Impey cleared of doping - free to race

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Prior to the election of Brian Cookson as UCI president, very few riders were ever exonerated for doping…Since last September, both Impey and Australian Michael Rogers were exonerated for contamination-level positives.
And this is supposed to suggest what, exactly? That Cookson is committed to getting riders who tested positive off? Two is a very small sample size, and probably means nothing, but it’s curious that the writer would try to make a link between Cookson and riders getting off.
”It wasn't about me trying to be my own scientist. It was just to hide the taste. If you've ever put a bit of bicarbonate in water and drunk it, you'd say the same thing. Every single cyclist I know, every athlete I know, does this, it's a common practice. I wasn't doing anything illegal."
Every rider, every professional athlete, takes bicarbonate capsules? Really?

These riders brag about how much they suffer in training and races, and they have trouble drinking water with bicarb dissolved in it? They’re so dedicated to seeking out marginal gains, and they can’t find something to put in the water to mask the taste?

"I've got all the evidence. I'm not really worried about people back-checking. I have all the facts. I know people think it's weird circumstances, - and it is weird circumstances - and it's something that happened. No one can say it didn't happen. I have the proof. This is not a made-up story. I don't know if the UCI have all the information or not, but I know that I haven't done it, and I've proved myself.”
He’s either being disingenuous, or doesn’t understand how the science works. Detecting probenecid in the pill counter doesn't prove that his positive resulted from contamination. Detecting probenecid in his capsules doesn't prove that his positive resulted from contamination. He could show that his positive is consistent with contamination, but that isn’t the same thing as proving that the one was caused by the other.

If he demonstrated that the amount of contamination in the capsules is consistent with the level detected in his system, that would be pretty strong evidence. I'm hoping that's what his team did, and hope we get to see the detailed argument. But without a study of Impey's specific pharamcokinetics, which I'm sure they did not perform. that agreement could only be a very rough one. Moreover, even then one would have to take his word for it that he took the capsules when he said he did, that he saved the unused capsules for months later, and that he didn’t tamper with them in order to manufacture an excuse.

I can see him providing evidence that could reasonably persuade SAIDS to let him off, I can't see him providing a rigorous proof.
 
Merckx index said:
These riders brag about how much they suffer in training and races, and they have trouble drinking water with bicarb dissolved in it? They’re so dedicated to seeking out marginal gains, and they can’t find something to put in the water to mask the taste?
you ever had it? it's like drinking seawater

still though, "no one can say it didn't happen" is a bit of a stretch. If anything, he achieved plausible deniability.
 
Race Radio said:
“Under the Anti-Doping Rules, SAIDS is required to vigorously pursue all anti-doping rule violations within our jurisdiction. We did so and checked the veracity of Impey’s account to the fullest extent possible. We sought opinions from our own experts, which confirmed that cross-contamination was indeed possible in the manner proposed by Impey’s experts.”

Does it not have to be more than just possible, but rather highly probable?
 
It is plausible, especially given the dosage information included in the reasoned decision, coupled with the Proben tablets dispensed before not being coated.

Typical porbencid tablet seems to be 500 mg.

They are saying 2.54 mg dose taken.





However, I doubt I would visit that pharmacy ever. That sort of cross contamination literally can be lethal in the worst case scenario.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
the sceptic said:
maybe im going crazy, but the excuse sounds kind of plausible to me.

The UCI already proved their point...

That the Nado's are biased.

No need to spend further ressources in CAS.
And would be awful for them if they lost...
Seems quite perfectly timed -going forwards to the "Independent" Tribunal in 2015...
Also they got the PR signal out to the casual viewer; That their detections are effective..
This is fine left where it is..
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
well, unless the pharmacist is lying, it does seem like quite the coincidence that he has a customer with prescription for the same stuff that Impey tested positive for, right before Impey showed up for his gel capsules.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
mrhender said:
The UCI already proved their point...

That the Nado's are biased.

No need to spend further ressources in CAS.
And would be awful for them if they lost...
Seems quite perfectly timed -going forwards to the "Independent" Tribunal in 2015...
Also they got the PR signal out to the casual viewer; That their detections are effective..
This is fine left where it is..
The NADOs are biased, but it was after all SAIDS who tested Impey three times in a few days and instigated the case against him.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
neineinei said:
The NADOs are biased, but it was after all SAIDS who tested Impey three times in a few days and instigated the case against him.
However what remains is the image of another NADO letting their guy go..
(guilty or not)

As far as I know the NADO's when getting a positive must report immediately their findings directly to the WADA/UCI?
Hence they are obligated to pursue the case.
Trying to hide it would probably be a bad idea..

Slipped me though that they tested him three times...
Since he won both the TT and the RR -are at least two tests not mandatory?

But fair point it is a good sign that they also did test him a third time..
 
the sceptic said:
well, unless the pharmacist is lying, it does seem like quite the coincidence that he has a customer with prescription for the same stuff that Impey tested positive for, right before Impey showed up for his gel capsules.
And the gel capsules are loose, and other details that create the tiniest opportunity for the banned substance. He's either incredibly unlucky, or it's been made to cover. I am a pessimist and lean towards the latter.

Let's be clear on how this positive worked. The UCI is not involved in a National Championships. It's either the federation, or the promoter of the event that would be the anti-doping authority. Once the case is opened, it's passed to SAIDS who use the federation's rules to process the sanction.

It would be better to ask who was chosen for the panel. In other countries, they do work for olympic sports federations when they are not on an arbitration panel. I don't know about South Africa, but my guess is it's similar. So, a heavy incentive to never complete a sanction because it would affect your employability. Combine that with a heavy bias for preventing false positives, and you have Impey not sanctioned.

The UCI simply want everything to pass through them to manage doping controversy with their big idea of arbitration based only in Switzerland for some athletes.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
I thought this excerpt was kind of cute:
Impey filled the capsules with sodium bicarbonate that evening and consumed them prior to the time trial on February 6, as per team instructions.

So just how involved was the "team" in all of this?

If this is something so standard and commonplace that the "team" issues specific instructions regarding its use, then why-in-the-hell is Impey scrounging around for his own empty capsules? :confused:

There are still a few holes left unplugged in this story.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
And the gel capsules are loose, and other details that create the tiniest opportunity for the banned substance. He's either incredibly unlucky, or it's been made to cover. I am a pessimist and lean towards the latter.
How does the cover work though? The pharmacist has to be in on it to produce the fake evidence of the transaction with the client that contaminated the capsules. Or, maybe the whole thing was planned beforehand. But that doesnt make too much sense either.

Im a bit confused by the whole thing tbh, but right now I think im leading towards cleans.
 
Jan 18, 2010
277
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
It is plausible, especially given the dosage information included in the reasoned decision, coupled with the Proben tablets dispensed before not being coated.

Typical porbencid tablet seems to be 500 mg.

They are saying 2.54 mg dose taken.





However, I doubt I would visit that pharmacy ever. That sort of cross contamination literally can be lethal in the worst case scenario.
It's just barely plausible.

Based on the numbers from the cyclingtips article:
5-10mg residue on a pill counter after 30 proben tabs dispensed.
60 tabs dispensed so 10-20mg on the machine (might not scale linearly).
How much is likely to get transfered to Impey's 20 gel caps?
How much is likely to remain on the gel caps after he fills them with bicarb and stores them before ingestion?
We don't know how many he took, but if he took all 20 then he'd need
0.13mg/cap to reach 2.54 mg ingested. That's ~12-25% cross contamination which seems high to me, but I'm genuinely curious if that sounds reasonable.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS