Impey cleared of doping - free to race

[Granville57]

By tablet, I mean probenecid.

Ah. Thanks. I was confusing "tablet" with "capsule" (and carelessly jumped between both terms in my post).

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes.



By tablet, I mean probenecid. As tablets of this substance are processed in a counter, a tiny amount of material may flake off and contaminate the instrument. Then when capsules are processed, some of this material adheres to the latter. I assume the capsules are sealed or closed, and any contamination occurs on their outside.

This is my understanding, but if we have a pharmacist here, maybe s/he can provide a better view of what is proposed to have happened.

Did I miss the post where someone asks why the pharmacist is running empty capsules through the counter?

Granville57 covers the doubts very well: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1561439&postcount=166

 

[TailWindHome]

Call me a cynic, but WTF?

You're clutching at straws now.

But you seem to be having fun

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

What has happened here is that some of you have got really really excited at a doping scandal and have been disappointed. You're like a kid at Christmas who didn't get the X-Box they wanted. You're angry and upset, I understand that, and in a state of denial and grief you are trying to revive the scandal by dismissing evidence you haven't seen and concocting ever more elaborate alternative scenarios. Let it go. Accept that you were wrong this time and he's most likely innocent. Maybe next time you'll be more lucky.

this post is so full of win and truth. I hope you keep doing this.

 

[jens_attacks]

well done to daryl and associates for being clever but i doubt this will pass without appeal

 

[blackcat]

well done to daryl and associates for being clever but i doubt this will pass without appeal

his associates got nuffin on arnie baker imo

 

[bewildered]

What has happened here is that some of you have got really really excited at a doping scandal and have been disappointed. You're like a kid at Christmas who didn't get the X-Box they wanted. You're angry and upset, I understand that, and in a state of denial and grief you are trying to revive the scandal by dismissing evidence you haven't seen and concocting ever more elaborate alternative scenarios. Let it go. Accept that you were wrong this time and he's most likely innocent. Maybe next time you'll be more lucky.

No. What has happened is that a version of events that seems quite unlikely from what we know so far has apparently been accepted as being more probable than not.

Something that has been accepted or shown/proven as being possible has also been accepted as being more probable than not. We know why they found it to be possible. We do not know how or why they made the leap from a mere possibility to a probability and we are asking questions as to how that might have been.

Again, I emphasise 'from what we know so far'. There must be other facts we are unaware of as there would appear to be no basis for a finding of probability otherwise. But that begs the question that if those facts/evidence do indeed exist, then why haven't they been published?

The statement says that they got expert evidence from Impey, checked that evidence with their own experts, checked his story for holes and couldn't find any, but there appears to have been no assessment as to how probable that story was versus the probability that he doped.

Once the fact of guilt is proved in a strict liability case (here a positive test, which was accepted by Impey) the burden of proof shifts to the athlete to show on the balance of probabilities his story is more probable than his having doped. There is nothing in the statement that details how Impey managed to do this.

This evidence on probability/plausibility is more important than evidence that his story is possible, as probability is the standard required, not possibility. At one point the statement (recalling from memory here) mentions the word 'plausible' or 'plausibility' in relation to the expert evidence, so perhaps the experts' evidence goes further than proving a mere possibility.

Yet another lack of transparency. Questions are an inevitability in all of these cases and fans are more than entitled to ask them. This is cycling, remember?

Edit: If Impey is indeed innocent, I want him to get off. But I want to be sure. I just want the ADO to be transparent.

 

[Parker]

No. What has happened is that a version of events that seems quite unlikely from what we know so far has apparently been accepted as being more probable than not.

From what we know then cross contamination seems very likely. There is evidence to back up that this is likely what happened.

But as soon as some posters, which may well include you, heard he had failed a test they decided whether the was innocent or guilty. This time it was guilty. It's guilty every time. And they took took the internet to crow about how their routine cynicism has been proven correct.

But now experts have disagreed with them. How dare they! How can their expertise and perusal of the evidence override the opinions of the internet. It must a plot. The wisdom of internet forums is sacred and must not be challenged. Give us the evidence so we can distort and misrepresent it so the forum can maintain faith itself and have the hanging it expected.

Edit: If Impey is indeed innocent, I want him to get off. But I want to be sure. I just want the ADO to be transparent.

No, all you care about is your own opinions and maintaining their correctness. When have you, or anyone else demanding transparency now, demanded the evidence of someone who was found guilty before accepting that verdict? When have any of you doubted a guilty verdict? Never. Because it matched the verdict you passed down the instant you heard about the case. Your opinion was right and that's all that actually matters.


The wisest thing a man can know is that he is frequently wrong, and that when people who know more disagree, those people are usually right.

 

[bewildered]

From what we know then cross contamination seems very likely. There is evidence to back up that this is likely what happened.

But as soon as some posters, which may well include you, heard he had failed a test they decided whether the was innocent or guilty. This time it was guilty. It's guilty every time. And they took took the internet to crow about how their routine cynicism has been proven correct.

But now experts have disagreed with them. How dare they! How can their expertise and perusal of the evidence override the opinions of the internet. It must a plot. The wisdom of internet forums is sacred and must not be challenged. Give us the evidence so we can distort and misrepresent it so the forum can maintain faith itself and have the hanging it expected.


No, all you care about is your own opinions and maintaining their correctness. When have you, or anyone else demanding transparency now, demanded the evidence of someone who was found guilty before accepting that verdict? When have any of you doubted a guilty verdict? Never. Because it matched the verdict you passed down the instant you heard about the case. Your opinion was right and that's all that actually matters.

point me to the evidence which backs up that this is likely to have happened please. I seem to have missed that.

 

[bewildered]

All i care about is having a fair, transparent decision which stacks up on the evidence. This one does not tick all of those boxes and if the evidence of probability is there, it should.

When have I questioned a guilty verdict? How the hell do you know whether I have or have not?! FYI I questioned the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 verdicts, the Barry George Jill Dando case because they quite obviously didn't stack up on the evidence. Do you want any more examples?

 

[Parker]

point me to the evidence which backs up that this is likely to have happened please. I seem to have missed that.

Paperwork from transactions, the testimony of the pharmacist and the assessment of independent experts.

 

[Benotti69]

Paperwork from transactions, the testimony of the pharmacist and the assessment of independent experts.

got a link for these things otherwise you are trolling

 

[Parker]

All i care about is having a fair, transparent decision which stacks up on the evidence. This one does not tick all of those boxes and if the evidence of probability is there, it should.

When have I questioned a guilty verdict? ..... Do you want any more examples?

The only box it didn't is the one which asks whether it agree with your verdict. The only box that matters.

And well done for doubting famous cause celebre miscarriages of justice. You hardly went out of a limb there. But how about we look at doping cases in cycling. What about Menchov? Nothing about that case has been made public. So where is your outcry for transparency. Surely you can't accept that verdict until you see the evidence for yourself? But you can. Because you think he is guilty (so do I) - your opinion is correct so you can move on.

 

[Parker]

got a link for these things otherwise you are trolling

The SAIDS statement

 

[bewildered]

But as soon as some posters, which may well include you, heard he had failed a test they decided whether the was innocent or guilty. This time it was guilty. It's guilty every time. And they took took the internet to crow about how their routine cynicism has been proven correct.

To the bold:- the mechanics of a strict liability offence/charge: Positive test = presumption of guilt which then must be rebutted on the balance of probabilities by the rider.

So once there's a positive test, everybody, including the ADO, is entitled to presume guilt until such time as Impey produces satisfactory evidence to rebut. So, I am perfectly entitled to presume guilt when I hear of a positive test in a SL case, as he hasn't produced his evidence at that point. But i know that is not final, it is only a presumption and the rider's side of the story has to be heard.

I'm still waiting to see evidence of probability in this case but you are going to show me that shortly, I hope.

 

[kingjr]

To the bold:- the mechanics of a strict liability offence/charge: Positive test = presumption of guilt which then must be rebutted on the balance of probabilities by the rider.

So once there's a positive test, everybody, including the ADO, is entitled to presume guilt until such time as Impey produces satisfactory evidence to rebut. So, I am perfectly entitled to presume guilt when I hear of a positive test in a SL case, as he hasn't produced his evidence at that point. But i know that is not final, it is only a presumption and the rider's side of the story has to be heard.

I'm still waiting to see evidence of probability in this case but you are going to show me that shortly, I hope.

Parker said 'decided', not 'presumed'.

 

[Parker]

To the bold:- the mechanics of a strict liability offence/charge: Positive test = presumption of guilt which then must be rebutted on the balance of probabilities by the rider.

I meant guilty of being a doper.

I'm still waiting to see evidence of probability in this case but you are going to show me that shortly, I hope.

I answered that. It's in the SAIDS statement.

So now answer me.

Where is you demand to see the evidence in the Menchov case?

 

[bewildered]

Parker, I haven't commented on Menchov, so stop putting words into my mouth please. I believe he is guilty too but yes I haven't seen the evidence.

My issue with the Impey case is that there appears to be no basis for a finding that Impey's story is more probable than him having doped from what we know. That is the most important evidence in the case and seems to have been completely glossed over. It is far more important than evidence that his story is possible, but the Tribunal statement doesn't seem to attach any importance to it.

I am not even questioning the verdict per se, I am questioning the basis for the verdict and the evidence underlying that basis. It appears to me a finding that has no basis on the facts available (to me) and I am questioning it. Have you an issue with that?

Re Menchov: I haven't seen any evidence, so I don't have any reason to question it in the same way. If there was something that seems glaringly wrong about that case and I was aware of it, of course I would question it.

 

[Benotti69]

The SAIDS statement

The SAIDs statement does not actually provide the proof.

Some of us would actually like to see the evidence not just read about it.

 

[bewildered]

Parker, there is absolutely nothing in the SAIDS statement that gives any detail as to whether an assessment of probability was carried out. A weighing of one version of events against the other.

Evidence of probability. All you have pointed to is evidence of possibility and evidence that his version of events could indeed have happened, ie receipts that show bicarbonate and probenecid were bought at that chemist, expert evidence that cross-contamination could indeed occur.

There is reference in the statement to experts' evidence and 'plausibility' but that is a reference only, it is not evidence of plausibility. Impey and his experts have shown that his version of events could have happened. The Tribunal has found that to be more probable than him having doped. There needs to be something in between which may well be contained in the expert evidence but there is nothing in the statement which details this and I am questioning that.

 

[bewildered]

Parker said 'decided', not 'presumed'.

So what? I didn't decide anything. I presumed.

 

[pastronef]

Paperwork from transactions, the testimony of the pharmacist and the assessment of independent experts.

so: do we have Impey's cash counter receipt, the previous customer's Probenecid cash counter receipt, AND the pharmacy's own cash counter daily corresponds for that day in February?
so that if we check the dozens of receipts for that day in February we can see those 2 receipts among the other ones printed to other customers?

 

[blackcat]

so much so for strict liability.

arnie baker would have lapped this up

 

[DirtyWorks]

From what we know then cross contamination seems very likely. There is evidence to back up that this is likely what happened.

No. You have an opinion that cross contamination is very likely. Others do not share your opinion.

What we have is a summary of the facts/process where Impey is not sanctioned. Maybe I missed the evidence link?

 

[DirtyWorks]

so much so for strict liability.

arnie baker would have lapped this up

One difference here is the UCI was so intent on firing Landis they didn't even keep up appearances by following the WADA protocol.

This case hasn't left South Africa because it happened well below the world tour. Whether or not the UCI appeals is a wide open question.