UKAD backs anti-doping tests after Lizzie Armitstead's appeal over missed drugs tests
By Mark Ashenden
Last Updated: 02/08/16 5:19pm
Athletes need to take responsibility and the anti-doping testing procedures in the UK are transparent and independent.
These are the views of UKAD director Nicole Sapstead in the wake of Lizzie Armitstead's successful appeal against an anti-doping charge over three missed drugs tests.
Britain's 27-year-old world road cycling champion faced a two-year ban and being ruled out from competing in Rio, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled UK Anti-Doping's (UKAD) doping control officer had failed to follow procedure on the first of the three tests in August 2015.
That test has now been declared void and Armitstead is clear to ride at the Olympics, although she still risks a suspension if there is another blemish on her record within the 12-month period.
The London silver medalist was charged by UKAD with three 'whereabouts' failures in July. The first was at a Swedish World Cup event on August 20, 2015. The second was an administrative failure on October 5, 2015 and the third was a missed test on June 9, 2016.
Armitstead did not dispute the second two faults, but successfully appealed over the first. On Friday she said: "I have always been and will always be a clean athlete and have been vocal in my anti-doping stance throughout my career.
"I am pleased that CAS has accepted my position, having provided detailed information demonstrating the situation around my strikes."
She stated that UKAD had not followed "proper procedure", adding: "I think that there should be clearer guidelines for those administrating tests and would like to work with UKAD going forward to explore how this can be better addressed in the future so no other athlete is put in this position."
On Tuesday, the director of UKAD told Sky Sports News HQ that she backed her organisation's protocol, emphasising it was down to individual athletes to make themselves available for testing because it was their "duty and job as a competitor".
Sapstead said: "When athletes do not provide us with their 'whereabouts' info or they are not available for the one hour designated slot, there are consequences.
"If you accrue a mixture of three missed tests or filing failures over a period of 12 months then you are facing a possible anti-doping rule violation.
"The whole point of the process is that it's open, transparent and independent. That's why we use a panel of independent experts to determine each and every filing failure or missed test and if the panel find the process wasn't followed we will accept that and take it on board and if necessary make some changes to our processes."
Sapstead rejected the notion that the CAS ruling undermined the UKAD rules.
She added: "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. Until we see the written reasons I can't predict what the issue was in relation to the first missed test. My understanding is it's the first missed test in which this all hinges."
A British Olympic Association spokesman said: "With competition starting in just four days, we are glad this matter has been resolved satisfactorily ahead of the Olympic Games."
Other athletes, though, have questioned the circumstances surrounding Armitstead's situation.
Former British Olympic rowing gold medallist Zac Purchase posted on Twitter: "Given huge amount of resources@their disposal, having multiple missed tests/filing failure is a monumental cock-up!
"Imagine what we would be saying if she was Russian... #NotWorthIt #KeepSportClean."
Canadian three-time former Olympic mountain biker Geoff Kabush added: "1st test understandable but I'd be hyper aware about missing 2nd. If I missed 2nd there is no chance I'd miss 3rd???"
