Impey cooked

[RobbieCanuck]

Is this the same RobbieCanuck who wrote,

Yep, you have a real lazy habit of asking people to give you links rather than looking up stuff for yourself.

For example, I asked you what Wade Exum has to say and you respond with this ridiculous post.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Can you provide some plausible explanations of how probenecid can get into your system without your knowledge.

Keep in mind that Impey made no indication about any supplements or medication noted at time of test, which lessens the contaminated supplement angle somewhat.

To be honest I am not sure. My reading indicates that probenecid has three basic uses and the first one I think would obviously be ruled out for Impey.

My research ( http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol56/rushall5.htm) ,
says,

"Probenecid is used: (1) to prevent gout and gouty arthritis, (2) to control high uric acid levels in the blood that can be caused by some diuretics (therefore it could actually work against some potential and actual masking agents), and (3) with certain kinds of antibiotics to increase their levels in the blood and make them more effective in the treatment of infections."

Did Impey take some medication regarding #2 and #3 without realizing it had probenecid. I don't know. All we have from Impey is a denial as opposed to a possible explanation. But he claims he had no knowledge of knowingly taking probenecid. I think you would agree a lot of people take medication under various names without really knowing what is in the medication.

Probenecid's trade name is probalan. So if someone recommended to Impey he take some probalan for high uric acid because for example he drank too much coffee (caffeine as you probably know is a diuretic) or for an infection, he may not have had any knowledge of it containing probenecid.

The problem is we are talking theoretically because we just don't know the facts and my earlier point in this thread is the anti-doping agencies have to be more transparent as to their findings so we the cycling fans are not spinning our wheels in the Clinic with speculation.

As for the testing detection level, why does the level have to indicate effectiveness at the time the test is conducted? Drugs dissipate over time and may well have been effective earlier.

You are of course correct, but again we have no evidence of any timeline regarding when Impey ingested whatever it was that contained the probenecid and when the test was taken so that based on the half life of the drug some calculation could be made to determine if the amount (which we do not know) is the remnant of a larger amount of probenecid.

Again my research as found in an earlier post by Tommy2cans says,

"It [probenecid] has to be taken in large amounts (2-5 grams) to stop detection of banned substances such as steroids."

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yep, you have a real lazy habit of asking people to give you links rather than looking up stuff for yourself.

For example, I asked you what Wade Exum has to say and you respond with this ridiculous post.

So it's not lazy for you to ask for links, but is lazy if I do it?

Gotcha.

Where you see laziness, I see hundreds of articles, studies and cached web pages etc, downloaded and archived as research into the topic of doping. If I ask for a specific link to a specific news article or otherwise that someone has posted a snippet from without due credit, it's usually because the search results are muddied and rarely provide a mechanism to narrow searches down to a specific time period.

Your hypocrisy is painful to watch.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So it's not lazy for you to ask for links, but is lazy if I do it?

Gotcha.

Generally I don't ask for links, I research stuff myself. If someone makes a claim I think is outrageous I will ask for a link to prove it. You on the other hand wade into all manner of discussion with some fluff comment and no substance. You still have not answered why Wade Exum disagrees with my contention that North Americans are less tolerant than Europeans about doping.

If and ever you get around to researching stuff I recommend you try a web sit called Google. Maybe it hasn't reached you down under! But give it a try sometime. You might be amazed at what you can track down. But you do have to have an aptitude to plug in the right search words and in your case I am not holding my breath.

 

[SundayRider]

Froome's reaction to this 'shocked and surprised' - not 'the tests are working, another rider exposed is a good thing etc'

 

[msjett]

Froome's reaction to this 'shocked and surprised' - not 'the tests are working, another rider exposed is a good thing etc'

They are buddies. He ain't going to say anything bad about it. Even if he is the voice of clean cycling(this last bit is pure snarky sarcasm on my part).

 

[BeagRigh]

His dad is claiming food contamination: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/South-Africa/Impeys-dad-speaks-out-20140703

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Generally I don't ask for links, I research stuff myself. If someone makes a claim I think is outrageous I will ask for a link to prove it. You on the other hand wade into all manner of discussion with some fluff comment and no substance. You still have not answered why Wade Exum disagrees with my contention that North Americans are less tolerant than Europeans about doping.

