A few weeks ago, it all seemed so seamless. Lizzie Armitstead was enjoying a dream season in which she had backed up her world title of last September with a string of victories through the spring, including the Tour of Flanders, the race that had been a target for years. That had been backed up with a crushing victory in the Aviva Women’s Tour, another event which had not smiled on her in the past.
All that remained after that victory was the final run-in to Rio, to which she had turned her mind after taking the world championship. But even as she dominated her home Tour, Armitstead knew she might be facing a ban as she was aware that she had missed a random out of competition test on 9 June, potentially giving her three strikes following previous infractions on 20 August and 5 October 2015. “I did media and all that kind of thing [in Britain] knowing that all this may be taken from me,” she said this week.
Armitstead was cleared by the court of arbitration for sport on 21 July of the first whereabouts breach last August at a World Cup race in Sweden. The world champion accepted the two further strikes against her, the first a filing mismatch on the Adams whereabouts system, the second the result of Armitstead not updating her information after an emergency change of plans following a serious illness within her family.
Ukad rules state that three strikes in 12 months amount to an anti-doping violation, so Armitstead was charged under its rules on 11 July, but that was followed 10 days later by the ruling in her favour over the August infringement on the grounds that the Ukad anti-doping officer had not followed correct procedures nor made reasonable attempts to locate her in her hotel room. That meant she was free to compete in Rio.
In an attempt to answer her critics, the world champion released a lengthy statement through her Twitter feed, explaining the precise circumstances of the two confirmed strikes and the one that had been overruled by the Cas.
The racing question for Sunday, which had been looming all season, was whether the world champion would have the climbing strength to get over the single ascent of Vista Chinesa within reach of the obvious mountain specialists such as the Netherlands’ Anna van der Breggen, and Megan Guarnier and Mara Abbott of the United States.
This will still apply to the all-round talents on the favourites list: most obviously the defending champion, Marianne Vos of the Netherlands, Sweden’s Emma Johansson and Elisa Longo Borghini of Italy. On such a tough course, the expectation is that the selection will be from the back of the field and that the medals will eventually be contested among a small group of survivors. Given the undercurrents of controversy that have swirled about Emma Pooley’s selection ahead of Dani King, how the Beijing time trial silver medallist performs on a course that should suit her will be an intriguing footnote.
Armitstead had spent much of this season working specifically to perfect her climbing in order to get over that one single climb. Now, she faces entirely different obstacles, starting with the simple question of whether she can even be competitive after events since the news of her missed tests emerged on Monday evening. Interviews later this week with Sky and the BBC showed her looking as devastated as might be imagined, given that she is an athlete who has always prided herself on her honesty and directness.
It is hard to imagine how she can summon up the mental fortitude to compete at the highest level but the intense focus of racing will at least come as a relief from external pressure.
The other question is quite what it would mean if she were to win a medal of any colour, in the context of what can only be classed as a hollow victory over Ukad’s initial ruling. Unfortunately, however she performs, it will be seen as vindication by her supporters, or devoid of meaning by her critics.
