Impey cooked

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

So if you take a prohibited substance but they didn't find something else, then that's OK?

There may be other reasons for using it beyond masking.

What matters is how a prohibited substance came to be in his system.

Again, via what plausible means can someone unknowingly have probenecid in their body?

Is it a common contaminant in supplements?
Is it in the food supply somewhere?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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.

I actually agree with you for once. In AC's case he had no clen in his sample on July 20, 2010. On July 21 he had 50 picograms in the middle of the race. There were some additional samples taken from AC I think on the 22nd that showed even lesser amounts of clen.

These results clearly show AC ingested the clen between the July20 and July 21test. It makes no sense for him to intentionally do so mid race, because clen is primarily used during training to lose weight.

Think about it - the amount was 0.000,000,000,50 of a gram. Absolutely impossible for it to have a performance enhancing effect that would have enhanced AC's performance enabling him to win the 2010 TDF.

The ONLY basis of his sanction was absolute liability because of the mere presence of an amount of a drug for which it was impossible to enhance his performance!

IMO this makes a mockery of the anti-doping system.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So if you take a prohibited substance but they didn't find something else, then that's OK?

There may be other reasons for using it beyond masking.

What matters is how a prohibited substance came to be in his system.

Again, via what plausible means can someone unknowingly have probenecid in their body?

Is it a common contaminant in supplements?
Is it in the food supply somewhere?

IMO it is okay if the science says it is impossible to mask a PED at 1 gram. "There may be other reasons..." is just classic speculation with no factual substance.

I already suggested one plausible reason. Impey is told to take some Probalan for excessive uric acid in his urine due to diuretic use (caffeine) or to recover from an infection. He does not know Probalan is in effect probenecid. He is tested and the probenecid shows up.

BUT the point I have been making and everyone ignores, is What was the amount of the probenecid? The science says if it is 1 gram or less it would not mask a PED. Instead the test should show an actual PED (e.g. steroids)

The other issue everyone ignores is, Why can the NADA in this case the Australian NADA not be more transparent and tell us what the amount was? Say it was 2 grams, then the science is clear, it's presence was clearly used by Impey as a masking agent.

Otherwise all we are doing is speculating in Impey's case. While speculation is the food that sustains a gossipy tabloid-like forum like the Clinic, it is hardly a satisfactory way of establishing to the cycling public proof that Impey was cheating (Other than the absolute liability reality)

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The underlying science is examined, publicly, and tests introduced and approved by committees.

No DW, that is where I believe you are wrong. The underlying science is ignored in favour of a draconian system where the mere presence of a drug or substance results in a sanction, regardless of what the science says. This make a mockery of anti-doping. It is intellectually disingenuous of WADA and the NADA's to impose such as system on the livelihood of athletes.

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

.

Well this is the public policy argument for no thresholds and absolute liability regardless of the amount. And I agree many people agree with this approach as the only way to deter doping. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking it is fair.

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.

Well this is the corruption part of the UCI you have so well exposed in your various comments. But it does not change the facts in AC's case.

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

.

No, I disagree. If a reasonable, scientifically based threshold was established for clen, this would not be a problem.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

IMO it is okay if the science says it is impossible to mask a PED at 1 gram. "There may be other reasons..." is just classic speculation with no factual substance.

We already know it's used to boost other drug's effectiveness, e.g. antibiotics, steroids (perhaps other drugs too). Maybe he overdid the probenecid beyond that time. You know, a doper messing up their dosage plan?

I already suggested one plausible reason. Impey is told to take some Probalan for excessive uric acid in his urine due to diuretic use (caffeine) or to recover from an infection. He does not know Probalan is in effect probenecid. He is tested and the probenecid shows up.

Then that would have been noted by Impey on documentation supplied with the sample which clearly requires you to note any medicine or supplements. If a doctor or pharmacist suggested/gave him something to take (it would be oral pills 500mg and clearly obvious they were medication), then that would be pretty obvious for him to have noted it on the documentation along with the sample (even if he didn't realise it was prohibited). But he didn't.

BUT the point I have been making and everyone ignores, is What was the amount of the probenecid? The science says if it is 1 gram or less it would not mask a PED. Instead the test should show an actual PED (e.g. steroids)

Perhaps he screwed up his routine for the other PED(s), or thought he was using something when it wasn't actually what he thought it was (got sold a bunch of junk pills), or just over did the PB.

