Armitstead missed three drugs tests.

[thirdcrank]

I've been reminded about this thread by the current one about Nicole Cooke. Six months on and it seems that the CAS still has not published its reasons for this decision. That's hard to understand since the broad reasons must have been known for the judgment to have been reached and all that can have been left to do was the twiddly bits. I think this delay is unfortunate for two important reasons.

The first is that if the shortcomings of the WADA "whereabouts" procedures - or perhaps UKAD's interpretation of them - remain unpublished, then the same errors may be repeated. Getting it right in future is important for all involved in sport.

Then, the longer this drags on, the greater the negative reporting of cycling when it eventually re-emerges, dressed up as a new scandal, rather than a footnote to an earlier incident.

[landsurfer]

The longer people keep draging it up the longer it will go on for ... Who's next Tom Simpson ....

[TrevA]

Nicole Cooke missed a test. Stones, Glasshouses?

[landsurfer]

Nicole Cooke missed a test. Stones, Glasshouses?

+1

[Cyril Haearn]

The world of our olympic heroes has very little in common with our sort of cycling

[Spinners]

Nicole Cooke missed a test. Stones, Glasshouses?

+1

+3 (the three missed by Armistead in 12 months compared to Cooke's 1 in 14 years)

[Norman H]

From what I remember reading at the time, Nicole Cooke used the example of her own missed test in her criticism of Lizzie Armitstead. She made the point that it was entirely her own fault and served as a wake up call, and that she never missed another test in her entire career.

[landsurfer]

From what I remember reading at the time, Nicole Cooke used the example of her own missed test in her criticism of Lizzie Armitstead. She made the point that it was entirely her own fault and served as a wake up call, and that she never missed another test in her entire career.

But the rules about out of sport drug tests where very different during Cooke's time .... She was not pursued from hotel to hotel to holiday flat ... She was a supreme athlete during one of the worst drug using periods of cycling history ... And was clean ...
Armitstead competes in a different world ... Post Armstrong etc .

[mjr]

But the rules about out of sport drug tests where very different during Cooke's time .... She was not pursued from hotel to hotel to holiday flat ... She was a supreme athlete during one of the worst drug using periods of cycling history ... And was clean ...
Armitstead competes in a different world ... Post Armstrong etc .

Really? Armstrong retired 2005 and 2011, Armstrong was banned 2012; whereabouts started 2004; Cooke started elite racing in 2002 and retired in 2013; Armitstead started elite racing in 2006. Seems like both will have raced post Armstrong and lived with whereabouts.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I remember the interview after this came to light and Armitstead admits that she was a bit vulnerable at the time citing that she put her family before her career, I respect her for that.
Considering that an athlete can be banned and a career ruined unless they want to take up kickboxing for money by not sticking to the letter of the rules, with your head on you would be a bit more careful, I know its probably fraught with holes.

On the other hand I don't respect Mo and his lack of mature behaviour where he just ran off and is no longer even resident in this country?
I suppose that the 2012 golden boy could not be exposed before the Olympics for the sake of the reputation of british Olympics............just my opinion.

[Norman H]

But the rules about out of sport drug tests where very different during Cooke's time .... She was not pursued from hotel to hotel to holiday flat ... She was a supreme athlete during one of the worst drug using periods of cycling history ... And was clean ...
Armitstead competes in a different world ... Post Armstrong etc .

Their careers overlapped for a good deal and Cooke only retired in 2013. The rules were relaxed somewhat in 2009. Including reducing from 18months to 12 months, the period during which an athlete is allowed three missed tests.

Nicole Cooke has consistently called for more stringent testing and tougher penalties for drugs, throughout her career.

[thirdcrank]

I resurrected this through feeling frustrated by the seemingly unexplained delay by CAS in publishing the reasoning for a finding which has procedural implications for all sport: nobody wants the same mistake(s) to be repeated but that can only be prevented by knowing what was done incorrectly and taking steps to act correctly in future.

As for my other point about publicity and controversy in the media, even on here it's started some of that again. Lizzie Armitstead was cleared by CAS and that's that. End of. We still need to know how to prevent it happening again, but you can't get something right till you know what you did wrong.

[Norman H]

I resurrected this through feeling frustrated by the seemingly unexplained delay by CAS in publishing the reasoning for a finding which has procedural implications for all sport

Frustrating indeed, I think Chris Froome would also be interested to hear their explanation. I believe he suffered a missed test under near identical circumstances. He appealed the decision, although I don't know to which authority he appealed, but judging by subsequent comments that he made, that authority took a different view to the Lizzie Armitstead case and the the missed test stayed on his record.

CAS may have greater trouble reconciling that apparent anomaly, than explaining the reasons for overturning the LA decision.

[thirdcrank]

My only personal experience of anything like this is the breathalyser for drivers. Obtaining specimens from anybody is to some extent an invasion of their privacy so there should be a proper reason for the request and procedures to be adhered to in the making of requests for specimens.

The proper reason for the breathalyser is related to road safety and drug testing in sport is to ensure the integrity of competition. Then, the procedures in one originate in the legislation and in the other it's the WADA rules. Court decisions provide further guidance, usually binding guidance about how legislation/ rules should be applied. It's missing here.

Not all CAS decisions are published and I think that's to protect the privacy of athletes if eg they have a medical condition that's nobody else's business, but we seem to have a gap in the system here. UKAD's www still says they are waiting for the detailed judgment to be published but CAS seems to have moved on. At the moment there's nothing to stop a repeat, unless the authorities put "whereabouts" on hold. Neither can be satisfactory.

As for those concerned, especially Ms Armitstead, having been cleared she's entitled to move on, but this must re-emerge eventually, either when CAS publishes the judgment or when it becomes clear they are not going to do so and either way, it will be more controversy.

[mjr]

The proper reason for the breathalyser is related to road safety and drug testing in sport is to ensure the integrity of competition.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that protecting participant health (both directly from doping likely to be dangerous to long-term health and indirectly from impaired decision-making by other doped-up athletes) isn't a proper reason.

As for those concerned, especially Ms Armitstead, having been cleared she's entitled to move on, but this must re-emerge eventually, either when CAS publishes the judgment or when it becomes clear they are not going to do so and either way, it will be more controversy.

Yep, it ain't over until it's over