Impey - Cleared of doping

tailwindhome

BenderRodriguez wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

So, what happens if someone's diet is deficient in sodium bicarbonate? .

I think you're just trying to get a rise out of everyone

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

So, what happens if someone's diet is deficient in sodium bicarbonate?

They don't fill up their Greggs loyalty card.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

If a substance is not strictly needed for nutritional purposes (unlike protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and so forth) then how can it be considered 'food?

Because people eat it. It's an ingredient. Like flavouring or pepper. Maybe you would ban spices - they have little nutritional purpose.

tailwindhome

someone being a bit sloppy at work?

Some discussion over in the other place about pharmacists hand washing wearing gloves etc

This seems to be clarified now

http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/2014/08 ... ng-charge/

Impey’s defense team stated that the pharmacy in question confirmed in evidence that they had sold Probenecid to a customer two hours prior to selling empty gelatin capsules to Daryl Impey and that on both occasions the products were dispensed using the same pill-counter.

“Impey presented expert evidence from pharmacy professionals, pharmacologists and pharmacokinetic experts confirming that cross-contamination caused by the use of the pill-counter in such manner was plausible,” [SAIDS CEO Khalid] Galant explained.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

someone being a bit sloppy at work?

Some discussion over in the other place about pharmacists hand washing wearing gloves etc

This seems to be clarified now

What amazes me is that people think professionals in all sorts of fields (and their assistants) operate at some incredibly high standard - and never go below it. They try to, but talk to one in confidence and they can tell you all sorts of horror stories.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

If a substance is not strictly needed for nutritional purposes (unlike protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and so forth) then how can it be considered 'food?

Because people eat it. It's an ingredient. Like flavouring or pepper. Maybe you would ban spices - they have little nutritional purpose.

Using a pinch of sodium bicarb as a cooking ingredient is one thing, downing spoonfuls of it as a 'lactate buffering' doping agent is something else altogether!

Following your logic, as a poppy seed role will contain minute amounts of opiates, then the use of heroin should be allowed, perhaps as part of a 'pot Belge'. After all, opiates are also 'just an ingredient'.

As to spices, do they have a doping effect? If not, there is no need to ban sports people from using them.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

So, what happens if someone's diet is deficient in sodium bicarbonate? .

I think you're just trying to get a rise out of everyone

Pross

Nice to see Bender has woken up with his usual black and white view of the world.

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Following your logic, as a poppy seed role will contain minute amounts of opiates, then the use of heroin should be allowed, perhaps as part of a 'pot Belge'. After all, opiates are also 'just an ingredient'.

Well that's a hell of a lot of poppy seeds. If I eat a Whopper, am I a smackhead?

But the horse Estimate did eat lots of poppy seeds and tested positive. Assuming that reason was legitimate and it's not a danger to the horse then I think it should be allowed. It was just horse feed. But if I was a supplier of the feed I'd probably take it out in future.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

As to spices, do they have a doping effect? If not, there is no need to ban sports people from using them.

By doping effect, you mean an effect which aids performance I assume. So the likes of ginger or tumeric which aid digestion perhaps?

BenderRodriguez

Pross wrote:

Nice to see Bender has woken up with his usual black and white view of the world.

Hardly! If anything I am highlighting some of the 'shades of grey' relating to doping that everyone else seems to want to ignore, preferring to regard, in their 'black and white view of the world', only the use of products on WADA's list as constituting 'doping'.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Following your logic, as a poppy seed role will contain minute amounts of opiates, then the use of heroin should be allowed, perhaps as part of a 'pot Belge'. After all, opiates are also 'just an ingredient'.

Well that's a hell of a lot of poppy seeds. If I eat a Whopper, am I a smackhead?

No more a 'smackhead' than someone who eats a cake in which a pinch of bicarb was used as a raising agent.

On the other hand, down the sorts of excessive and unnecessary quantities of an opiate as someone who was looking to use bicarb as a doping agent would be taking, then you probably would be!

above_the_cows

I don't think our dear Bendy friend understood my Latour reference or my subsequent explanation of it.

morstar

BR, I am pretty staunchly anti doping and I do actually understand your point regarding certain behaviours being ethically questionable whilst not outside the rules. However, I'd suggest your line of acceptance is far too conservative for even the likes of me.
I race and compete in various sports at a pretty mediocre level. I would absolutely not resort to taking medicinal products just to be competitive. However, I will drink beetroot juice before a TT without reservation. I can't stand the stuff, I do it solely for performance enhancement without reservation. The point when consuming a normal foodstuff in any reasonable measure becomes ethically questionable is a worrying one.
Your standards of expected behaviour are outside normal society and will never be adopted. This is something you need to reconcile in your own head or stop watching sport.

above_the_cows

morstar just served the told cuts!

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

Give me some Montaigne.

My happy-go-lucky affectation conceals
Extraordinary fires, but it still kind of feels
There’s little in the way of sunshine heading our way
Whilst the vehicle’s in motion, the driver’s got nothing to say

OT - Brilliant thread about Montaigne here. Well worth a read.

frenchfighter

Nice thanks will have a good look through. Disagree with the second point though - it is an atheist trying to draw quotes to support their view as they would prefer if Montaigne were of similar beliefs (although the 2nd part goes some way to temper this). In my extensive reading of the book that is most certainly not the conclusion I draw (I do admit to not having yet read the Sebond section).

I had come across and thought of purchasing that book by Sarah M - presumably it is somewhat like Alain De Botton's 'How Proust can change your life' which is a good read.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Following your logic, as a poppy seed role will contain minute amounts of opiates, then the use of heroin should be allowed, perhaps as part of a 'pot Belge'. After all, opiates are also 'just an ingredient'.

Well that's a hell of a lot of poppy seeds. If I eat a Whopper, am I a smackhead?

But the horse Estimate did eat lots of poppy seeds and tested positive. Assuming that reason was legitimate and it's not a danger to the horse then I think it should be allowed. It was just horse feed. But if I was a supplier of the feed I'd probably take it out in future.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

As to spices, do they have a doping effect? If not, there is no need to ban sports people from using them.

By doping effect, you mean an effect which aids performance I assume. So the likes of ginger or tumeric which aid digestion perhaps?

All depends on whether you paid for the Whopper at a train station, or at normal prices.

Bloody Burger King sharks.

Art Vandelay

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Laughs in incredulity.

So what would be a credible scenario for you?

Because the alternative is this: Impey takes a doping product, and realises that he could test positive. So rather than just dropping out of the race and waiting for it to pass takes an even more easily identifiable masking agent (and a poor one at that) and not only enters the race but then wins it to ensure that he will be tested. Then after being caught goes to his pharmasist who has either amazingly luckily served the exact drug two hours earlier or has forged documents for Impey despite all the computerised records that pharmacists have to keep that can be cross-referenced - thereby gambling with his entire career and liberty.

That to you is more likely than someone being a bit sloppy at work?

That's a ridiculous argument Rich. The last statement is true though but it works both ways. If an athlete is on a doping regime it's likely their sloppiness is the thing that catches them out.

Art Vandelay

RichN95 wrote:

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?

So, it's not reasonable to express doubt against any appointed authority? Not even on a forum!

When Contador's Clenbuterol case was being tossed back by RFEC did you reverse your understanding of Contador's guilt or innocence?

If the Impey decision is appealed will you allow doubt to be expressed then or only after they've made their reasoned decision?

The_Boy

TailWindHome wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

So, what happens if someone's diet is deficient in sodium bicarbonate? .

I think you're just trying to get a rise out of everyone

I see what you did there.

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

So, it's not reasonable to express doubt against any appointed authority? Not even on a forum!

You can doubt them if you like. But if is done with no personal expertise and without seeing any of the evidence and almost entirely because their decision didn't match either your gut feeling or the decision you wanted, then it's really weak.

Art Vandelay wrote:

When Contador's Clenbuterol case was being tossed back by RFEC did you reverse your understanding of Contador's guilt or innocence?

No, I was fairly consistent on that. Inadvertent consumption was possible, but there was nothing to support that scenario as there is with Impey. I thought he should have got a year, not two. Any doubts I now have about his past or present is based on the bad company he has consistently kept rather than that test.

Art Vandelay wrote:

If the Impey decision is appealed will you allow doubt to be expressed then or only after they've made their reasoned decision?

If there is actually some grounds for doubt, then probably. But I'm not going to doubt professional's integrity just because their educated considered view doesn't match an uninformed knee-jerk opinion or because a lust for a doping scandal has not been sated.

Art Vandelay

RichN95 wrote:

No, I was fairly consistent on that. Inadvertent consumption was possible, but there was nothing to support that scenario as there is with Impey. I thought he should have got a year, not two. Any doubts I now have about his past or present is based on the bad company he has consistently kept rather than that test.

I'm pleased to hear you maintained your consistency here despite the official verdict changing until the final verdict was reached. I'm surprised your opinion of the correct sentencing differs from those of the 'properly appointed and qualified authorities'. Is that allowed?

You've deduced I have a 'lust for doping scandals' which I think is a bit much from me saying I wasn't convinced by SAIDS verdict.

Whether Impey's story is true or not I think SAIDS lack of resources probably meant a thorough investigation from them was unlikely. I'd rather Impey sued the pharmacist than SAIDS too.

iainf72

Art Vandelay wrote:

Whether Impey's story is true or not I think SAIDS lack of resources probably meant a thorough investigation from them was unlikely. I'd rather Impey sued the pharmacist than SAIDS too.

But he wants to sue SAIDS over the delays - And that is a huge problem with doping cases, and probably one of the things that needs to be fixed.

That said, I don't think law suits will fix it.

I still think this sounds like the most plausible explanation.

Art Vandelay

Yep, delays aren't helpful to any of the parties. In this case the death of one of the SAIDS team was the prime cause in the delay with Impey's case. Agree SAIDS might be at fault technically but the last thing SAIDS need is another hit on their budget.

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

I'm pleased to hear you maintained your consistency here despite the official verdict changing until the final verdict was reached. I'm surprised your opinion of the correct sentencing differs from those of the 'properly appointed and qualified authorities'. Is that allowed?

My opinion matches theirs. They don't know how the clen got in his system and neither do I. There were many possibilities and Contador had nothing to support any one of them. As for the sentencing - initially the Spanish announced a one year ban, but then cleared him after political intervention. Would WADA have appealed a one year ban? Was the eventual two year ban in reaction to the intervention? Verdicts and sentences are different. One is binary, the other more variable.

Art Vandelay wrote:

You've deduced I have a 'lust for doping scandals' which I think is a bit much from me saying I wasn't convinced by SAIDS verdict.

It was only one alternative. But when I look around the internet I see a lot of people who are oblivious to the idea that an innocent man has been cleared as they have been denied their metaphorical hanging.

Art Vandelay wrote:

Whether Impey's story is true or not I think SAIDS lack of resources probably meant a thorough investigation from them was unlikely. I'd rather Impey sued the pharmacist than SAIDS too.

Do they lack resources? South Africa is a pretty developed country. They did the first heart transplant. They're not a tribe of savages. Iain has covered the suing (which won't happen).

Art Vandelay

RichN95 wrote:

My opinion matches theirs. They don't know how the clen got in his system and neither do I. There were many possibilities and Contador had nothing to support any one of them. As for the sentencing - initially the Spanish announced a one year ban, but then cleared him after political intervention. Would WADA have appealed a one year ban? Was the eventual two year ban in reaction to the intervention? Verdicts and sentences are different. One is binary, the other more variable.

RFEC changed their verdict but you didn't:/ There must be some forum small print that I haven't seen that says it's OK to challenge properly appointed authorities when it suits you and/or only for sentencing and not the verdict.

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

RFEC changed their verdict but you didn't:

Correct. I wasn't influenced by the Prime Minister of Spain getting involved with my decision making process.

You see when there's some actual reason to doubt a decision I'll doubt it, not that it doesn't match my opinions.
The RFEC said that Contador would get a one year ban. The Prime Minister got involved and that changed to an acquital. That's an actual reason to doubt a decision.

Art Vandelay

So a caveat that you can disagree with properly appointed authorities but only as long as there's no adverse outside influence. Who do I need to check with to make that call?

RichN95.

Art Vandelay wrote:

So a caveat that you can disagree with properly appointed authorities but only as long as there's no adverse outside influence. Who do I need to check with to make that call?

No. If you want to doubt authorities then have some actual reasoning behind that doubt. Something specific - not that your gut feeling turned out to be wrong.

WADA appealed the Contador decision. Because, like me, they thought it was faulty. And they had reason to think so. They have not appealed other riders who got cleared like Rogers or Costa. Will they appeal Impey? We will see, but my guess is no.

DeadCalm

Art Vandelay wrote:

So a caveat that you can disagree with properly appointed authorities but only as long as there's no adverse outside influence. Who do I need to check with to make that call?

I admire your persistence but you are arguing with someone who has made more than 12,000 posts and has been right 100% of the time.

tailwindhome

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/08/uci-a ... be-lodged/

Why would the UCI be appealing?
What's their mandate (if that's the right word) to do so? Ensuring consistency between national feds?