No Daryl Impey for Tour de France - Positive Test Result

[Shebeen]

If you believe that you believe Lance's bull**** about hi cadence and his huge heart which he never had.

Not denying lance's doping, but you can't deny the v02 max numbers that he blew apart as a youngster.

Combination of both made him invincible,

[VicanZA]

i wanna believe in my breast bone.

['Dale]

i wanna believe in my breast bone.

 

Wtf

 

:-D

[Andrew Steer]

Versus ignorance tinted glasses? You thought Impey's yellow jersey was "came from nowwhere, bam suddenly 2013 there he is yellow jersey.." - with a knowledge base that shallow you probably shouldn't be debating the matter.

To be fair - you said this less than a day ago - " You need to watch more road riding. Impey was gifted the yellow jersey after OGE won the team time trial."

[Andrew Steer]

Versus ignorance tinted glasses? You thought Impey's yellow jersey was "came from nowwhere, bam suddenly 2013 there he is yellow jersey.." - with a knowledge base that shallow you probably shouldn't be debating the matter.

On his yellow: From a strictly performance point of view, it can't really be compared with Robbies stage win (which in a way was also assisted to a degree by a late crash) - he did though still have to stay in the Orica line that won the TT and finish top 15ísh for all of the first 8 odd Tour de France stages - but the TT aside, he did a very similar thing the year before at the Tour? The jersey was new territory, the performance pretty much on a par with the year before.

 

Looking at his Palmares though, he has done significantly better at the Tour these past two years - is it down to good timing of his peak? More backing and opportunities at Orica due to Goss's failings? Or was he juicing to make the biggest splash possible on cycling's biggest stage?

 

Daryl is a really nice guy from my encounters with him, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with this. His positive test is a verdict as such - it is now up to him to prove his innocence. That is the way this works. It's not a witch hunt like was famously claimed by the uniballer - it is for now a fact.

 

It's spin doctor time - let's hope they can come up with something believable, or alternatively, show us the respect we deserve as fans of this great sport and man up to any wrong doings (should that be the case!)

Edited July 4, 2014 by Andrew Steer

[Wyatt Earp]

Not denying lance's doping, but you can't deny the v02 max numbers that he blew apart as a youngster.

Combination of both made him invincible,

 

One thing y'all need to understand and The Hub and some threads here of late and people in general make it very clear that we as humans are all equal and that with "hard work" and "passion" we can achieve anything physically.

[NotSoBigBen]

One thing y'all need to understand and The Hub and some threads here of late and people in general make it very clear that we as humans are all equal and that with "hard work" and "passion" we can achieve anything physically.

 

All it takes is 10 000 hours isn't it?

[Andrew Steer]

Not too sure if you can call Froome's rise unnatural. Did his first Tour six years ago. His talent was recognised many years before that by the UCI academy. He also didn't come out of nowhere.

I'm pretty sure most are talking about the Vuelta shot from the dark. He may have had talent etc, but he literally went from struggling to get re-signed by Sky to second in the vuelta overnight (and he would have won had Sky realised who was really their best rider a little earlier)

 

Yes, Bilharzia is the stated reason - but is it? None of us know, we have to make up our own minds

Edited July 4, 2014 by Andrew Steer

[VicanZA]

One thing y'all need to understand and The Hub and some threads here of late and people in general make it very clear that we as humans are all equal and that with "hard work" and "passion" we can achieve anything physically.

 

that is funny.

[Shebeen]

did some snooping on probenicid cases

 

NZ - doc didn't check medicine was on banned list - 2months

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Dane Boswell

 

24 FEBRUARY, 2009

 

(ST 01/09) Decision 12 February 2009; Reasons for Decision 24 February 2009

Overview:

