Daryl Impey tests positive for Probenecid

BofaDeezNuhtz · 05-07-2014 10:30pm

godtabh wrote: »

Already posted here that some one in the lab died and held up the results

Yeah I read that and went off and found it quoted elsewhere too because I was
like 4 months wtf.

Some bloke on cyclenews comments section said there is only 1 lab in South Africa
and they have other work to do too so theres a que loike, oh yeah an someone croaked it!

So what a riders blood taken at a race in SA back in Feb is left there at some lab,
ah test it when yis get a chance lads no rush, and a 'possible' dirty rider is allowed
to continue to race and affect results for the next 4 months?
Someone died and what wasn't replaced for 4 months?
The UCI don't control blood/urine samples themselves or even
escort them under lock and key outta the country to trusted
and regulated labs.

I mean c'mon seriously, this is the standard you's are happy with now at the UCI?

I mean someone being caught is a sign that the sports been cleaned up no?
Or is it a sign that oh $hit we crucified the Irishman and it's still happening keep stum?

The silence. Is deafening.

gordongekko · 05-07-2014 10:40pm

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

Yeah I read that and went off and found it quoted elsewhere too because I was
like 4 months wtf.

Some bloke on cyclenews comments section said there is only 1 lad in South Africa
and they have other work to do too so theres a que loike, oh yeah an someone croaked it!

So what a riders blood taken at a race in SA back in Feb is left there at some lab,
ah test it when yis get a chance lads no rush, and a 'possible' dirty rider is allowed
to continue to race and affect results for the next 4 months?
Someone died and what wasn't replaced for 4 months?
The UCI don't control blood/urine samples themselves or even
escort them under lock and key outta the country to trusted
and regulated labs.

I mean c'mon seriously, this is the standard you's are happy with now at the UCI?

I mean someone being caught is a sign that the sports been cleaned up no?
Or is it a sign that oh $hit we crucified the Irishman and it's still happening keep stum?

The silence. Is deafening.

what in the name of God are you waffling about? Are you suggesting daily medical tests for everyone dealing with drug tests in uci accredited labs?

BofaDeezNuhtz · 05-07-2014 11:02pm

gordongekko wrote: »

what in the name of God are you waffling about? Are you suggesting daily medical tests for everyone dealing with drug tests in uci accredited labs?

What are you on about everyday?
It's 4 bleedin' months later the blokes been left to race on.
And not an eyelid blinked on here.

Where's the reaction to this news in general is my wonder?
That's what I don't get.

Is it a good thing someone was caught or bad?

Are yis happy with the 'New and improved Persil Automatic UCI' with a 4 month
bleedin' lab report que from Timbuk-fuggin-tu!

Inquitus · 05-07-2014 11:08pm

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

Yeah I read that and went off and found it quoted elsewhere too because I was
like 4 months wtf.

Some bloke on cyclenews comments section said there is only 1 lab in South Africa
and they have other work to do too so theres a que loike, oh yeah an someone croaked it!

So what a riders blood taken at a race in SA back in Feb is left there at some lab,
ah test it when yis get a chance lads no rush, and a 'possible' dirty rider is allowed
to continue to race and affect results for the next 4 months?
Someone died and what wasn't replaced for 4 months?
The UCI don't control blood/urine samples themselves or even
escort them under lock and key outta the country to trusted
and regulated labs.

I mean c'mon seriously, this is the standard you's are happy with now at the UCI?

I mean someone being caught is a sign that the sports been cleaned up no?
Or is it a sign that oh $hit we crucified the Irishman and it's still happening keep stum?

The silence. Is deafening.

What are you on about again?

BofaDeezNuhtz · 05-07-2014 11:39pm

Inquitus wrote: »

What are you on about again?

The sport you love. From an outsider looking on it's in shíte!

Still...

Raymzor · 06-07-2014 8:21am

fishfoodie wrote: »

Only if you believe that the UCI doesn't put its finger on the scales, when it comes to doping enforcement & punishment !

