Darryl Impey - positive

joelsim

And another one.

Right, who's next?

wombly_knees

3 mpcc teams' riders caught in the last week (given Kreuziger's was during his Astana time). Credible....

fleshtuxedo

Has it really been missed that Simon Yates has been called up in his place? Silver lining....

RichN95.

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Has it really been missed that Simon Yates has been called up in his place? Silver lining....

Was he the call up though? I would have thought a first year pro would be properly planned rather than a last minute sub.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Has it really been missed that Simon Yates has been called up in his place? Silver lining....

Was he the call up though? I would have thought a first year pro would be properly planned rather than a last minute sub.

Scenario:
1) Impey tests positive
2) Loads of negative press about lack of Brits in a tour starting in Britain
3) Yates shows a semblance of form after injury has curtailed much of his season
4) Adam, his twin, has performed really well this year
5) Only a few days til the Tour starts


No brainer. Loads of positive PR, no downsides (if he doesn't perform well, he has been injured and was thrown in at the last minute), chance of huge PR if he wins something.

The_Boy

wombly knees wrote:

3 mpcc teams' riders caught in the last week (given Kreuziger's was during his Astana time). Credible....

2. Astana weren't members of MPCC during the rime in question.

Actually, Impey, Kreuz. Who's the third?

Art Vandelay

RichN95 wrote:

Probably a mistake somehow. In itself I don't think it has any impact on performance and as a masking agent it is only worthwhile taking if it is not banned itself. There's not a lot of point masking a banned product with another banned porduct (and possible a more detectable one).

Really? A rider on a doping regime needs to be aware of the pitfalls but they still make errors and get caught. Can't see how this substance could have been ingested accidentally.

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

wombly knees wrote:

3 mpcc teams' riders caught in the last week (given Kreuziger's was during his Astana time). Credible....

2. Astana weren't members of MPCC during the rime in question.

Actually, Impey, Kreuz. Who's the third?

Ulissi

Paulie W

Ulissi

DeVlaeminck

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

joelsim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

+1. And Roman. And Diego. Et al.

There are always a lot of fingers in ears on the forum.

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Probably a mistake somehow. In itself I don't think it has any impact on performance and as a masking agent it is only worthwhile taking if it is not banned itself. There's not a lot of point masking a banned product with another banned porduct (and possible a more detectable one).

Really? A rider on a doping regime needs to be aware of the pitfalls but they still make errors and get caught. Can't see how this substance could have been ingested accidentally.

It could be in a medicine which wasn't checked, or cross contamination with substances made at the same plant. Just as riders doping make errors, so do those that aren't doping.
It's just a strange drug to be caught for. When Delgado got caught it wasn't banned so useful as a masking agent. But now it is and is just as detectable as the thing it is meant to be masking. It's like playing hide and seek and hiding behind a sign saying 'I'm hiding behind this sign'

Turfle

I think this forum is very consistent in it's wait-and-see how it plays out approach, with a few obvious exceptions (Santambrogio springs to mind).

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

wombly knees wrote:

3 mpcc teams' riders caught in the last week (given Kreuziger's was during his Astana time). Credible....

2. Astana weren't members of MPCC during the rime in question.

Actually, Impey, Kreuz. Who's the third?

Ulissi

:facepalm: @ self. I was talking about him in the pub night before last too

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

Because it's a strange drug to be doping with. It makes little sense to use it. I'm willing to give Ulissi the benefit of the doubt too for the same reason. If it was EPO I wouldn't give them that benefit.

But then I'm not lusting after a doping story and have the disadvantage of seeing the humanity in cyclists.

mulletmaster

Another positive for a non performance enhancing drug that is obviously useless as a masking agent given it doesn't affect blood detection. Shame. Perhaps laws need to be looked at? People careers (and hence lives as we saw last year) are at stake.

Turfle

He's Bike Pure too.

I think, in the grand scheme of things, Impey would be a more damaging positive than Kreuziger.

RichN95.

Turfle wrote:

He's Bike Pure too.

That'll damage T-shirt sales then.

r0bh

OnYourRight wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Because it's a strange drug to be doping with. It makes little sense to use it. I'm willing to give Ulissi the benefit of the doubt too for the same reason. If it was EPO I wouldn't give them that benefit.

But your reaction is one reason someone might use a masking agent even if the masking agent is itself banned. It would be absurd to claim you accidentally got EPO in your system. But it’s more plausible, and it’s seen to be much more plausible, to claim you accidentally got some barely known non-performance enhancing drug in your system.

They can _claim_ whatever they want, but unless they can _prove_ how the substance got into their system inadvertently they'll still get a ban.

ddraver

Edit - way too late

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Probably a mistake somehow. In itself I don't think it has any impact on performance and as a masking agent it is only worthwhile taking if it is not banned itself. There's not a lot of point masking a banned product with another banned porduct (and possible a more detectable one).

Really? A rider on a doping regime needs to be aware of the pitfalls but they still make errors and get caught. Can't see how this substance could have been ingested accidentally.

It could be in a medicine which wasn't checked, or cross contamination with substances made at the same plant. Just as riders doping make errors, so do those that aren't doping.
It's just a strange drug to be caught for. When Delgado got caught it wasn't banned so useful as a masking agent. But now it is and is just as detectable as the thing it is meant to be masking. It's like playing hide and seek and hiding behind a sign saying 'I'm hiding behind this sign'

I suppose you *could* say they might prefer their chances of making an argument like that stick as compared to EPO?

