Impey cooked

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

And again, a doping product detected in small quantities is likely to be at such levels because it has significantly dissipated in concentration since it was last used and was originally at performance enhancing levels. It seems that basic premise has escaped you.

Besides, the ergogenic efficacy of a prohibited substance or method at the time of test sample is taken isn't a consideration. The fact that it is present and prohibited is.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

Probably due to noise of the errors in your post, followed by the ludicrous argument in the blog to which you linked and used as a source of research for your post.

I cannot see the strict liability thread you started on the first page of threads. 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 it pertains to Impey, there are plausible reasons to use the drug as a doping agent and as a masking agent.

The drug getting into his system inadvertently seems fairly implausible.

I look forward to reading about the reasons for its presence in his sample with interest.

 

[manafana]

It is sad, but sadly it is good people are been caught, i am sure some are accidental but obviously some arn't think he might get the full 2years. One thing is the UCI need to be much quicker

 

[Franklin]

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.

Thank you for agreeing that AC should be let go, as it has been proven beyond doubt that clenbuterol contamination is possible. It's always amusing when people come up with examples that aare destroying their own position.


To all those who say "AC spun stories who should have proven it was the meat". Guess what, he actually did that, but where in other cases after him it was deemed indeed to be enough, in his case they denied the explanation.

Again: if you dodge taxes but it can't be proven, is it okay if the cops put you in jail for stealing that phone in your pocket? Or do you carry the receit on you?

Because this is of course the thing that blows it all away: Nobody knows where his food comes from... as this is neigh impossible. Cueue pther thread where I showed beyond reasonable dount we do not know where meat comes from and we are still hit by huge scandals... in the best place in the world for controlled food... the EU.

Again, not a hair on my body doubts Alberto Contador is a charger, but the clenbuterol case is rotten to the core. The Al Capone case falls flat on it's merits as thatone was actually a slamdunk case. Al Capone was not incarcerated on something that he quite possible wasn't guilty for.

 

[Franklin]

And again, a doping product detected in small quantities is likely to be at such levels because it has significantly dissipated in concentration since it was last used and was originally at performance enhancing levels. It seems that basic premise has escaped you.

Or... it could actually be what it is claimed to be: a contamination. it seems that basic premise has escaped you.

To slam that nail in the coffin with Thor's hammer: after AC all high profile Clen cases with minute levels have been judged in the advantage of the athlete.

Clearly the ruling instances realized that they could not proof it was not contamination, just as it is almost impossible for the athletes to proof it wasn't.

Just as you can't proof you haven't stolen that coat you are wearing. And yes, even if you have the receit, does it proof that it was exactly for that particular coat?

 

[Franklin]

I cannot see the strict liability thread you started on the first page of threads. 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.

DW, perhaps your arguments are even more fatally flawed because it is based on the premie that all riders are doping. You know: guilty until proven innocent.

Nobody in his right mind would argue that "guilty until proven innocent" is sustainable. It's a good thing when the police can't knock on your door and put you in the slammer for made up charges.

 

[TheSpud]

Besides, the ergogenic efficacy of a prohibited substance or method at the time of test sample is taken isn't a consideration. The fact that it is present and prohibited is.

Strict liability rule.

I do agree that there may need to be de-minimis levels for certain products where below that is not an issue. However allowing an argument that you may have ingested it through a contaminated supply be it food, supplement, or whatever is opening the door to legal wrangling and trying to win in the court of public opinion. Kind of tough to navigate / set rules or guidelines.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Or... it could actually be what it is claimed to be: a contamination. it seems that basic premise has escaped you.

To slam that nail in the coffin with Thor's hammer: after AC all high profile Clen cases with minute levels have been judged in the advantage of the athlete.

Clearly the ruling instances realized that they could not proof it was not contamination, just as it is almost impossible for the athletes to proof it wasn't.

Just as you can't proof you haven't stolen that coat you are wearing. And yes, even if you have the receit, does it proof that it was exactly for that particular coat?

I thought this was Impey/probenecid positive A+B sample thread? AC's case is a red herring.

I'm still waiting for a plausible explanation of how probenecid can be unknowingly ingested. Let me know when you have one.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Strict liability rule.

I do agree that there may need to be de-minimis levels for certain products where below that is not an issue. However allowing an argument that you may have ingested it through a contaminated supply be it food, supplement, or whatever is opening the door to legal wrangling and trying to win in the court of public opinion. Kind of tough to navigate / set rules or guidelines.

Sure, for substances where innocent ingestion is plausible/probable and/or well established by good science that's probably reasonable even though it lifts the threshold for dopers. In most countries wrt clen that's not the case though.

However, is it plausible to find probenecid in the food supply at such levels to cause positive samples?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's a good thing when the police can't knock on your door and put you in the slammer for made up charges.

If that ever happens in cycling you let me know.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Probably due to noise of the errors in your post, followed by the ludicrous argument in the blog to which you linked and used as a source of research for your post.

I cannot see the strict liability thread you started on the first page of threads. 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 it pertains to Impey, there are plausible reasons to use the drug as a doping agent and as a masking agent.

The drug getting into his system inadvertently seems fairly implausible.

I look forward to reading about the reasons for its presence in his sample with interest.

Look your self in the mirror. You tried to hijack my message, which is that there is scientific research that shows 1 gm of less of probenecid does not prove masking. We don't know what Impey's readings are. You on the other hand wish to convict him just for sake of argument and not because you have any facts to support it.

I am trying to promote fairness for riders in the anti-doping crusade by insisting the science and the legal process be congruent, i.e. riders are not sanctioned where there is no performance enhancing benefit, and swift penalties when the facts support a prohibition. You on the other hand just create mischief and argue based on rhetoric.

