- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined August 2016
0
Views
0
Published
2
Comments
A fanatic of all sports. A cycling enthusiast for life. And a Tottenham Hotspur supporter over three decades.
Published
Comments
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.
Lizzie Armitstead missed three doping tests - why is she going to Rio?
Thanks a ton.
Lizzie Armitstead missed three doping tests - why is she going to Rio?