Impey cooked

[DirtyWorks]

To be honest I had not looked too hard at the page. So I had a look and found a page where they found anabolics were inconclusive as an ergogenic aid to endurance.

Recovery and plain old power. Steroids have quite a bit of history in cycling producing boom->bust performances just a day or two apart. Again, probably the best application is recovery and adaptation.

Not specific to Impey, given the uncontrolled PED experimentation in cycling don't be surprised an athlete takes a drug with plenty of research suggesting the PED does not produce benefits for endurance athletics.

 

[Franklin]

If that ever happens in cycling you let me know.

Well, we firmly disagree on the #1 subject. Thing is though that considering every case after that one has indeed been dismissed it's clear I'm not exactly alone on this one

You cannot show a single post of mine, yet again, that supports your assertion that I am doing any such thing

. To be honest, your argument is probably fatally flawed because it's based on the premise that riders are not doping. You know: innocent until proven guilty.

As you state every rider is is guilty you sure don't seem to be very interested in anything that reeks of defense. Indeed your virulent attacks on people who certainly don't claim people are clean but want to await proceeding is highly entertainig.

The stance: "Guilty until proven innocent" is disgusting. It's not the basis of any enlightened justice system, that you even contemplate it is mindbogling.

 

[yespatterns]

Probenecid? More like Conbenecid. later Impey...

 

[Netserk]

Well, we firmly disagree on the #1 subject. Thing is though that considering every case after that one has indeed been dismissed it's clear I'm not exactly alone on this one


As you state every rider is is guilty you sure don't seem to be very interested in anything that reeks of defense. Indeed your virulent attacks on people who certainly don't claim people are clean but want to await proceeding is highly entertainig.

The stance: "Guilty until proven innocent" is disgusting. It's not the basis of any enlightened justice system, that you even contemplate it is mindbogling.

He doesn't state that. Why quote him if you don't read what he posts?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Again, you are indulging in misdirection. We do know the facts. The facts are he was drug tested and his A and B samples were both found to contain a banned substance. Under the rules he signed up to, unless he can provide a convincing explanation, these are the only relevant facts.

Your numbered points are more akin to saying about someone who was caught robbing a bank "we don't know what he was going to spend the money on". It's just not important for the purpose of guilt. Also, as discussed above, probenecid has performance enhancing uses other than masking. If he was taking it for a legitimate medical reason such as gout, it was his responsibility to get a TUE beforehand. As for contamination, contamination from where or what?

You are really missing the point. Probenecid is prohibited as a masking agent not as a PED. But at levels of 1 gm or less it is an ineffective masking agent. In which case the argument can be made that its presence was not in his system to mask PEDs (steroids being the usual ones with probenecid)

In addition probenecid is not only prescribed for gout. It is pretty clear gout is not an issue here so I do not understand why you would even raise it.

Probenecid is also used to treat (a) to control high uric acid levels in the blood that can be caused by some diuretics (e.g. caffeine - therefore it could actually work against some potential and actual masking agents), and (b) with certain kinds of antibiotics to increase their levels in the blood and make them more effective in the treatment of infections.

If Impey took a drug called Probalan for example, the generic name for probenecid without realizing it was probenecid, for either (a) or (b) above he may be technically guilty according to strict liability but under UCI rules he may not face a sanction.

So don't get too carried away about strict liability because there are other possibilities. On the other hand if the amount is greater than 1 gm then he probably used it to mask steroids. BUT and the big but is WE DONT KNOW. So quit trying to fill in blanks the answers to which we do not know.

You would make a hopeless defence lawyer!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You are really missing the point. Probenecid is prohibited as a masking agent not as a PED.

No, probenecid is prohibited full stop.

If Impey took a drug called Probalan for example, the generic name for probenecid without realizing it was probenecid, for either (a) or (b) above he may be technically guilty according to strict liability but under UCI rules he may not face a sanction.

If he was taking medication, then he would have noted that on the forms at the time of giving a sample, and that would have been taken into account by the anti doping agency in their report.


If Impey was ill enough to require a prescription of probenecid (to help with high concentrations of uric acid which would likely have resulted from testing because he was displaying symptoms of associated illness, or to boost antibiotics performance due to a severe infection, or in the unlikely event of treating gout) then he would have hardly been healthy enough to race, let alone win the national TT championship.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, probenecid is prohibited full stop.

Yeah. Not sure what he was trying to get at but it's far simpler than what was suggested.

If he was taking medication, then he would have noted that on the forms at the time of giving a sample, and that would have been taken into account by the anti doping agency in their report.

And it's my understanding it's a prescription drug, so he'd have to talk to a doctor first. And if so, you'd expect a 6th year pro to know to check that the contents were kosher.

If Impey was ill enough to require a prescription of probenecid (to help with high concentrations of uric acid which would likely have resulted from testing because he was displaying symptoms of associated illness, or to boost antibiotics performance due to a severe infection, or in the unlikely event of treating gout) then he would have hardly been healthy enough to race, let alone win the national TT championship.

Another good point.

Contamination is the most likely looking albeit dubious candidate.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In addition probenecid is not only prescribed for gout. It is pretty clear gout is not an issue here so I do not understand why you would even raise it.

Probenecid is also used to treat (a) to control high uric acid levels in the blood that can be caused by some diuretics (e.g. caffeine - therefore it could actually work against some potential and actual masking agents), and (b) with certain kinds of antibiotics to increase their levels in the blood and make them more effective in the treatment of infections.

Just for the record. Here you say:

... probenecid is not only prescribed for gout ... is also used to control high uric acid levels in the blood ...

You know they are the same thing, right? As in.

Probenecid helps remove uric acid from plasma so it's excreted via the urine. And it's high concentrations of uric acid in blood that causes gout.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

And it's my understanding it's a prescription drug, so he'd have to talk to a doctor first. And if so, you'd expect a 6th year pro to know to check that the contents were kosher.

For sure. I tell my amateur racing clients to validate any medication they are prescribed by doctor. Most doctors check medication in the database anyway when they know the client is an athlete as it flags anything on WADA list. Then they can consider alternatives.

Even so, checking a substance's status is a very simple process. A quick call to the ADA doping hotline or the webform to get confidential advice about the substance takes a matter of minutes (I've done it for my clients) and you get a reference number for the enquiry / advice given (which the ADA will record in their system) so you can quote later if needed / prove you did the right thing in case the advice was wrong.

This is really basic stuff for a pro athlete. Especially an OGE athlete following the Vance report.

 

[vedrafjord]

You are really missing the point. Probenecid is prohibited as a masking agent not as a PED. But at levels of 1 gm or less it is an ineffective masking agent. In which case the argument can be made that its presence was not in his system to mask PEDs (steroids being the usual ones with probenecid)

It's prohibited full stop. There are suggestions that it has a PED effect by intensifying the effects of other drugs - WADA don't have to change the code to account for this because it's already banned.

In addition probenecid is not only prescribed for gout. It is pretty clear gout is not an issue here so I do not understand why you would even raise it.

What I said was "If he was taking it for a legitimate medical reason such as gout, it was his responsibility to get a TUE beforehand". Such. As. Gout. My point being if he was taking it for any legitimate medical reason whatsoever he would/should have got a TUE.

Probenecid is also used to treat (a) to control high uric acid levels in the blood that can be caused by some diuretics (e.g. caffeine - therefore it could actually work against some potential and actual masking agents), and (b) with certain kinds of antibiotics to increase their levels in the blood and make them more effective in the treatment of infections.

High uric acid levels = gout.

If Impey took a drug called Probalan for example, the generic name for probenecid without realizing it was probenecid, for either (a) or (b) above he may be technically guilty according to strict liability but under UCI rules he may not face a sanction.

No, he would have got a TUE for it and also written it down on the form that asks what substances he's taking.

"Technically guilty under strict liability" for taking a banned drug that has a trade name - that's hilarious. You're supposed to read the label. "I was taking Recormon/Eprex/Retacrit! I didn't know it was EPO! I'm only technically guilty under strict liability!"

So don't get too carried away about strict liability because there are other possibilities. On the other hand if the amount is greater than 1 gm then he probably used it to mask steroids. BUT and the big but is WE DONT KNOW. So quit trying to fill in blanks the answers to which we do not know.

I'm not trying to fill in the blanks. I'm saying that as it stands the blanks don't matter.

You would make a hopeless defence lawyer!

Most likely. I'm not interested in getting people off on technicalities. Which reminds me of one of my favourite Onion headlines.