I too look forward to hearing the facts about Impey and if the amount is greater than 1 gm and proves masking, then throw the book at him. But lets quite the charade of thinking you know the outcome before the facts.

I can see your strategy though, you have to comment in the Clinic before your brain figures out what you are doing.!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Look your self in the mirror. You tried to hijack my message, which is that there is scientific research that shows 1 gm of less of probenecid does not prove masking. We don't know what Impey's readings are. You on the other hand wish to convict him just for sake of argument and not because you have any facts to support it.

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

I can see your strategy though, you have to comment in the Clinic before your brain figures out what you are doing.!

That's incredibly ironic.

 

[Almeisan]

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.)

Everyone that believes this raise your hand.

 

[M Sport]

Everyone that believes this raise your hand.

I believe the lawyer part, I think that is quite obvious from the writing style and knowledge of legal subjects. Is there any reason to doubt the rest?

 

[DirtyWorks]

there is scientific research that shows 1 gm of less of probenecid does not prove masking.

Put that aside for a minute. We don't know what the Probenicide was masking. Could be sugar pills, could be some legit PED. No way to know.

How did he come to have Probenicid present at the time of the sample? Is he popping Probenicide for fun? Deal with that and only that.

Your views on threshold amounts and the rest of it are an intellectual pursuit with no basis in the system as it has been set up. They aren't right or wrong, they just don't apply. Please give the topics a rest.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Put that aside for a minute. We don't know what the Probenicide was masking. Could be sugar pills, could be some legit PED. No way to know.

How did he come to have Probenicid present at the time of the sample? Is he popping Probenicide for fun? Deal with that and only that.

Your views on threshold amounts and the rest of it are an intellectual pursuit with no basis in the system as it has been set up. They aren't right or wrong, they just don't apply. Please give the topics a rest.

Come on DW. You are losing sight of the whole argument. We don't know the facts, period, end of story. So why would you introduce some specious and irrelevant gossip into the mix like, "Is he popping Probenecid for fun?"

We don't know
1. Whether the probenecid was masking anything.
2. Whether it "could" be sugar pills
3. Whether the amount of the probencid was effective to mask a PED
4. How he came to have probenecid in his samples
5. Whether he was popping probenecid for fun?

Why would I want to deal in a thread with a whole pile of $)!t no one knows anything about? And why would you? ("Deal with that and only that")

Everyone on here wants to slag Impey without knowing ****. Let's put this thread to bed until we do!

 

[vedrafjord]

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%"

No. The 50% rule was a crude cap on haematocrit introduced in 1997. The passport was introduced in 2008 and has no absolute thresholds but rather looks at changes over time. They're two separate things. Furthermore, haematocrit is not even that important in passport cases as it is easily manipulated and is only a cipher for the more relevant haemoglobin level.

Please go away and read about this stuff and educate yourself before muddying the waters of more threads. Read what the athletes who were caught and confessed have said. Read what the chemists and sports scientists who devised and implemented the various tests have said. And please stop acting like a disingenuous defence lawyer on a forum where people are free to discuss personal opinions.

 

[vedrafjord]

We don't know the facts, period, end of story. So why would you introduce some specious and irrelevant gossip into the mix like, "Is he popping Probenecid for fun?"

We don't know
1. Whether the probenecid was masking anything.
2. Whether it "could" be sugar pills
3. Whether the amount of the probencid was effective to mask a PED
4. How he came to have probenecid in his samples
5. Whether he was popping probenecid for fun?

Why would I want to deal in a thread with a whole pile of $)!t no one knows anything about? And why would you? ("Deal with that and only that")

Everyone on here wants to slag Impey without knowing ****. Let's put this thread to bed until we do!

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?

 

[King Boonen]

Please tell me this is not what people are using as a scientific basis for arguing why this possible ban might be unfair:

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

 

[thrawn]

Please tell me this is not what people are using as a scientific basis for arguing why this possible ban might be unfair:

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

Oh look, it's not longer used by dishonest athletes. Guess Impey is clean!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Please tell me this is not what people are using as a scientific basis for arguing why this possible ban might be unfair:

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

Just the lawyers.

 

[King Boonen]

Just the lawyers.

Not one I'd hire.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

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

If that's the level of science then the probenecid stuff might be as dubious?


Would be interested in your reasoning for your lack of faith in that page.

 

[King Boonen]

Would be interested in your reasoning for your lack of faith in that page.

It's completely un-referenced, contains no novel science, is not peer-reviewed nor does it even quote any peer-reviewed work and is mainly supposition which seems to be based on information that can be easily found on wikipedia, which is possibly over 20 years old. (slight artistic licence).


If someone wants to argue for limits for Probenecid that's fine, but they need to provide a range of peer-reviewed articles showing that it is innocuous at low dose with a wide range of PEDs over different time periods AND show there is a very real possibility of accidental ingestion.

What they cannot do is find a random article online that has no scientific content whatsoever, but happens to be presented in a way that looks like many peer-reviewed journals, and then claim the science backs their position based on it. That's just nonsense.

 

[IndianCyclist]

That victory, though, was clouded when Delgado delivered a "false" positive for probenecid. "I took probenecid just after that Alpe d’Huez stage. We used it to assist draining from the kidneys. It was also used to mask anabolic steroids, but if I’d wanted to hide something in that way I would have had to have used it every day and it only appeared on that one. Besides, the product wasn’t banned by the UCI, although it was by the International Olympic Committee. But we didn’t have it on our banned list," he explains.

Ever since Delgado, probenecid appearing in tests means it is deliberately ingested rather than accidentally taken. Impey is gone. There is no defence.