Impey cooked

[Tommy2cans]

Why would you mask an illegal substance with another illegal substance? It makes no sense

He then had 2 substances to try and get out of his system instead of 1 and surely there is masking agents out there that the UCI haven't heard of yet and don't test for rather than a masking agent from the 1980's

 

[thrawn]

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.



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



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.

To the bold: he tested positive.

Contador has the responsibility of what gets put in his system. If he makes up stories on how it got into his system then he needs to be able to prove that.

 

[vedrafjord]

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.

Famously, Al Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. Just because he also carried out worse crimes that he got away with doesn't mean he should be let off for lesser crimes that could be proven.

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.

They did prove his guilt: he was found guilty of having a banned substance in his system. This strict liability is very common in the real world. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law is also a well known principle. Introduce the need to prove intent into antidoping cases and the whole system becomes a joke:

"banned substances were found in your system"
"the doctor gave me pills but he told me they were something else"
"ok you're free to go"

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.

No, they were going to bury the case until details leaked.

 

[bewildered]

Why would you mask an illegal substance with another illegal substance? It makes no sense

He then had 2 substances to try and get out of his system instead of 1 and surely there is masking agents out there that the UCI haven't heard of yet and don't test for rather than a masking agent from the 1980's

Trying to understand the science of half-lives and masking agents (and failing) I came across this. Don't have a clue if it's at all relevant?

http://www.rxlist.com/drug-interactions/probenecid-oral-and-telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazid-oral-interaction.htm

Significant - Monitor CloselySignificant interaction possible (monitoring by your doctor required)
probenecid oral and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazid oral

probenecid oral will increase the level or effect of telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazid oral by acidic drugs competing for the same pathway through the kidney.

 

[neineinei]

Why would you mask an illegal substance with another illegal substance? It makes no sense

He then had 2 substances to try and get out of his system instead of 1 and surely there is masking agents out there that the UCI haven't heard of yet and don't test for rather than a masking agent from the 1980's

There are probenecid positives every year worldwide. As well as positives for other masking agents on WADA's prohibited list.

Probenecid:
2012: 4
2011: 3
2010: 2
2009: 7
2008: 3
2007: 3
2006: 2

Diuretics and Other Masking Agents:
2012: 322
2011: 368
2010: 396
2009: 273
2008: 436
2007: 359
2006: 290

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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

I am a former trial lawyer, who prosecuted and defended criminal cases and engaged in civil litigation for 35 years. I have appeared at every level of court in three provinces of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. I was in court almost every day of my career, and my favourite subject in law is the law of evidence. I primarily defended people who got in $h!t whether it be in a criminal matter or a professional disciplinary matter (doctors, policemen, nurses etc.)

I am also an outdoor recreation geek and jock. Road cycling and mountain biking are two of my favourite activities. I love to follow professional cycling because I like the aesthetics of the sport and the tactics. Plus there is always some drama or another (e.g. Kreuziger). I would like to watch a GT or Classic knowing that who ever wins was clean. For the last 25 years or so one cannot do that. That is a very sad and depressing fact of cycling and should bother every fan.

I am adamantly anti-doping, but strenuously believe in the right of cyclists to due process. I believe in proof. Facts. Not gossipy speculation. I believe in fairness when the UCI and NADAs commence sanctioning proceedings. This is why I get hot and bothered about all the preconceived biases, unwarranted assumptions, conjecture, gossip and speculation that takes place in the Clinic where a great many "opinions" are uninformed opinions (e.g. Wiggins must be a doper because Sky had Leinders as a doctor for awhile)

I have a particular interest in doping in sport as it relates to the law of doping and the rules of evidence and procedure in doping hearings. I am fascinated by the Landis Qui Tam case. The thought that Floyd could walk away with millions is just mind busting.

The rules of absolute and strict liability stack the deck against the cyclist because it shifts the onus of proving one's innocence to the cyclist. However to deter doping in sport that is as it should be. (See the thread I started on strict liability). That is also why the anti-doping system creates absolute and strict liability offences - to deter doping.

