- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Lizzie Armistead in Team GB Rio kit.PNGLizzie Armitstead faced two-year ban after three 'missed' drugs tests
Lizzie Armitstead risked missing the Olympic road race next week after UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) tried to ban her for two years for missing three anti-doping controls within a 12-month period.
The world champion, who was provisionally suspended on 11 July this year, took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which ruled she was not at fault for the first ‘missed’ test, reports Mail Online.
The 27-year-old from Otley, West Yorkshire, accepts that she was at fault for the other two missed tests, meaning that between now and October she is still only one more away from being banned.
The CAS hearing was held on 21 July with Armitstead supported by British Cycling and related to alleged missed tests on 20 August 2015, 5 October 2015 and 9 June 2016.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes must notify their whereabouts for the purposes of anti-doping control for a set hour each day, using the World Anti-Doping Agency’s ADAMS system.
Three missed tests in 12 months constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and can lead to a ban of up to four years.
The reasons for the CAS decision were outlined in a statement from Armitstead’s representatives, which reads:
"The ruling relates to a UKAD anti-doping test which was asserted to have been attempted on Thursday August 20, 2015, whilst Armitstead was staying at the team hotel, during the UCI Women's Road World Cup in Sweden.
"CAS ruled that the UKAD doping control officer had not followed required procedures nor made reasonable attempts to locate Armitstead.
"CAS also ruled that there was no negligence on Armitstead's part and that she had followed procedures according to the guidelines.
"Armitstead undertook in-competition testing the following day, as leader of the UCI Women's Road World Cup.
"The independent panel of leading legal experts from CAS promptly and unanimously cleared Armitstead of the asserted missed test."
According to Mail Online, for that test in August last year, the anti-doping official gave hotel staff no explanation as to why he needed to know Armitstead’s room number, and they declined to give him the information.
While he did try and call Armitstead, the rider’s phone was set to silent as she slept, and that seems to have been the only attempt to get in touch with her.
“'I have always been and will always be a clean athlete and have been vocal in my anti-doping stance throughout my career,” Armitstead said in her statement.
“I am pleased that CAS has accepted my position, having provided detailed information demonstrating the situation around my strikes.
“This issue was one of administration and was the result of UKAD not following proper procedure nor fully attempting to make contact with me despite clear details being provided under ‘whereabouts’.
“I was tested in competition the day after this test, reinforcing my position that I do not cheat and had no intention of not being tested.
“I think that there should be clearer guidelines for those administrating tests and would like to work with UKAD going forward to explore how this can be better addressed in the future so no other athlete is put in this position.
“Meanwhile, I hope that UKAD can now return to the important job of making sure all athletes are clean and that Rio is the clean Olympics that we all want.
“I understand how important it is to be vigilant in my role as a professional athlete and realise the potential implications this could have had. I would like to thank British Cycling and the team around me for all of their help and support.
'I am very much looking forward to putting this situation behind me and firmly focusing on Rio again after what has been an extremely difficult time for myself and my family.”
The statement did acknowledge, however, that the rider was at fault for the other two missed tests, saying: “The October 2015 failure was the result of a filing failure on ADAMS caused by an administrative oversight. Armitstead did not dispute the oversight.
“The June 2016 missed test was the result of Armitstead not updating her whereabouts on ADAMS, having had an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family.”
Following the Olympic Games, where the London 2012 road race runner-up to Marianne Vos of the Netherlands starts as favourite to take gold, Armitstead has a busy schedule off the bike next month with her wedding to Team Sky rider Philip Deignan and the launch of her autobiography, Steadfast.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Adam Sutton 6 min 7 sec ago
Oh yeah that was hilarous!
- BalladOfStruth 33 min 13 sec ago
Playing Devil's advocate, but it's the comparative drop that's "good", not the raw number itself.
- maxdabrit 40 min 1 sec ago
When the supplied pictures show a dark grainy picture to hide the hideous welds and further disguise the cheap-to produce- one piece headtube...
- Simon E 1 hour 16 min ago
I think you're conflating top-end bike prices with reduced participation, whether that's riding bikes for leisure or competition (for which there...
- ktache 1 hour 44 min ago
Anyone else noticing the joy expressed on those smiling faces of the morning windscreen scrapers?
- mattsccm 1 hour 45 min ago
I know that road well. Absolutely amazing that it should be shut to all motorised traffic. Lorries yes but local house holders, nope. This just...
- ktache 1 hour 46 min ago
Go on the jacket that does everything page. You'd think he'd be happy in the perfect jacket, but no....
- wtjs 3 hours 8 min ago
In early December 2022 there was also a lengthy cold spell. Then, the roads soon pulled moisture out of the air and paths and roads became icy and...
- wtjs 3 hours 27 min ago
The thing about these multiple personality disorder people is that they're unable to keep in character or maintain the distinction between the...
