Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Daryl Impey tests positive for Probenecid

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    unichall
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭unichall


    mistermatthew wrote: »
    Ah now come on. I found the on the session tiernan locke explanation more likely.

    The sceptic in me wants to say the same but on thinking about it, its not like they would have just taken his word for it and said OK. I'm sure experts would have been consulted and the decision was not reached lightly. I feel in this day and age they are more likely to ban you if they are not sure rather than give you the benefit of the doubt as may have been the case in the past. So with all that in mind I am willing to accept the decision and put it down to the facts as they are presented


  • Options
    #63
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    Great news for Impey and greenedge, as a fan of both I'm relieved!


  • Options
    #64
    Briando
    Registered Users Posts: 691 ✭✭✭Briando


    Thats lucky that Impeys friend who supplies him with pharmaceutical products was able to explain how Impey had accidentally had traces of banned substances in his blood.


  • Options
    #65
    nak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,538 ✭✭✭nak


    The anti-doping panel obviously thought it was credible. The limit of detection for Probenecid using GCMS is 0.050ug/mL, which is pretty small, a tablet would be 500mg.

    I have seen plenty of assays at work ruined by cross contamination - other analytes appearing from glassware that wasn't cleaned properly in the dishwasher etc.


  • Options
    #66
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    unichall wrote: »
    I feel in this day and age they are more likely to ban you if they are not sure rather than give you the benefit of the doubt as may have been the case in the past.

    Indeed, that's the impression I get which is odd in that if a rider genuinely doesn't know he is either screwed or he has to make a credible excuse and go with it even if he is not convinced himself.
    nak wrote: »
    The anti-doping panel obviously thought it was credible. The limit of detection for Probenecid using GCMS is 0.050ug/mL, which is pretty small, a tablet would be 500mg.

    I have seen plenty of assays at work ruined by cross contamination - other analytes appearing from glassware that wasn't cleaned properly in the dishwasher etc.

    Same here but cross contamination in the lab will lead to a far higher level of the contaminant. A 500mg (ie 500000ug) tablet, the level that would rub off on your skin must be a hell of a lot lower, then the amount of that that would then rub off on a gelatin capsule, which for some reason was either being handled without gloves or was not pre packaged, then this trace level on a capsule still showed enough in the blood stream after ingestion to be testing positive.

    It is possible, in fact incredibly possible, it just doesn't seem that likely to me but having caught trace levels in the lab myself, I know its possible but it is incredibly unlikely, I would love to hear the boards justification for plausibility.

    What I would like the board to have explained is what were the predicted circulating levels, working back, is it possible that he could have gotten that much from that one tablet. Does anyone have what the positive levels were?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    el tel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    I think they might need to ban bicarbonate of soda as it sounds performance enhancing if the bit about "Bicarbonate of soda helps buffer the effects of lactic acid" is correct.


  • Options
    #68
    changepartners
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭changepartners


    CramCycle wrote: »
    It is possible, in fact incredibly possible, it just doesn't seem that likely to me but having caught trace levels in the lab myself, I know its possible but it is incredibly unlikely, I would love to hear the boards justification for plausibility.

    I think this raises the serious question whether or not there is any possibility of accidentally ingesting and testing positive for a band substance. Surely there must be scenarios where this can happen. With cycling's history though we never want to accept such an explanation.

    And to be fair when things go wrong it is always a chain of improbable events, rather than one single thing... Otherwise it couldn't happen in the first place.

    What I mean to say is that surely it is possible for a rider to be contaminated accidentally. And if it is possible it will happen at some point.


  • Options
    #69
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    The dog ate my homework


  • Options
    #70
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    changepartners wrote: »

    What I mean to say is that surely it is possible for a rider to be contaminated accidentally. And if it is possible it will happen at some point.

    My question is though, what were his levels that this was considered plausible. Multiply his test result by estimated minimum blood volume. Calculate the minimum needed to injest to reach this level. Does this level compare to the rubbing of a tablet. Are these tablets not coated for injection? Were they not sealed? If they weren't was the chemist not wearing gloves?

    At the lower end of the scale it is highly plausible running the numbers in my head, it really depends on the actual level as to whether plausibility is there or not.


  • Options
    #71
    unichall
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭unichall


    CramCycle wrote: »
    My question is though, what were his levels that this was considered plausible. Multiply his test result by estimated minimum blood volume. Calculate the minimum needed to injest to reach this level. Does this level compare to the rubbing of a tablet. Are these tablets not coated for injection? Were they not sealed? If they weren't was the chemist not wearing gloves?

    At the lower end of the scale it is highly plausible running the numbers in my head, it really depends on the actual level as to whether plausibility is there or not.

    This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post, I'm sure experts were consulted and the numbers as above were run and they came back as saying it was plausible otherwise I can't see why his ban wasn't upheld.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    unichall wrote: »
    I'm sure experts were consulted

    I'm fairly sure WADA will have a close look at that, expect this decision to be reviewed.....


  • Options
    #73
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    RobFowl wrote: »
    I'm fairly sure WADA will have a close look at that, expect this decision to be reviewed.....

    No need sure everyone knows doping ended in 2007


  • Options
    #74
    Ryath
    Registered Users Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭Ryath


    CramCycle wrote: »
    My question is though, what were his levels that this was considered plausible. Multiply his test result by estimated minimum blood volume. Calculate the minimum needed to injest to reach this level. Does this level compare to the rubbing of a tablet. Are these tablets not coated for injection? Were they not sealed? If they weren't was the chemist not wearing gloves?

    At the lower end of the scale it is highly plausible running the numbers in my head, it really depends on the actual level as to whether plausibility is there or not.

    Going on figures here
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7175716

    Rough figures He would needed have to ingested 0.7mg to have the minimum detectable amount 3-4 hrs after ingesting. With a half life of 4.2-4.9 hrs. Seems to be stretching the realms of probablity. Tablets are film coated. Pharmisist would have to have mixed the gelatin capsules with the probenecid and impy must have taken a **** load of his bicarbonate capsules to ingest that amount through cross contamination I reckon.

    Impey may not have deliberately taken it but this cross contamination seems unlikely.


  • Options
    #75
    mistermatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 790 ✭✭✭mistermatthew


    RobFowl wrote: »
    I'm fairly sure WADA will have a close look at that, expect this decision to be reviewed.....

    I would be stunned if the ban isn't re applied by WADA.

    I think it is fairly apparent that this story is not true. It's similar to the Contador situation when the spanish court cleared him originally.

    It is not a good situation when home federations are making such decisions.


  • Options
    #76
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    It seems Journo's in SA are digging deeper at least !
    Daryl Impey’s exoneration on doping charges brought relief to many cycling fans. But, ponders Shuaib Manjra, there may be much more to this story.


    The Primary Web link doesn't load for me, but Googles cache is available

    So National Fed doesn't want to be the bad guy, & so they just kick to touch & let WADA or whoever be the big bad wolf :(

    Between the one-man TUE approval panels & this.... :mad::mad::mad:


Advertisement