If and ever you get around to researching stuff I recommend you try a web sit called Google. Maybe it hasn't reached you down under! But give it a try sometime. You might be amazed at what you can track down. But you do have to have an aptitude to plug in the right search words and in your case I am not holding my breath.

Ah I see. So you think my claim re: Dr Wade Exum is outrageous. Gotcha.

Here's a heads up for you and other people still using the google website - you don't have to even type stuff in any more. Just select the search term of interest in your web browser, Right click, then select, "Search Google for "<whatever you selected>".

I'll leave Dr Wade Exum as an easily selected search term for you to practice with at home.

 

[lllludo]

North American cyclists bought into the culture in a big way from the early 90s to at least 2010. But I have always felt in North America, more people were less tolerant of doping.

That's a cliche.
I don't know about Canada but the doping culture has been present in the USA for a long time.
Take a look at the US pro leagues MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and the usage of steroids.
Same for athletics where most the US stars were implicated in the Balco scandal. Victor Conte is still selling sport-supplements. He's still in the business, just like Fuentes if you want to make a parallel.
Doping was also organized, at the federal level for the Olympics and in particular in LA'1984 and especially in cycling, as cycling is an olympic sport.

If you need an informative book try " A history of Performance enhancement in sports from the 19th century to today" by Daniel Rosen, a US journalist. It's a nice read
http://books.google.fr/books?id=yCz...epage&q=1984 grewal blood doping with&f=false

 

[vedrafjord]

What is probenecid a masking agent for? ?Steroids?

Its mechanism of action is wide ranging enough that it interacts with many drugs. It could probably be used to lower urine levels of any drug that can be detected with a urine test.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's a cliche.
I don't know about Canada but the doping culture has been present in the USA for a long time.
Take a look at the US pro leagues MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and the usage of steroids.
Same for athletics where most the US stars were implicated in the Balco scandal. Victor Conte is still selling sport-supplements. He's still in the business, just like Fuentes if you want to make a parallel.
Doping was also organized, at the federal level for the Olympics and in particular in LA'1984 and especially in cycling, as cycling is an olympic sport.

If you need an informative book try " A history of Performance enhancement in sports from the 19th century to today" by Daniel Rosen, a US journalist. It's a nice read
http://books.google.fr/books?id=yCz...epage&q=1984 grewal blood doping with&f=false

Yeah I was thinking about the claim a bit more and realised it's reverse racism, not unlike the "Brits don't dope coz it's not in their culture" that we got fed from Wiggo et al.

A joke.

Doping helps you make money. As if North Americans are somehow averse to doing whatever it takes to do that.

el oh el.

 

[nevada]

His dad is claiming food contamination: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/South-Africa/Impeys-dad-speaks-out-20140703

Maybe his dad has gout ?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Fuentes narrowly escaped serving a jail sentence. It's not about ethics, it's about the risk of being caught. There's no way a UK-registered doctor could escape a doping scandal with their reputation and career intact.

Ahh, but elite endurance athletics is bad for your health. A UK doctor makes their elite endurance athlete patients healthier.

Keep that dream alive.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Without more data points, all this is conjecture. That being said, sounds like masking. When will levels be released?

What is conjecture? It is masking. There's no threshold for the drug. That is the easiest possible sanction.

What's left?

 

[DirtyWorks]

IF probenecid is not an effective masking agent at 1 gram or less, and Impey had 1 gram or less, which we don't know because the NADA has not told us, then they should have found a PED, as opposed to a masking agent.

He is being sanctioned according to the rules. No need to find anything according to WADA standards other than what is forbidden.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

He is being sanctioned according to the rules. No need to find anything according to WADA standards other than what is forbidden.

Yes, I understand this. And of course where there is no "threshold rule" for a masking agent any amount of probenecid would result in a sanction. What I am more concerned with is the fundamental fairness of an absolute liability rule where the science may show the underlying rationale for the rule cannot be supported.

