Daryl Impey cleared!

[slabs]

Firstly well done for Impey getting off, could not have been easy and needed lots of expensive lawyers. But there are still lots of questions and as mentioned skepticism:

1. Saids really bungled this case (http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-08-30-elke-rel-is-oortree) - excuse the Afrikaans
    
    
   “Die omstandighede van Daryl se toetsing was haglik en feitlik elke reël denkbaar (vir opkikkertoetse) is oortree. Daar was geen veiligheid tydens die toetsing nie, die lokaal was te klein en hulle het boonop meer as een atleet op ’n slag getoets,” het die bron gesê.
    
   “Boonop was die verslag wat Saids saamgestel het vol foute. Dit was nie die papier werd waarop dit geskryf is nie.”
   
2. Cannot find the link, but seems like he was tested again a day or so after the positive test and this was negative
    
   
3. Some good chirps on social media:
    
   "Sorry officer, I was drinking cokes in the pub but the barman had beer on his hands. That’s why I’m drunk driving."
    
   "@Digger_forum Impey wants to sue the anti doping agency. But why doesn't he and his lawyers go for the pharmacist? #makesnosense #nonsense"
   

['Dale]

You two are funny - Wyatt' and fand'

 

In any event, let's hope the UCI is funky with the Reasoned Decision.

And South Africa can have another PRO out there, setting an example for local talent and the youngsters, and raise the believe that turning PRO in a big team is possible.

Edited September 1, 2014 by ' Dale

[Wyatt Earp]

You two are funny - Wyatt' and fand'

 

 

Dale, I know you always try and be this "unbiased, neutral and loveable" chap, but playing with other peoples livelihood is no joke.

[Bos]

@SLABS

 

This one...

 

 

"@Digger_forum Impey wants to sue the anti doping agency. But why doesn't he and his lawyers go for the pharmacist? #makesnosense#nonsense"

['Dale]

Dale, I know you always try and be this "unbiased, neutral and loveable" chap, but playing with other peoples livelihood is no joke.

 

No disrespect intended.

Yeah, Wyatt', I try to see and appreciate all the angles and perspectives. It's my style.

And, you should know by the nature of my love for the sport expressed (mostly under road racing here), I feel for the upsets and really enjoy the brilliance of success.

 

Have a lekka week, man.

Edited September 1, 2014 by ' Dale

[Andrew Steer]

DI not out the woods yet it seems and quite a few sceptics Down Under

 

http://cyclingtips.c...will-be-lodged/

Will be interesting to see where this leads... if the rules are applied consistently, Daryl's still likely to be hit with the same length ban as Contador.

 

Daryl is a far smaller fish (relative to Contador) so will be interesting to see how interested UCI/WADA are in following this up. For me it could well hinge down to setting a precedent and stopping this line of defense for future doping cases...

Parallels have been drawn between his case and that of Alberto Contador. During the 2010 Tour de France anti-doping tests showed traces of clenbuterol. Contador denied knowingly using the substance which, like probenecid, is banned.

He was cleared by the Spanish federation but both WADA and the UCI appealed this to CAS. The court ultimately ruled that a contaminated supplement was the most likely cause, absolving him of deliberately ingesting clenbuterol. However, under the strict liability ruling, it handed him a lengthy ban and annulled his victory in that Tour plus a number of subsequent results.

[jcza]

Will be interesting to see where this leads... if the rules are applied consistently, Daryl's still likely to be hit with the same length ban as Contador.

 

Daryl is a far smaller fish (relative to Contador) so will be interesting to see how interested UCI/WADA are in following this up. For me it could well hinge down to setting a precedent and stopping this line of defense for future doping cases...

 

Parallels have been drawn between his case and that of Alberto Contador. During the 2010 Tour de France anti-doping tests showed traces of clenbuterol. Contador denied knowingly using the substance which, like probenecid, is banned.

He was cleared by the Spanish federation but both WADA and the UCI appealed this to CAS. The court ultimately ruled that a contaminated supplement was the most likely cause, absolving him of deliberately ingesting clenbuterol. However, under the strict liability ruling, it handed him a lengthy ban and annulled his victory in that Tour plus a number of subsequent results.

True............BUT Rogers also claimed contamination and got off.

[Andrew Steer]

True............BUT Rogers also claimed contamination and got off.

That's why I said... if the rules are applied consistently (they clearly aren't)

The Rogers case a lot of people feel comes down to that study they did in Cologne, where something like 80% of people who did culinary tours in China tested positive for Clen. It's widely used there by the farmers. Contador must be kicking himself for not getting his special steak from China instead of his homeland.

 

But yeah, the whole things a mine field - like I said early on, it's just about impossible to believe anything anymore.

 

I reckon the UCI could well fight this ruling though, simply because otherwise it's just going to become the new party line for any doping offence... My panado's were contaminated with Stanazol, there was a WWF star just ahead of me in the pharmacy queue

[dracs]

Will be interesting to see where this leads... if the rules are applied consistently, Daryl's still likely to be hit with the same length ban as Contador.

 

Daryl is a far smaller fish (relative to Contador) so will be interesting to see how interested UCI/WADA are in following this up. For me it could well hinge down to setting a precedent and stopping this line of defense for future doping cases...

 

Parallels have been drawn between his case and that of Alberto Contador. During the 2010 Tour de France anti-doping tests showed traces of clenbuterol. Contador denied knowingly using the substance which, like probenecid, is banned.

He was cleared by the Spanish federation but both WADA and the UCI appealed this to CAS. The court ultimately ruled that a contaminated supplement was the most likely cause, absolving him of deliberately ingesting clenbuterol. However, under the strict liability ruling, it handed him a lengthy ban and annulled his victory in that Tour plus a number of subsequent results.

I think the difference here is Contador had an argument of food contamination, whereas Daryl was able to produce supporting evidence corroborated by experts. But yes, UCI could still appeal.

[Andrew Steer]

That's why I said... if the rules are applied consistently (they clearly aren't)

The Rogers case a lot of people feel comes down to that study they did in Cologne, where something like 80% of people who did culinary tours in China tested positive for Clen. It's widely used there by the farmers. Contador must be kicking himself for not getting his special steak from China instead of his homeland.

 

But yeah, the whole things a mine field - like I said early on, it's just about impossible to believe anything anymore.

 

I reckon the UCI could well fight this ruling though, simply because otherwise it's just going to become the new party line for any doping offence... My panado's were contaminated with Stanazol, there was a WWF star just ahead of me in the pharmacy queue

PS: I predict the Tour of China becoming a very popular event...

[jcza]

PS: I predict the Tour of China becoming a very popular event...

Tour of Beijing is no more. Next thing someone will claim they slipped on a patch of BS and fell into a vat of EPO.

[Patchelicious]

Tour of Beijing is no more. Next thing someone will claim they slipped on a patch of BS and fell into a vat of EPO.

Excuse worked for Obelix.

[JJDT]

Let us call in the real experts to deliver the verdict.

[kosmonooit]

I think the difference here is Contador had an argument of food contamination, whereas Daryl was able to produce supporting evidence corroborated by experts. But yes, UCI could still appeal.

 

That is the difference: El Berto downfall was that he cold not show any tangible evidence as to origin or passage of the tainted steak, as I remember it.

 

But we must also look at the Mick Rodgers case last year, did he prove how his meat got contaminated with Clen? no, but the case did not proceed, and UCI did not appeal, and its finished and klaar and he is back racing. It was based on probabilities and common sense. So here Daryl produced a much more tighter story and it all washed, yes he had good lawyers, and he is lucky he could afford them, and his case is much more solid that Mick's AND there has been other precedents set with similar contamination in other sports (there was that NZ case that comes to mind)

 

Let it go skeptics .....

Edited September 1, 2014 by kosmonooit

[Shangri la]

I had a long discussion with the Advocate that represented Daryl at the hearing and SIAD has some big issues internally they need to address. Their procedures just do not exist.

[Patchelicious]

That is the difference: El Berto downfall was that he cold not show any tangible evidence as to the tainted steak, as I remember it.

 

But we must also look at the Mick Rodgers case last year, did he prove how his meat got contaminated with Clen? no, but the case did not proceed, and UCI did not appeal, and its finished and klaar and he is back racing. It was based on probabilities and common sense. So here Daryl produced a much more tighter story and it all washed, yes he had good lawyers, and he is lucky he could afford them, and his case is much more solid that Mick's AND there has been other precedents set with similar contamination in other sports (there was that NZ case that comes to mind)

 

Let it go skeptics .....

I wonder if the DI, AC cases and the precedents that have been set is going to come back and bite them (SAIDS UCI etc). I am sure a few guys will appeal their past rulings based on this?