Darryl Impey - positive
Comments
-
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?
But that's not what anyone is saying is it? For some reason you think you are the only one who is cynical / realistic enough to think doping still goes on. All anyone is saying here is that he should get a chance to defend himself. The results have only just been confirmed, leave it go through due process. It's like all the stuff Yew Tree has dredged up - some have been found guilty others not guilty but many people declared them all guilty as soon as arrests were made.
For those of us who have been watching pro cycling from before the EPO era the sport looks better than it did, I'm certainly not naive enough to say it is clean but it's a whole lot better than it was. Maybe as you've only read about that time and seen a few You Tube videos you aren't getting the contrast. Try watching the sport and enjoying it rather than looking / hoping for doping scandals to justify your cynicism and stop using buzz words like glowing all the time that you have read in your books.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
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)TailWindHome wrote:It really does feel like someone is sorting out their in-tray before the hols
I know. Was only being facetious.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
RichN95 wrote:
If the chances of getting caught are miniscule, then doesn't that increase the likelihood that a positive test is due to inadvertent ingestion?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.
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.
Hang on.
Do you not need to factor in the chances of the 1 in a 100 innocent guy being selected for testing.
Slim if he's racing against 100 dopers?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Surely its on the banned list for a reason?Scott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
It's a masking product.Markwb79 wrote:Surely its on the banned list for a reason?
A C+P explaining it (nearly 20 years ago, mind)
1. A large dose might be taken as soon as an athlete is aware of unannounced testing, such as when testers arrive at a person's home or the athlete is forewarned.
2. The athlete would have to urinate, but not as a sample, to remove existing traces of performance-enhancing substances.
3. The athlete would then delay until the bladder filled enough to provide a urine sample, allowing the large amount of Probenecid to block excretion of the performance-enhancing substance.
4. The urine sample would be clear of performance-enhancing substances but would be exceptionally high in Probenecid content.
It's ancient technology from the 80s. About as useful today as Betamax video.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Was he the call up though? I would have thought a first year pro would be properly planned rather than a last minute sub.FleshTuxedo wrote:Has it really been missed that Simon Yates has been called up in his place? Silver lining....
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.
BBC says SY is the call up. Would think he'd be a pretty good shot at stage 2.0 -
FleshTuxedo wrote:Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Was he the call up though? I would have thought a first year pro would be properly planned rather than a last minute sub.FleshTuxedo wrote:Has it really been missed that Simon Yates has been called up in his place? Silver lining....
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.
BBC says SY is the call up. Would think he'd be a pretty good shot at stage 2.
Not sure he'll get the shout over Gerrans for this one.0 -
I agree he wouldn't be option A for OGE0
-
Cheers, my mistakeThe_Boy wrote:2. Astana weren't members of MPCC during the rime in question.0 -
SpecialGuestStar wrote:That's what Delgado was postive for?
Yes and no 1988 was on the IOC list but not UCI. At the time Dr Robert Haas (adviser / coach to Martina Navratilova) was recommending it in his book Eat to Win, strangely Martina was never popped. Used to treat gout btw.0 -
Which is the bigger waste of space then: Bike Pure or the MPCC?0
-
Oh, Bike Pure by miles.andyp wrote:Which is the bigger waste of space then: Bike Pure or the MPCC?
MPCC could be useful but it gets too hung up on its rules and struggles to balance on its high horse. And it lost meaning when ASO said members would be giving wildcard priority to members and everyone joined. If it was just a lobbying group representing the interests of clean riders and teams it would be useful.
By contrast Bike Pure is a just a couple of nobodies selling t-shirts and wristbands.Twitter: @RichN950 -
So from looking at the limited information available so far, I would hope this was an accidental positive. How would this substance be ingested by mistake, does anyone know of a way it could happen?
We've seen the Clenbuterol cases with contaminated meat, could this be ingested in a meat or via another medicine that hadn't been properly checked? I would hope that any medicines would be confirmed with an expert that they didn't contain a banepned substance before taking them, surely riders would automatically do this nowadays?0 -
One way that is possible is that chemical plants often produce a range of products using the same equipment, and if procedures are a little lax then cross-contamination between products can occur. Hard to prove mind - unless you still have supplements you took several months before.Paul 8v wrote:So from looking at the limited information available so far, I would hope this was an accidental positive. How would this substance be ingested by mistake, does anyone know of a way it could happen?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Without knowing the quantities involved (And knowing what the results actually mean) it's hard to have much of an opinion but I would hope this was the case, it just doesn't make sense otherwise that he would take it, being so obvious in its detection.RichN95 wrote:
One way that is possible is that chemical plants often produce a range of products using the same equipment, and if procedures are a little lax then cross-contamination between products can occur. Hard to prove mind - unless you still have supplements you took several months before.Paul 8v wrote:So from looking at the limited information available so far, I would hope this was an accidental positive. How would this substance be ingested by mistake, does anyone know of a way it could happen?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
One way that is possible is that chemical plants often produce a range of products using the same equipment, and if procedures are a little lax then cross-contamination between products can occur. Hard to prove mind - unless you still have supplements you took several months before.Paul 8v wrote:So from looking at the limited information available so far, I would hope this was an accidental positive. How would this substance be ingested by mistake, does anyone know of a way it could happen?
^this happens
http://www.spencelawyers.com/2008/02/07/hammer-nutrition-ltd-sued-by-endurance-athletes-from-australia-united-states-and-canada-claiming-positive-steroid-tests-caused-by-contaminated-supplement/0 -
OnYourRight wrote:
I don’t want to belabour the point, but do you not agree it’s preferable to be caught with a banned masking agent than a PED? The PED leads to immediate guilt in the eyes of the world. The masking agent leads to hopes that a chemical plant had lax procedures (see last page).Paul 8v wrote:… it just doesn't make sense otherwise that he would take it, being so obvious in its detection.
There is a world of difference between these two outcomes, even if they both include a two-year ban.
99% of people who hear the news of Impey's positive won't know the difference between Probenecid, EPO, Clenbuterol and Ibuprofen. All it will be to them is another cyclist doping.0 -
OnYourRight wrote:
I don’t want to belabour the point, but do you not agree it’s preferable to be caught with a banned masking agent than a PED? The PED leads to immediate guilt in the eyes of the world. The masking agent leads to hopes that a chemical plant had lax procedures (see last page).Paul 8v wrote:… it just doesn't make sense otherwise that he would take it, being so obvious in its detection.
There is a world of difference between these two outcomes, even if they both include a two-year ban.
Further guesswork requires knowing something about the substance in Impey’s case, e.g. whether it’s still today uniquely useful for masking some PED or another. I know nothing about it, so I’ll leave it at that. It was fun to see a South African in yellow at last year’s Tour de France, so I’m hoping for that badly run chemical plant.
Not really, public opinion doesn't really count for much. The anti-doping authorities tend to make a judgement on the facts and as we have seen before public opinion doesn't stop convicted dopers from getting onto another team if they are considered good enough.0 -
I'm still sceptical as to whether this was ingested deliberately. Anyone seen what the dosage found was ?
Because the original use of Probenecid by athletes was in amounts that far exceed therapeutic doses (normally 1 gm per day), it was extremely easy to detect. Because of ease of detection due to the unusually large size of doses, Probenecid is no longer used by dishonest athletes. Probenecid no longer can be used as a weapon for cheating. As soon as it became a substance on the banned drug list (believed to have been in 1987) it ceased to be used by athletes for cheating because of its very ease of detection.
Most laboratories test for Probenecid itself, rather than metabolites, for it is the large amount that indicates illicit use. Small amounts, such as therapeutic doses, are of no interest to sport-drug testers because they would be ineffective for cheating purposes. Detected small amounts indicate only therapeutic use. However, even a small trace of Probenecid requires the posting of a positive banned-drug result but in all reality the amount would be useless for cheating. This is a problem that has not been addressed by the IOC Medical Committee. The size of the amount detected and the absence of any other banned substance is the way to determine between cheating and therapeutic purposes.
Small traces of this banned drug indicate therapeutic use, large traces indicate cheating. Only foolish individuals would use Probenecid for cheating purposes given the testing capacities of IOC accredited laboratories around the world.0 -
+1TailWindHome wrote:It really does feel like someone is sorting out their in-tray before the hols
There does seem to be a rush on at the moment. What price a GC contender getting outed during the 2nd week of Le Tour?0 -
dsoutar wrote:I'm still sceptical as to whether this was ingested deliberately. Anyone seen what the dosage found was ?
Hypothetically, what if it was taken to mask a more serious substance that would carry a more certain ban?0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Firstly that's a hell of a gamble. And secondly, if he knew he was likely to be at risk surely the first course of action would be to withdraw from the race rather than winning it.argyllflyer wrote:dsoutar wrote:I'm still sceptical as to whether this was ingested deliberately. Anyone seen what the dosage found was ?
Hypothetically, what if it was taken to mask a more serious substance that would carry a more certain ban?Twitter: @RichN950 -
I've just realised I've spoken to Daryl's dad quite a few times. When I was a teenager I used to hang around his bike shop like a bad smell.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
TailWindHome wrote:
Tough crowd in the comments section. Obviously they have all at some time been wronged financially and in terms of cycling success by the likes of Impey :roll:0