The analogy is Contador's case where he was sanctioned simply because he had clenbuterol in his system even though the amount was so miniscule (50 trillionths of a gram) it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect. In my personal opinion (not shared by some others) there should be a threshold rule for clen consistent with the science as to its performance enhancing effect.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The analogy is Contador's case where he was sanctioned simply because he had clenbuterol in his system even though the amount was so miniscule (50 trillionths of a gram) it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect. In my personal opinion (not shared by some others) there should be a threshold rule for clen consistent with the science as to its performance enhancing effect.

And then hope they test you once you are off your Clen cycle, and possibly only have a small amount left in your system - nowhere near enough to be PE.

Pretty sure Clen is a training drug, not a racing drug.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What I am more concerned with is the fundamental fairness of an absolute liability rule where the science may show the underlying rationale for the rule cannot be supported.

The underlying science is examined, publicly, and tests introduced and approved by committees. Doubts about the quality of a test were long ago removed before being approved by WADA. Just because you aren't following the research and committe approvals doesn't mean now is the time to sow seeds of doubt.

The analogy is Contador's case where he was sanctioned simply because he had clenbuterol in his system even though the amount was so miniscule (50 trillionths of a gram) it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect.

You can't go down this road. The boundaries are hard enough to maintain.

Contador's positive was not because the UCI had a positive score. it was because his positive was leaked and could not be hidden by the UCI.

In my personal opinion (not shared by some others) there should be a threshold rule for clen consistent with the science as to its performance enhancing effect.

Your scenario means a positive could only occur in an impossibly tight window.

 

[SeriousSam]

The analogy is Contador's case where he was sanctioned simply because he had clenbuterol in his system even though the amount was so miniscule (50 trillionths of a gram) it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect. In my personal opinion (not shared by some others) there should be a threshold rule for clen consistent with the science as to its performance enhancing effect.

You misunderstand the purpose of doping tests. They don't seek to establish how much unallowed enhancement a rider would get at the time a test is being taken (that would be 0 for both Contador and Impey). The tests seek to determine whether a rider broke the PED rules. The thresholds are about the evidential value that a rider broke the PED rules, not how much of an enhancement 50 nano grams or whatever provide.

Here's the key question. What's the chance a test contains the amount of probenecid that has been found if a rider dopes and uses a masking agent? And what's the chance a test contains that amount if the rider is clean and didn't break the rules? The ratio of those probabilities is a measure of the positive's evidential strength that Impey doped.

That ratio is large, as it was for Contador.

 

[keeponrollin]

They're Professional cyclists, every hour of every day. What goes in their bodies is clearly understood to be their responsibility.

If they don't like the rules, let them go off & sell insurance, or drive a taxi !

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The analogy is Contador's case where he was sanctioned simply because he had clenbuterol in his system even though the amount was so miniscule (50 trillionths of a gram) it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect. In my personal opinion (not shared by some others) there should be a threshold rule for clen consistent with the science as to its performance enhancing effect.

Miniscule amounts at time of detection does not imply it was always a miniscule amount. It simply implies it is in the body at the time the sample was taken. You don't know timing and duration of the prior dosage that resulted in that amount.

Now it is possible that clen can get into your system inadvertently via beef supply in some locations. I'm not commenting on plausibility/probabilities, only the possibility.

Hence why I ask, is the same possible for probenecid? If so, how?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Miniscule amounts at time of detection does not imply it was always a miniscule amount. It simply implies it is in the body at the time the sample was taken. You don't know timing and duration of the prior dosage that resulted in that amount.

Now it is possible that clen can get into your system inadvertently via beef supply in some locations. I'm not commenting on plausibility/probabilities, only the possibility.

Hence why I ask, is the same possible for probenecid? If so, how?

In AC's case his July 20, 2010 sample had no clenbuterol. His July 21 sample had 50 picograms (50 trillionths of a gram) Clearly between his two samples he ingested some clen. But the amount found was so miniscule that the suggestion that at the time of ingestion he had in his system an amount that would give a performance enhancing effect is next to none.

