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.