasn't sure if she was just being incompetent for the first two tests, but the fact that she achieved possibly the most significant result of her career in between those two missed tests has taken me off the fence.

The Pro Cycling Stats site has a vgood database.

She also won the Aviva Tour soon after the third whereabouts failure.

I forget when she first started being elite, but it might be useful to compare it to when she met her Team Sky fiance (Deignan).

I do remember she announced the engagement on national TV (early Sept 2015), but when they first met I don't know.

Actually I think she might have a future in politics.

Circle of friends wrote:

I forget when she first started being elite, but it might be useful to compare it to when she met her Team Sky fiance (Deignan).

I do remember she announced the engagement on national TV (early Sept 2015), but when they first met I don't know.

Amazing what data from their "private" lives that people stick up on the Internet when the publicity/fame angle is there.

Armitstead and Deignan first met in 2010, but did not start dating until 2014. A year later, in September 2015, Deignan proposed.

Deignan joined Team Sky in 2014 also.

Connecting the dots wrote:

Circle of friends wrote:

I forget when she first started being elite, but it might be useful to compare it to when she met her Team Sky fiance (Deignan).

I do remember she announced the engagement on national TV (early Sept 2015), but when they first met I don't know.

Amazing what data from their "private" lives that people stick up on the Internet when the publicity/fame angle is there.

http://www.theweddingplanner.co.uk/wedding_news.asp?newsid=217623

Armitstead and Deignan first met in 2010, but did not start dating until 2014. A year later, in September 2015, Deignan proposed.

Deignan joined Team Sky in 2014 also.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/philip-deignan-finds-a-new-balance-at-team-sky/

There could be another explanation to her success.

She also joined team Boels right about then, and became the prima donna, even claiming injuries when it wasn't clear she'd be the #1 team goal for the event.

UKAD isn't dodgy, right? They would never take 15 months to "investigate further", before charging dopers? And then lift a provisional suspension after political pressure? And athletes always have real injuries, too?http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/8/3/12370170/boxing-ukad-issues-statement-on-tyson-and-hughie-furys-drug-test-failure

They said that this (positive test) occurred in February and March of 2015, and the boxers met with UK Anti-Doping about it in September of 2015. At that time, UKAD said they wanted to investigate further according to the article.

This prompted UKAD to actually speak on record about the issue today. They confirm that both boxers were charged in June (2016), but in a baffling move, they lifted their provisional suspensions today pending a hearing:

He had been scheduled to rematch him on July 9th, but pulled out of the bout with an apparent ankle injury. Since it came on the same day that he was suspended by UKAD, you can probably determine that the injury was a smokescreen.

At least in bulk numbers, if it is too private. What percentage of whereabouts failures are overturned, is that a basic enough question?

Well, I can't help you yet, but the data do give how many total missed tests there are.

* In Quarter 3, UK Anti-Doping recorded 8 confirmed Whereabouts Failures as of the date of this report. There are two types of Whereabouts Failure: Filing Failures and Missed Tests. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within a twelve-month period may constitute an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

Of course, one of those "confirmed" failures from Q3had to be disappeared.

* In Quarter 4, UK Anti-Doping recorded 5 confirmed Whereabouts Failures as of the date of this report.

* In Quarter 1, UK Anti-Doping recorded 10 confirmed Whereabouts Failures as of the date of this report.

So they have about 30 per year, and LA managed 10% of those.

But back to Lizzie. What is she talking about with #3?!

The location is correct in the first clause, so then what does "both locations" mean in the final phrase? Is she claiming something like that she was at her overnite accom at 6am-7am and then went elsewhere, but mistakenly said 7am-8am on ADAMS?

Poor little Lizzie

Caused quite a tizzy

Those rules that she just kept forgettin',

But she's cool with Sky

So the rules don't apply

For that's how it works in Great Britain!

Mr Boxed in at UKAF.

The Fury cases are more than interesting and make no sense to those who keep up to date on hearings and doping news.

There are many many millions at stake and the Fury's families are not niave when it comes to the legal world .

They have not used sports lawyer and have gone to the high court .

Will this be an other nail in the doping war coffin.

Certainly something very interesting is going on.

Back to the initial post !

How did they organise a doping control station at Disney Land .

All strange , but then all doping stuff is strange !

Well, if you put it down for your whereabouts, maybe they'll figure out a way? The Rules do say it must be "a specified location where the testing can actually take place."

I can certainly imagine that the Disney World Hotel would be a place just like any other for the testers to come. And I'm guessing this is what OP meant.

But Disney World itself? There might even be a private property issue with the corporate owners.

Birmingham wrote: The Fury cases are more than interesting and make no sense to those who keep up to date on hearings and doping news.

I agree. With championship heavyweight boxing (££millions) on the line, you'd expect there to be cheating on all ends. Not so with women's cycling, but I guess LA is "the next big thing" for their media hopes.

How did they fake the ankle pics?

What if you are on a camping holiday with your family : how does that work for the correct type testing station and whereabouts ?!

Does it mean you can't go on holiday ?

What if the testing station you imagine is acceptable but the hotel refuse the tester to work ; blood tests etc ;as hotel has no sight of insurance held by tester . Does that mean it is a whereabouts failure .

Why don't we use whereabouts for criminals and terror suspects ?? And = cos it would be illegal to do so .

Who are the people who knock on elites' doors at 6:00 a.m. and ask them to provide a blood or urine sample?

In the United States, most of the out-of-competition testing is conducted by USADA. USADA employs nearly 50 Doping Control Officers (DCOs) who live throughout the country and conduct both in-competition and out-of-competition sample collection. When an out-of-competition blood test is done, the DCO will be accompanied by a trained phlebotomist.

Ankle pics of Fury looked genuine but could easily have been staged .

And how on earth do you organise drug tests on a travellers trailer / caravan site ?

Anyone ever tried to drive into one ?

Birmingham wrote:

Ankle pics of Fury looked genuine but could easily have been staged .

In reality, it could be the other way around. He injured the ankle, and then called up UKAD to say "OK, I'm injured, just provisionally suspend me anyway."

Yes it could be that way round . But still massive question ref the rests of the time gaps and that they say they have gone to the high court

What if the drug tester dies before he gives evidence and most of them are quite old .