Lizzie Armitstead missed three doping tests - why is she going to Rio?

- Britain's Lizzie Armitstead was fifth in the women's road race won by Anna van der Breggen after leader Annemiek van Vleuten suffered a horrific crash.

Similar comment to mine, just far more eloquently written.

The article is inaccurate. Only one test was missed. The UKAD representative failed to discharge their duties. LS was in the hotel at the correct time. Perhaps letting reception know who they were, with credentials and why they needed her room number would have been better than trying to call a mobile which is recognised as a fallible communication tool for contacting athletes. The second was an admin error. No one was attempting to test her. It counts as a fail however no one was attempting to locate her to carry out a test. The third was a missed test. She has admitted to it. Ask yourself this question...the Olympic road race is the most high profile medal / event that a female cyclist can win. They get one chance every four years...Why would anyone miss a test, knowing they would be banned and be able to complete their training programme in the hope that they could successfully appeal the first UK mess up. CAS might have said no...four years down the drain, reputation really in the bin....just a thought

In fact, rather than "she missed three tests" as the article states, she missed one test (and was tested the next day in competition) and had errors in logging her whereabouts in two cases where no tests were attempted or missed. The Court of Arbitration in Sport has struck down the one instance where there was a test to miss on the grounds that the testers were at fault rather than the athlete herself. The reality, then, she has not missed any tests at all and the claim in the article is completely erroneous.

There seems to be some confusion over whether BC paid for her appeal. I think Lizzie might have paid for it herself? This saga does not reflect well on Lizzie. But I'd argue it's less damning than Serena Williams' 'panic room' incident - which from the evidence looked like a far more brazen and successful attempt to dodge testing. Why is Serena still celebrated so much? There has never been a satisfactory explanation for her refusal to submit to that doping test and unlike for the Russians and cyclists like Lizzie, fans seem to just ignore Serena's missed test and the media hardly ever mention it.

"I’m not aware of any drug that miraculously vanishes from the body in a few hours. And even if such a drug exists, I’m doubtful about its utility for performance." Be aware that's actually what happens. With micro-dosing, athletes can now dope with quantities that become undetectable within a few hours. There were no positive doping tests from the Tour de France this year. If you believe there was no doping, I've got some prime swampland to sell you! This is a poorly appreciated fact by most of the sporting public, who still believe that not failing doping tests is evidence of an athlete's clean status. This begs the obvious question: What's the point of doping tests? The answer appears to be: a. Catching athletes who stuff up - and they do, occasionally. b. Limiting the degree of doping - you can only use small quantities of performance-enhancing drugs to ensure they disappear when the testers show up. c. To give the public the impression of clean competition. For this reason, the fact Lizzie was tested in-competition the day after her missed test mean absolutely nothing. But your description of the 3 strikes is good. There are definitely mitigating circumstances. From the evidence, it seems the first strike was justly discounted. The tester appears to have just done a poor job. The other 2 strikes also seem to have some mitigating circumstances. However, taken in their entirety - it's not a good look for Lizzie. But I'd stop short of calling her a doper.

would she have been banned on technicalities. It seems to me she has been allowed on technicalities

Carelessness is not an excuse for a world champion. She should have been banned. if Russian whould she have been allowed ro compete ? If Indian too would she have not been banned ?

I don't follow cycling seriously, and anyway started looking away from cycling news the day I found that my LiveStrong band was sold by a cheat. Anyway nice article, and great detailed response from Subashish Nath. I think the spirit of the law should take precedence here. Until of course, a more robust counter is put forward

I am Dutch and personally I think she is a clean and hard working talented cyclist but she did break the rules by missing 3 test in a row. Every medal she will win is now under suspicion, she has become a tainted contender in this Olympic games. It probably isn't fair but this is the way how sports is these days, she had better stay at home for her own reputation and that of British cycling as a whole. On the other hand is a possible gold medal for a French or a Dutch contender less impressive without a rival like the world champion. Let's hope she has learn something and will take responsibility in the future for being available for the tests, this kind of publicity hurts not only herself but also her team and rivals.

Thanks a ton.

Nicely written. Being a cyclist myself, I am fond of British cycling and Lizzie Armitstead. I have a different take on this subject. The spirit of the Law is always superior to the letters of the Law. Technically speaking, three strikes within a year entail an automatic ban. The Law has been made that way to ensure that athletes don't abscond when they're spiked. It's a deterring Law. And a fine Law. Having said the above, Armitstead's case must be analysed. Her first strike was by UKADA at Vargarda, Sweden on August 20, 2015. She was to race in the UCI Women's World Cup Tour the next day. She had duly logged in her whereabouts as Vargarda and given the mandatory hour for her availability. Technically speaking, she was available for off-competition testing by UKADA a day before a World Cup race in Sweden. UCI/WADA were any way going to test the cyclists on race day. Mark my word 'TECHNICALLY.' Similarly UCI/WADA were present for in-competition testing. So it is expected that any off-competition testing would be taken up by them a day prior to race day. Common sense would tell us that no one would actually expect that UKADA would come all the way from Britain to Sweden to do an off-competition a day before a World Cup race. Not unless it's a case of witch hunting to harass an athlete because the Law gave that power. This is precisely how the athlete took it then - and this is what the CAS also believed a couple of days ago. When something of this sort happens, you tend to think: "To hell with you. Do whatever crap you want to. I have two more strikes. I don't care about you." And that's pretty normal. Besides she was tested the next day and in the clear. I extensively study literature on sports medicine. I'm not aware of any drug that miraculously vanishes from the body in a few hours. And even if such a drug exists, I'm doubtful about its utility for performance. The second strike in October 2015 was not a missed test. UKADA was not looking for her at that time to test. It was an administrative discrepancy which was detected later. The place where she went to bed was factually correct as per her daily whereabouts schedule given by her in the portal. But the place she had given the one hour slot for the next morning was different. Imagine this situation. You fill up your daily whereabouts schedule - both the bed where you will sleep at night and the hour slot with the location where you would be available the next day for testing. This is filled well in advance. The schedule of one's day to day life changes as in case of every living person including athletes. The Law demands that both the locations are needed to be changed on the portal before the given schedule begins. It's cumbersome and all athletes do it. In fact most top athletes have secretarial assistance to do it. Women's cycling is not as remunerative as Men's cycling. Cycling is done as a team or a club. Most Women's cycling teams don't have the budget to provide a secretary to each of their cyclists. Armitstead didn't have one. So I believe her when she says that when the schedule changed, she changed the night location to where she was going to be, but forgot to change the hour slot the next day (which was in the same location as her earlier night location that was changed). It's a clerical mistake and not that UKADA had gone looking for her at that location and she was found absconding. Such mistakes can happen and she admits her mistake. But now she had two strikes. That's unusual and she panicked. So she approached British Cycling for secretarial assistance. All that is on record. An employee of British Cycling was assigned to monitor her portal on whereabouts schedule. Everything was going well since December. She was not aware that the employee had quit his job with British Cycling three weeks before the last strike on June 9. She presumed that her portal was being monitored by British Cycling. In any case individual schedules were gone in June as British Team was now practising together for the Olympics. She had a family exigency on June 9. It was medical in nature. She has produced the records. UKADA, UCI and WADA have not contested their genuineness. All that they say is that despite her circumstances it was mandatory on her part to change the schedule on the portal as she already had two strikes. She admits the mistake while being clear in her mind that come what may her family situation had precedence at that point. She is also clear that her right to privacy mandates that she is not obliged to tell the world including British tabloid media about what was the exigency. She has told it to the relevant parties and they have not contested. In any case it is again another administrative discrepancy in which she slept the night with her family (and not British Cycling practise venue) while being back at the scheduled venue for the mandatory hour slot the next day. UKADA had not come looking for her for a test during that hour slot. It's just that she slept at a different place which was not her schedule and it was not changed. British Cycling was aware and she presumed that the employee would have effected the change. It's just that the employee had left. She admits her personal mistake anyway. To sum up, she was missing in the first strike and she was tested the next day. There was no dope. The other two are cases where no one had come looking for her for a test. They are cases of administrative discrepancy. Mean while she was regularly tested round the year and she is dope negative. She is tested after the last strike and she is negative. That brings us to the spirit of the Law. If the letter of the Law is so irrefutable, then the CAS would have been a computer that arbitrates in such matters and not a panel of human beings. A court judges a case of breach of the letters of Law to uphold the spirit of Law. Circumstances are different for the same breach in different cases. In any case, Armitstead's first strike is actually a hilarious act on part of UKADA. They had gone to Sweden to test a British athlete a day before a World Cup race in which WADA/UCI were going to do in-competition testing the next day. Any layman would say that it's a fit case for harassment in the name of Law. The Law wants to prevent illegal acts. It certainly doesn't intend to harass. The CAS saw through this and decided to strike down that strike. That was sufficient. It would have been meaningless and a waste of time a fortnight before the Olympics to contest the other two strikes which were administrative in nature. It was of course foolish on part of Armitstead not to have contested the first strike last year itself. But then she like any other person thought that there were two more strikes left. She has learnt her lesson. Lastly, it would have been idiotic to stop a World Champion and a contender for multiple medals on technical grounds without invoking the Spirit of Law.