Impey cooked

[Mellow Velo]

Note that the first time the press get wind of it is after the whole process has been completed.
Both "A" and "B" samples have been tested and were positive.
So, 5 months is about par for the course.
Pretty shoddy work from the French newspapers. Missed this by being too busy chasing shadows.

 

[King Boonen]

Note that the first time the press get wind of it is after the whole process has been completed.
Both "A" and "B" samples have been tested and were positive.
So, 5 months is about par for the course.
Pretty shoddy work from the French newspapers. Missed this by being too busy chasing shadows.

That's exactly the way it should work though. He was notified on the 23rd, he was present for his B sample test on the 27th, this came back positive and the information was released to the press.

This case so far actually appears to be a very good example of how the anti-doping procedures should work.

 

[Elegant Degenerate]

Note that the first time the press get wind of it is after the whole process has been completed.
Both "A" and "B" samples have been tested and were positive.
So, 5 months is about par for the course.
Pretty shoddy work from the French newspapers. Missed this by being too busy chasing shadows.

Is this not how it should work? The UCI does it right for once? (edit: King Boonen beat me to it)

Seems like a strange time of year (early Feb) to test positive, doesn't it? Can anyone explain that?

Was wondering why impey wasnt in the tour squad.

 

[King Boonen]

can anybody briefly tell me how testing in SA races works? Is the sample sent to a European WADA-accredited lab?
Was or wasn't there any way (legal or illegal) for UCI to prevent this positive from happening?

I'm guessing the samples were sent here:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-.../Accredited-Lab-Locations/Africa/#southAfrica


But as far as I'm aware any WADA accredited lab could be used if required.


I don't think the labs ever know who the samples come from, they just have anonymised codes. It's the professional body (so this is maybe where the UCI could come in) that match results to riders and notifies them.

So in theory the UCI would have to have their hooks into Cycling South Africa (or whatever the national body is called) to be able to have any influence over this.

 

[lllludo]

Where is Impey based when riding in Europe ?
Varese ? Girona ? Nice ?

 

[sniper]

I'm guessing the samples were sent here:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-.../Accredited-Lab-Locations/Africa/#southAfrica


But as far as I'm aware any WADA accredited lab could be used if required.


I don't think the labs ever know who the samples come from, they just have anonymised codes. It's the professional body (so this is maybe where the UCI could come in) that match results to riders and notifies them.

So in theory the UCI would have to have their hooks into Cycling South Africa (or whatever the national body is called) to be able to have any influence over this.

thanks KB, appreciate it.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

I don't, but it's a fairly logical assumption and the most accurate one until we find out anything different.


The bottom line is running samples, analysing the data and reporting the findings takes time. It's not a case of samples are submitted and then run in the next few hours, as much as we might wish it was.

It's obvious you are implying that, no doubt with reference to Kreuzigers case which is completely different, NADO's are selecting when they wish to start proceedings against a rider or taking their time to notify them so they can continue racing. There is no evidence to support that. The time-frame for the series of events is perfectly reasonable.

I don't have any particular problem with the Kreuziger case which is obviously different (longitudinal tests by definition take a lot of time and the results are also quite subjective).

I'm questioning how a rider can give a single positive sample and carry on riding for >4 months. I don't see that as reasonable

 

[argyllflyer]

One of the testers died, hence the delay.

 

[sniper]

Where is Impey based when riding in Europe ?
Varese ? Girona ? Nice ?

greenedge were and I assume still are in girona, so probably impey is as well.
edit: looks like it:

Based in Girona, Impey has been stood down from team’s racing roster until the investigation is complete.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...975593823?nk=390a7ca907fd52dc18ee7ea7cf0f80d1

 

[del1962]

All in the Barloworld tradition!

Sounds like GreenEdge are ready to pretend he doesn't exist. He will be 31/32 before he comes back so future prospects in the sport don't look great, wonder if there is much benefit playing stupid.

Only Anglo at Barlo not to go to Sky though, hooks up with Lance instead

Not that it means much if anything

 

[del1962]

You, my friend, are a loser.

I may be a loser but fairly or unfairly people are going to look into Froome's connection to Impey, my impression is they are good mates.

Apparently page 377 of the climb says something, I haven't read i though.

 

[jens_attacks]

damn pailheres last year, in yellow he was a little from delgado lol
don't tell me that it's not possible riding ttt's at 60 kmph

finally some anglos hehe

 

[King Boonen]

I don't have any particular problem with the Kreuziger case which is obviously different (longitudinal tests by definition take a lot of time and the results are also quite subjective).

I'm questioning how a rider can give a single positive sample and carry on riding for >4 months. I don't see that as reasonable

Most of this is supposition, based on personal experience and a knowledge of how these things can work.

Sample taken, delivered to the lab. You can expect a wait of anywhere around two months probably depending on how busy they are and what other things they have to run (big tournaments and international sporting events such as the world cup or the olympics will get pretty much instant access). doesn't take long to process the data but the lab will have an internal checking system and someone will have to sign it off, usually a team leader. This happens every day in a pharma lab, or should, but in this kind of lab it might be a weekly thing. It's also possible they have someone higher up verify any positives and they may only do this once a week or bi-weekly.

