log in
register

Lizzie Armitstead misses three anti-doping controls and BC pays her appeal fees!

  • Creator
    Topic
  • August 2, 2016 at 8:13 am #26087
    Colin Peyresourde

    Not sure why road.cc is not reporting this, but doesn’t anyone find BC’s role a bit odd. None of the looks good on Lizzie.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • August 3, 2016 at 8:47 am #875891
    0
    pablo

    Don’t see the problem really
    Don’t see the problem really other than her own issues on the other two tests.

    The one she missed and appealed sounded like a lazy tester to me. She was tested the very next day during event testing.

    On the other two failures the way i understand it is you have to inform wada or ukada 3 months in advance which you can change later. I could see that happening alot with people forgetting to change it. I couldnt write a calender 3 months in advance every single day can you? Cyclingtips have an interview with someone who does this kind of testing for a living very good read.

    August 2, 2016 at 6:15 pm #875889
    0
    tritecommentbot
    Sniffer wrote:
    unconstituted wrote:
    In other words they did pay for the legal advice for Lizzie.

    I don’t read it like that and I think you are trying to make the statements fit your strongly held views.

    There are questions to be asked on this subject, but BC getting legal advice is a sideshow.

     

    No no. They actually paid for the legal briefing and strategy Lizzie used.

     

    There’s no spin here. No reading it any other way.

     

    That’s exactly what happened.

     

    And now Morgan’s Law are gloating over it.

    August 2, 2016 at 6:12 pm #875887
    0
    Sniffer
    unconstituted wrote:
    In other words they did pay for the legal advice for Lizzie.

    I don’t read it like that and I think you are trying to make the statements fit your strongly held views.

    There are questions to be asked on this subject, but BC getting legal advice is a sideshow.

    August 2, 2016 at 3:32 pm #875885
    0
    tritecommentbot

    In other words they did pay

    In other words they did pay for the legal advice for Lizzie.

    The appeal itself would have been less expensive that having a team of lawyers go at a brief and strategy to get her off the hook. They’d have spent time going through every dodged drugs test to try and find a way out. They only had to find a few things and try and get one to stick to make it work.  

     

    The whole thing stinks, but she’s a Brit, you know, one of us – so we’ll lap up any line they feed us.

     

    You know what’s really insidious though – how compliant UKAD were after the ruling. That’s weird that. Either spineless, or dodgy. 

    August 2, 2016 at 1:30 pm #875883
    0
    JohnnyRemo

    “We paid for legal advice on

    “We paid for legal advice on our own position because there were a number of considerations as she was going through the Olympic selection process and was a podium athlete,” said a British Cycling spokesman. “That legal advice was shared with Lizzie and her team. Lizzie herself funded the actual appeal to Cas”

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.