However, there are a lot of problems with the doping rules that are inconsistent with the science, and unfair, resulting in cyclists being sanctioned when they should not be. WADA themselves have changed what is and what is not prohibited many times. Or they have changed what drugs are threshold drugs/masking agents and which are not. For example the whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct. We know some athletes have a natural Hct above 50% and they have to get a TUE and we know that their Hct can rise above 50% naturally. The TUE process is a very strict test (unless you are Chris Froome!)

Why would a former lawyer read the Clinic? Why wouldn't a former lawyer read the Clinic? I am amazed that someone's former profession that would be a bar or a criterion as to who would or would not read the Clinic. I follow the Clinic to hopefully learn something. But my experience in the Clinic has been mixed. There is a lot of uniformed speculation on here, a lot of baseless character assassination, a lot of one upmanship, a lot of cynicism, and a lot of pseudo intellectual nonsense.

But then again it wouldn't be the Clinic then would it!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

Why would you mask an illegal substance with another illegal substance? It makes no sense

He then had 2 substances to try and get out of his system instead of 1 and surely there is masking agents out there that the UCI haven't heard of yet and don't test for rather than a masking agent from the 1980's

Masking agent might be a red herring (even though it is still being picked up in doping controls).

There is the not unreasonable possibility that it is taken not for its masking agent properties but for its ability to boost the performance of other ergogenic products. e.g. you might need less steroid for same benefit. More bang for your doping buck.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

Exactly. In fact, the new, more sensitive test was only just concluded pre-Tour, and the agreement to test some samples was happening behind closed doors / via emails.

What used to be an acceptable time frame for safe non-detection of Clen post-cycle changed completely with this new test.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are probenecid positives every year worldwide. As well as positives for other masking agents on WADA's prohibited list.

Probenecid:
2012: 4
2011: 3
2010: 2
2009: 7
2008: 3
2007: 3
2006: 2

Diuretics and Other Masking Agents:
2012: 322
2011: 368
2010: 396
2009: 273
2008: 436
2007: 359
2006: 290

Brilliant. IMO, testing positive and getting caught via the BP is a random occurrence. Not dissimilar to being coached to greatness (Lance by Chris Carmichael) or helped psychologically (Team BC et al by Dr Steve Peters).

Some people are going to get caught. Not all people are being caught. There are a lot more people using these products but they are either not being tested through luck (random race tests), or rarely in a position (podiuming) to be tested.

Add in some classic human error, etc, and the athlete shock / surprise is understandable.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For example the whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct.

Wow. That is so wrong as to be laughable. It's based on an adaptive model, with ranges derived from the athlete's own blood and now steroidal parameters, tailored specifically to them.

We know some athletes have a natural Hct above 50% and they have to get a TUE and we know that their Hct can rise above 50% naturally. The TUE process is a very strict test (unless you are Chris Froome!)

Nope. TUE is a use of banned drug exemption for therapeutic purposes. Nothing to do with having a naturally high Hct.

In 1996 they introduced the 50% Hct rule and allowed people who could prove having a higher Hct naturally the opportunity to have a carte blanche exemption whereby if they tested higher they could continue to compete, rather than being rested from competition.

It's not difficult to do, either. You simply provide data on your blood parameters and they check it out.

Froome's TUE for a corticosteroid has nothing whatsoever to do with getting a high Hct exemption.

I look forward to more personal attacks from you about my research skills and what not. Should be good.

 

[Merckx index]

But my experience in the Clinic has been mixed. There is a lot of uniformed speculation on here, a lot of baseless character assassination, a lot of one upmanship, a lot of cynicism, and a lot of pseudo intellectual nonsense.

Indeed there is. Case in point:

the whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct.

Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the passport would understand that is not so. The system is based on a baseline (of HT and several other parameters) which varies for every rider.

We know some athletes have a natural Hct above 50% and they have to get a TUE and we know that their Hct can rise above 50% naturally.

A TUE for what? Athletes with a natural HT > 50% are excused from the 50% rule, but it’s not a TUE. There is nothing therapeutic about the exemption.

Here are some more examples from your posts in this thread just in the past few hours:

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.

Which is why many studies have shown that everyone, all of us, have DEHP in our urine. Which is why the studies forming the basis for the test demonstrated that blood transfusion results in an enormous increase in levels above those of the baseline found in the population. You don’t get those levels from water bottles, wrappings around food, breathing air in closed cars with plastic seat covers, nailpolish, etc. I linked and discussed a large number of these studies here during the Contador case. If you were familiar with any of those studies, you would understand the water bottle explanation is completely out of the question.

As I said above the CAS arbitrators explicitly rejected the theory of a blood transfusion.

Not exactly. What they said was that they thought transfusion was less likely than a contaminated supplement. But this was not because the evidence for it wasn’t good enough. It was because Ashenden, the expert on the evidence, was not allowed to discuss much of that evidence. The rules of the hearing forced him to defer to someone else on the prosecution who by his own admission did not understand evidence well. E.g.:

A central pillar of [Contador's] rebuttal was the one day gap between the first appearance of plasticisers and clenbuterol. He claimed that were a plasma transfusion to have taken place Wednesday it would have caused a second peak in plasticisers. Paragraph 399 sets out Contador’s defence, specifically his expert claimed that DEHP metabolites should have been detectable along with the clenbuterol. As I mentioned earlier, that is simply nonsense, because plasma is preferentially stored in non-DEHP bags and therefore no plasticisers would be introduced from plasma stored in that type of bag. Anyone who does a wikipedia search using ‘DEHP + free’ as search terms can see for themselves that not only are DEHP-free alternatives available, but for the past decade the FDA in the United States have been recommending DEHP-free alternatives in medical devices….Among other things, I was prevented from testifying about non-DEHP bags.

Likewise, I was prevented from talking about the volume of plasma that would be required to successfully mask haemoglobin levels. Calculations had been made about the volume of plasma that would have had to be infused to yield the amount of clenbuterol found in Contador’s urine. Contador’s expert had raised doubt whether those volumes could be safely infused in humans. By extension, this cast doubt on my transfusion theory. Their expert was just plain wrong, but I was not allowed to point this out to the panel because I had not mentioned it during my written submission. In simple terms, because I had not known six months earlier when I submitted my written opinion that their expert would raise such a spurious point during the hearing, I was not allowed to explain to the panel that his evidence was wrong.

I appreciate your legal expertise, Robbie, but when you venture into scientific questions, you frequently don't know what you're talking about.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Masking agent might be a red herring (even though it is still being picked up in doping controls).

There is the not unreasonable possibility that it is taken not for its masking agent properties but for its ability to boost the performance of other ergogenic products. e.g. you might need less steroid for same benefit. More bang for your doping buck.

Or, it was a masking agent and the anti-doping authority (promoter/SA cycling federation) did the right thing and processed the positive regardless of the name/rank of the rider. That is entirely unlike the UCI and a national championships is the only time a WT rider would likely be outside the UCI's testing authority.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I appreciate your legal expertise, Robbie, but when you venture into scientific questions, you frequently don't know what you're talking about.

Robbie, I mean you no disrespect, but Merckx Index is right. I'm no biological expert of any kind too. Just accept it's not your area of expertise to the point of getting things wrong sometimes and move on.

Also, it's important to understand there is no judicial analogue in sports administration. There's a documented process, but that's about it.

I think most would agree if the UCI was a fair dealer as far as anti-doping goes things on all levels would be different.

 

[DirtyWorks]

There are a lot more people using these products but they are either not being tested through luck (random race tests), or rarely in a position (podiuming) to be tested.

Or, in the UCI's case, not opening a case on a WT rider.

Again, I'm definitely not denying WADA's statistics, but we know in cycling it's mostly continental riders getting popped for whatever IQ test question they fail.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Or, it was a masking agent and the anti-doping authority (promoter/SA cycling federation) did the right thing and processed the positive regardless of the name/rank of the rider. That is entirely unlike the UCI and a national championships is the only time a WT rider would likely be outside the UCI's testing authority.

Sure. I was referring to reasons how/why such a substance might have come to be in his body in the first place, not the testing/reporting process of the ADA which sounds like it has done what it should, i.e. conduct tests and report when a positive A+B sample for a prohibited substance occurs. Next of course is the sanction process.

