The professional cycling thread
Discussion
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Things for a professional cyclist to do every day in order of importance:
1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be?
LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
Yep, totally agree. I mean she is a world champion for goodness sake, attention for detail should be her 'thing'. At a time when cycling is desperately trying to regain credibility, we've got a leading light in the sport who misses 3 tests without any punishment. Indeed goes on to compete at the Olympics. Shameful.1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be? LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Things for a professional cyclist to do every day in order of importance:
1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How fking hard can it be?
LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
She did contest it, did you actually read her statement or are you just going to bang the drum?1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be? LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
'When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.'
JustinF said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Things for a professional cyclist to do every day in order of importance:
1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How fking hard can it be?
LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
She did contest it, did you actually read her statement or are you just going to bang the drum?1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be? LA should have objected to the first 'missed' test (which btw is almost identical to the 'strike' that Froome has accepted on his record) at the time - not 10 months later when facing a ban, and on a technicality. If this was an athlete from 'another' country everyone would be up in arms about it. She should be banned in accordance with the rules. There is no excuse. Her cleanliness - or otherwise - is not the matter at hand. British Cycling also look hopelessly conflicted here but that is also another discussion.
'When I received the letter from UKAD I immediately contested it with a written explanation, this was not accepted on the eve of me travelling to America for my world championships. I had no legal advise or external support at the time.'
It feels like we've heard it all before from athletes who have fallen foul of anti-doping in one way shape or form. Lest we forget Michael Rasmussen was thrown off the Tour whilst in the leaders jersey for a whereabouts violation.
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Things for a professional cyclist to do every day in order of importance:
1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How fking hard can it be?
She was available for the first test. Given that the tester rocked up to the hotel at 6am and presumably waited for his full hour, why did he not simply wait until breakfast until she came down?1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be? As for the 'family emergency', she and her family have every right to privacy and I'd like to think that she is a decent enough human being not to use that as an excuse to cheat, indeed the CAS have accepted the emergency as being genuine.
Three strikes really isn't that many strikes when circumstance starts to go against you.
TheFungle said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Things for a professional cyclist to do every day in order of importance:
1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How fking hard can it be?
She was available for the first test. Given that the tester rocked up to the hotel at 6am and presumably waited for his full hour, why did he not simply wait until breakfast until she came down?1) Ensure whereabouts completed
2) Train
3) Eat
4) Sleep
5) AOB
How f
king hard can it be? As for the 'family emergency', she and her family have every right to privacy and I'd like to think that she is a decent enough human being not to use that as an excuse to cheat, indeed the CAS have accepted the emergency as being genuine.
Three strikes really isn't that many strikes when circumstance starts to go against you.
She and her family have every right to privacy from anti-doping investigators. What you do is say, "I no longer wish participate in organised sports". And they will not follow you around demanding urine
samples at all hours of the day.
In my opinion three strikes is ample over a 12 month period to warrant severe punishment.
She should not be representing GB at the Olympics and I for one will not be supporting her.
She has been judged and is eligible to race she has never had a neg test so unless people want to dismiss anyone in cycling who never makes a mistake just as Froome and Cavendish have then its a pretty high standard people live their lives by. I will be wishing her well just the same as all the other British cyclists.
Long Drax said:
What time was her ladyship going to come down for breakfast? Did he not try to contact her ladyship via her phone?
Did you read her statement? Contacting her via her phone is not a permitted contact mechanism. She was where she should be when she should be, the tester failed to do what was required._dobbo_ said:
Long Drax said:
What time was her ladyship going to come down for breakfast? Did he not try to contact her ladyship via her phone?
Did you read her statement? Contacting her via her phone is not a permitted contact mechanism. She was where she should be when she should be, the tester failed to do what was required.As far as I can see things check out, there's no particular evidence to suggest wilful evasion of testing or suspicious test results.
Long Drax said:
What time was her ladyship going to come down for breakfast? Did he not try to contact her ladyship via her phone?
She and her family have every right to privacy from anti-doping investigators. What you do is say, "I no longer wish participate in organised sports". And they will not follow you around demanding urine
samples at all hours of the day.
In my opinion three strikes is ample over a 12 month period to warrant severe punishment.
She should not be representing GB at the Olympics and I for one will not be supporting her.
She was exactly where she said she'd be: in the hotel room. She and her family have every right to privacy from anti-doping investigators. What you do is say, "I no longer wish participate in organised sports". And they will not follow you around demanding urine
samples at all hours of the day.
In my opinion three strikes is ample over a 12 month period to warrant severe punishment.
She should not be representing GB at the Olympics and I for one will not be supporting her.
Do you really think that the precise circumstances of the family crisis that caused the third cockup is information that we the public are entitled to? The relevant authorities were given that information; we do not need it. Athletes do give up considerable privacy in the pursuit of their careers, those that are unable to live with that do indeed find themselves to be former athletes very quickly. But considerable doesn't and shouldn't mean everything.
_dobbo_ said:
Did you read her statement? Contacting her via her phone is not a permitted contact mechanism. She was where she should be when she should be, the tester failed to do what was required.
Let people jump up and down as much as they like if they can't be bothered to understand and do some research then that's their problem.Whilst riders are not found to be doping I think we have to give all riders the benefit of the doubt or what is the point in watching the sport.