The other issue everyone ignores is, Why can the NADA in this case the Australian NADA not be more transparent and tell us what the amount was? Say it was 2 grams, then the science is clear, it's presence was clearly used by Impey as a masking agent.

It was the South African anti doping agency, not Australian. But I don't know. Is it required/necessary? It's a prohibited substance, with no explanation for its presence.

Otherwise all we are doing is speculating in Impey's case. While speculation is the food that sustains a gossipy tabloid-like forum like the Clinic, it is hardly a satisfactory way of establishing to the cycling public proof that Impey was cheating (Other than the absolute liability reality)

Well if a positive A+B doping control without reasonable explanation isn't sufficient, what is?

Testing finds so few positives as it is, it's remarkable when it does come up trumps.

I'm totally OK if there is a good reason why he has innocently (but stupidly) and/or unknowingly ingested PB. Just provide it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

With a half life of ~4.5 hours (<=1g), there's ~9 hour window in which you can be pinged for the drug, is that correct? Depending on instrument / drug detection sensitivity. 2g dosage gives a half life of ~8.5 hours.

His TT was at ~8am. It lasted ~1 hour, so finished by 9am.

Assuming they followed WADA protocols, he should have had a 2 hour post-race window where he is tagged by a chaperone before they do the test, meaning the test occurred at ~11am.

The other options are:
1. he was tested pre-comp, as part of a whereabouts kind of thing
2. he was tested post-comp but inside the 2 hour window

Looking at the possible range of times, for worst case (2g scenario) we have 17 hours working back from 11am. So he could have ingested something around 6pm or later the previous day. So he may have eaten something for dinner.

His shock that he tested positive on the 6th despite testing negative on the 8th and the 9th now come into focus - as the presence of PB indicates consuming something different than he did on the following days leading up to his road race.

I would not think a pro athlete looking to win his national champs would be experimenting with food the night or morning before the TT.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No DW, that is where I believe you are wrong. The underlying science is ignored

No. It's not. hundreds of thousands of dollars in time in the form of basic research, applied research, meta research (study of studies), and peer review goes into every approved test. I'm probably quoting costs quite low.

You can disagree, but there are so many eyes on the testing side of the system that STILL heavily favors the athlete.
.

Well this is the public policy argument for no thresholds and absolute liability regardless of the amount. And I agree many people agree with this approach as the only way to deter doping. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking it is fair.

Fairness is an impossible metric. Post some concrete metrics about the process you'd like to change if you really want to stay on the topic.

I'd add the code has been changed and seems to be treated as a work in progress. So, maybe the code itself is not optimal, but all parties seem to work on the parts that need changing.

No, I disagree. If a reasonable, scientifically based threshold was established for clen, this would not be a problem.

There's no perfect process.

Let's look at it from another angle. WADA's ridiculous 4:1 Testosterone:Epitestosterone ratio. Yet, the simple fact is the VAST majority of human ratios is near 1:1 to the point this is no longer an interesting question to anyone. Yet, WADA's 4:1 is the standard.

The case for a ratio near(er) to 1:1 is well researched and non-controversial. Yet, 4:1 is the rule. Science doesn't always give you good policy. Or stakeholders plainly ignore the science. There is no science that clears away plain old politics.

 

[DirtyWorks]

His shock that he tested positive on the 6th despite testing negative on the 8th and the 9th now come into focus - as the presence of PB indicates consuming something different than he did on the following days leading up to his road race.

I would not think a pro athlete looking to win his national champs would be experimenting with food the night or morning before the TT.

Yeah, that excuse is horrible.

non-positive on 8-9 doesn't mean something is wrong with the test on the 6th. It just means he was non-positive on 8 and 9.

Moreover, you just don't "find" Probenecid in food. It's not a PED either, so it's not hiding in some supplement.

 

[argyllflyer]

I actually agree with you for once. In AC's case he had no clen in his sample on July 20, 2010. On July 21 he had 50 picograms in the middle of the race. There were some additional samples taken from AC I think on the 22nd that showed even lesser amounts of clen.

So he either ate it, took a trace amount for no real purpose or did a blood transfusion from a time earlier in the season when he had taken it to help with weight loss. And is so happens that the day of the unexplainable amount is a rest day. Old school. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fish?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So he either ate it, took a trace amount for no real purpose or did a blood transfusion from a time earlier in the season when he had taken it to help with weight loss. And is so happens that the day of the unexplainable amount is a rest day. Old school. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fish?

This is classic Clinic nonsense and speculation. We don't know what happened. We have no facts as to how it was ingested, in spite of your speculation to the contrary. We have no knowledge of the amount that may or may not determine if the probenecid in this case was a legitimate masking agent or not.

Probenecid does not mask EPO so your comments about a earlier blood transfusion are just plain spurious. Nor is it taken for weight loss, another unenlightened comment. How you purveyors of baseless speculation get away with spewing unsubstantiated crap is beyond me.

ALL we know is that in an in competition test Impey had probenecid in his urine. We don't know how much, we don't know how it got there, we know nothing, but you have him branded.

Now it may be because there is no threshold limits to probenecid under the WADA List of Prohibited Substances he will be sanctioned. But again we also know that at some low levels probenecid is not effective as a masking agent and would not have been able to mask a PED such as steroids.

But until we know the facts, and not the mythical picture you are painting all you are doing is being a sanctimonious fortune teller. Hardly the qualifications to recognize a duck when you see one.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is classic Clinic nonsense and speculation. We don't know what happened. We have no facts as to how it was ingested, in spite of your speculation to the contrary. We have no knowledge of the amount that may or may not determine if the probenecid in this case was a legitimate masking agent or not.

Probenecid does not mask EPO so your comments about a earlier blood transfusion are just plain spurious. Nor is it taken for weight loss, another unenlightened comment. How you purveyors of baseless speculation get away with spewing unsubstantiated crap is beyond me.

ALL we know is that in an in competition test Impey had probenecid in his urine. We don't know how much, we don't know how it got there, we know nothing, but you have him branded.

Now it may be because there is no threshold limits to probenecid under the WADA List of Prohibited Substances he will be sanctioned. But again we also know that at some low levels probenecid is not effective as a masking agent and would not have been able to mask a PED such as steroids.

But until we know the facts, and not the mythical picture you are painting all you are doing is being a sanctimonious fortune teller. Hardly the qualifications to recognize a duck when you see one.

argyleflyer was responding to your point about AC - Alberto Contador. So his post should be read in the context of Contador's case, not Impey's.

He helped provide that context by quoting a very specific sentence by you, from your post detailing AC's positive.

Interesting that you completely missed this.

Your incredibly consistent personal attacks, however, seem about par for the course.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

argyleflyer was responding to your point about AC - Alberto Contador. So his post should be read in the context of Contador's case, not Impey's.

He helped provide that context by quoting a very specific sentence by you, from your post detailing AC's positive.

Interesting that you completely missed this.

Your incredibly consistent personal attacks, however, seem about par for the course.

Yeah I see your point. My mistake.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So he either ate it, took a trace amount for no real purpose or did a blood transfusion from a time earlier in the season when he had taken it to help with weight loss. And is so happens that the day of the unexplainable amount is a rest day. Old school. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fish?

Let me evaluate your comment in the context of Contador. First of all we know he ingested some clen between the July 20, 2010 test and the July 21, 2010 test.

I assume that's what you mean "so he either ate it, took a trace amount for no real purpose" The way this part of your comment reads you seem to be implying he "ate" or "took" some pure clen. There is no evidence he did this at all. He claimed he must have eaten some tainted meat and that is how the clen got there. In fact the CAS found as a fact he probably ingested a supplement containing clen. in addition they did not reject his explanation it was tainted meat they simply said he could not prove it.

Then you claim he must have taken some clen at a time earlier in the season to help with weight loss at a time coincidental with storing a bag of blood. Why would any cyclist save a bag of his blood IF he was knowingly taking clen, so that it might show up later in a blood sample. Contador is simply not that stupid. In addition once again the CAS rejected the blood transfusion allegation.

The blood transfusion allegation depends on the speculation that plasticizers found in his July 21, 2010 sample came from a blood bag. Once again that is pure speculation and there was no evidence in Contador's case that it did.

Even assuming a plasticizer was present in the July 21, 2010 sample, keeping in mind the test for the existence of a plasticizer used was not an approved test, there is absolutely no evidence it came from a blood bag. As you probably know the source of a plasticizer in the blood can come from many different sources not the least of which is a water bottle. As I said above the CAS arbitrators explicitly rejected the theory of a blood transfusion.

Why given all the evaluation of the evidence by arbitrators sitting in the CAS panel with all their expertise you would think your unsubstantiated opinion would carry more weight than theirs?

I would not go duck hunting or fishing with you. We may bring home a bear.

 

[argyllflyer]

Let me evaluate your comment in the context of Contador. First of all we know he ingested some clen between the July 20, 2010 test and the July 21, 2010 test.

I assume that's what you mean "so he either ate it, took a trace amount for no real purpose" The way this part of your comment reads you seem to be implying he "ate" or "took" some pure clen. There is no evidence he did this at all. He claimed he must have eaten some tainted meat and that is how the clen got there. In fact the CAS found as a fact he probably ingested a supplement containing clen. in addition they did not reject his explanation it was tainted meat they simply said he could not prove it.

Then you claim he must have taken some clen at a time earlier in the season to help with weight loss at a time coincidental with storing a bag of blood. Why would any cyclist save a bag of his blood IF he was knowingly taking clen, so that it might show up later in a blood sample. Contador is simply not that stupid. In addition once again the CAS rejected the blood transfusion allegation.

The blood transfusion allegation depends on the speculation that plasticizers found in his July 21, 2010 sample came from a blood bag. Once again that is pure speculation and there was no evidence in Contador's case that it did.

Even assuming a plasticizer was present in the July 21, 2010 sample, keeping in mind the test for the existence of a plasticizer used was not an approved test, there is absolutely no evidence it came from a blood bag. As you probably know the source of a plasticizer in the blood can come from many different sources not the least of which is a water bottle. As I said above the CAS arbitrators explicitly rejected the theory of a blood transfusion.

Why given all the evaluation of the evidence by arbitrators sitting in the CAS panel with all their expertise you would think your unsubstantiated opinion would carry more weight than theirs?

I would not go duck hunting or fishing with you. We may bring home a bear.

Whatever the conclusions, he copped a backdated 2 year ban and lost all results for that period. Mick Rogers was fully believed for his explanation for taking the same substance and was not suspended. Why such differences in these cases?

An interesting piece from Michael Ashenden on the case and why AC didn't get done for blood-doping despite the evidence suggesting he may have:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

 

[ralphbert]

Whatever the conclusions, he copped a backdated 2 year ban and lost all results for that period. Mick Rogers was fully believed for his explanation for taking the same substance and was not suspended. Why such differences in these cases?

Contadors explanation for how clen got in his system required some faith and imagination.

The dogers explanation was more straight forward and believable.

 

[bewildered]

With a half life of ~4.5 hours (<=1g), there's ~9 hour window in which you can be pinged for the drug, is that correct? ......

Not an expert but as I understand the term 'half-life', there is half what was originally there after 4.5 hours, a quarter after 9 hours, an eighth after 13.5 hours etc etc. It is not a half gone after 4.5 hours and all of it gone after 9.

 

[Tommy2cans]

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.

The amount is very relevant for probenecid as if its only a small amount left in the body then whatever it was trying to mask shows up. Read below article which explains the way probenecid works

"Probenecid is quick acting and performs a retentive role for a variety of substances. It has to be taken in large amounts (2-5 grams) to stop detection of banned substances such as steroids. The large dose would virtually block any excretion for a short time (a number of hours)"

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol56/rushall5.htm

 

[Akuryo]

Not an expert but as I understand the term 'half-life', there is half what was originally there after 4.5 hours, a quarter after 9 hours, an eighth after 13.5 hours etc etc. It is not a half gone after 4.5 hours and all of it gone after 9.

100 points for you, Sir! Correct answer.

 

[bewildered]

So how long does it take probenecid to completely leave the body for a dose of 2g or more? How many half-lives? (I believe this is called the 'elimination rate constant' and may be more relevant?)

TBH I don't know enough about the science but I am wondering if it is possible for probenecid to deteriorate but stay in the system in miniscule amounts after the steroid has been excreted? So that no steroid shows but the probenecid does?

