Rio 2016: Lizzie Armitstead and British Cycling face questions over secret missed drug tests ahead of Olympics
Armitstead missed three drug tests but has avoided a two-year ban, prompting questions from former Olympic athletes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lizzie Armitstead and British Cycling are facing questions over how one of Team GB’s leading medal contenders was suspended for three weeks for a possible anti-doping violation without anyone being made aware of the case, just days before the start of the Rio Olympics.
Armitstead is one of the favourites to win the women’s road race on Sunday after claiming World Championship gold in Richmond, Virginia last year, but she revealed on Monday night that she faced the prospect of a two-year ban after incurring three violations of the UK Anti-Doping’s [Ukad’s] whereabouts policy.
27-year-old Armitstead took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport [Cas] and successfully appealed against the ban, having seen her first missed test at a World Cup event on 20 August 2015 declared void.
Subsequent missed tests came on 5 October after an administrative error, and the third was missed on 9 June 2016 following "an emergency change of plans due to a serious illness within her family". Ukad confirmed that Armitstead has successfully appealed against the first missed test, although she did not look to have the decision overturned until she missed the third one and faced a ban from Rio 2016.
Despite her allowance to compete in Rio, former Olympians have questioned the circumstances around her failure to attend three drug tests and also the handling of the case by British Cycling, who confirmed they acquired legal advice on Armitstead’s position in the Team GB squad before sharing it with the cyclist.
Former British Olympic rowing gold medallist Zac Purchase compared Armitstead’s incident to the recent ban imposed on a number of Russian athletes who will not be allowed to compete at the Games. Purchase wrote on Twitter: "Given huge amount of resources [at] their disposal, having multiple missed tests/filing failure is a monumental cockup!
"Imagine what we would be saying if she was Russian... #NotWorthIt #KeepSportClean."
Three-time former Olympian cross-country mountain biker Geoff Kabush not only questioned why Armitstead would allow a third missed drugs test to occur, but also took aim at British Cycling for their role in the appeal.
The Canadian wrote on Twitter: "1st test understandable but I'd be hyper aware about missing 2nd. If I missed 2nd there is no chance I'd miss 3rd???
"So many questions. How is World Champ suspended for 3 weeks and no one knows? Why did British Cycling fund appeal?"
Ukad chief executive Nicole Sapstead released a statement to confirm that Armitstead’s appeal came only once the threat of a Rio ban applied.
“When Ukad asserts a whereabouts failure against an athlete, the athlete has the opportunity to challenge the apparent whereabouts failure through an external administrative review, before it is confirmed,” the statement read. “Only when three whereabouts failures are confirmed is the case then put through an independent review to determine whether the athlete has a case to answer for a violation of article 2.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code.
“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.”
A statement released on behalf of Armitstead on Monday night confirmed that the Ukad doping control officer had failed to follow procedure in relation to the first missed test, with Cas confirming that the violation would be declared void.
"Cas ruled that the UKAD doping control officer had not followed required procedures nor made reasonable attempts to locate Armitstead," the statement read.
"CAS also ruled that there was no negligence on Armitstead's part and that she had followed procedures according to the guidelines."
Armitstead also confirmed that she was tested the day after the first missed test in Sweden with no positive drug test recorded. She had failed to explain why she withdrew from La Course by Le Tour, the women’s event that precedes the final stage of the Tour de France on 24 July, and was keen to express her relief at the decision from Cas to uphold the appeal.
"I have always been and will always be a clean athlete and have been vocal in my anti-doping stance throughout my career," she said.
"I am pleased that CAS has accepted my position, having provided detailed information demonstrating the situation around my strikes."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments