UK Anti-Doping has a policy of a four year ban from competition for three missed anti-doping tests within the space of 12 months. Lizzie Armitstead missed three tests on August 20th 2015, October 5th 2015 and June 9th 2016. By UKAD's own rules, Armitstead was charged and provisionally suspended on June 11th.
Ten days later, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that the first missed test was to be voided, as correct procedures were not followed. Armitstead stated that she was in her hotel room when the tester had visited. Her phone was on silent and the staff at the hotel refused to give the rider's room information out. Armitstead did not contest the second and third violations. These were due to an administrative error for the second, and not updating her whereabouts due to a family emergency for the third, (and final) violation.
This is where the facts stop, and the questions begin.
bbc.co.uk
One of the key questions is why was the first offence not appealed much sooner, if not immediately. You can perhaps understand not bothering to expunge one strike out of three, but with a second coming just over six weeks later, why take the risk of another mishap in the next ten and a bit months?
And speaking of not wanting to take any risks, knowing that she was on her last chance before a four year ban should have had Armitstead in a state of constant vigilance. I appreciate I don't know the ins and outs of exactly how it works, but as far as I can tell there's a system where you can keep your whereabouts updated at all times, in and out of competition, so that you're always reachable.
My lack of knowledge also extends to what this family emergency was, but after eight months of being a step away from a lengthy suspension, surely it should have been second nature by this point to whip her phone out and update her availability. Being that close to having your reputation shredded, whether justifiably or not, would surely reshuffle your priorities.
That last point, about whether there would be justification, is an interesting one. A failed test is theoretically very different from a missed one (especially since Armitstead passed a test just a day after one of her missed ones), but in terms of suspensions, it makes little or no difference historically.
In 2007, Michael Rasmussen was suspended for two years for missing a drug test (granted, he admitted years later to have doped throughout his career). That two year suspension was the same received by Floyd Landis, who failed a drug test a year earlier. Both were leading the Tour de France (or in Landis' case, had just won it) at the time of the tests.
Boels-Dolmans
I was wondering whether she'd been saved by the five stripes across her jersey, as the current World Champion, but those high profile suspensions (plus Alberto Contador's suspension and stripping of two Grand Tour titles in 2012, when he was arguably the biggest name in cycling at the time) suggest that the UCI, WADA and associated bodies are not above suspending big names. If anything, the sense that not even the big names are above the law serves to add to cycling's credibility, which is slowly being regained despite episodes such as this.
But if there isn't any 'one rule for one, one rule for another' at the top of cycling, why has Armitstead's suspension been lifted. Was the family emergency deemed serious enough that they took pity on her, and absolved her using any loophole they could find? Doubtful. Anti doping agencies and the CAS aren't known for their caring approach.
The only reason can surely be that she is clean, and that the first test was indeed not attempted under proper circumstances. Perhaps the only favouritism here is that Armitstead's name value has seen this case thrust into the wider public view. Did you all know that Diego Rosa will take part in Rio under the same cloud? He missed two attempted tests in June and was cleared of two of his three strikes. It is true that these were inarguably down to error on the part of the testing body, but three missed tests still get tongues wagging.
We could sit here all day and listen to me (or smarter people) discuss this issue, so I'll summarise my thoughts as best I can. I don't believe, in heart or head, that Lizzie Armitstead dopes. Nor do I believe that there's any nefarious reason for her missed tests. What I honestly think is that she's either naive or just plain daft. The questions I raised earlier, about why the first strike wasn't challenged earlier and how she did not think to update her whereabouts constantly when at risk of that third strike, are the biggest that Lizzie Armitstead has to answer, and ignorance is likely to be the reason.
What does remain, however, are two of her strikes, so let's hope she is constantly in touch with testers up until at least October 5th (when the second of those three infamous strikes will be, er, stricken), and hopefully well beyond. Armitstead's reputation has taken a bashing this week, but in time, with no more ammunition, it should survive. But if she allows more questions to be raised for any reason, it may not.
No comments:
Post a Comment