British Cycling advised Armitstead to include hotel room numbers on whereabouts information

alansmurphy wrote:

You win the internet

Why thank you. Thank you so very much. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Armitstead, for her steadfast words against the scourge of doping, and other commentators like yourself, for your brilliant insight, sparkling rhetoric, and unyielding civility.

No one bar Armitstead and those closest to her will ever know whether or not Armitstead is doping, unless she confesses to it. But the rest of us, particularly those of us that still have some belief in her, will soon know if she loves her sport enough to spare it from worldwide (save perhaps a few corners of mainly the UK) disrepute on its grandest stage, one that comes along every four years. We will soon know if she is willing to go above and beyond the strict application of existing rules and truly show what she is a role model willing to sacrifice an undue price in the service of her convictions. Or whether winning is not just everything, but the only thing. But maybe I'm being naive.

kcr wrote:

if they are claiming the tester tried to phone Armistead, but testing protocol prohibits telephoning the athlete because this would warn them of the test.

This extract from the WADA ISTI document sheds some light on the 'phone issue relating to attempts to test athletes in the 60 minute window:

Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing) to see if he/she is at the specified location. If the Athlete answers the DCO’s call and is available at (or in the immediate vicinity of) the location for immediate testing (i.e., within the 60 minute time slot), then the DCO should wait for the Athlete and should collect the Sample from him/her as normal.

The implication being that athletes are not compelled to provide 'phone numbers under WADA codes and nor is the tester required to even try to call but calling is not prohibited as such.

In relation to the hotel room number, according to the UKAD website:

If you are staying in a hotel, you must ensure you have clearly specified your room number in the ‘Additional Information’ section on ADAMS and where possible that the hotel room is booked in your name so any Doping Control Officer can locate you easily.

So athletes or a member of their support team should update the whereabouts system after check-in to avoid the issues this particular DCO had in Sweden.

unconstituted wrote:

All of the reasonableness of the testers actions is a red herring anyway and can always be used as a loophole to get anyone off the hook as 'reasonableness' is a matter of discretion.

If it's a red herring then they should take it out of the rules.  Banning is covered by rules and the rules say reasonableness.  You can't ban somebody for following rules just because you don't like the rules.

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

All of the reasonableness of the testers actions is a red herring anyway and can always be used as a loophole to get anyone off the hook as 'reasonableness' is a matter of discretion.

If it's a red herring then they should take it out of the rules.  Banning is covered by rules and the rules say reasonableness.  You can't ban somebody for following rules just because you don't like the rules.

They're not taking it out of the rules. They're making the rules more relaxed, not tighter. See: 18mo to 12mo strike limit. 

They don't want to toughen up on doping, the industry needs wiggle room. 

I really don't think you get what's going on here. I've read some of your posts above, it's like you're on another planet. Talking about all sorts of stuff that's inconsequential based on info gleamed from carefully crafted PR releases and misdirection.

Not someone I would enter into a proper discussion with personally.

keirik wrote:

Every single other active (or currently suspended) pro cyclist. Out of the UCI ADRV list, which applies to hundreds, if not thousands of other cyclists, no one else missed three tests. The only positive for missed test was Kastrantas Charalampos , who missed a designated end-of race test.

Read the report and LA's response. She didn't miss 3 tests. One was an admin failure (not at all the same thing anyone reviewing her ADAM data would have seen it was an error) and one was the tester acting like an arse by not following procedure to get in touch with her.

Here's the USADA list (the only comprehesive list I can find). Two athletes are currently suspended for wherabouts failures, among all sports (a martial artist and a weightlifter). It's a very difficult place to find yourself in, for a top athlete.

But if you want to believe tales of admin failures and bad testers, go ahead. Nothing against you, really. I think the world needs a dose of optimism. I just hope you're that uncritical towards everyone else.

Carton wrote:

keirik wrote:

Every single other active (or currently suspended) pro cyclist. Out of the UCI ADRV list, which applies to hundreds, if not thousands of other cyclists, no one else missed three tests. The only positive for missed test was Kastrantas Charalampos , who missed a designated end-of race test.

Read the report and LA's response. She didn't miss 3 tests. One was an admin failure (not at all the same thing anyone reviewing her ADAM data would have seen it was an error) and one was the tester acting like an arse by not following procedure to get in touch with her.

Here's the USADA list (the only comprehesive list I can find). Two athletes are currently suspended for wherabouts failures, among all sports (a martial artist and a weightlifter). It's a very difficult place to find yourself in, for a top athlete.

