Impey - Cleared of doping

tailwindhome

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/08/daryl ... nsibility/

blazing_saddles

Fact being stranger than fiction, again.

iainf72

To be fair, it's the only thing that makes any kind of sense.

dish_dash

Reasoning makes some sense. And if there evidence was there then glad he's been cleared.

But what's with the bicarb of soda self dosage?

Mad_Malx

Soda doping:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607226
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/23/1/41.abstract

legal and some evidence of efficacy (only skimmed these abstracts).

frenchfighter

Plausible yes. But it is just his word against the result. Lets be honest - what is to prevent Impey paying this guy 10k to say that? It is so easily manipulated I am surprised the authorities allowed it to pass. Most riders get taken down for not being able to prove otherwise even if they have a ton of people voicing for them. (I am not saying Impey is doping btw as I have no idea, just pointing out the inconsistencies).

Mods can you merge it with the proper thread:
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12974429

edit. just seen the part about receipts which gives it more credence I guess.

above_the_cows

Well I never there's some cross over between the Great British Bake Off and cycling after all.

above_the_cows

frenchfighter wrote:

Plausible yes. But it is just his word against the result. Lets be honest - what is to prevent Impey paying this guy 10k to say that? It is so easily manipulated I am surprised the authorities allowed it to pass. Most riders get taken down for not being able to prove otherwise even if they have a ton of people voicing for them. (I am not saying Impey is doping btw as I have no idea, just pointing out the inconsistencies).

Mods can you merge it with the proper thread:
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12974429

edit. just seen the part about receipts which gives it more credence I guess.

I think it was probably the pharmacist's ability to produce physical receipts, time-logged etc., which would be harder to forge, that swung it for Impey.

frenchfighter

A clause in Impey’s contract with Orica-GreenEdge forced the South African to pay back his salary to the team in the case of a guilty doping verdict.

"The amount of money I have lost is hard to quantify. It’s a huge loss of income."

Presumably he will get his money back?

above_the_cows

frenchfighter wrote:

A clause in Impey’s contract with Orica-GreenEdge forced the South African to pay back his salary to the team in the case of a guilty doping verdict.

"The amount of money I have lost is hard to quantify. It’s a huge loss of income."

Presumably he will get his money back?

You would think so. I mean would you sign a contract that said you had to pay back your salary if found guilty of something but that then said it would not be paid back if you were cleared? I wouldn't. But then I find it odd that in the article it says if he was 'found guilty' but surely he was not found guilty, he was informed of a positive test, his guilt was to be determined at the hearing at which he was cleared. All very strange.

mr_poll

Above The Cows wrote:

Well I never there's some cross over between the Great British Bake Off and cycling after all.

Except in cycling if someone takes your "showstopper" out of the fridge for a bit, it can have serious consequences, just ask Ricco.

Macaloon

Don't think he's talking about salary. More likely it's lost additional earnings associated with the higher media profile he missed through non-selection for GTs. Plus the distress of having somebody crawl the web for you to keep tabs on what's being done to your reputation.

Speaking of reputations, I doubt the pharmacist is finding his involvement good for business. Congrats to him for coming forward, if indeed he had a choice in the matter.

above_the_cows

mr_poll wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Well I never there's some cross over between the Great British Bake Off and cycling after all.

Except in cycling if someone takes your "showstopper" out of the fridge for a bit, it can have serious consequences, just ask Ricco.

Art Vandelay

Not entirely convinced by this judgement. If this was a Russian athlete being cleared by the Russian sports authorities would you feel so satisfied? If we are to accept the pharmacist's logs and receipts who's to say Impey didn't buy the probencid in the transaction before his purchase of empty gelatine capsules?

salsiccia1

mr_poll wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Well I never there's some cross over between the Great British Bake Off and cycling after all.

Except in cycling if someone takes your "showstopper" out of the fridge for a bit, it can have serious consequences, just ask Ricco.

*applause*

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

Not entirely convinced by this judgement. If this was a Russian athlete being cleared by the Russian sports authorities would you feel so satisfied? If we are to accept the pharmacist's logs and receipts who's to say Impey didn't buy the probencid in the transaction before his purchase of empty gelatine capsules?

What were the times and dates on the receipts? And what about the pescription for the probenicid - what did that say? And how did that cross-check with recorded databases. This is a pharmacy, not a newsagents. I'm assuming you must have seen all of these to have a more sound judgement than the anti-doping authorities. Or are you just guessing because your lust for scandal and conspriacy outweighs your desire for justice.

Are you happy with South African/Russian defendants being cleared by South African/Russian criminal courts - as happens every single day? Or is every defendant by definition guilty?

