• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
The Pro Cycling Thread (Part 2)
<<
<
255 of 279
>>
>
culttvfan
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by sunnymeg:
“The last missed test was due to a family member being ill. We know the family member concerned and they were rushed to hospital with a suspected heart attack.”

Armitstead herself though did not contest that she was at fault in this instance. As you are prepared to elucidate regarding this, perhaps you could provide some more information. Was this a close family member, did Armitstead attend the hospital as soon as she found out, and did she inform the testing authorities at the time she was not available for testing as she was visiting a sick relative? If not, was her phone switched on, was she contacted by the testers, and did she explain to them why she was unavailable?

Secondly, what were her reasons for missing the other test?.


Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“From an outsider it seems obvious that a certain testing window should be allowed.”

Increasing the window any more would mean even more dopers slipping through the net. As I said earlier, many PEDs are only traceable for a short period of time.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by culttvfan:
“
Secondly, what were her reasons for missing the other test?.
.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36948193
Marti S
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“Isn't the biological passport supposed to make it very hard to cheat? Aren't all professional cyclists monitored that way?

If the monitoring is good enough then the athlete shouldn't have to defend themselves additionally, as we saw with Froome providing additional data to try to quell the doubters.

If the monitoring and process around it isn't good enough it should be improved and a hard line taken for breaching it, so we can be more comfortable that we're watching clean athletes, and the clean athletes can rest assured they won't be tarnished.”

On the mens side I think only world tour teams have to do biological passports, not sure about the womens cycling though.

I remember Mo Farah missed a couple of tests, claims he was in but didnt hear the door bell and apparently the person coming to do the testing isnt allowed to ring them to find out where they are. I wouldnt be surprised if this is still the case, the rules seem way to ridged, how many of us could live our life where we can say where we will be between certain hours 365 days a year, I think it would be a strain on anyone.
culttvfan
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36948193”

Just to clarify, The 'other' missed test I'm referring to is the one on 5 October. According to Armitstead's statement, she missed the test due to an 'administrative failure' on her part but doesn't elaborate, but accepts she was at fault both regarding missing this test and the one on 9 June when her excuse was a sudden change of plans due to a serious family illness.

People can obviously judge for themselves whether or not justice has been served.


Originally Posted by Marti S:
“ the rules seem way to ridged, how many of us could live our life where we can say where we will be between certain hours 365 days a year, I think it would be a strain on anyone.”

There's no excuse. Athletes are constantly reminded of the rules and how important they are, and with mobile phones there is absolutely no excuse for not informing the authorities beforehand about a change in your whereabouts, even in the case of an emergency (see my previous post).
swingaleg
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Mark F:
“The Russians will probably jump all over this sort of verdict.”

Fair enough..........we'd jump all over it if it was one of theirs
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“Fair enough..........we'd jump all over it if it was one of theirs”

I doubt it, there are so many Russian doping incidents we just don't have time to worry about trivial ones like this.
culttvfan
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“I doubt it, there are so many Russian doping incidents we just don't have time to worry about trivial ones like this.”

It's sad that some people think missing three tests, one with no reason offered whatsoever, is trivial.
codeblue
02-08-2016
if you cannot prove you are innocent, you are guilty
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by culttvfan:
“It's sad that some people think missing three tests, one with no reason offered whatsoever, is trivial.”

It's trivial compared to actually failing a test. Or rigging a test. Or competing under a pseudonym while banned. Or threatening a tester.
codeblue
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“It's trivial compared to actually failing a test. Or rigging a test. Or competing under a pseudonym while banned. Or threatening a tester.”

how many people are missing test accidentally, as they know they are on a doping cycle?

its far too suspicious, she should be nowhere near the UK team
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“That's the procedure, innocent till proven guilty. Athletes and federations are notified, and given a chance to appeal before the names are released. Sometimes athletes admit it early.”

But when/if would we have found out about this? Seems the Mail were tipped off and went to Armistead for comment. Nothing from UKAD, British Cycling or CAS in the 10 days since the hearing.

Originally Posted by codeblue:
“how many people are missing test accidentally, as they know they are on a doping cycle?

its far too suspicious, she should be nowhere near the UK team”

Not sure if UKAD have ever released figures for all sports, but I'd suspect there are at least a dozen Team GB competitors going into Rio on one missed test in the 12 month window and a handful on 2 missed tests. Should none of those have been selected?
codeblue
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“Not sure if UKAD have ever released figures for all sports, but I'd suspect there are at least a dozen Team GB competitors going into Rio on one missed test in the 12 month window and a handful on 2 missed tests. Should none of those have been selected?”

I start with the assumption that all UK athletes are doping, and they have to prove they are innocent by being tested. The system works this way around. It may seem unfair, but its the only way to operate.

Peds are often used in cycles, you can come off them at the time of competition (when you definitely are 100% tested, no ifs or butts) and pass a test clean. Its the in between that's the problem.

If you can say to a tester "my phone was off", or "i couldnt hear the doorbell" etc when out of competition, there is a clear and obvious reason why this happens.

Missed tests are failed tests in my book.

We cannot be 100% sure this athlete is clean, therefore they should not be representing GB.

The excuse of missing several tests in a year for ridiculous reasons has allowed the very top GB athletes to continue, Gold medal winners in fact.

The fact that they are big names, and are allowed to get away with it, makes team GB a laughing stock. Their records still stand to this day. Clearly doping.
Virtual Paul
02-08-2016
In this day and age there is no reason all elite athletes cannot have 24/7 monitoring. A simple implant is probably already available to upload stats on the various aspects that need monitoring for drug abuse.

Only when we have a system that cannot be cheated without going to extraordinary lengths will we be able to put the whole debate to bed. In the meantime no one can be guaranteed 100% clean and that damages the image of sport. As an athlete I'd prefer to avoid that doubt if given the opportunity.

So why isn't more being done to use technology to have this monitoring done reliably, more conveniently, and as comprehensive as required to be sure there are no 'easy' holes for the cheats to exploit?

Why aren't clean athletes volunteering for biological passports or higher levels of monitoring if that would allow them to prove their innocence and force the cheats out of the sport or to clean up their act? If it's purely down to cost or poor current equipment availability it's up to the governing bodies to invest and provide the kit for the good of their sport.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“Not sure if UKAD have ever released figures for all sports, but I'd suspect there are at least a dozen Team GB competitors going into Rio on one missed test in the 12 month window and a handful on 2 missed tests. Should none of those have been selected?”

Current stats are here. Names are only given when there is an proven violation.

In the last year about 10% of all attempted tests have been missed, so it is not that uncommon.

670 missed tests, 7101 completed tests.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/upload...eport%20v1.pdf
Marti S
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“In this day and age there is no reason all elite athletes cannot have 24/7 monitoring. A simple implant is probably already available to upload stats on the various aspects that need monitoring for drug abuse.”

What a preposterous idea, I'm pretty sure that would contravene their human rights. I know some on here seem to think it is ok to treat them like animals rather than the respect a human being deserves
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by codeblue:
“I start with the assumption that all UK athletes are doping, and they have to prove they are innocent by being tested. The system works this way around. It may seem unfair, but its the only way to operate.

Peds are often used in cycles, you can come off them at the time of competition (when you definitely are 100% tested, no ifs or butts) and pass a test clean. Its the in between that's the problem.

If you can say to a tester "my phone was off", or "i couldnt hear the doorbell" etc when out of competition, there is a clear and obvious reason why this happens.

Missed tests are failed tests in my book.

We cannot be 100% sure this athlete is clean, therefore they should not be representing GB.

The excuse of missing several tests in a year for ridiculous reasons has allowed the very top GB athletes to continue, Gold medal winners in fact.

The fact that they are big names, and are allowed to get away with it, makes team GB a laughing stock. Their records still stand to this day. Clearly doping.”

I'm surprised with such a cynical view point you still have any interest and feel the need to comment on sports related matters.

BTW does your cynicism over doping related matters extend to other non-olympic sports?
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by grassmarket:
“Current stats are here. Names are only given when there is an proven violation.

In the last year about 10% of all attempted tests have been missed, so it is not that uncommon.

670 missed tests, 7101 completed tests.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/upload...eport%20v1.pdf”

Saw that report, but it's very misleading because it includes UKAD's adventures in Russia on behalf of WADA.