But if you want to believe tales of admin failures and bad testers, go ahead. Nothing against you, really. I think the world needs a dose of optimism. I just hope you're that uncritical towards everyone else.

I just hope you're as critical of everyone else who forgot to tick a box on a website - you know like the "I agree to the T&C's" box we all forget to click.

I've actually read her response, have you? Or did you just decide she's a doper?

Carton]</p>

<p>[quote=keirik wrote:

But if you want to believe tales of admin failures and bad testers, go ahead. Nothing against you, really. I think the world needs a dose of optimism. I just hope you're that uncritical towards everyone else.

It's rather difficult to believe or disbelieve the story of the tester not doing their job, based on the very limited information provided by LA and UKAD.  If only there were an independent panel of experts that had heard both sides of the story in full and decided whether or not LA is at fault for that missed test...

CAS haven't given their reasoned judgment yet.  That means that we don't have the evidence.  The only two fair and rational positions are therefore currently: "CAS heard the evidence so I'll trust their judgment" or "I shall form no view until I see the reasoned judgment and get to decide for myself".

Stating or implying that she is a cheat because you disagree with CAS decision when you haven't seen the evidence or the decision is a rather bigger leap than just trusting CAS.

Carton wrote:

Every other athlete seems to be abe to manage it, except for the woman who we take as the most prepared racer in probably both the men's and women's peloton. I haven't found a single example of any pro cyclist standing up for her (except for her fiance, sort of). And pretty much every time in cycling history when people have come up with excuses like this there's been a fire under that smoke. 

By all means, cut her some slack if you want to. She seems nice, sociable, articulate person, like David Millar. But please realize just how much rope you're going to need to unspool for her.

If cycling really isn't everything for her, if winning really isn't everything for her, she should bow out of Rio. That I would respect.

Otherwise it's all just pretty words with no weight to them. The other LA did that better than her, to be honest. Raised millions for charity and all that.

Every other athlete?

Nick Forster wrote:

Carton wrote:

Every other athlete seems to be abe to manage it, except for the woman who we take as the most prepared racer in probably both the men's and women's peloton. I haven't found a single example of any pro cyclist standing up for her (except for her fiance, sort of). And pretty much every time in cycling history when people have come up with excuses like this there's been a fire under that smoke. 

By all means, cut her some slack if you want to. She seems nice, sociable, articulate person, like David Millar. But please realize just how much rope you're going to need to unspool for her.

If cycling really isn't everything for her, if winning really isn't everything for her, she should bow out of Rio. That I would respect.

Otherwise it's all just pretty words with no weight to them. The other LA did that better than her, to be honest. Raised millions for charity and all that.

Every other athlete?

Every single other active (or currently suspended) pro cyclist. Out of the UCI ADRV list, which applies to hundreds, if not thousands of other cyclists, no one else missed three tests. The only positive for missed test was Kastrantas Charalampos , who missed a designated end-of race test.

Carton wrote:

By all means, cut her some slack if you want to. She seems nice, sociable, articulate person, like David Millar. But please realize just how much rope you're going to need to unspool for her.

No slack whatsoever is required.  You get a whereabouts failure if you don't give enough information to make yourself available to somebody taking reasonable steps to find you.  CAS has ruled that she did give that much information and the UKAD officer didn't take reasonable steps.  She did not fail a whereabouts test.

Quote:

 Every other athlete seems to be abe to manage it

We have no information as to how many other athletes have two whereabouts failures, which is how many she has.  We also have no information as to how many other athletes have had "missed tests" overturned on appeal.  Had this one been appealed initially she would never have had the suspension, so we'd never know.  Just as we wouldn't know had somebody not leaked it to the Mail.  In other words, we have precisely no information as to how many other athletes have been in her position.

Quote:

If cycling really isn't everything for her, if winning really isn't everything for her, she should bow out of Rio.

Her statement refers to winning not be everything in two ways.  One is "I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it".  That's not a reason to bow out of Rio.  Anybody who does not think that way shuld bow out of sport altogether.

The other reference to cycling not being everything is "I hope I have made it clear that family comes before cycling".  Again, this is not a reason to bow out of Rio.  Anybody who does not feel this way should bow out the human race.

keirik wrote:

I've actually read her response, have you? Or did you just decide she's a doper?

