Doping

British Cycling funded her legal team?

Is that what we're paying for?!

I'm really unhappy about BC paying for this. It's not what I pay subscriptions for.

She must be a Gold Member.

I bet she reins in her criticism of them now.

Isn't that how Gregory Bauge lost his medals?

BC members paying to help wealthy professionals look clean.

Cav missed two

"Cas ruled that the Ukad doping control officer had not followed required procedures nor made > reasonable attempts to locate Armitstead," the statement added.

Anyone seen further details of what were not reasonable attempts to locate Armistead on the day?

looked on FB, LA hadn't checked in anywhere for in the last 2 hours, went tot hte pub for the rest of the afternoon.

Maybe Roger Hammond brought advice for him from his Discovery Channel experience.

she's been suspended and nobody knew?

Apparently that's allowed under UCI rules, see below.

1 Attachment

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.

cheers @andyp. I understand from the rules that the good news (did not commit etc.) can be publicly disclosed, but when she was temporarily suspended, there was no word. Boels Dolmans worded it thusly in a press release on the day before the suspension came into effect:

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.

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.

ADAMS even has apps to update your whereabouts on the fly and you can allow team managers etc. permission to update on your behalf too

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/ADAMS+Quick+Reference+Card+-+Mobile+App+Android

She's an iPhone user.

As always, @inrng brings clarity;

http://inrng.com/2016/08/armitstead-whereabouts-ukad-british-cycling/

I'm going to say, with 51% certainty (+-2% accuracy), that she just fucked up the admin.

There's an IOS version too

http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/ADAMS+Quick+Reference+Card+-+Mobile+App+IOS

Humour is wasted on some.

Yep, basically a thorough version of whats been said in this thread. It's three missed tests in a rolling year right? So I suppose, if her first missed test was the first she'd had in years, at the time it wouldn't have seemed like a big deal. I'd have still been pretty pissed off if I hadn't even had a knock at the door.
Can't help but feel like this family emergency seems convenient without knowing further detail. With the Olympics approaching, knowing you're on two strikes, being someone who lives with this "ADAMS" things 24/7/365 you'd think you'd keep it updated no matter what was going on.

UKAD statement;

http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/article/ukad-statement-on-cas-hearing-against-elizabeth-armitstead/

This is the most pertinent bit;

"“Ms Armitstead chose not to challenge the first and second Whereabouts Failures at the time they were asserted against her. At the CAS hearing, Ms Armitstead raised a defence in relation to the first Whereabouts Failure, which was accepted by the Panel. We are awaiting the Reasoned Decision from the CAS Panel as to why the first Whereabouts Failure was not upheld."