Art Vandelay

There's not a full statement from SAIDS so without this I'm not 100% convinced. Perhaps it will be appealed?

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

There's not a full statement from SAIDS so without this I'm not 100% convinced.

Are you more of an expert than the anti-doping authorities then? If there is an appeal will CAS be calling on your opinion and if so do you think it could be prejudiced by evidence.

Seriously, why does anyone think that their opinion, based on having seen absolutely no evidence, is more valid than those of properly appointed and qualified authorities?

Pross

frenchfighter wrote:

A clause in Impey’s contract with Orica-GreenEdge forced the South African to pay back his salary to the team in the case of a guilty doping verdict.

"The amount of money I have lost is hard to quantify. It’s a huge loss of income."

Presumably he will get his money back?

Presumably he never had to pay it to them in the first place as he never got a guilty verdict. As someone else has said I suspect the second part of that statement refers to additional earnings he would have made had he been allowed to keep riding which I would have said could be easily quantified as zero given Impey's success rate and the short time he has been suspended.

Pross

It's been a fast turnaround in this case (at least since the positive was announced).

salsiccia1

Pross wrote:

It's been a fast turnaround in this case (at least since the positive was announced).

That makes a change, and it's to be applauded.

Pross

Yep, it also seems that Impey was fairly organised and able to account for everything he used which must have helped. A lot of riders could learn from that so that they can prove their innocence when claiming some form of contamination.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Yep, it also seems that Impey was fairly organised and able to account for everything he used which must have helped. A lot of riders could learn from that so that they can prove their innocence when claiming some form of contamination.

Always record the batch numbers of supplements*. Which is why the more organised teams only allow riders to use supplements that come via the team.


*If you get tested. Bit pointless otherwise.

Pokerface

Mad_Malx wrote:

Soda doping:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607226
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/23/1/41.abstract

legal and some evidence of efficacy (only skimmed these abstracts).

I'm not entirely questioning why Impey would use bicarb, or choose to put it in capsules, etc.

But having used it many times myself, from what I know, the science says it's only useful in efforts up to 7-8 minutes max for lactate buffering. And you would be taking .3g per kg of body weight to facilitate.

We use it on the track a lot for Pursuit efforts as it works a charm. (Racing only as it plays havoc with your digestive system).

So him using it for a longer event plus having it in gel capsules is odd to me. There IS a protocol where you load it up over 3 days - smaller doses more often - so it's possible he was doing it this way. But the effectiveness would still be limited in a longer event.

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it also seems that Impey was fairly organised and able to account for everything he used which must have helped. A lot of riders could learn from that so that they can prove their innocence when claiming some form of contamination.

Always record the batch numbers of supplements*. Which is why the more organised teams only allow riders to use supplements that come via the team.


*If you get tested. Bit pointless otherwise.

But in Impey's case this wasn't a supplement but a home made booster made with something you can buy in the baking isle and some empty gel capsules.

frenchfighter

Pross wrote:

It's been a fast turnaround in this case (at least since the positive was announced).

Yeah only two months which is why I am confused about his talk about loss of money.

Pretty sure if they didn't give the money back he could sue them.

frenchfighter

Pokerface wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Soda doping:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607226
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/23/1/41.abstract

legal and some evidence of efficacy (only skimmed these abstracts).

I'm not entirely questioning why Impey would use bicarb, or choose to put it in capsules, etc.

But having used it many times myself, from what I know, the science says it's only useful in efforts up to 7-8 minutes max for lactate buffering. And you would be taking .3g per kg of body weight to facilitate.

We use it on the track a lot for Pursuit efforts as it works a charm. (Racing only as it plays havoc with your digestive system).

So him using it for a longer event plus having it in gel capsules is odd to me. There IS a protocol where you load it up over 3 days - smaller doses more often - so it's possible he was doing it this way. But the effectiveness would still be limited in a longer event.

What other dubiously legal performance enhancing drugs do track athletes use?
Why is it not banned?

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

Why is it not banned?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/bicarbonate_of_soda

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

But in Impey's case this wasn't a supplement but a home made booster made with something you can buy in the baking isle and some empty gel capsules.

Yeah, I know. I was pointing out that a lot of teams wouldn't have let Impey do that because of the risks.

frenchfighter

TailWindHome wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Why is it not banned?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/bicarbonate_of_soda

What a comedian.

Among the more popular ergogenic aids is the use of sodium bicarbonate
er·go·gen·ic
ˌərgəˈjenik/
adjective
(not in technical use) intended to enhance physical performance, stamina, or recovery.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Why is it not banned?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/bicarbonate_of_soda

What a comedian.

He's not trying to be funny. He's pointing out that it's not banned because it is essentially food.