Congratulate you for what? Impey's positive disproves your wacky theory. He's not protected. There's apparently no effort to boost him for extra South African exposure.Cycle Chic said:who would like to congratulate me ??????????
hrotha said:Congratulate you for what? Impey's positive disproves your wacky theory. He's not protected. There's apparently no effort to boost him for extra South African exposure.
wacky theory, fine.hrotha said:Congratulate you for what? Impey's positive disproves your wacky theory. He's not protected. There's apparently no effort to boost him for extra South African exposure.
King Boonen said:I'm guessing the samples were sent here:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-.../Accredited-Lab-Locations/Africa/#southAfrica
But as far as I'm aware any WADA accredited lab could be used if required.
I don't think the labs ever know who the samples come from, they just have anonymised codes. It's the professional body (so this is maybe where the UCI could come in) that match results to riders and notifies them.
So in theory the UCI would have to have their hooks into Cycling South Africa (or whatever the national body is called) to be able to have any influence over this.
Colonel said:Yes the samples are sent to a accredited lab in Bloemfontein to be tested and no there was and is no way WADA could try prevent this. The system locally is very good. The reason that it has taken its time is due to 1 of the head/senior testers passing away during the time frame.
However CSA (cycling south africa) did take alittle to much time contacting Darryl I believe as they could not get hold of him or something in those lines.
Cycle Chic said:who would like to congratulate me ??????????
This was never about whether or not Impey doped per se. Me, I'm not surprised in the slightest that he's been found out to be a doper. What you claimed, however, was something else: that he was actively protected and promoted by the UCI as part of a marketing strategy.Cycle Chic said:He tested positive after the SA champs this year feb 6th 2014.
So you dont think he was doped in the Tour ?
I also posted his performances had suddenly improved a couple of years ago - i,ll find that post.
yes, but how is that debunked now? (regardless of whether it's likely)hrotha said:This was never about whether or not Impey doped per se. Me, I'm not surprised in the slightest that he's been found out to be a doper. What you claimed, however, was something else: that he was actively protected and promoted by the UCI as part of a marketing strategy.
hrotha said:This was never about whether or not Impey doped per se. Me, I'm not surprised in the slightest that he's been found out to be a doper. What you claimed, however, was something else: that he was actively protected and promoted by the UCI as part of a marketing strategy.