So that could already put us at 2.5 months. You then send the results to the national body (this is where I'm assuming a lot) who will review it, possibly have an expert they contact or even speak to the UCI, and then notify the rider. As with any bureaucracy that's going to take time and six weeks seems fairly reasonable (in terms of accuracy, I too would prefer it was shorter).

That comfortably puts us at 4 months without anything going wrong, which can happen a lot! I too would like it to be much quicker, I just think that, viewed pragmatically, this was actually quite reasonable.

 

[King Boonen]

One of the testers died, hence the delay.

Link? I also don't see why that would delay it for a long time.

 

[argyllflyer]

Link? I also don't see why that would delay it for a long time.

The guy's death delayed the initial testing of samples from the SA nationals.

http://www.bicycling.co.za/news-people/why-we-delayed-daryl-impeys-positive-finding/

 

[King Boonen]

Why would I make it up?


http://www.bicycling.co.za/news-people/why-we-delayed-daryl-impeys-positive-finding/

I didn't say you did.

Thanks. I still don't see why they couldn't get someone else to fill in or look at the data, it would be useful to know what the member of staff did, but it obviously did hold things up.

 

[mikkemus23]

So he doped?

I don`t think I understand fully.

 

[hrotha]

So he doped?

I don`t think I understand fully.

What's hard to understand? Rider is found with banned masking agent in his organism. Yes, he doped. 99.9% sure.

 

[BeagRigh]

Interesting he's still protesting innocence and suggesting he will fight. Wonder what his difference is going to be?? Contamination is very unlikely is it not?

 

[argyllflyer]

I didn't say you did.

Thanks. I still don't see why they couldn't get someone else to fill in or look at the data, it would be useful to know what the member of staff did, but it obviously did hold things up.

I realise that and I did change what I said but you'd replied before I could.

It would seem they waited to review retesting of the A sample once the deceased had been replaced, leading to a delay, if I'm reading it correctly.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

All in the Barloworld tradition!

Sounds like GreenEdge are ready to pretend he doesn't exist. He will be 31/32 before he comes back so future prospects in the sport don't look great, wonder if there is much benefit playing stupid.

At his age, he probably hasn't made any plans for his post-cycling career. The shock will probabpy highlight the inly professional experience he has to sell, and that would be a career somehwere in the cycling ranks.

Regarding timing, this is from the Ulissi thread:

So, the International Standards for testing is ambiguous, and The code is not specific. I found more specific guidelines from a documentof proposed ammendments and questions from NADOs. UKAD. NADOs can have their own guidelines for notification of athletes USADA has nothing clear on their website except cute yellow and red buttons for info about urine and blood tests blood. UKADrules were a little more specific.

"Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Sample."

The “B” Sample analysis should occur as soon as possible and should take place no later than seven (7) working days starting the first working day following request of the Testing Authority
, unless ..."


National ADAs have to report adverse results within 20 days of the hearing determining the positive result. (paraphrased from IST)

Heres a timeline for an athlete taking every available day to delay:

Day 1: Sample Collection
(__ days for travel)
Day 2/3?: Receipt of A sample
Day 12: Test results occur
Day __(15)__: Athlete notified of Adverse finding

UKAD says notification is in writing ASAP. 2-3 days for snail mail?.*

Athlete has 10 days from the receipt of charge to request a hearing

Notice of Charge defines a date and time within 7 days of athlete's (anticipated) receipt of charge for B sample analysis.
Athlete responds y/n to request to be present in the B sample analysis.

Day 22: B sample Analysis, athlete/rep amy or may not be present

If B sample confirms A, then a provisional suspension is handed out confidentially to the related parties.
Day 25: Athlete requests hearing:

-expedited hearings occur within 14 days of the provisional suspension
- regular hearings' timeline is unclear, but presumably at least 14 days

Day 39 (at least): expedited (if opted) hearing occurs. regular hearing occurs later

Day 59: latest edge of the window to report results: it sounds like the NADO stays confidential up to this point unless the related parties release info, but could release its own info outside of this window.



So, 59 working days, and probably longer if the athlete really wanted to stretch it out. I'm guessing JTL is in a purgatory between the request for hearing, a (confidential?) provisional suspension, and a confidential appeal. Ullissi fastracked by not asking for a hearing, but probably opted for and waited for B sample analysis.

 

[thrawn]

Interesting he's still protesting innocence and suggesting he will fight. Wonder what his difference is going to be?? Contamination is very unlikely is it not?

Almost everyone protests their innocence and state their intention to fight it.

 

[Colonel]

can anybody briefly tell me how testing in SA races works? Is the sample sent to a European WADA-accredited lab?
Was or wasn't there any way (legal or illegal) for UCI to prevent this positive from happening?

Yes the samples are sent to a accredited lab in Bloemfontein to be tested and no there was and is no way WADA could try prevent this. The system locally is very good. The reason that it has taken its time is due to 1 of the head/senior testers passing away during the time frame.

However CSA (cycling south africa) did take alittle to much time contacting Darryl I believe as they could not get hold of him or something in those lines.

 

[Colonel]

I wonder if this decision is connected:

http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider/John_Lee_Augustyn

I mean the choice.

There is no correlation between Darryls positive and JLA retiring. The reason JLA retired was for very personal reasons and nothing to do with this.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

There is no correlation between Darryls positive and JLA retiring. The reason JLA retired was for very personal reasons and nothing to do with this.

and how do you know?