FlyingMeeces said:
She was exactly where she said she'd be: in the hotel room.
Do you really think that the precise circumstances of the family crisis that caused the third cockup is information that we the public are entitled to? The relevant authorities were given that information; we do not need it. Athletes do give up considerable privacy in the pursuit of their careers, those that are unable to live with that do indeed find themselves to be former athletes very quickly. But considerable doesn't and shouldn't mean everything.
Well put. The headlines didn't give us all the information, and as she has said, only one of the "strikes" were even remotely her fault.Do you really think that the precise circumstances of the family crisis that caused the third cockup is information that we the public are entitled to? The relevant authorities were given that information; we do not need it. Athletes do give up considerable privacy in the pursuit of their careers, those that are unable to live with that do indeed find themselves to be former athletes very quickly. But considerable doesn't and shouldn't mean everything.
Yes we hold proffesional athletes to a higher standard than we do ourselves but tarnishing someone with a brush as black as this so quickly without actually viewing the evidence is, to me at least, completely unacceptable.
I always understood the focus/point of the testing mechanism was to test out of competition and at times they might be trying to do something dodgy below the radar. From her statement this was actually during an event and she was tested the next day anyway. Even if she was doping, it would have been a daft time to do so, so ducking a test would have been pointless.
llewop said:
I always understood the focus/point of the testing mechanism was to test out of competition and at times they might be trying to do something dodgy below the radar. From her statement this was actually during an event and she was tested the next day anyway. Even if she was doping, it would have been a daft time to do so, so ducking a test would have been pointless.
they are also looking for changes in biological passport, something like a blood transfusion etc.I won't be supporting her. And it's a shame. Since like so many others I urged her to the line in 2012 hoping she'd kick past Vos.
Froome had the same trouble with regards to Testers not being able to access him. He pointed out the silliness of it and ACCEPTED it as his problem not to tell the staff that the testers may come and they should send them up. He hasn't had anymore missed tests. Cav had that thing where he was with the BBC and missed an appointment. Again he hasn't had the same problem since.
Maybe Froome and Cav place more emphasis on it than Armistead. Maybe they also don't try and throw some former employee of BC under the bus! Lack of responsibility reminds me of Millar and how "it was so very hard for him and it wasn't his fault".
https://rouleur.cc/journal/racing/chris-juul-jense...
This is how you do it if you're a pro who cares about their career.
It's a harsh decision, but imo she needs to sit out her 2 years. Or at least a 6 month like Yates had recently.
Froome had the same trouble with regards to Testers not being able to access him. He pointed out the silliness of it and ACCEPTED it as his problem not to tell the staff that the testers may come and they should send them up. He hasn't had anymore missed tests. Cav had that thing where he was with the BBC and missed an appointment. Again he hasn't had the same problem since.
Maybe Froome and Cav place more emphasis on it than Armistead. Maybe they also don't try and throw some former employee of BC under the bus! Lack of responsibility reminds me of Millar and how "it was so very hard for him and it wasn't his fault".
https://rouleur.cc/journal/racing/chris-juul-jense...
This is how you do it if you're a pro who cares about their career.
It's a harsh decision, but imo she needs to sit out her 2 years. Or at least a 6 month like Yates had recently.
Rich_W said:
I won't be supporting her. And it's a shame. Since like so many others I urged her to the line in 2012 hoping she'd kick past Vos.
Froome had the same trouble with regards to Testers not being able to access him. He pointed out the silliness of it and ACCEPTED it as his problem not to tell the staff that the testers may come and they should send them up. He hasn't had anymore missed tests. Cav had that thing where he was with the BBC and missed an appointment. Again he hasn't had the same problem since.
Maybe Froome and Cav place more emphasis on it than Armistead. Maybe they also don't try and throw some former employee of BC under the bus! Lack of responsibility reminds me of Millar and how "it was so very hard for him and it wasn't his fault".
https://rouleur.cc/journal/racing/chris-juul-jense...
This is how you do it if you're a pro who cares about their career.
It's a harsh decision, but imo she needs to sit out her 2 years. Or at least a 6 month like Yates had recently.
which part of 'she's been cleared of wrong-doing' do you need beating into your thick fFroome had the same trouble with regards to Testers not being able to access him. He pointed out the silliness of it and ACCEPTED it as his problem not to tell the staff that the testers may come and they should send them up. He hasn't had anymore missed tests. Cav had that thing where he was with the BBC and missed an appointment. Again he hasn't had the same problem since.
Maybe Froome and Cav place more emphasis on it than Armistead. Maybe they also don't try and throw some former employee of BC under the bus! Lack of responsibility reminds me of Millar and how "it was so very hard for him and it wasn't his fault".
https://rouleur.cc/journal/racing/chris-juul-jense...
This is how you do it if you're a pro who cares about their career.
It's a harsh decision, but imo she needs to sit out her 2 years. Or at least a 6 month like Yates had recently.
king skull?pablo said:
I just love the fact that as an example of how to "do it properly", he quoted an article using a Tinkoff rider!... irony is not lost on this one.
We Brit's do love to build them up and then knock them down. Tragic.
only the noisy minority ,the girl was in tears last night when she was being interviewed. I would be more concerned if she had previous form of doping but she is clean and always has been. I hope she wins so they can all choke on their bile.We Brit's do love to build them up and then knock them down. Tragic.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff