Doping git thread

[Pro Tour Punditry]

This has only come out because of a leak of confidential information which the Mail has chosen to publish for its scandal value rather than as part of some moral crusade in the name of public interest.

Christ, I cannae believe I'm about to type this, but here goes...

I think the Mail were right in deciding to publish this story; there does not have to be a "moral crusade" element to public interest. Nor does it appear to be "scandal value" as there is most definitely public interest.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

This @oldroadman
They may change their mind when and if CAS release their reasonings.

She'll maybe be Olympic Champion 2020 by then

 

[smutchin]

Christ, I cannae believe I'm about to type this

Nor does it appear to be "scandal value" as there is most definitely public interest.

Everything the Mail does has some value as scandal/sensationalism/prurience. Any public interest angle is incidental post hoc justification.

 

[smutchin]

As opposed to a lot of trial by internet, its worth pointing out that UKAD pushed the guilty button on this.

They thought (and still think) that she was guilty of the offence. They may change their mind when and if CAS release their reasonings.

The difference between UKAD and all of us here is that they are only doing their job. They believed Armitstead had a case to answer according to their rules and brought a formal charge accordingly. It's procedural, not personal. They can't let her off because they think she looks pretty or because she might win a medal for GB or because they think she's a dope rather than a doper. Nor can they push for harsher punishment because they think her attitude stinks or because they suspect (without evidence) that she's deliberately avoiding tests because she's glowing. They have to go after everyone who breaks their rules with equal force, otherwise their rules are pointless.

 

[rich p]

The difference between UKAD and all of us here is that they are only doing their job. They believed Armitstead had a case to answer according to their rules and brought a formal charge accordingly. It's procedural, not personal. They can't let her off because they think she looks pretty or because she might win a medal for GB or because they think she's a dope rather than a doper. Nor can they push for harsher punishment because they think her attitude stinks or because they suspect (without evidence) that she's deliberately avoiding tests because she's glowing. They have to go after everyone who breaks their rules with equal force, otherwise their rules are pointless.

I agree, but for some to say that she is suffering trial by troll is missing the point somewhat IMO. My point was that it's not as if it's a Clinic-style witch-hunt when even the UK doping authority have pubicised that they thought she was guilty.

 

[rich p]

[QUOTE 4396572, member: 43827"]One really sad part of this is that, like Christine Oruhuogo, Armistead will now be remembered for this, as much as her victories, by many people.

She was not charged with doping, just for falling foul of the testing regulations, which in itself is serious, but her incompetence has given ammunition to her detractors.[/QUOTE]
...which carries a 2 or 4 year penalty for a reason. It is regarded as a serious offence.

 

[DogTired]

[QUOTE 4396572, member: 43827"]One really sad part of this is that, like Christine Oruhuogo, Armistead will now be remembered for this, as much as her victories, by many people.

She was not charged with doping, just for falling foul of the testing regulations, which in itself is serious, but her incompetence has given ammunition to her detractors.[/QUOTE]

Its worth noting that the protocol isn't testing to see if the athlete has used PEDS. They're testing to see if the athlete is clean. A subtle point but it changes the emphasis if the test doesn't take place - the athlete has failed to show they're clean. That's why missing them is considered serious.

Very few tests give a default pass if you don't turn up and this is one of them.

 

[smutchin]

it's not as if it's a Clinic-style witch-hunt when even the UK doping authority have pubicised that they thought she was guilty.

UKAD have made a specific charge based on clearly defined evidence (notwithstanding that some of that evidence has been found to be faulty by CAS). This does not in any way legitimise all the baseless speculation and innuendo that has been spouted on the internet in the last few days (I'm thinking more of the crap I've read on facebook than in here, to be fair).

 

[rich p]

UKAD have made a specific charge based on clearly defined evidence (notwithstanding that some of that evidence has been found to be faulty by CAS). This does not in any way legitimise all the baseless speculation and innuendo that has been spouted on the internet in the last few days (I'm thinking more of the crap I've read on facebook than in here, to be fair).

Okay, fair dos, I've only been reading on here and the cycling media.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

[QUOTE 4396572, member: 43827"]One really sad part of this is that, like Christine Oruhuogo, Armistead will now be remembered for this, as much as her victories, by many people.

She was not charged with doping, just for falling foul of the testing regulations, which in itself is serious, but her incompetence has given ammunition to her detractors.[/QUOTE]
And the stronger she rides, the louder the whispers and, by extension, the more the general distrust of pro cycling. It's not just to herself that she's done a disservice.

 

[oldroadman]

No you're correct. Neither is an IQ test. I had incorrectly assumed she was intelligent.

That's quite insulting. Makes an assumption which is unworthy of further comment.

 

[400bhp]

That's quite insulting. Makes an assumption which is unworthy of further comment.

Insulting to whom?

The idiot that missed 3 tests or you?

If it's you I apologise.

 

[Crackle]

And the stronger she rides, the louder the whispers and, by extension, the more the general distrust of pro cycling. It's not just to herself that she's done a disservice.

This is it for me. I fail to see how the level of suspicion in which cycling and sports is now held can be so readily underestimated by riders such that an incidence like this is just read by everyone as a, the dog ate my homework, excuse. It smacks of disdain towards the sports followers as if there's no understanding of the level of disenchantment which we feel.

I dare say she's clean and CAS found correctly but I repeat I'm disappointed and don't care much for her winning any more.

 

[Aravis]

This is it for me. I fail to see how the level of suspicion in which cycling and sports is now held can be so readily underestimated by riders such that an incidence like this is just read by everyone as a, the dog ate my homework, excuse. It smacks of disdain towards the sports followers as if there's no understanding of the level of disenchantment which we feel.

When I used to work in IT, like everyone else I had to deal with a lot of admin tasks not directly related to the core job - accounting for time, updating change management records, etc. None of these activities were difficult in themselves, and I don't think anyone questioned the importance of them, but some found them much easier to deal with than others. This doesn't reflect on intelligence or sense of responsibility - it's more about how your brain instinctively reacts in pressure situations.

So I have no difficulty imagining that some sports people are going to find it harder than others to keep their anti drug monitoring stuff 100% in order. Logically, the sort of person able to keep everything perfectly in line all the time ought to be better equipped to successfully cheat the system, so perhaps the Armitstead saga is focussing attention on the wrong person. I remember reading that when Heinrich Himmler was captured by the Allies, it was the completeness of his papers that first aroused suspicion.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

So I have no difficulty imagining that some sports people are going to find it harder than others to keep their anti drug monitoring stuff 100% in order. Logically, the sort of person able to keep everything perfectly in line all the time ought to be better equipped to successfully cheat the system, so perhaps the Armitstead saga is focussing attention on the wrong person. I remember reading that when Heinrich Himmler was captured by the Allies, it was the completeness of his papers that first aroused suspicion.

So it's the people who comply we need to be suspicious of? Are you fecking mental? Or are you Seb Coe?

Anyway, I respect Ferrand-Perrot's position on the matter:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/08/news/pre-rio-row-between-ferrand-prevot-and-armitstead_417121