Impey cleared of doping - free to race

[Tonton]

Is this really your theory, that Impey went to the chemists for some Probenecid and then two hours later went back for some gelatine capsules? Really?

Go back in the thread. That's not the point being made. see #72

 

[Energy Starr]

Is this really your theory, that Impey went to the chemists for some Probenecid and then two hours later went back for some gelatine capsules? Really?

No. My theory is he's a cheater and full of it. If Saids wants us to believe otherwise they should be able to provide SOME details as to why.

 

[mrhender]

How is it clear that SAIDS are not very experienced?

Context is king..

I was quoting and answering a post referring to precedence..
-----

http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/cases?name=&sport=Cycling&drug=0&submitted=submitted

Five doping cases related to cycling with relatively unknown names...
Last one backdating to 2010...

This implies that they may not be used to such "substantial" expert testimony from the counter part, caused by financial means that Impey has...

My statement could have been clearer but the point was that maybe the interpretation of strict liability etc could be caused by lack of experience in handling this very interpretation... Hell even UCI/CAS can take years in this process right..

So make a decision and despatch the role of executor to someone else if needed... Seems logical to me..

 

[fmk_RoI]

Five doping cases related to cycling with relatively unknown names...

Why limit it to cycling? Look at the full list http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/cases?name=&sport=0&drug=0&submitted=submitted

 

[keeponrollin]

"Fatima Yvelain is a regional-level distance runner in France. I suspect you had not heard of her until now but she enters history with one of the best ever excuses for a positive doping test.

Following a positive test for EPO after a half-marathon, she claimed heavy rainfall on the day of race had caused water to stream over hidden medical waste somewhere near the course. As she ran, the EPO-laced rainwater splashed onto her shorts, thus contaminating her urine when she later provided a sample at the doping control.

Needless athletics website VO2.fr reports the French Athletics Federation didn’t believe a word. She is banned for two years."

- See more at: http://inrng.tumblr.com/post/29472905178/itsrainingepo#sthash.20UtvrFN.dpuf

This must be one of the best explanations of doping. Impey's is definitely in all time top 5.

So now riders will be admitting to being into 'Wafersports', & that will be why they tested positive for HGH, or Steroids, or whatever ... it wasn't me your Honor, it was my Girl/Boyfriend who was taking the banned substance.

This BS excuse has to be challenged as far as it can be taken. If Impey is too cheap to buy his gellatine capsules in bulk, he deserves a two year ban just for being a stupid cheap a$$

 

[TailWindHome]

Energy Starr answered for me.

Hang on

You said

Questions: who is that pharmacist? Who are his other customers? Any name that we know? Who is the client who ordered the previous order, the one who contaminated Impey's capsules? Any possibility that he was a decoy, hired to serve as the alibi in case things go wrong? Any links, money trail? It will take a lot to convince me. I hope that all the details come out.

which is radically different from

Hopefully they could just report that they confirmed that it was prescribed to someone other than Impey. They could report more details without naming names

 

[fmk_RoI]

If Saids wants us to believe otherwise they should be able to provide SOME details as to why.

Cast your mind back six weeks, to UKAD sending JTL down and how they reported what had happened. And then cast your mind back one week to the full reasoned decision published by UKAD. And then look at the SAIDS site and notice that they - like their British equivalent UKAD - do publish decision docs. Finally, ask yourself this: is waiting 30 days for the appeal window to close before the decision is published really unexpected?

 

[Merckx index]

No. My theory is he's a cheater and full of it. If Saids wants us to believe otherwise they should be able to provide SOME details as to why.

Yes, the problem here is transparency. For an excuse as strange as this, it needs to be shown that contamination in the manner claimed really could result in the level detected in Impey.

Compare this with the Contador case, where there was exhaustive analysis based on his level of CB, the amount that would have to be present in the meat, the probability that that level would be found in meat, and so on. All of this was made public, beginning with the FRS decision, and of course, much more detail came out during the CAS appeal.

Or consider any number of contaminated supplement cases, where the athlete has to provide evidence that some batches of the supplement contain enough level of the contaminating drug to result in the level detected in his system. For example, swimmer Jessica Hardy had Don Catlin test several supplements that she claimed to have used, and he found CB in some of them. But two other labs, one run by company that sold the supplements, found no contamination. Moreover, even Catlin’s results did not and could not show that the specific batch Hardy took was contaminated, and even worse, IIRC, did not show that the level of contamination detected could account for the level in Hardy’s system.

In the end, Hardy got a one year suspension. WADA wanted two years and appealed, but CAS upheld the one year. But the point is, she couldn't just claim the supplement was contaminated. She had to offer some proof that it was. Even if one believes the pharmacist's story, this only says that trace amounts of prob might have been transferred to the capsules. It doesn't demonstrate that they in fact were transferred, let alone say anything about the amounts. If SAIDS has these data, they should publish them; if they don't have them, they shouldn't make a decision until they get them.

Cast your mind back six weeks, to UKAD sending JTL down and how they reported what had happened. And then cast your mind back one week to the full reasoned decision published by UKAD. And then look at the SAIDS site and notice that they - like their British equivalent UKAD - do publish decision docs. Finally, ask yourself this: is waiting 30 days for the appeal window to close before the decision is published really unexpected?

Yes, but the question is whether two months (Impey was notified and had his B sample tested at the end of July) is really enough time to do the required analysis by both sides, submit it, and come to a decision. Usually it takes quite a bit of time to find a scientific expert and perform the analysis. I could be wrong, but it doesn't look to me as though this analysis has been carried out.

 

[mrhender]

Hopefully they could just report that they confirmed that it was prescribed to someone other than Impey. They could report more details without naming names. They chose the "nothing to see here" method.

Impey could not be prescribed with it as he would need a TUE for it first..
Beeing prescribed (in the normal interpretation of the word) of a banned substance without a TUE is inconcievable...

Furthermore:
http://www.passthetest.com/pass-a-drug-test/pass_a_drug_test.htm

To employment an example, let us observe at the drug, Probenecid, which was initially developed to reduce speed the body’s rate of excretion of the antibiotic penicillin. Probenecid has also been shown to dumb the rate of separation of the class of drugs called keto-steroids. Upon hearing this, many athletes counterfeit that Probenecid would likewise slow the rate of excretion of anabolic steroids. Probenecid, however, is not very operational at doing this, and even if it was, it is on the banned substances list of most sports’ federations, and is smoothly detected in a drug test.

Why on earth would he use this "masking agent" let alone get a prescription for it??

Only explanation (assuming he's guilty) is that he went to the doctor, got the PRB. Then later when caught, he went and bribed the pharmacist to help him build the story which only hope was based on SAIDS not interpreting strict libaility the same way as UCI.. I dunno but I think that every possibility has it's flaws here...

 

[fmk_RoI]

If SAIDS has these data, they should publish them; if they don't have them, they shouldn't make a decision until they get them.

Seriously, Generation Instant Gratification can be really, really annoying. You're just going to have to wait 30 days. And then not believe what is published.

 

[mrhender]

Why limit it to cycling? Look at the full list http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/cases?name=&sport=0&drug=0&submitted=submitted

I've seen the full list...

Answer: Because it is cycling...

You disagree, and that is fine, however despite of all the facts and questions I have raised you choose to pursue this single statement...

We can go on forever like this, so why not just state your point..?

 

[fmk_RoI]

why not just state your point..?

My point was to find out how you justified saying it was pretty clear that SAIDS are not very experienced in these matters.

 

[mrhender]

My point was to find out how you justified saying it was pretty clear that SAIDS are not very experienced in these matters.

And i answered:

My statement could have been clearer but the point was that maybe the interpretation of strict liability etc could be caused by lack of experience in handling this very interpretation... Hell even UCI/CAS can take years in this process right..

It is my interpretation and you disagree.. Fine..

Shall we move on

 

[fmk_RoI]

Impey was notified and had his B sample tested at the end of July

Just for clarity, Impey was notified om 23 June. He had the B-Sample tested 27 June. He was suspended 2 July.

 

[Energy Starr]

Seriously, Generation Instant Gratification can be really, really annoying. You're just going to have to wait 30 days. And then not believe what is published.

For me time isn't the biggest concern. I care more whether SAIDS actually looked into Impey's ridiculous story and it's plausability. Granted, I'm on the outside but it sure seems to me they couldn't possibly have done anything other than have their "experts" tell them there coulld have been cross-contamination. Anything was possible. What was probable?

 

[Merckx index]

Seriously, Generation Instant Gratification can be really, really annoying. You're just going to have to wait 30 days. And then not believe what is published.

I responded to that in my edited post, but your desire for the instant gratification of a reply didn't allow you to take the time to see that. To repeat, though I may be wrong, I doubt the two months that have lapsed since Impey was notified of the A positive and had his B tested have been enough time to find a scientific expert, perform the analysis, write the report, submit it, and have SAIDS consider it vs. their own analysis.

Edit: King Boonen had some interesting comments on that a few weeks ago when we were discussing Kreuziger's passport case. How scientists have to find time on their schedule, causing long delays in such cases.

In any case, judging from the way you mis-interpreted the JTL report, I would say the problem is not believing or not believing what’s published. It’s understanding what the report actually says. You clearly did not understand the JTL report—you still have not admitted that it did not, in fact, rule out transfusion, let alone apologized for saying I didn’t know what I was talking about--so I’m not sure you’ll understand any Impey report, either.

 

[Tonton]

Hang on

You said



which is radically different from

Nope. I asked legitimate questions and asked that the powers that be in this case give the details, show that they did their due diligence. I didn't mention, as you seemed to indicate that I want to know who suffers a condition. If you understood it that way, my bad. But please don't isolate bits and pieces of the six or seven posts that I have written. I asked for transparency, so we can understand how far the investigation went, even making the workplace drug testing analogy. I need all the details in order to believe Impey. As Energy Starr indicated, I raised the question as it relates to the previous customer, and as it relates to the pharmacist. I want to know:

1. Who is the pharmacist? Any link to Impey, his Team?
2. Any other athletes as customers?
3. Has the customer whose drugs allegedly cross-contaminated Impey's capsules any link to Impey, or his team?

We all know Mrs. Rumsas, the crooked doctors, et caetera, et caetera. I don't feel that this investigation was that: an investigation. If it was, great: then give the details. i won't take their word (and Impey's) at face value. Do you?

Thank you.

 

[Almeisan]

Exactly. Wouldn't work for EPO, but it would for some other drugs.

Yeah, I know EPO comes in a liquid medium to be injected. That's why I added the oral anavar. But an oral EPO is in the works. So who knows.

As for the evidence, I can see it can be made plausible in some way that a contamination might happen. But aren't we talking about a case where Impey has to prove it was definitely this and definitely not an attempt to dope? I mean, the court doesn't assume that a cyclist doping is a rare and unusual thing, right?

I am a biochem engineer and not a pharmacist and I don't have a decade of lab experience. I can see this is not an impossible scenario? But is this evidence? Does this case match the concentration that was established? Did Impey have gelatin capsules left for testing? Did they actually try to see if someone swallowing the capsules handled the way Impey described indeed do cause a positive?
We can't even prove the pharmacist hands were indeed contaminated. We just have this hypothetical alternative explanation with experts saying it is not impossible.
Are they really saying that Impey's positive is evidence the pharmacist hands were contaminated? Because that is all there is. That and the costumer right before Impey buying Probenecid. That is no evidence that contamination did happen.
I just don't buy it that it is common for medicine to have relevant contaminations through pharmacist mishandling. If indeed this is true, it would be a worldwide scandal if such news came out.

He should provide evidence for contamination. Not evidence that if contamination was to occur, it can explain his positive.
I think that even if this is what happened, it cannot be shown to be probable unless he kept one of his capsules and trace Probenecid is found. So in that case, sadly, he should be found guilty.


I mean, I have never heard a case like this before. If this is so probable, why did it only happen with Impey? And is Probenecid really still a commonly described against infection in SA?

So what if you are an athlete and your brother-in-law is a pharmacist. Can you ever shake his hand again? Come on, what is next? Medicine-contaminated tap water?

This is just looking for an excuse to let him go. Can Wada appeal like they did with Contador?


And even if they have the name of the pharmacist, they probably don't release that stuff anyway.

 

[fmk_RoI]

You clearly did not understand the JTL report—you still have not admitted that it did not, in fact, rule out transfusion, let alone apologized for saying I didn’t know what I was talking about--so I’m not sure you’ll understand any Impey report, either.

Remind me what you're banging on about, if it's really that important to you.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[bewildered]

how probable is it?

 

[RiccoDinko]

What an absolute bull**** story, it is up their with Simoni's cocaine sweeties, maybe even better. It also sets a precedent as a means to an excuse for any doping positive. Just make sure you went to a pharmacy to buy something else the day before and have the pharmacist concoct a story that he was handling your desired doping product earlier that day.

As others have said, surely this is heading for CAS.

I'm sure the pharmacist wanted to save Impey's carreer.

 

[RiccoDinko]

You see, this is what is really frustrating. The contaminated hands story is simply believed, accepted as being true, because it was reported as being true. Even when evidence is introduced showing that the contaminated hands thing did not happen, some still cling to it, repeat it. The gullibility of some people, even when faced with the existence of the SAIDS statement, is astonishing. It's almost like they want to believe and have to run and hide when confronted with facts.

Excellent Post, the majority of the Clinic would rather cut Impey's head off, than read the factual reports.

 

[TheGame]

The idea that he was using sodium bicarbonate as an ergogenic is bogus.

But as previously sourced it does help counteract the side-effects of probenecid, so i'm sticking with that theory.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So let's assume for a moment there was a fine amount of probenecid dust on the capsules supplied.

So little dust it was not noticeable when Impey then filled his capsules with bicarb*.

Given that'd now mean a minute amount of probenecid ingested to begin with, how long would such a minuscule amount take to be metabolised and no longer detectable? What's the half life, a handful of hours?

So given he would have had to have ingested a home brew supplement pill on the day or hours leading up to the sample being given in order to have still had enough in the urine to register a positive, why didn't Impey provide details of the supplement on the anti-doping forms at time of sample collection?

It wasn't Gatorade, it was a pill. You are meant to list all supplements for the purpose of anti-doping authorities later being able to check for such contamination possibility stories.


* WTF is up with that anyway? - your own bicarb pills? But that's an aside