-
I know, just a bit too fishy. More detail required I think.
Also, if the missed test that ended up being "procedural failure" was back last October, shouldn't that have been clearer up nearer the time rather than only now she's missed three? Those first tests that she missed were pretty close together at the start of the year which meant she had a long time "on the bubble" not being able to miss another.
Scrabble-
There are a lot of unanswered questions and Armitstead's statement so far doesn't really clear much up.
We don't know if she'd already appealed the missed test from last August and it's possible that the appeal against that was ongoing when she missed the others. Whichever way you look at it, to miss two tests is unprofessional, to get to the position where you've missed three is career threatening and idiotic on the part of the athlete.
Of course, this lack of information hasn't stopped the usual 'experts' from finding her guilty of doping immediately.
-
Also, if the missed test that ended up being "procedural failure" was back last October, shouldn't that have been clearer up nearer the time rather than only now she's missed three?
Knowing what lawyers are like, it has probably taken this long to clear up that first one even if she contested it as soon as she was notified.
andyp
gbj_tester
That's why she missed the London Classic then.
You can look at this two ways - she's a lone wolf in her training, isn't in the GB cycling setup, doesn't train with her team mates - and the reason for that is so she can dope freely without anyone seeing.
Or, she's a lone wolf in her training and this means she also has to manage all the whereabouts herself, without the support of her team to make sure she doesn't miss tests.
Got to admit, it doesn't sound quite right to me though.