In Impey's case, IF he took a drug that he was unaware contained probenecid, the amount would be crucial to whether it could be an effective masking agent. It appears amounts at 1 gram or less would not mask a PED and rather than finding probenecid the sample should have revealed a prohibited PED. We don't know this and hence the ongoing lack of transparency by anti-doping authorities spawning discussions like ours.

 

[keeponrollin]

In Impey's case, IF he took a drug that he was unaware contained probenecid, the amount would be crucial to whether it could be an effective masking agent.

Only if you totally ignore the fact that _HE HAD TESTED POSITIVE FOR A BANNED SUBSTANCE_ !!!!!

And was thus subject to exactly the same rules as any other rider who returned a positive sample for probenecid.

How damn dull do you have to be to not recognize that the quantity is _IRRELEVANT_ !!! He could, for all we know have drunk a litre of the damn stuff the day before, & just the time passed meant that when he peed in a beaker for the test, he only had a few nanograms unmetabolised.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You misunderstand the purpose of doping tests. They don't seek to establish how much unallowed enhancement a rider would get at the time a test is being taken (that would be 0 for both Contador and Impey). The tests seek to determine whether a rider broke the PED rules. The thresholds are about the evidential value that a rider broke the PED rules, not how much of an enhancement 50 nano grams or whatever provide.

Here's the key question. What's the chance a test contains the amount of probenecid that has been found if a rider dopes and uses a masking agent? And what's the chance a test contains that amount if the rider is clean and didn't break the rules? The ratio of those probabilities is a measure of the positive's evidential strength that Impey doped.

That ratio is large, as it was for Contador.

Here is where our views diverge. I believe the anti-doping scheme of WADA should be fair in so far as its rules sanction a rider for having in his/her system a substance that that was taken either, (a). with the express purpose of enhancing performance, or (b). in fact was capable of enhancing a specific performance to gain an unfair advantage.

IF you accept AC's evidence and the science (which in AC's case is a no brainer) then it is unfair to sanction him and suspend him. Just because WADA and the UCI may have had suspicions about AC regarding other forms of doping, it is improper to sanction him when neither (a) or (b) can be proven in the case of the clenbuterol.

Thus the mere presence of a substance in the cyclist's system that based on all the surrounding circumstances it cannot be said either (a) or (b) above does not apply should not lead to a cyclist being sanctioned. Not only does this make common sense but it is good public policy and most importantly it is fair.

What you appear to approve is a system where no matter the circumstances, no matter the science and no matter the fact a substance could not in the circumstances have had a performance enhancing effect the rider should be sanctioned and suspended merely because of the presence of a substance deemed illegal by WADA.

The ONLY legitimate reason for such a system of absolute liability is that the problem with doping is so pronounced WADA has to use draconian rules to deter doping. The sole issue is performance enhancement and not some arbitrary rule. That is why WADA and other NADA's call PEDs, PEDs - performance enhancing drugs.

However WADA and the NADA's sanction riders where the evidence proves the amount of the drug is non-performance enhancing. How fair is that when a riders whole career is resting on the outcome?

This is why I have argued for a threshold for clen and it appears based on the science some parameters need to be set for probenecid.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

keeponrollin;1506646]Only if you totally ignore the fact that _HE HAD TESTED POSITIVE FOR A BANNED SUBSTANCE_ !!!!!

And was thus subject to exactly the same rules as any other rider who returned a positive sample for probenecid.

How damn dull do you have to be to not recognize that the quantity is _IRRELEVANT_ !!!

Yours is a really specious and illogical argument. Read my post at #170. It is relevant as to the amount of a prohibited drug where the amount could not enhance performance.

He could, for all we know have drunk a litre of the damn stuff the day before, & just the time passed meant that when he peed in a beaker for the test, he only had a few nanograms unmetabolised

This comment is the classic speculative, gossipy, and totally irrational comment most posters in the Clinic make. "For all we know...."? When did any reasonable person make a considered decision about the facts of a case on the ludicrous rationale of "for all we know" Quit spouting vacuous nonsense.