Anti-doping - probenecid - rower tested positive for probenecid in November 2008 - athlete subsequently requested B sample also be tested and this was was also positive - proceedings brought to Tribunal in 2009 by Drug Free Sport upon second positive test result - admitted violation but gave evidence violation was inadvertent - doctor prescribed him probenecid to treat injured hand - neither doctor nor athlete knew probenecid was prohibited substance - athlete did not take prohibited substance deliberately and was not a "drug cheat" - however athlete did not discharge his obligations as athlete subject to Sports Anti-Doping Rules - had received appropriate anti-doping education and materials as athlete in registered drug testing pool but had not followed advice been given in doping education - did not tell doctor was athlete subject to drug testing - did not ask doctor to check status of substance intended to prescribe - did not use phone text service allowing athletes to check whether substance is prohibited - therefore could not succeed on defence that had no significant fault - lex mitior principle applied - at time of violation in November 2008 the penalty for a probenecid violation was 2 years' suspension - however, under the latest Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2009, since 1 January 2009 probenecid has been re-categorised as a "specified substance" with a range of lesser penalties that can be applied - although violation happened before 1 January 2009, the new rules allow Tribunal to impose lesser penalties available for a specified substance if Tribunal considers appropriate - relevance of provisional suspension proceedings in the particular circumstances of this case in determining appropriate sanction - Tribunal considered 2 months' suspension appropriate in all circumstances of case - 2 months' ineligibility imposed.

[Shebeen]

boxer took cough medicine but didn't check on the list - gets a reprimand.

 

 

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Tom (Zig Zag) Wallace

 

5 MARCH, 2009

 

(ST 15/08) - Decision 5 March 2009

Overview:

Anti-doping - probenecid - boxer tested positive for probenecid - admitted violation but gave evidence violation was inadvertent - doctor at accident and emergency clinic prescribed him probenecid to help treat cellulitis in knee - neither doctor nor athlete knew probenecid was prohibited substance - athlete informed doctor he was competitive boxer subject to drug testing and asked if suggested treatment would cause any problems if he was later drug tested - he accepted the doctor’s assurance it would not - however doctor did not check whether probenecid was prohibited in sport but wrongly assumed it was not - Tribunal had sympathy for athlete and accepted there was no significant fault on his part but could not accept his defence that he had no fault - he had received drug education and material containing instructions on steps athletes need to take when prescribed medication - while complied with step of advising the doctor that he was an athlete subject to drug testing, there were other steps set out in the material that needed to follow but did not do - did not request doctor to check medical catalogue to clarify status of probenecid (which states probenecid is prohibited) - did not ensure therapeutic use exemption requirements were met if no other treatment alternatives were available - no fault defence rejected - Tribunal not needing to consider no significant fault defence further (which if defence established would result in a minimum penalty of one year's suspension under anti-doping rules) as probenecid recently recategorised as a specified substance under new rules and lesser penalties available under lex mitior principle (if Tribunal thought appropriate to apply lex mitior principle) - unlike athlete in recent case of DFS v Boswell (ST 01/09), the athlete here informed the doctor that he was subject to drug testing and asked whether the treatment would cause any problems for drug testing - he relied upon the doctor’s assurances and although this did not absolve him of all his obligations, it was a factor to be taken into account in determining penalty - he also had voluntarily withdrawn from competing when advised of the positive test - appropriate penalty in all circumstances was a reprimand only.

[Baaisikilist]

boxer took cough medicine but didn't check on the list - gets a reprimand.

 

 

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Tom (Zig Zag) Wallace

 

5 MARCH, 2009

 

(ST 15/08) - Decision 5 March 2009

Overview:

