Impey cleared of doping - free to race

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Merckx index said:
This is very interesting, and certainly relevant to the discussion. It is a very old paper, and you would think that if pharmacists were aware of the problem that long ago, they would have avoided cross-contamination by now. Those trays that were pictured upthread certainly look disposable to me, and would obviously solve the problem. But I'm not a pharmacist, and don't know what they use.

Anyway, let’s look at the numbers. I couldn’t access the full paper, so I don’t know how much variability there was in the amount of contamination, and how much it depends on the friability of the pills, let alone how friable probenecid pills are. Also, of course, if the pills are sealed in some manner, this would drastically reduce the amount of contamination.

The number they quote was obviously a worst case scenario, and corresponds to about 200 ug/capsule. Some of this would come off as the capsules were handled, filling them with bicarb, putting them in some kind of container, etc., but there would still likely be a substantial amount remaining. So if he Impey took several of these capsules, he might, as a worst case, ingest up to 1 mg. Again, this is assuming that the level of contamination was just as with aspirin in this report.

As I discussed earlier on this thread, at what I think are current detection levels, an athlete would have to consume about 25 ug probenecid to test positive within about twelve hours later. So the contamination theory is certainly possible. It depends, of course, on how much contamination probenecid pills could produce, and the level of the substance that Impey actually tested for.

Wrt taking bicarb during a it, why wouldn’t he just dissolve it in his water bottle? Would seem to be the simplest way to take it.
Thank you. Very informative and valuable data. I read it and conclude, it's a legitimate possibility in the right circumstances.
 
Merckx index said:
I posted this Google link on Friday and a few of the pages it returns are worth skimming for how much they show awareness of the cross-contamination issue.

fmk_RoI said:
How obscure is the issue of cross contamination in pharmacies because of pill-counters? Not very, if the Google results of a simple search are anything to go by.
Some of them explain a reluctance to use disposable trays for automated machines as a cost issue and I would guess that is the same argument for not using disposable trays when manual counting too.

When best practice is not imposed by third parties, corners will be cut, in all walks of life.
 
Nov 2, 2013
121
0
0
http://www.livestrong.com/article/480530-how-to-take-baking-soda-for-health/

Just too bad DI did not go for the method in step 4. Baking soda in a glass of water and shoot it. You can't be a sissy and be a pro cyclist, so big eye roll that a rider who would complain about the taste when they are ready to do whatever legal means possible to go for gold.

Whether its a chemical that really has some benefits or not really is beside the point. This is old school stuff. It probably has some placebo effect regardless. That's not wrong or illegal.

DI is responsible for what goes into his body regardless. That he bought loose capsules from a pharmacy when there is all this cross contaminating dust all over the place seems pretty careless. He should serve a reduced penalty at least.

On another note DI seemed pretty annoyed with the SAID's in his statements. Complaining about being out of racing from end of the Dauphine June 15- end of Aug. He is the one who had the drug in his system. He never argued that was not the case. And so the process does takes some time.

He certainly could be acting far more humble and less arrogant in these circumstances, perhaps apologizing to everyone for his foolishness and wasting valuable time and resources of his home ADA, and casting yet another shadow on the sport of cycling. Make a statement for the benefit of other athletes as to the cost of his foolishness and educating them on how not to make the same error he did.
 
fmk_RoI said:
I posted this Google link on Friday and a few of the pages it returns are worth skimming for how much they show awareness of the cross-contamination issue.
I missed that, better late than never. However, no hard data there, which is what I was hoping for.

Here is the CAS decision on Cielo, and this appears to be the key passage:

ultimately, it was determined that the cause of the adverse test results was the contamination of the caffeine capsules by Furosemide. This was established when an independent WADA – accredited laboratory, LABDOP of Rio de Janeiro, tested the remaining capsules in the bottle of capsules from which the caffeine capsules used by the Athletes at the Event were taken. The documentary evidence confirmed that independent testing. It appears this contamination occurred because, as admitted by Ms Ana Tereza Cósimo de Souza from the pharmacy in a declaration dated 27 June 2011 which was tendered as evidence by the Athletes in these appeals, on the same day that one bottle of the caffeine capsules was being made up at the Anna Terra Pharmacy, that pharmacy was also making up for other clients several prescriptions for the treatment of heart disease, an ingredient of which was Furosemide. It appears that, somehow or other, on that day the caffeine to be used in the caffeine capsules was inadvertently contaminated with the Furosemide which was being used in respect of the heart disease medication and which was made up at the pharmacy just before the caffeine capsules. Dr Magliocca gave further detailed evidence, which the Panel accepts, as to how the source of the contamination was found.
Unfortunately, no more details in the PDF, they may be in an Appendix somewhere. I would like to see these details, to learn more about the "somehow or other", as well the level of contamination of the capsules, and to see if they did a pharmacokinetic analysis to confirm that the level of contamination could have accounted for the level detected in the positive test. Though they should have done this, I wouldn't necessarily assume they did. Sometimes athletes get bans reduced by showing that batches of supplements are contaminated, though the amount of contamination is not sufficient to account for the level they tested positive for.

One even wonders if the swimmers could have intentionally contaminated the capsules after the fact. There may well have been a way of ruling this out, but from this decision, one can't be sure of that. In this respect, it's very interesting that Cielo's father was the local Health Secretary, recommended this pharmacy specifically to his son, and yet there was contamination? Call me too cynical, but if Cielo had been looking for a way to dodge the sanction, papa probably could have helped. But again, in the absence of more details, hard to know.

Also interesting about this case is that one of the four swimmers got a one year ban, because he had a prior doping offense. So in some sense this was considered a doping offense.

Anyway, I'm guessing that maybe Impey had some leftover capsules that were tested. That could be part of his defense. I hope there is more than that.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Why would a rider who is clean not take Bicarbonate of Soda?
One does not preclude the other
My point was only that Baking Soda is more a relic of the past and not what one would expect with the more modern "new age" teams and its riders.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
Really? Oh, well. Not much point in pressing the point with you then, is there? Carry on as you were, assuming he must have taken them before the race just because he had no pockets.
OK, so I guess you prefer not to adopt a more reasonable tone?

This is a genuine question:
Are you suggesting that Impey would've used only one or two Bicarb capsules during the race? Or that he very well may have lined his shorts with a dozen or more in order to up the dosage?
 
Merckx index said:
However, no hard data there, which is what I was hoping for.
I haven't spent a lot of time Googling for specifics - well done on finding that CAS decision BTW - but I think the only two bits of hard data that really come up are the Prob half-life paper that shows it can tested at a fifth of the required standard and the one with the aspirin test.

Merckx index said:
Also interesting about this case is that one of the four swimmers got a one year ban, because he had a prior doping offense. So in some sense this was considered a doping offense.
This is something that seems to be missing from the SAIDS statement. To the best of my knowledge (and this if off the top of my head, I haven't checked back to sources) even if he hits the 51% balance of probability threshold and his explanation is accepted, the min punishment is a warning and the voiding of that day's result. SAIDS make no reference to either in Impey's case, maybe the decision will.
 
Granville57 said:
Are suggesting that Impey would've used only one or two Bicarb capsules during the race? Or that he very well may have lined his shorts with a dozen or more in order to up the dosage?
You assumed that no pockets meant all had to be consumed before the start. I showed you how that assumption could be erroneous.

And IIRC a comment from someone who bothered doing the math, the guy could have got away with as few as six of them across the day, not the dozen or more you're suggesting.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Merckx index said:
Also, as I alluded to before, there have been studies of cocaine contamination of dollar bills. One reported, that about 80% of all dollar bills tested were contaminated, with a very wide range, from less than 0.1 ug to more than 1 mg. Though somewhat different from contamination in a pill counter, the study has some relevance in that much of the contamination is thought to result not directly—the handling of bills by cocaine traffickers or users—but indirectly, from contact of uncontaminated bills with contaminated ones, by individuals and in ATMs and other bill counting machines.

A more recent study found that 90% of bills were contaminated.
I remember seeing a program some years ago—could've been 60 Minutes—where corrupt police departments (Florida?) were using this tactic against innocent people.

Stop people for one thing.
Scan bills for cocaine.
New charges. Presto!

I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
You assumed that no pockets meant all had to be consumed before the start. I showed you how that assumption could be erroneous.
The original "pockets" question was raised by Dear Wiggo, not myself, so maybe some signals are getting crossed here?

fmk_RoI said:
And IIRC a comment from someone who bothered doing the math, the guy could have got away with as few as six of them across the day, not the dozen or more you're suggesting.
I'd be very curious to know what his routine is in this regard. I can't imagine that that level of detail has been released yet, but I do wonder if it was provided to those who were investigating his story.

Look, some very interesting discussions have risen out of this whole mess. Impey may very well be completely innocent of any intentional wrong doing, but there's no reason for some us not to question the finer details of his story.

When I read things such as:
Every result that I have achieved to date has been as a result of hard work and dedication on my part.
I immediately think of this guy:


That being said, I am open to all aspects of this story. The more info that is available to me, the easier it is for me to draw my own conclusions.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
You've never put anything up the cuff of your shorts?

This rider does:
Them? He bought multiple gel caps. Otherwise you wouldn't need a pill-counter.

How big are these gel caps, and how many did he consume, and when? He says in the article he had them for the road race, but got pinged after the TT.

The things I stuck up my knicks were plastic coated and therefore not going to rub themselves out or melt in the heat and the sweat. We're talking South Africa at the height of summer.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Them? He bought multiple gel caps. Otherwise you wouldn't need a pill-counter.

How big are these gel caps, and how many did he consume, and when? He says in the article he had them for the road race, but got pinged after the TT.

The things I stuck up my knicks were plastic coated and therefore not going to rub themselves out or melt in the heat and the sweat. We're talking South Africa at the height of summer.
That doesn't fit with the timeline, the TT was three days before the road race. Did he say he took them for the TT?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
King Boonen said:
That doesn't fit with the timeline, the TT was three days before the road race. Did he say he took them for the TT?
It's not clear.

The Star reports:
The solid facts were the evidence of a pharmacist in Durban. Impey had gone early in the morning to buy empty gelatine capsules to put bicarbonate of soda inside them for the South African road race championships.
but TT is a race on the road too. When they talk about championships they are either road or track champs. So the road race could be referring to road + TT, or a specific event.

As per usual, the details are unclear and the rider walks despite the lack of clarity.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
It's not clear.

The Star reports:


but TT is a race on the road too. When they talk about championships they are either road or track champs. So the road race could be referring to road + TT, or a specific event.

As per usual, the details are unclear and the rider walks despite the lack of clarity.
Hopefully when the full report is released it will clear everything up. It should be very easy to clear up to be honest. Very small amount detected right after the TT, not enough for a mask and falls in line with estimated calculations for contamination. We'll have to wait and see...
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I didn't say it was doping, either.
I know. I didn't say you had.

Dear Wiggo said:
The basic belief is he was doping, and the probenecid was covering it up.
Yes, although as discussed in the earlier thread, there is also the potential it isn't necessarily used for its masking properties, but rather as enabling a bigger bang for your steroid buck (and screwed up timing/dosage).

Dear Wiggo said:
The counter is that this is a low ranked race and not worth doping for.
Yeah, I agree those arguments never really stack up.

It's weak like the "why would I risk everything I have built by doping?" argument.

Dear Wiggo said:
Using bicarb is - from what I have read - pretty uncomfortable and of dubious benefit. To use such a thing (if that is in fact what was happening, which I doubt) to me refutes the assertion it's not worth doping to win - he was clearly doing everything he could to get max performance.
Benefits are variable, some will gain benefit, others won't. Similarly some can ingest without much hassle, others will wish they had never heard of it.

The doing everything argument isn't so clear cut in my mind. There are many clean athletes that do or at least try everything permitted, legal and ethical to maximise performance. It doesn't mean they would dope.

Likewise there are those that would dope before using all permitted, legal and ethical means for performance improvement. I'm not sure we can readily assume one or the other.
 
King Boonen said:
Hopefully when the full report is released it will clear everything up. It should be very easy to clear up to be honest. Very small amount detected right after the TT, not enough for a mask and falls in line with estimated calculations for contamination.
or got the dosage/timing wrong.

I can't see how you can tell the difference between an earlier larger dose (i.e. doping), or a later tiny inadvertent dose. Both could result in the same levels detected.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
or got the dosage/timing wrong.

I can't see how you can tell the difference between an earlier larger dose (i.e. doping), or a later tiny inadvertent dose. Both could result in the same levels detected.
Easy.

You cannot tell the difference.

Given clearing behaviors are well established you can plot back a curve. Anything on the curve is equally valid an assumption based on that detection level alone.
 
Not that hard to believe people...you likely have no idea how much back door pharmaceutical theft/sales go on around the World...the US is no different.

The big pharma's, at least once out of the door of their facility, honestly don't really care where the drugs end up, as long as they are making money, whatever, not their problem.

Particularly smaller pharmacies where there really isn't any accountability of inventory, in the back door via shipping company, or shady seller, then right back out of the back door, or substitute garbage, other drugs to make a buck. Easy money.
 
Apr 4, 2009
178
0
8,830
Dear Wiggo said:
Them? He bought multiple gel caps. Otherwise you wouldn't need a pill-counter.

How big are these gel caps, and how many did he consume, and when? He says in the article he had them for the road race, but got pinged after the TT.

The things I stuck up my knicks were plastic coated and therefore not going to rub themselves out or melt in the heat and the sweat. We're talking South Africa at the height of summer.
His positive was from a surprise test before the TT. In Durban where the race was held it was a scorcher or a day, many riders dnf'd.
 
