The most breathtaking thing about the Lizzie Armitstead affair is not the stupidity of Armitstead herself, who managed to miss three drugs tests in less than 10 months in the most important competitive year of her life, although that is truly breathtaking.

Nor is it the hypocrisy of British authorities, who recoiled in horror when the IOC failed to introduce a blanket ban on Russian competitors at Rio 2016 and then threw money at lawyers to get Armitstead off and allowed her to compete at these Olympics, although that, too, is breathtaking.

'Imagine what we would be saying if she was Russian,' said 2008 rowing Olympic gold medallist, Zac Purchase, when he heard the news.

Lizzie Armitstead, pictured arriving in Rio, is set to feature in the women's road race

Armitstead (left) missed three drugs tests in the lead-up to the Olympic Games

Well, we don't need to imagine. We all know. We'd be saying a Russian cyclist who had missed three tests should not be allowed anywhere near the women's road race start line alongside Copacabana Beach on Sunday. We'd be saying their presence in Rio was a sick joke.

Nor is the most breathtaking thing the suggestion, spread by those who seek to bully the truth away, that exposing Armitstead's three missed tests somehow represents a witch-hunt, although for its complicity, its laziness and its brainlessness, that, too, is breathtaking.

Nor is it the assertion that, on the occasion of her disputed first missed test in Sweden, it was acceptable for the British world road race champion to have her mobile phone turned to silent during the hour she had nominated for her availability for testing under the wheareabouts rule. That is getting deep into Mo-Farah-I-couldn't-hear-my-doorbell territory and is also breathtaking.

Armitstead and the rest of the British cycling team had been specifically warned that, if they were staying in a hotel, they should include room numbers in the information they give anti-doping authorities to track elite athletes.

Armitstead has been cleared to compete but victory for her would be bad for sport

Armitstead and her gang of apologists have been blaming everyone but the rider

WADA'S WHEREABOUTS RULING All athletes must fill out an online form, on the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), detailing where they will be for one hour each day between 6am and 11pm. Testers turn up at random at the given address and, if there is no immediate answer, stay for the full hour attempting to contact the athlete every 10-15 minutes. If an athlete has failed to be available for testing on any given day at the location and time they specified — or are not where they said they would be — they will be deemed to have missed a test. If an athlete misses three tests in the space of 12 months, that amounts to an anti-doping rule violation. which could mean up to a two-year ban. Advertisement

The evidence so far suggests that did not happen in Sweden when the receptionist at Armitstead's hotel refused to tell the doping control officer (DCO) which room she was in.

Serial apologists for British athletes who miss tests, like former heptathlete Kelly Sotherton, were angered by the notion that Armitstead's mobile should not have been on silent. Sotherton said Armitstead had a right to sleep. Armitstead, who is one of the favourites for gold on Sunday, said she was being considerate to a room-mate.

Has Armitstead never heard of the do-not-disturb function on a phone? They have them now, you know. If your designated whereabouts hour starts at 6am, set your phone to come back on at 6am. It's really very simple.

Armitstead should not have missed three tests and needs to accept responsibility

HOW SPORTSMAIL REVEALED ARMITSTEAD'S MISSED TESTS Sportsmail's Matt Lawton revealed Lizzie Armitstead feared she would miss the Rio Olympics after UK doping officials tried to have the world champion cyclist banned last month. The 27-year-old was facing up to a two-year ban after being charged last month by UK Anti-Doping for three 'whereabouts' failures in a 12-month period. But with the support of a legal team backed by British Cycling, Armitstead went up against UKAD at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 21 and successfully had the first of the three failures struck from her record, citing what CAS agreed was an administrative error by her accusers. That has enabled the hugely gifted Armitstead to race in Rio on Sunday as one of the favourites for gold. READ THE FULL STORY HERE Advertisement

So don't insult our intelligence with this garbage at a time when Olympic sport is fighting for its very life. If you've got issues with an early morning call, nominate another hour for the testers to come. Nor is the most breathtaking thing the claim, mentioned over and over again by Armitstead, that because she was tested in competition the day after the missed Sweden test, it proves she's clean.

Please stop repeating that because nobody who knows anything about doping buys into it. They know some drugs of choice can disappear from the system within 24 hours. For Armitstead, and others, to cite those facts in attempted mitigation is breathtaking.

Nor is it the idea that, because Armitstead claimed in her emotive 1,275-word statement of self-exoneration that her third missed test was the result of an unspecified family trauma, she should somehow be spared criticism, although that, too, is breathtaking.

The Team GB cyclist released a 1,275-word statement of self-exoneration this week

Of course, Armitstead has a right to privacy about whatever happened and it is the sincere hope of anyone with a heart that she and her family are finding a way to heal after what they went through. But perhaps the quest for that privacy may not have been best served by her subsequently using that trauma as an excuse for a missed test.

Nor, finally, is the most breathtaking thing the realisation that all this would have remained a secret, unknown and hidden from the public, were it not for the journalism of the Daily Mail's Matt Lawton.

In an era when some are trying to claim there is greater transparency in sport, the idea we can marry that with the systemic subterfuge that has surrounded Armitstead's missed tests is also breathtaking.

But worse than all of this, more cynical, more arrogant, more calculating, more destructive, more damaging to the cause of clean sport, more selfish and more desperate is the way that in her quest for career survival, Armitstead and others have sought to make the drug-testers from UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) the scapegoats for her failings.

UK Anti-Doping have been made scapegoats for Armitstead's failings in recent weeks

The arrogance of it is hard to believe. 'The DCO didn't do what was reasonable or necessary to find me,' said Armitstead in her spool of self-justification.

That's right, apart from showing up at your hotel in Sweden at 6am and asking to be put through to your room, being refused, not knowing what your room number was because you hadn't left it with the authorities as you'd been advised to do so, and then calling your mobile at the appointed time and getting no answer because you switched it on to silent. Apart from that, the doping control officer did not try at all.

Only in some twisted, parallel world is that the doping control officer's fault but that appears to be the world in which the Court of Arbitration for Sport exists because that is the judgment they made. And so Armitstead blames everyone but herself (including British Cycling for not babying her extensively enough), and UKAD is vilified, patronised and ridiculed.

Armitstead should not win Olympic gold on Sunday - she should not be competing at all

That is the worst thing of all about this horrible mess. UKAD — under-funded, under-staffed and fighting a grim battle against the cheats — are there to protect every athlete's right to participate in clean sport. We've entrusted them with that. They're the last line of defence.

So I'm sorry but it's hard not to feel angry — really angry — when people like Armitstead and her gang of apologists seek to cover up their own mistakes and shortcomings by pouring scorn on the testers.

A week ago, I hoped Armitstead would win gold on Sunday. Now I hope she doesn't. Armitstead shouldn't be here. We all know that. Victory for her on Rio's asphalt would just send Olympic sport further down the road to Hell.

With every writhing compromise the IOC make, with every extra Russian competitor allowed into the Olympics, Lord Coe's strong leadership of the IAAF in imposing a blanket ban on Russia's athletes looks more and more impressive.

Coe had a wretched start to his tenure as IAAF president but he deserves much credit for the way he led the organisation in the run-up to Rio 2016.

Lord Coe deserves much credit for the way he led the organisation in the run-up to Rio 2016

It is increasingly hard to understand why Sir Craig Reedie is allowed to remain as president of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

His weakness, the latest examples of which were revealed in a scathing critique by WADA's former chief investigator, Jack Robertson, last week, is an affront to the organisation and an impediment to their fight against drugs in sport.