Anti-doping - probenecid - boxer tested positive for probenecid - admitted violation but gave evidence violation was inadvertent - doctor at accident and emergency clinic prescribed him probenecid to help treat cellulitis in knee - neither doctor nor athlete knew probenecid was prohibited substance - athlete informed doctor he was competitive boxer subject to drug testing and asked if suggested treatment would cause any problems if he was later drug tested - he accepted the doctor’s assurance it would not - however doctor did not check whether probenecid was prohibited in sport but wrongly assumed it was not - Tribunal had sympathy for athlete and accepted there was no significant fault on his part but could not accept his defence that he had no fault - he had received drug education and material containing instructions on steps athletes need to take when prescribed medication - while complied with step of advising the doctor that he was an athlete subject to drug testing, there were other steps set out in the material that needed to follow but did not do - did not request doctor to check medical catalogue to clarify status of probenecid (which states probenecid is prohibited) - did not ensure therapeutic use exemption requirements were met if no other treatment alternatives were available - no fault defence rejected - Tribunal not needing to consider no significant fault defence further (which if defence established would result in a minimum penalty of one year's suspension under anti-doping rules) as probenecid recently recategorised as a specified substance under new rules and lesser penalties available under lex mitior principle (if Tribunal thought appropriate to apply lex mitior principle) - unlike athlete in recent case of DFS v Boswell (ST 01/09), the athlete here informed the doctor that he was subject to drug testing and asked whether the treatment would cause any problems for drug testing - he relied upon the doctor’s assurances and although this did not absolve him of all his obligations, it was a factor to be taken into account in determining penalty - he also had voluntarily withdrawn from competing when advised of the positive test - appropriate penalty in all circumstances was a reprimand only.

 

Pity his statement didn't say anything about him perhaps being treated for any illness or injury leading up to SA champs in which a doctor may have negligently prescribed him something containing the substance, as in the cases above. Unfortunately rules and the monitoring of them these days leaves less room for the Lance cortisone saddle sore back dated prescription type stories to be gotten away with. As we can see from the above cases, the athletes themselves need to be pretty damn clued up on exactly what questions to ask and what procedures are to be followed, even more so than their doctors apparently.

I really want to believe that he's clean, but my take on this (which the above cases may offer some insight into), is that perhaps that he had something else in his system that needed masking. Perhaps the substance he was trying to mask carried a heavier penalty than what he was ultimately caught with. Perhaps he was informed before champs that there would be testing, and he chose the lesser of two evils to be caught with, in the hopes that he may be able to defend it's presence enough to be given a slap on the wrist. Who knows...

I don't think his dad's food contamination theory was the smartest thing to come out with.

[Andrew Steer]

Pity his statement didn't say anything about him perhaps being treated for any illness or injury leading up to SA champs in which a doctor may have negligently prescribed him something containing the substance, as in the cases above. Unfortunately rules and the monitoring of them these days leaves less room for the Lance cortisone saddle sore back dated prescription type stories to be gotten away with. As we can see from the above cases, the athletes themselves need to be pretty damn clued up on exactly what questions to ask and what procedures are to be followed, even more so than their doctors apparently.

I really want to believe that he's clean, but my take on this (which the above cases may offer some insight into), is that perhaps that he had something else in his system that needed masking. Perhaps the substance he was trying to mask carried a heavier penalty than what he was ultimately caught with. Perhaps he was informed before champs that there would be testing, and he chose the lesser of two evils to be caught with, in the hopes that he may be able to defend it's presence enough to be given a slap on the wrist. Who knows...

I don't think his dad's food contamination theory was the smartest thing to come out with.

Hey, don't pre-judge... cow's get Gout too!

 

(sorry, I deleted Comic Sans off my machine)

[Myra]

Some guys appear to be forgetting that cycling is a team sport. Its not tennis or athletics. You can be the best cyclist in the world but if you're not on a pro tour team you're not going to be doing pro tour races and getting "good results".

 

Getting on a team is more than just about results. Some times its about who you know.

 

Even if you get onto a pro tour team, you might still not get "results". Cycling teams have different dynamics and team members have different roles, eg domestique, sprinter's lead-out man.

 

There are so many factors that you have to take into account. You can't just look at someone's results and decide whether they suddenly started doping or not.

[nathrix]

The best is not being caught doping & the worst is when you do get caught...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdQz8KMrJWw

[City Cycling Athletic Club]

impey wasn't a overnight yellow jersey success in TdF, he was riding very well in 2009 when he was taken out in the last stage of the tour of Turkey while in yellow. i think he suffered one or two broken bones and was out of cycling for a long period. what is strange is that he tested negative at SA's a few days after the TT positive test. he still has his back to the wall though.

Edited July 4, 2014 by WP Cycling events