The studies say small amounts indicate therapeutic use but that is not the case here.

 

[Almeisan]

RobbieCanuck at it again!

 

[WillemS]

So how long does it take probenecid to completely leave the body for a dose of 2g or more? How many half-lives? (I believe this is called the 'elimination rate constant' and may be more relevant?)

TBH I don't know enough about the science but I am wondering if it is possible for probenecid to deteriorate but stay in the system in miniscule amounts after the steroid has been excreted? So that no steroid shows but the probenecid does?

The studies say small amounts indicate therapeutic use but that is not the case here.

I'm currently not in the oppurtunity to look it up, as I'm at work.

However, you make an important point that some people seem te be ignoring, wilfully. Different kind of drugs have different half-lifes.

So, even if the level of the masking agent found in his sample is considered inadequate to be an effective masking agent at the time of detection, it might have been at adequate levels the days prior to this particular test. That, combined with a doping substance that has a shorter half-life, might explain why the masking agent is still present at ineffective levels, but the doping product has already left his system.

As we're in the clinic, we might take speculation to the next level by guessing that he might have messed up the dosage of his masking agent, increasing the time it stayed in his body well past the retention time of the to be masked doping product, extending his glow time with a masking agent.

 

[lllludo]

RobbieCanuck at it again!

I'd assume RC is a lawyer. Strange for a lawyer to browse the Clinic

Even assuming a plasticizer was present in the July 21, 2010 sample, keeping in mind the test for the existence of a plasticizer used was not an approved test, there is absolutely no evidence it came from a blood bag. As you probably know the source of a plasticizer in the blood can come from many different sources not the least of which is a water bottle.

Yes tooth brush, pacifiers, condoms are also made of plasticizer ...
Blood bags are made with a specific PVC (evidenced by the test). Water bottles are made in PET or from a different type of PVC.

 

[zigmeister]

So how long does it take probenecid to completely leave the body for a dose of 2g or more? How many half-lives? (I believe this is called the 'elimination rate constant' and may be more relevant?)

TBH I don't know enough about the science but I am wondering if it is possible for probenecid to deteriorate but stay in the system in miniscule amounts after the steroid has been excreted? So that no steroid shows but the probenecid does?

The studies say small amounts indicate therapeutic use but that is not the case here.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=probenecid+pharmacokinetics

 

[sniper]

...
Then you claim he must have taken some clen at a time earlier in the season to help with weight loss at a time coincidental with storing a bag of blood. Why would any cyclist save a bag of his blood IF he was knowingly taking clen, so that it might show up later in a blood sample. Contador is simply not that stupid.

he probably didn't think there was gonna be any detectable amount of clen in his blood.
he got unlucky, though, as his blood was sent to cologne.

Even assuming a plasticizer was present in the July 21, 2010 sample, keeping in mind the test for the existence of a plasticizer used was not an approved test, there is absolutely no evidence it came from a blood bag. As you probably know the source of a plasticizer in the blood can come from many different sources not the least of which is a water bottle. As I said above the CAS arbitrators explicitly rejected the theory of a blood transfusion.
.

that had nothing to do with the plasticizer evidence, though.
after all, CAS didn't allow the plasticizer evidence in the first place.

sorry, offtopic, let's get back to impey.

 

[Franklin]

First of: Not a hair on my body doubts AC is a charger. But the Clenbuterol case smacks of using anything just to get him. And that's not how justice should work.

Blood bags are made with a specific PVC (evidenced by the test).

This is reallly the first I read that the test was that specific, care for a source?

Contadors explanation for how clen got in his system required some faith and imagination.

The dogers explanation was more straight forward and believable.

Uhm no? Contador's explanation was actually pretty straightforward.

Also, we now know how bad European meat is. We had a long discussion about it a few months ago and I showed beyond any discussion that contaminated meat is not only possible in Europe, there were actually reported scandals the last few years. And yes, that was specifically Clenbuterol.

In this case Alberto failed to proof the source was the meat, but think about this: In the real world the prosecution needs to proof someone's guilt. In this case it was the other way round: Contador had to proof his innocence.

Again, not a doubt that AC didn't had a ban coming, but the way they used to enforce it smacks of good old abuse of power.