But the bottom of page 4 in the notes it does say there were 5 missed whereabouts tests in the quarter.
Virtual Paul
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Marti S:
“What a preposterous idea, I'm pretty sure that would contravene their human rights. I know some on here seem to think it is ok to treat them like animals rather than the respect a human being deserves”

Ha ha. Only a cheat would think such a thing. [only kidding]

There are or should be confidential statistics monitoring that is unobtrusive and allows clean competitors to just get on with it. No having to plan around testing during training and out of season where the more testing the better proof they have of being clean. They can be anywhere with wifi or internet uploading capability.

It's just an evolution of fitbit and the other health monitoring devices becoming more and more popular. Not sure how easy it would be for those to take the necessary samples if it requires blood analysis.

Ok so 24/7 monitoring is probably over the top and unnecessary. Just have an overnight window where new stats must be uploaded to the governing body so no opportunity to cheat between uploads.

How hard can it be?
Virtual Paul
02-08-2016
Going back to Team GB and the cycling team selections.

There's been a lot of talk during the recent women road races (La Course and Ride London are the ones I saw) about Dani King not being selected, but they don't seem to discuss the fact that Team GB only qualified 3 places for the road race so if they'd qualified the full 4 team places Dani would likely have been selected.

Why did they fail to qualify all possible places? Another oversight much like the one that Varnish was complaining about when GB failed to qualify a team for the team sprint?

If so, I hope they get better team management for the next Olympic cycle.
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“Ha ha. Only a cheat would think such a thing. [only kidding]

There are or should be confidential statistics monitoring that is unobtrusive and allows clean competitors to just get on with it. No having to plan around testing during training and out of season where the more testing the better proof they have of being clean. They can be anywhere with wifi or internet uploading capability.

It's just an evolution of fitbit and the other health monitoring devices becoming more and more popular. Not sure how easy it would be for those to take the necessary samples if it requires blood analysis.

Ok so 24/7 monitoring is probably over the top and unnecessary. Just have an overnight window where new stats must be uploaded to the governing body so no opportunity to cheat between uploads.

How hard can it be?”

I'd be extremely surprised if any such technology exists at the moment, it's no doubt being worked on in bio-technology labs around world for the obvious benefits in the medical field. But I suspect we are years away from even having to have the necessary ethical debate.
Virtual Paul
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“I'd be extremely surprised if any such technology exists at the moment, it's no doubt being worked on in bio-technology labs around world for the obvious benefits in the medical field. But I suspect we are years away from even having to have the necessary ethical debate.”

Ok, so in the meantime we have all the doubt and speculation.

I see it as a natural progression to the biological passports that keep track of an individual's baseline so easy to see any unexpected anomalies over time.

No idea how often those passports are updated to keep on top of things but more regular monitoring, particularly out of competition, seems obvious in need.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“Saw that report, but it's very misleading because it includes UKAD's adventures in Russia on behalf of WADA.”

Don't know where you are getting idea that from - it's consistent with both of the previous years' Q4 reports which also reported about 9-10% missed tests.
grassmarket
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“There's been a lot of talk during the recent women road races (La Course and Ride London are the ones I saw) about Dani King not being selected, but they don't seem to discuss the fact that Team GB only qualified 3 places for the road race so if they'd qualified the full 4 team places Dani would likely have been selected.
.”

No, we are just not as good at women's World Cup cycling as the other nations. Lizzie apart, we don't really have anyone getting more than 2-3 wins a year. The Dutch, Italians, Americans, Germans etc get far more.
Evo102
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Virtual Paul:
“I see it as a natural progression to the biological passports that keep track of an individual's baseline so easy to see any unexpected anomalies over time.

No idea how often those passports are updated to keep on top of things but more regular monitoring, particularly out of competition, seems obvious in need.”

Biological passports have been in place since at least 2009 for cycling and athletics.
Virtual Paul
02-08-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“Biological passports have been in place since at least 2009 for cycling and athletics.”

So they're not yet mandatory across the sports qualifying for the Olympics or are not good enough to be relied upon as sole measure of a clean athlete?
<<
<
255 of 279
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map