I still think understanding how/why it came to be in his body is helpful to know.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I still think understanding how/why it came to be in his body is helpful to know.

Oral dose to mask other PED's. End of story.

Dad should have just claimed he has gout and somehow the pills ended up in the lad's daily (legal) supplements.

They could have tried the "powder in the supplements tin" excuse. Falling on them somehow accidentally consuming them is less plausible than Tyler's ephemeral twin.

I get too literal about this stuff sometime, I did not mean it in a bad way.

 

[Merckx index]

Sure. I was referring to reasons how/why such a substance might have come to be in his body in the first place, not the testing/reporting process of the ADA which sounds like it has done what it should, i.e. conduct tests and report when a positive A+B sample for a prohibited substance occurs. Next of course is the sanction process.

I still think understanding how/why it came to be in his body is helpful to know.

This does seem like a better explanation than masking. If he took probenecid to increase the half life of some PED, he could have been assuming he wasn’t going to get tested, whereas the whole point of taking a masking agent is in anticipation of getting tested.

If this was the case, I assume the motivation wasn’t economic, that it wasn’t literally a bigger bang for the buck, but rather a bigger bang, period. He could probably get the same effect just by taking more of the PED, or by taking it more often (just as many meds are taken several times daily, resulting in a very roughly constant concentration in the blood and/or other tissues), but if he could avoid this by taking a single dose that stabilized for a long period, this would certainly be more convenient, and also provide an evener, more predictable effect.

Still, he would have to be pretty confident he wasn't going to get tested during that period, and if he did think he was going to get tested, and stopped taking probenecid, then he would start glowing for the PED, I think.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This does seem like a better explanation than masking. If he took probenicid to increase the half life of some PED, he could have been assuming he wasn’t going to get tested, whereas the whole point of taking a masking agent is in anticipation of getting tested.

My read in the body building forums is it apparently slows the release of PED artifacts. Again, I'm not the bio chem guy at all.

Impey likely got the bigger bang with something else.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Robbie, I mean you no disrespect, but Merckx Index is right. I'm no biological expert of any kind too. Just accept it's not your area of expertise to the point of getting things wrong sometimes and move on.

Also, it's important to understand there is no judicial analogue in sports administration. There's a documented process, but that's about it.

I think most would agree if the UCI was a fair dealer as far as anti-doping goes things on all levels would be different.

OkaY I hear you and I will brush up on my science, but to state there is no judicial analogue is incorrect (depending on what the heck you mean by a judicial analogue) All NADAs that hold hearings use arbitration rules which are clearly judicially based rules not only with respect to onus of proof, standards of proof, rules of admissibility of evidence and the use of case precedent. This is how all NADAs operate and how the CAS operates.

All you need to do to is read the CAS Contador judgment and the delineation of the issues of the case to know the whole system is analogous to the judicial system. The CAS even uses Swiss evidentiary law. I don't understand where you are coming from on this point?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Oral dose to mask other PED's. End of story.

Dad should have just claimed he has gout and somehow the pills ended up in the lad's daily (legal) supplements.

They could have tried the "powder in the supplements tin" excuse. Falling on them somehow accidentally consuming them is less plausible than Tyler's ephemeral twin.

I get too literal about this stuff sometime, I did not mean it in a bad way.

It can be a suppository. Perhaps Fusilli Jerry is now Probeni Impey.

 

[sniper]

so, a one year ban for impey like schleck?
me thinks SA antidoping will want to set an example showing how tough they are.
two years for impey.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Merckx index;1507313]Indeed there is. Case in point:

Robbie's statement quoted:

"the whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct"

Merckx says,

"Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the passport would understand that is not so. The system is based on a baseline (of HT and several other parameters) which varies for every rider."

My mistake as I see it was stating that the "whole BP system is based on a threshold of 50% Hct." What I should have said is "One of the biological markers/parameters of the ABP is hematocrit which has a threshold of 50%"

The point I was making in my comment was that some of the anti-doping rules set thresholds and clearly the ABP-Hct rule is one of those threshold rules. Saying the Hct rule is not a threshold based rule is not logical.