The cynic in me believes these recent positives, were the UCI putting a shot across the bows of the teams to let them know that a British UCI Chief didn't want to be embarrassed in the coming week while the tour was in the UK.

If the timing of the news is strategic as you say by the U She Aye then they must only be concerned with In Competition Tests! Another view of this is Work Away lads but don't get nabbed in the next three weeks!

unichall · 29-08-2014 8:43am

Not sure of the finer details but Urika Greenedge posted on their website that Daryl Impey is free to ride again.

http://www.greenedgecycling.com/news/statement-regarding-daryl-impey-17995

death1234567 · 29-08-2014 8:53am

I notice it doesn't mention why he was cleared or what the issue was.

unichall · 29-08-2014 9:12am

Some extracts I found from South African newspapers that help clear up the issue.

"On Thursday, a hearing held in Johannesburg found he had taken the banned diuretic, which is not performance enhancing but can be used as a masking agent, through a contaminated product bought at a pharmacist through no fault of his own."

"The solid facts were the evidence of a pharmacist in Durban. Impey had gone early in the morning to buy empty gelatine capsules to put bicarbonate of soda inside them for the South African road race championships. Bicarbonate of soda helps buffer the effects of lactic acid. The pharmacist told him he didn’t have any capsules. Later, the pharmacist found some capsules and called Impey, who went in the afternoon to buy them. Shortly before the pharmacist served Impey, he had dispensed Probenecid to another customer. His hands had contaminated Impey’s capsules. At the hearing, till slips showing time and purchase from the pharmacy convinced the hearing Impey had not ingested the substance on purpose"

Incredible that the quantity needed to return a fail could be so low that it came from the hands of the pharmacist, just goes to show how unbelievably careful they have to be with everything they come into contact with

mistermatthew · 29-08-2014 9:50am

unichall wrote: »

Some extracts I found from South African newspapers that help clear up the issue.

"On Thursday, a hearing held in Johannesburg found he had taken the banned diuretic, which is not performance enhancing but can be used as a masking agent, through a contaminated product bought at a pharmacist through no fault of his own."

"The solid facts were the evidence of a pharmacist in Durban. Impey had gone early in the morning to buy empty gelatine capsules to put bicarbonate of soda inside them for the South African road race championships. Bicarbonate of soda helps buffer the effects of lactic acid. The pharmacist told him he didn’t have any capsules. Later, the pharmacist found some capsules and called Impey, who went in the afternoon to buy them. Shortly before the pharmacist served Impey, he had dispensed Probenecid to another customer. His hands had contaminated Impey’s capsules. At the hearing, till slips showing time and purchase from the pharmacy convinced the hearing Impey had not ingested the substance on purpose"

Incredible that the quantity needed to return a fail could be so low that it came from the hands of the pharmacist, just goes to show how unbelievably careful they have to be with everything they come into contact with

Ah now come on. I found the on the session tiernan locke explanation more likely.

unichall · 29-08-2014 10:05am

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

eeeee · 29-08-2014 10:08am

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

Briando · 29-08-2014 10:24am

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.

nak · 29-08-2014 10:52am

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.

CramCycle · 29-08-2014 12:02pm

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?

el tel · 29-08-2014 2:03pm

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.

changepartners · 29-08-2014 2:04pm

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.

RobFowl · 29-08-2014 2:27pm

The dog ate my homework

CramCycle · 29-08-2014 2:40pm

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.

unichall · 29-08-2014 2:58pm

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.

RobFowl · 29-08-2014 3:10pm

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.....

gordongekko · 29-08-2014 3:18pm

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

Ryath · 29-08-2014 3:23pm

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.

mistermatthew · 29-08-2014 7:13pm

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.

fishfoodie · 02-09-2014 9:07pm

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:

Daryl Impey tests positive for Probenecid

Comments