Nov 2, 2013
121
0
0
Colonel: tested before the itt? This report says after.

"Further to the announcement of the Tour de France team and in the interests of full disclosure, I confirm that on 23 June 2014, I was notified by William Newman, the President of Cycling South Africa, about an adverse analytical finding for Probenecid following an in-competition test at the national time trial championships on 6 February 2014," Impey said.

http://http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/daryl-impey-tests-positive-for-probenecid
 
Apr 4, 2009
178
0
8,830
westerner said:
Colonel: tested before the itt? This report says after.

"Further to the announcement of the Tour de France team and in the interests of full disclosure, I confirm that on 23 June 2014, I was notified by William Newman, the President of Cycling South Africa, about an adverse analytical finding for Probenecid following an in-competition test at the national time trial championships on 6 February 2014," Impey said.

http://http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/daryl-impey-tests-positive-for-probenecid
Correct but from what I understand he had a suprise test the morning before the TT and then tested hours after when he won.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
WTF is this:
(published today)
http://groundup.org.za/article/daryl-impey-very-unusual-case_2192

Most intriguing however is the suggestion being made by some that SAIDS had accepted Impey’s defence without a challenge before a tribunal. When a case is brought before a tribunal the prosecution and defence present their case, including leading evidence and cross examining all material witnesses, including scientific experts. The tribunal, consisting of legal and scientific experts, eventually adjudicates the claims based on a balance of probabilities, as in a civil case, and makes a determination. In Impey’s case there was none of this, since SAIDS accepted Impey’s defence without allowing the tribunal to hear argument. This again is highly unusual.
My understanding was this:
http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/2014/08/saids-accepts-decision-made-by-independent-tribunal-on-daryl-impey-doping-charge/

SAIDS accepts decision by Independent Tribunal on Daryl Impey doping charge
Back to the first mentioned link:

So why did SAIDS capitulate on this case so easily, or so it seems? The first is that the defence was so overwhelmingly convincing that the prosecution felt they had no case. Alternatively, they felt that the chances of convincing the tribunal seemed remote, and rather than go through a lengthy and costly process, SAIDS would rather, in a sense, accept the defence and be done with the case. The counter argument would be: rather than SAIDS making the decision not to challenge the defence, why not leave it up to an expert, independent tribunal to make a reasoned decision after all the evidence is presented before them. This would seem more objective and fair.

The alternative scenario is a more disconcerting one, with some evidence to support it – including the retesting of the ‘A’ sample. This scenario is that there were serious procedural flaws in SAIDS case which they did not want to expose at a tribunal, particularly if Impey had world-class experts defending his case. These could be procedural flaws in the laboratory testing process – which has allowed athletes such as Gert Thuys to be exonerated. Alternately it could be related to the significant delay in this case costing Impey dearly since he missed the Tour de France and the Vuelta.

Other procedural flaws could relate to the doping control process, where the Doping Control Officers may not have strictly complied with the International Standard for Testing, bringing into doubt the validity of the results.

Comrades marathon winner Ludwick Mamabolo walked free after, a tribunal found fourteen irregularities in the doping control process.

If such procedural flaws were exposed in Impey’s case it would be rather embarrassing to SAIDS, who already have suffered reputational damage in the case of Mamabolo. This fear would have forced SAIDS into a cynical calculus – either expose the institute to further reputational damage or allow an athlete to walk free, without a formal tribunal which potentially could have publicly exposed such flaws in SAIDS processes.

Of course the athlete could have potentially walked free anyway if the process was seriously flawed. This conjecture may never be proven since although the Union Cycliste Internationale and the World Anti-Doping Agency have a right to appeal, they are unlikely to do so with a seriously flawed process. Alternately, it may play out in the courts should Impey wish to sue SAIDS for loss of earnings and damage to his personal and professional reputation. This would be a great risk to SAIDS’s future credibility.
I may have missed something not reading all posts in last few days..
But seriously :confused:
 
mrhender said:
WTF is this:
(published today)
http://groundup.org.za/article/daryl-impey-very-unusual-case_2192



My understanding was this:
http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/2014/08/saids-accepts-decision-made-by-independent-tribunal-on-daryl-impey-doping-charge/



Back to the first mentioned link:



I may have missed something not reading all posts in last few days..
But seriously :confused:
It makes perfect sense. Not as bad as JADCO, but starved for resources to the point they cannot afford to defend a sanction.

I've posted repeatedly that anti-doping agencies are incredibly weak and that this is by design. Do you believe me now?

That's not an implied opinion on Impey's innocence/guilt.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY