Doping git thread

[ColinJ]

to my mind it is a storm in a tea cup - missing tests is not the same as failing a test - a four year ban (or even the two that some sources quote) would have sent out a warning to the rest but in my mind would have been harsh - better for life bans from the Olympics for failing any test (as BOC tried and failed to impose) and longer bans in competition - including more life bans - for proven repeat dopers (and any coach caught supplying) both at amateur and pro level.

How would you ever fail a test if you made sure that you missed them!

 

[S-Express]

missing tests is not the same as failing a test

Effectively, it is.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

...the tests and the wherabouts are very necessary if doping is to be brought under control...

Very necessary but not that important?

 

[psmiffy]

according to the rules but not in my opinion - it should be a year ban for three strikes - 2 years if you repeat etc - Anti doping agencies need to be given more support and budgets from the national federation so that - more testing can be carried out across all sports - testing laboratories can all have the latest dohicky kit - Berties beef incident only came to light because his sample was sent to Koln where they had the latest GCMS-ICP with new sup er duper low detection limits - more research needs to be funded into both the detection of new drugs/doping strategies and the limitations of the blood passport - plus need to spend more on actually making the system accountable - more blind tests - laboratory QA monitoring etc

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Not a bad take on it. But I am still puzzled by the "interrupting my sleep" references - tell your partner not to pick early times then you twonk.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/08/news/domestique-partner-dealing-whereabouts_416879

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

according to the rules but not in my opinion

How can they be necessary but not important? That makes no sense.

 

[psmiffy]

I didn't say they were not important - I said they were necessary, however I also said they shouldn't be given the same weighting as a failed test - whats important is to catch actual dopers and the anti doping agencies should be given the support and funds to do that - whether it be by testing or intelligence gathering - and I also said when they are caught they should be hammered.

 

[psmiffy]

Oh - and did I say that I am glad she got off

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Oh - and did I say that I am glad she got off

You've obviously been licking the skin of rare newts (again)

 

[Strathlubnaig]

Actually I glad she got away with it - Im not condoning missing the tests - the tests and the wherabouts are very necessary if doping is to be brought under control - however, I couldnt live my life having to account for where I am every day - and Im not exactly an international traveller - It is their choice to be a professional athlete - and top sportspersons (maybe not a lot of women - but that is a discussion for another day) make a good living out of it - and they knew the rules when they signed up - to my mind it is a storm in a tea cup - missing tests is not the same as failing a test - a four year ban (or even the two that some sources quote) would have sent out a warning to the rest but in my mind would have been harsh - better for life bans from the Olympics for failing any test (as BOC tried and failed to impose) and longer bans in competition - including more life bans - for proven repeat dopers (and any coach caught supplying) both at amateur and pro level.

Missing a test may not be in the same league as failing a test, of course, but habitually missing them obviously raises flags. The same with an athlete who habitually uses the one hour window to alert the testers they will not be available, such occasions will of course arise but multiple times leads to greater targeting of that individual as it also raises flags. Armistead cocked up and should have known better, assuming she has nothing to hide of course, and in fact the move to 3 misses in 12 months from the previous 18 months only works in the athletes favour.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Oops!
"(the) missed test occurred last August while Armitstead was staying in a Swedish hotel, having failed to provide her room number to anti-doping authorities.

It emerged last night she did so after British Cycling sent an email to all riders in February last year telling them to include room numbers on their whereabouts information, advice also given on the website of UK Anti-Doping."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics...arned-by-british-cycling-before-missed-drugs/

 

[psmiffy]

Missing a test may not be in the same league as failing a test, of course, but habitually missing them obviously raises flags. The same with an athlete who habitually uses the one hour window to alert the testers they will not be available, such occasions will of course arise but multiple times leads to greater targeting of that individual as it also raises flags. Armistead cocked up and should have known better, assuming she has nothing to hide of course, and in fact the move to 3 misses in 12 months from the previous 18 months only works in the athletes favour.

Totally agree - and when there are missed tests the athlete should be subjected to targeted testing over and above the normal regime.both in an out of competition.

 

[PaulB]

There's a famous British gold-medal winning athlete who, when the drug testers knocked, went on the missing too often for it to be 'unfortunate' but that was in the 80s so nothing's said about that gold-medal winning athlete now. And no, I'm not referring to Linford Christie on this one.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Totally agree - and when there are missed tests the athlete should be subjected to targeted testing over and above the normal regime.both in an out of competition.

I'm not sure if any information is available regarding whether she was subject to "additional" testing.

I realise the following is based on assumption and limited information, however if we take the tweet from her father yesterday, stating she had been tested 16 times this year, then possibly not; in 2016 she has won 5 one-day races, a stage of The Women's Tour and wore the leaders jersey in The Women's Tour for 3 days (one being the same day she won the stage), so that's 8 times I would expect her to have been tested; which leaves another 8 tests, one of which we know she had the day after her first missed test. So 7 tests does not seem to me to be a rigorous approach was taken towards targeting her.

Early morning, only one coffee consumed musing...

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Just spotted that Armitstead's autobiography is due to be published in 5 weeks time, 8th September

Hope she makes herself available for the book signings...