Yep. Even Dan seems to get that. And no, I haven't decided she's a doper. I just think, as Nicole Cooke states (have you read that one in full?), that "'It’s always the athlete’s responsibility to make sure he or she is available for testing.' That is what all athletes want and sport needs.  Fair rules to be applied fairly, at all times, to all athletes." And that means a ban.

Dan S wrote:

It's rather difficult to believe or disbelieve the story of the tester not doing their job, based on the very limited information provided by LA and UKAD.  If only there were an independent panel of experts that had heard both sides of the story in full and decided whether or not LA is at fault for that missed test...

Just FYI, the independent panel of experts that had heard both sides of the story in full and decided whether or not Ryan Braun's tester was at fault ruled against the tester.

Dan S wrote:

No slack whatsoever is required. ..  She did not fail a whereabouts test.

Armstrong, Indurain, Riis... so many others never failed tests. Does that mean they're clean? I'm not saying every ahtlete is dirty. But that not guilty is not the same as innocent, as anyone who follows cycling and legal cases should know.  And that it takes a leap of faith to believe that any athlete, much less any cyclist, is clean. How big that leap is depends on the individual. Until recently, I thought it was a very short hop with Armitstead.

Dan S wrote:

We have no information as to how many other athletes have two whereabouts failures, which is how many she has..

Acutally, we do, even if you're going to go about it with blikers on. We also know how many athletes have been reported to go to CAS to get one those tests invalidated: 1.

Dan S wrote:

Her statement refers to winning not be everything in two ways.  One is "I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it".  That's not a reason to bow out of Rio.  Anybody who does not think that way shuld bow out of sport altogether.

Care to share that logic? I'm guessing that you're not saying that anyone who thinks there's more to sport than just winning should bow out of sport altogether, but I can't quite make it out.

Carton wrote:

Just FYI, the independent panel of experts that had heard both sides of the story in full and decided whether or not Ryan Braun's tester was at fault ruled against the tester.

So?  Unless you're suggesting that we should therefore immediately disbelieve any independent panel of experts, I'm not sure where this takes us?  (I should say that I don't know anything about Ryan Braun or the story behind it).  We are still in a position where the only informed and impartial view available is that she didn't do anything wrong on that occasion.

Quote:

Armstrong, Indurain, Riis... so many others never failed tests. Does that mean they're clean?

No.  But this is not a question about whether Lizzie Armitstead is clean.  It's a question of whether she failed in her responsibilities as to notifying whereabouts.  Which she didn't.

Quote:

I'm not saying every ahtlete is dirty. But that not guilty is not the same as innocent, as anyone who follows cycling and legal cases should know.

True.  But "not guilty" is the same as "should not be banned". 

Quote:

And that it takes a leap of faith to believe that any athlete, much less any cyclist, is clean. How big that leap is depends on the individual. Until recently, I thought it was a very short hop with Armitstead.

Certainly I have more doubts about her than I did.  But you don't ban people on the basis of doubt.  She hasn't broken the rules to the extent that merits a ban.

Quote:

Acutally, we do, even if you're going to go about it with blikers on.

That's GB, certainly.  I thought 'every other athlete' meant worldwide?  And the link doesn't appear to support the suggestion that every other athlete manages it.  6 out of around 300 had the same number of failed tests as LA.

Quote:

We also know how many athletes have been reported to go to CAS to get one those tests invalidated: 1.

Yes.  Note "reported".  As I understand it, ths is only being reported because of a leak.  It would not ordinarily be made public.  We also have to consider that LA may well not be the only person to take the view that it wasn't worth challenging a missed test because it was her first.  Had she not got the next two, this one would still have been wrong but wouldn't have been challenged.

Quote:

Her statement refers to winning not be everything in two ways.  One is "I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it".  That's not a reason to bow out of Rio.  Anybody who does not think that way shuld bow out of sport altogether.

Care to share that logic? I'm guessing that you're not saying that anyone who thinks there's more to sport than just winning should bow out of sport altogether, but I can't quite make it out.

The "not obsessively driven" is clearly meant to link to "I wouldn't cheat".  My logic is that if you are so obsesively driven that you'd cheat then you should get out.  Just as you should if you think cycling comes before family.

I am not saying she's clean.  I'm saying this test was apparently wrongly done and therefore she shouldn't be banned.

You've made some fair (if in my view somewhat narrow) points, Dan.

Dan S wrote:

No.  But this is not a question about whether Lizzie Armitstead is clean.  It's a question of whether she failed in her responsibilities as to notifying whereabouts.  Which she didn't.

I am not saying she's clean.  I'm saying this test was apparently wrongly done and therefore she shouldn't be banned.

But this seems to be the crux of where we differ. I think that Armitstead being clean or not is of greater importance than whether she races or whether she wins. The eventual decision may paint a different picture. But on the available evidence and on historical precedent, I'm biased to conclude that an arbitration panel is more likely to dwell on Blackstone's formulation than the moral hazard of being overly lenient. It seems like most of her fellow competitors who have voiced an opinion share a similar view. Like it or not, athletes, particularly those who are the face of the sport, have a greater responsibility to the sport then being narrowly within a generous interpretation of the rules. If she states that "I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it", she should back those words with actions, and withdraw from the Olympics. But YMMV.

Carton wrote:

But this seems to be the crux of where we differ. I think that Armitstead being clean or not is of greater importance than whether she races or whether she wins. The eventual decision may paint a different picture. But on the available evidence and on historical precedent, I'm biased to conclude that an arbitration panel is more likely to dwell on Blackstone's formulation than the moral hazard of being overly lenient. It seems like most of her fellow competitors who have voiced an opinion share a similar view. Like it or not, athletes, particularly those who are the face of the sport, have a greater responsibility to the sport then being narrowly within a generous interpretation of the rules. If she states that "I am not obsessively driven to success in cycling, I love my sport, but I would never cheat for it", she should back those words with actions, and withdraw from the Olympics. But YMMV.

But as far as any of us knows, she didn't do anything wrong on the first test. That seems to be what CAS has ruled. So imposing a ban would mean either banning her for two missed tests (thereby singling her out from every other athlete on the planet) or banning her for the first test, which means banning her for doing nothing wrong.

People keep talking about her pathetic excuses. Yes, the second one was an admin error, which is bloody stupid. Yes, the third one seems to have been agreed by all parties to have been her fault, albeit everybody also agrees that there was a genuine family emergency, so it's not like she concocted that as an excuse to cover a deliberate evasion. At least, there is currently no evidence of that... So yes, she's plainly at fault for those two.

The first one is not about her excuses. It's not about whether she gave her hotel number or should have kept her phone on our should have called back in the morning or should have made sure there was somebody on reception with specific instructions to tell her if anti-doping turned up. We don't know whether she actually did some of those things, there being no evidence either way. The question is whether she failed to supply enough information to allow her to be found with reasonable effort. We don't know enough to judge that for ourselves. Yet.

Until we know more, calling for a ban means either saying CAS reached the wrong conclusion on something we don't have the evidence on our saying she should be banned for two missed tests and a "nothing wrong".

The same goes for withdrawing. Should everybody else with two fails withdraw?

PaulBox wrote:

The main thing that I don't understand is why the tester didn't just ask the receptionist to call her room.

They never give out numbers but will always ring unless there is a specific do-not-disturb notice on the room. And even then, a short discussion with the receptionist would have sorted it

crazy as it sounds, I think it's because they can't do that. It's an unannounced test and calling her would make it an announced test, kind of negating the point of the test. Crazy I agree but that's their rules. The process does though then rely on the tester doing everything he can to gain access and if he still can't, it's then the athlete's "fault". Of course the cheats try to beat the system so the system needs to be strict but it doesn't take much imagination to see how an innocent rider could fall foul of it too.  

stephen connor wrote:

Missing three tests in a short period is not accepteable. If you are unreachable at a time pre specified by you then it is your fault full stop. It is your repsonsibility to notifiy the relevant party that you are unavailable. If your phone was off or battery empty, thats your fault.

The three explainations may well be true and legit but to happen in the year of becoming world champion is not good optics. Then waiting until the third strike to appeal is a stupid decision. Obvisouly doesn't take enough heed of the possible consequences so she should be given the standard ban. No special treatment beacuse she's a world champion, in fact she should be under clsoer scrutiny because of it so no future query re: possible doping can be made.

Everything you say is true but also beside the point.  As far as can be made out, CAS didn't quash the ban because LA had some reasonable excuse but because the tester didn't make reasonable efforts to contact her.  What efforts he did make and what he should have done, CAS haven't yet said.  The ruling is what it is.  

Athletes are required to provide enough details of their whereabouts to be contactable by somebody making reasonable endeavours.  Nothing more.  CAS, having heard evidence that we don't yet know, said she did that.  In which case it's not her fault.