Something's Beginning to Stink

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Doping

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.

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.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
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.
but whether impeys positive debunks it i don't know.
i asked that question in the impey thread

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:
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.
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.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
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.
yes, but how is that debunked now? (regardless of whether it's likely)
impey took yellow under mcquaid, not under cookson.
also, it's unclear (at least to me) if uci could have done anything to prevent this positive from coming out as it happened in SA, not in europe.
who knows the protection in last year's tour merely consisted in scratching his name from the testing list.
agreed, the idea of protection for impey is far-fetched, but impey's positive in an SA race doesn't debunk it, imo.
 
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.

If Froome was protected by the UCI around a marketing strategy, it was as collateral for Brad's parade in 2012, and about Britain, not South Africa. He just came along for the ride.