Add new comment
35 comments
I don't think failure to contest the first test immediately is suspicious in itself. I assume it is not a trivial legal and administrative process, so why bother going through all that if it is your first strike? If Armistead didn't expect to face any further testing problems (either because she is clean, or she is not clean but was confident she wouldn't be caught) why would she waste time and energy on contesting the first test? It would make more sense to just write it off and get on with your season. Of course, when you hit strike 3 and you are facing a ban, the situation is very different.
Not suggesting the story is not worthy of further investigation, but the late challenge doesn't strike me as a smoking gun.
Her dad said on twitter that she did contest it (which contravenes the official statement). I do think though that these should not be viewed as three strikes by the athlete. They are three strikes purely for admininistrative "fairness."
It is absolutely trivial. when you recieve your notification you simply complete a form saying that you were in your location at the time of test and that the tester was not, and that you were not contacted. It is then up to UKAD (or the equivalent testing body if tested by others) to prove that they were, and to do an internal investigation and reply with results. Only at that point does it even start to get legal and you can then get the lawyers involved if you don't like the reply.
But even then, the big problem I have is how you make the same mistake again? And now on two strikes within 6 months, how can you then make a third mistake?
And bearing in mind that the chance coincidence that the tester happened to turn up exactly on the only three occassions of mistakes are astronomical so it is statisticaly likely that these were not the only mistakes. At the very least it is an absolutely ridiculous lack of professionalism.
Except that the tester didn't turn up on all three occasions. The second one there was no attempted test: somebody simply noted that her location one morning didn't match what she'd put on ADAMS. So had there been an attempted test she would have missed it.
It's hard to extrapolate any further without knowing how often somebody checks ADAMS against somebody's location without a tester actually turning up. Might be that they never do that and it was just a chance discovery, in which case it does seem fair to suggest that she probably had more instances that weren't noticed. But maybe they do it very regularly and this was her only one.
Of course, the same point arises for every other athlete: how many have got their location wrong but not been tested? Mark Cavendish's autobiography describes how he was at the Tour of Britain but realised that his whereabouts form said he was in Italy. He immediately corrected it but if a tester had goen to Italy the night before he'd have been stuffed. He only realised when his teammate Rasmussen missed three tests. I wonder how many other athletes are suddenly checking more carefully?
You would have thought that at the time of the first 'missed' test that it would have been contested and wiped from the record if it was the fault of the doping officer. Then she/they wouldnt be in the news now with 3 missed tests?
Not suprising people are sceptical.
and in the past there have been a number of pro cyclists who have missed tests, claimed they were an accident, promoted their stance on riding clean and anti-doping, and then...
I can follow most of what has been reported today.
Test 2 was basically an error by the athlete in updating their whereabouts. That's fair enough. It's part of your job as an athlete, but I can understand someone making a mistake, especially when they are competing internationally and living out of hotels. That's why there is a three strike rule.
Test 3 has been reported as an emergency family situation that resulted in the athlete being unavailable. I believe you can update your availability up to one hour before the scheduled test window, so it had to be a genuine crisis where Armistead dropped everything and just wasn't thinking about the daily routine. Again, that doesn't seem an implausible scenario, and the probability of an emergency is not determined by the number of previously missed tests. Sometimes stuff happens.
It's the circumstances of Test 1 that puzzles me a bit, and the way it has been reported doesn't seem to fully explain what happened. Why would a UKAD tester go all the way to Sweden and apparently fail to locate Armistead so easily? I think in that situation I would be putting my accreditation on the table and explaining very clearly to the hotel staff what I was there to do, and the consequences for the athlete if I failed to do my job. The only other reason I can think of is that the hotel literally couldn't find her; i.e. her phone was off (as reported) the room wasn't booked in her name (but even then individuals usually have to sign in, don't they?) and failing that the hotel staff couldn't find a specific professional team that were staying with them. I guess all that might be possible, but that's not how it has been reported.
Just a quick clarification. You can update your location up to 1 MINUTE before your 1 hour long test window starts.
Personally I think that rule is nonsense as you could simply make sure you are 2 hours away from where you said you would be and make a last minute change. But then I don't write the rules, I just have to follow them.
I have a few thoughts on this,
I thought UKAD were responsible for out of competition testing, turning up a day before a race when the athlete will be tested anyway seems a little strange. Doesn't feel like 'out of competition' to me. Where is the line can they turn up on the same day and wait in line whiel the athlete provides samples for the competition testers?
Staying in the team hotel, and the tester unable to gain access to her room, this seems to have happened to someone before. It seems incredible that the tester turns up, asks for her room number, is surprised when the hotel don't give the information out to an unidentified person and doesn't present his credentials as a doping tester. is this because of concern that the hotel will ring ahead and warm the athlete that the tester is coming?
I don't think i would be able to put an expected room number down in my future whearabouts, and even if I did, most hotels these days do not allow access without a room key.
However, I am assuming athletes are notified of the incidence of a missed test, and that knowing they already had one missed test (however unfair) would be extra catious going forward. Especially as tests 2 and 3 basically come down to not filing the correct location on the system.
Wowsers...
To be fair and rational about this, I was very sceptical at another UK athlete's missed tests, so I have to be at least equally as sceptical on this occasion.
Getting off on a technicality is the term I'd use.
1x test, acceptable, 2x tests questionable, but 3x tests? Thats either clumsy beyond measure, or showing utter contempt for the process.
I fervently hope there are no skeletons here, but I agree. If you know you're on two missed tests, for valid reasons or otherwise, you leave your phone on and you triple check you've filled in the form EVERY day. It's your livelihood and you don't mess with it.
Armitstead is not a silly little girl or a stupid 18-year-old footballer. She must know the risks she runs.
Yeah, I've always liked her but I didn't like how she's handled this. All the emphasis on the third test, like she hadn't missed two others. All the blame to that one passed on to an underpaid tester that collects and transports urine for a living, à la Ryan Braun. Own up to your mistakes.
I'm not one to pray at the altar of the dawg, but compare and contrast:
“I did appeal to try and explain the circumstances to the authorities but at the end of the day I take full responsibility for that case,” said Froome, who has previously claimed to have been tested more than 30 times in one three-week period.
“I should have been more proactive in letting the hotel know this was a possibility that I could be tested. I’ve certainly learned my lesson there. I’ve stayed in hotels all over the world and I’ve been tested all over the world without any issues at all. Unfortunately I just didn’t see this one coming but it’s opened my eyes and I’m definitely going to be more pro-active in the future. It’s always the athlete’s responsibility to make sure he or she is available for testing.”
So where was team managemnt in all of this? It may be the riders ultimate responsibility to broadcast their whereabouts and be contactable, but managing a team isn't just about the race, it is also about daily admin and protecting the reputation of the team & riders.
They've been too busy dominating the sport Mapei-style.
Why would you put the mobile whose number you gave in your ADAMS as your contact number on silent? Lizzie and only Lizzie was responsible for that decision. That she gets off /one/ of her missed tests on a technicality doesn't change the fact she missed that test, and it most definitely does not explain her _other two_ missed tests.
Worth reading this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2011/07/life_on_the_uk_anti-doping...
I recognise it is old, but it did make clear to me how a missed test is possible.
The article states that
'Call my mobile? I had turned it off overnight for the first time in years, thoughts only of a lie-in, but the DCO (Doping Control Officer) could not have called it anyway. Testing cannot be done without warning if your phone alerts you first.'
Seems we're not the only ones questioning this
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-reprieve-questioned-fellow-athletes
I remember watching a Cavendish documentary when he missed a test because he'd delegated admin to a mate - he went absolutely mental and sacked him! that's after just one missed test.
Surely you'd be more careful, as the World Champ?! Why not appeal the first result after it happened - why wait till three had passed? Presumably she knew of the first 'strike' as soon as it had happened and you would think would do everything possible in her power to avoid further lapses?!
She's British and the World Champ. Much too big to kick out of the Olympics for simply breaking the rules.
If it was me I'd be a bit more careful after missing the 1st one.
It seems sometimes like cycling is the only tested sport in the UK. The FA are basically self policing and I'd bet they'd shit themselves if by some legals means footballers got independently tested at random. Most sports drug testing is as laughable as crossfit's.
I bet Ronaldo is a walking science experiment.
^ THIS
The world's largest revenue generating sport would surely have those little inconveniences prevented from being exposed?
I'm not so sure your conspiracy theory is valid in this case. Here we have a UK athlete who has not broken the rules and not been banned yet. One of the three testes was deemed to be invalid, so only two tests were missed.
The situation in Russia seems quite different.
There is a danger that the Russian situation is reported and judged unfairly (although the gravity of their situation should not be underplayed either) - but I don't think this is the case you are making it out to be.
An invalid teste? it's Lance Armstrong all over again!
Obviously its a huge cover up with even Theresa May involved and UKAD officials being listed on Camerons honours list..........and back to reality its one person who missed tests, hardly large scale.
Your career depends on taking these tests. To miss three is a joke. In a sport which is trying desperately to put doping behind it, this does its image no good at all.
Why have you written "missed" drug tests? Is that up for debate? Did she not miss the tests?
If she was Russian they'd have written dodged instead of 'missed'.
FFS, Have a day off
Does it wind you up that much.
Can you like, really, really not handle it.
If she was Russian, it is unlikely we would be aware of it, as the State would have covered it up. This case was being pursued by UK Anti-Doping, can you see the difference ?
Regards,
Gordon
Pages