The purpose of my raising thresholds in my comment goes to my concern about the fairness of the anti-doping process which was the overarching thrust of my comment. It is my personal belief that for greater accuracy as to whether a particular rule violation is in fact performance enhancing, we need more thresholds such as for clenbuterol. That was the point I was trying to make and clearly I did not make it very well.

A blog called "Tuned Into Cycling", authored an article entitled "Thoughts on EPO and Blood Doping in Professional Cycling. The article identifies the rule I was referring to and states as follows,

"In addition to relying on blood tests that are specific for EPO use or doping many professional sports use hematocrit as an indicator of illegal performance enhancement. Hematocrit measures the proportion of the blood volume that is composed of RBCs. Hematocrits above a certain level are taken to be abnormal and are officially used as indicators of doping or EPO use. The UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), the organizing body of professional cycling, has set 50% as the upper allowable hematocrit level. If a rider tests with a hematocrit above 50, he is banned from competition.

That clearly is a threshold rule. Link http://tunedintocycling.com/2008/07...epo-and-blood-doping-in-professional-cycling/

Merkcx's comment
Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the passport would understand that is not so. The system is based on a baseline (of HT and several other parameters) which varies for every rider.

I understand that but clearly the Hct parameter also contains a threshold based rule independent of any variation from an athletes baseline Hct.

A TUE for what? Athletes with a natural HT > 50% are excused from the 50% rule, but it’s not a TUE. There is nothing therapeutic about the exemption.

I should not have used the acronym TUE. But what I was driving at is clearly if an athlete has a Hct of >50% the UCI can grant an exemption. So it is an E without the TU. The UCI uses the word exception rather than exemption but both words clearly mean the same thing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That clearly is a threshold rule. Link http://tunedintocycling.com/2008/07...epo-and-blood-doping-in-professional-cycling/

Pretty sure the UCI don't use the word exception, the blog you linked does.

Here's what the blog you linked also says:

Suppose we shift the common perspective on the use of EPO and blood doping. Rather than think of them as a means to unbalance the competition by giving an athlete an unfair advantage, suppose we think of them as medical technologies we can use to level the playing field so that some athletes don’t begin the competition at a marked disadvantage because of their genetic inheritance? Viewed from this different perspective, EPO and blood doping could be used to bring all of the athletes up to the same hematocrit level so that the competition could be decided on the basis of factors the athlete can control such as training, knowledge and desire.

Under the current system EPO and blood doping are used surreptitiously by some athletes to give them an unfair advantage over their opponents. These techniques unbalance the playing field. However, if we make EPO and blood doping available to any athlete who wants to use them, these technologies can eliminate a naturally occurring advantage that benefits some athletes but not others. The technologies level the playing field.

Lance approves of this blog.

If this is the basis of your research then you need to look up the inverse relationship between VO2max and efficiency, the correlation between Hct and VO2max, and see that rather than create a level playing field, allowing low-Hct athletes to dope unlevels the playing field, because their efficiency is probably better than the higher Hct riders.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

so, a one year ban for impey like schleck?
me thinks SA antidoping will want to set an example showing how tough they are.
two years for impey.

This is their record on cycling infractions

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Pretty sure the UCI don't use the word exception, the blog you linked does.

Here's what the blog you linked also says:


Lance approves of this blog.

If this is the basis of your research then you need to look up the inverse relationship between VO2max and efficiency, the correlation between Hct and VO2max, and see that rather than create a level playing field, allowing low-Hct athletes to dope unlevels the playing field, because their efficiency is probably better than the higher Hct riders.

How on earth does this have anything to do with the issue of thresholds in the WADA prohibited list.

You are not listening to my message. That message is and was the pith and substance of my earlier comments that in order for their to be fairness in the sanctioning process, i.e. a hearing, there needs to be threshold based rules that reflect whether or not a particular sample of a prohibited substance was in fact performance enhancing and not strict liability or absolute liability that sanctions an athlete where the amount is not performance enhancing.

You are off on a scientific frolic that has nothing to do with the issue of fairness in anti-doping legislation, by incorporating thresholds. You are trying to make a purse out of a sows ear. Visit my thread on strict liability and then you might understand what I am advocating.