The "they" in this case being a hypothetical rider, obviously. Don't want to cast aspersions against Impey's character until confirmed.

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Because it's a strange drug to be doping with. It makes little sense to use it. I'm willing to give Ulissi the benefit of the doubt too for the same reason. If it was EPO I wouldn't give them that benefit.

But your reaction is one reason someone might use a masking agent even if the masking agent is itself banned. It would be absurd to claim you accidentally got EPO in your system. But it’s more plausible, and it’s seen to be much more plausible, to claim you accidentally got some barely known non-performance enhancing drug in your system.

They can _claim_ whatever they want, but unless they can _prove_ how the substance got into their system inadvertently they'll still get a ban.

Exactly. He's still looking at a ban. I'm just suggesting that it doesn't seem a likely substance to dope with these days.

Whenever we have heard dopers confess or doping rings get caught, it's always the same stuff - EPO and steroids. There's never any of this weird stuff. They don't use masking agents in competition, they just make sure to stop taking it in time.

Pross

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

+1. And Roman. And Diego. Et al.

There are always a lot of fingers in ears on the forum.

Alternatively there are a lot of people who have been watching cycling for years and have seen it all so decide to see the process through rather than watching for a couple of years with a preconception that 'they're all at it', read a few doping oriented books to reinforce that view and then demonstrate to everyone how cynical they are and how the handful of positive tests each season confirms beyond doubt that they are indeed 'still all at it'.

above_the_cows

I shall let the proper due process take its course and await the outcome.

tailwindhome

It really does feel like someone is sorting out their in-tray before the hols

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

It really does feel like someone is sorting out their in-tray before the hols

Two of these were announced by the team/individual - probably to answer questions as to why they weren't picked for the Tour (as both were expected to be)

joelsim

Pross wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

+1. And Roman. And Diego. Et al.

There are always a lot of fingers in ears on the forum.

Alternatively there are a lot of people who have been watching cycling for years and have seen it all so decide to see the process through rather than watching for a couple of years with a preconception that 'they're all at it', read a few doping oriented books to reinforce that view and then demonstrate to everyone how cynical they are and how the handful of positive tests each season confirms beyond doubt that they are indeed 'still all at it'.

It never fails to surprise me that when the chances of catching a doper when they are glowing are so miniscule, and the history is how it is, that a great number of people on here always suggest that it must be a mistake every time someone is caught. From Festina onwards it has been cleaning up.

Sorry, but I don't see it. The sport is too hard, and whilst there are ways of getting around the testing it will happen. And unfortunately the testing is far from perfect for a whole number of reasons.

Like I said, who is next for a mistaken positive?

ddraver

Joelsim wrote:

Pross wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not sure why some are so happy to give Impey the benefit of the doubt - I'm pretty sure if he was Danilo Impo riding for Lampre the comment wouldn't have been so kind. I accept there is always a chance drug testers are wrong but until such time as Impy provides a credible explanation for this I'm taking it at face value - another doper caught.

+1. And Roman. And Diego. Et al.

There are always a lot of fingers in ears on the forum.

Alternatively there are a lot of people who have been watching cycling for years and have seen it all so decide to see the process through rather than watching for a couple of years with a preconception that 'they're all at it', read a few doping oriented books to reinforce that view and then demonstrate to everyone how cynical they are and how the handful of positive tests each season confirms beyond doubt that they are indeed 'still all at it'.

It never fails to surprise me that when the chances of catching a doper when they are glowing are so miniscule, and the history is how it is, that a great number of people on here always suggest that it must be a mistake every time someone is caught. From Festina onwards it has been cleaning up.

Sorry, but I don't see it. The sport is too hard, and whilst there are ways of getting around the testing it will happen. And unfortunately the testing is far from perfect for a whole number of reasons.

Like I said, who is next for a mistaken positive?

We know what you think, it's getting boring reading about it now...

iainf72

OnYourRight wrote:

But ultimately I am in no position to guess what’s going on. I don’t even know if Impey was 1.1 × or 100 × over the limit, much less the implications of that on his claim he didn’t take the substance knowingly.

There isn't a limit AFAIK.

As with Rogers I would guess this is a contamination issue. No proof but it feels like it.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

It never fails to surprise me that when the chances of catching a doper when they are glowing are so miniscule, and the history is how it is, that a great number of people on here always suggest that it must be a mistake every time someone is caught.

If the chances of getting caught are miniscule, then doesn't that increase the likelihood that a positive test is due to inadvertent ingestion?

Here's the maths bit:

Say in a race there are 100 riders who have been doping with product X and one person who has ingested it in contaminated supplements.

If the chances of a doper being caught by testing is 1% (because he knows how to evade testing) and the chances of the accidental doper is 50% (because he doesn't know he has it in him and takes no precautions), then on average 1 doper and 0.5 innocents will be caught from that field. Therefore, there is a 33% chance that someone who test postitive is innocent.

However, if the chances of the dopers being caught raises to 20% then on average 20 dopers will be caught for that 0.5 innocent. Lowering the chances of innocence to 2.5%

Therefore, your arguement that the tests are rubbish actually enforces the idea that he may be innocent. The worse the testing, the more chance that the positive testee is innocent.