Originally Posted by Mark F:
“One might be an accident/not your "fault" but 3 is carless.
”
My feeling is there's no carelessness about it, and Armitstead saying she was tested in-competition the following day which proves she is clean is complete nonsense. I'm sure most of us here realise many PEDs, particularly the myriad of modern synthetic concoctions, are only traceable for a short period after use.
And the procedural errors only relate to the first test - what about the other two she missed in a twelve month period? Apparently Armitstead said the reason she missed one of the other tests was because a family emergency caused a sudden change of plans. Not good enough, and ultimately she did not contest she was at fault missing the other two.
However, to avoid an automatic ban which would result from three missed tests. all her lawyers needed to do was to demonstrate procedural errors regarding one of these tests, which they did. I believe she has been extremely lucky, and it leaves a pretty unpleasant taste in the mouth.
I've said on this forum in the past I have serious doubts about her. No smoking gun, but a number of things that raise suspicions imo. Firstly, the dramatic change in her physical appearance from 2012 to the following year, from fresh faced to very spotty and a noticeably more prominent jawline.
Also, after Nicole Cooke's allegations about doping in women's cycling, Armitstead was very quick to assert the sport is clean.
I was also totally unaware that she'd been suspended since 11 July. Why weren't we told? There was certainly no mention of it on any of the multitude of cycling shows in the past 3 weeks.