Doping git thread

[400bhp]

Not sure about Boardman, but Cath Wiggins was very quick in her day, particularly on the track, a member of the national junior squad, and still races now and again.

Sorry I should have said pro-cyclist.

 

[400bhp]

Hence my use of "real world" rather than real world.

She sounds like she's playing the victim well; the sweet 18 year old schoolgirl, all alone with no help, the system failed her, a loving family for whom she demands privacy, heartfelt plea to understand just how much she does without support, she operates in an environment different to the majority of athletes (not sure where she gets that one from tbh), a psychiatrist assessment is mentioned, mistake, after honest mistake; she just about stops short of saying "think of the children...", but manages to have a dig at the "twitter army" (I think she means people expressing opinions on twitter rather than there actually being an actual army on twitter)

Incoherent musings (not you btw).

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Incoherent musings (not you btw).

That's a first for me

 

[mjr]

She sounds like she's playing the victim well;

I think I'm only going to get worried about that if she also starts a Lizzie Armitstead Foundation fundraising by selling rainbow-coloured wristbands.

(I think she means people expressing opinions on twitter rather than there actually being an actual army on twitter)

Yeah, https://twitter.com/BritishArmy are going "WTF did we do?!?"

 

[smutchin]

Not sure about Boardman, but Cath Wiggins was very quick in her day, particularly on the track, a member of the national junior squad, and still races now and again.

IIRC, Chris met Sally through cycling but she pretty much gave it up to be Mrs Boardman.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Yeah, https://twitter.com/BritishArmy are going "WTF did we do?!?"

Maybe she got confused when she saw their tweets about #Armistice??

 

[rich p]

I don't like this dismissal of anyone who thinks there is a case worth discussing, whatever side of the fence you fall on, as being a twitter army and internet know-nothing trolls.
The facts are out there and many people, including current sportsmen (M&F), think she has been extremely fortunate.
If we can save just one poor unfortunate cyclist from suffering at the hands of....

...Oh give over, enough now, ed.

 

[smutchin]

The facts are out there

Some facts are out there... But don't worry, I don't think she was talking about you.

many people, including current sportsmen (M&F), think she has been extremely fortunate.

Yes, very fortunate. And let's hope deservedly so.

 

[rich p]

Some facts are out there... But don't worry, I don't think she was talking about you.



Yes, very fortunate. And let's hope deservedly so.

I'm still smarting from oldroadman saying that the CAS panel ...aren't any old people....
Only young ones then

 

[Flying_Monkey]

As published on Facebook by Lizzie A.
A brave and in my view, straightforward and honest women.
Whether the know-nothing opinion trolls will accept it, who knows.
I just hope she is able to put in a brilliant performance in a few days, although I fear that all this pressure from media and internet comment may have had a bad effect on morale. Let's hope it has the opposite effect, energises her Yorkshire grit and use that wonderful talent to batter 'em all.

oldroadman, you know more than most about the racing scene of the past, and we all appreciate that. However, your argument here is verging on 'she's honest and clean because she's from Yorkshire'. It's basically a variation on the old cliché that the British (and really, the English) don't cheat at sports, that's only foreigners. Let's face it, unless your anonymity is hiding a lot more personal knowledge than you let on, you have just as little specific knowledge about what "Lizzie A." is up to than the 'know-nothing opinion trolls'. I am particularly curious as to why you leap to Armitstead's defence when you were performing the opposite role (cynic / sceptic / denier) when it came to the allegations from a lot more female cyclists about the situation within British Cycling recently.

I do wonder why it is that some particular athletes - and some particular female athletes - get support and not others. Is it just 'nice girls' that we want rather than the bolshie, difficult ones?

PS: you will note that I am making no judgment about Armitstead. The process that has occured here, however, has been overly secretive, leading to suspicion, and there are unanswered questions that will now always cast some doubt over her. She's never going to have the unquestionable status she did before, and she will be watched more closely.

 

[smutchin]

The process that has occured here, however, has been overly secretive

As far as I can see, the process has been conducted within normal UKAD rules. Some anti-doping authorities publish details of provisional suspensions, UKAD don't. UKAD also don't publish details of cases where the athlete is cleared of the charge, unless the athlete consents.

This has only come out because of a leak of confidential information which the Mail has chosen to publish for its scandal value rather than as part of some moral crusade in the name of public interest.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Having just spent a wee while on google, there are very few athletes who have fallen foul of a "whereabouts" ban. Which might suggest that the system is not too difficult and/or that the level of support offered usually helps in cases where there have been missed tests.

It also indicates that those who are caught out seem to highlight just how unfair and difficult it all is...

 

[DogTired]

As opposed to a lot of trial by internet, its worth pointing out that UKAD pushed the guilty button on this. Most of the comments here (and professional athletes too http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders-react-to-the-lizzie-armitstead-case/ ) share (with UKAD) an increasing level of bemusement at the trial outcome from CAS.

Personally I can put nationality and reputation aside and look at the reports - mistakes happen but at the same time no-one is above suspicion either. UKAD initiated the action and an argument was won by barristers on behalf of British Cycling and LA - quite frankly when barristers get involved discussing minutiae you might as well toss a coin on the outcome.

Time and time again highly motivated individuals have shown themselves to be capable of stepping over the line and automatic suspension of disbelief does no-one any favours. Currently virtually no-one suggests she's actually doped. All comment is about breaking the protocol that protects clean athletes.

 

[Buddfox]

Time and time again highly motivated individuals have shown themselves to be capable of stepping over the line and automatic suspension of disbelief does no-one any favours. Currently virtually no-one suggests she's actually doped. All comment is about breaking the protocol that protects clean athletes.

This is worth repeating - no one here appears to be accusing her of doping, rather of being a dope.

 

[rich p]

As opposed to a lot of trial by internet, its worth pointing out that UKAD pushed the guilty button on this

This @oldroadman
They thought (and still think) that she was guilty of the offence. They may change their mind when and if CAS release their reasonings.