ahmedbadat Posted August 29, 2014 Share Not really double standards. DI - accidentally and unknowingly injested a trace amount of non-performance enhancing substance due to the neglince of a pharmacist. BS - intentionally and in full knowledgle took performance enhancing testorone while competing without an exemption ...I didn't mean that there is double standards, I wa trying tos say imagine if BS or any athlete used another story like what I wrote would he have got off? are we now at a point where if something is found be it a PED or a masking which is both banned, one may use another person to take the fall for you and take responsibility for what is in your body, saids is opening themselves to a difficult and dangerous path, at the end of the day the athlete and athlete alone should be responsible for what is in there bodies, they pro's cant they have a doctor and pharmacist who understands the severity and implications of cross contamination. Mousea 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustbug Posted August 29, 2014 Share Probenecide is a fairly common use substance for gout / acidity and used to boost effectiveness of some ingredients in cold and flu mixes, many pharmacists make up their own concoctions for ailments for over the counter sales to clients or specific mix requests for clients as per doctors prescriptions etc, so the chemists use of it is not un feasable as recognized by SAIDS and it has to be in use in sufficient quantity and along with another banned performance enhancer to be considered a cheating substance according to UCI and WADA which clearly did not exist in this case or he would still be sitting at home instead of on his bike as he is now. There has never been mention of a second substance. Edited August 29, 2014 by Dustbug JA-Q001 and Tumbleweed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoBigBen Posted August 29, 2014 Share http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/2014/08/saids-accepts-decision-made-by-independent-tribunal-on-daryl-impey-doping-charge/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnvan Posted August 29, 2014 Share I didn't mean that there is double standards, I wa trying tos say imagine if BS or any athlete used another story like what I wrote would he have got off? are we now at a point where if something is found be it a PED or a masking which is both banned, one may use another person to take the fall for you and take responsibility for what is in your body, saids is opening themselves to a difficult and dangerous path, at the end of the day the athlete and athlete alone should be responsible for what is in there bodies, they pro's cant they have a doctor and pharmacist who understands the severity and implications of cross contamination. Sure - I take your point, but where do you draw the line for an athlete being responsible for what's in his body... Should DI have gone and had his capsules tested for banned substances because he is responsible for them. In some cases its just impossible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanbritchford Posted August 29, 2014 Share That story sounds a touch like horse S$&@ to me. Highly unlikely, but well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igknot Posted August 29, 2014 Share My question to those with a background of pharma or phsyiology or both . Taking Bicarbs to reduce the lactic acid in you blood stream ?http://doctoroffitness.com/resources/fitness-articles/item/q-a-using-bicarbonate-to-buffer-lactic-acid-in-athletes-2 Would the acid in your stomach not neutralize the bicarbs. Or are you going to increase the ph in your gut enough to leave some un-reacted bicarbs that your lower intestines can take it up and react with the lactic acid in your blood stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure Savage Posted August 29, 2014 Share Go Darryl!! Woot! Now go hammer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez-O Posted August 29, 2014 Share Anyone remember this on Lance Armstrong... Throughout his career only one test showed indications of the presence of doping products. In the 1999 Tour, a urine sample showed small traces of cortico-steroids. Armstrong was cleared, however, when his U.S. Postal team, produced a medical certificate showing that he used a cream to ease the pain of a saddle sore. Even that sample, however, was below the levels that would have triggered a positive result at the time. I can't believe a medical professional would lie / fake a report to help out a cyclist! I bet this is the only professional to EVER do so ryanbritchford and Patchelicious 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosmonooit Posted August 29, 2014 Share Attention Nay Sayers! SAIDS: “We’re Satisfied Impey Was Not At Fault” http://www.bicycling.co.za/news-people/saids-satisfied-impey-fault/ The SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) announced today that it has accepted the decision of the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal in relation to Daryl Impey of the doping violation charge. The Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal stated that Impey did not dispute the presence of Probenecid, a prohibited substance, from a sample collected from him at the Cycling SA Time Trial Championships in Durban on 6 February 2014. Khalid Galant, SAIDS CEO explains that Impey’s lawyers submitted a defense of ‘no fault or negligence’ on the basis that Impey had unknowingly come into contact with trace amounts of Probenecid following the collection of empty gelatin capsules from a pharmacy in Durban. 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,” Galant explained. “Under the Anti-Doping Rules, SAIDS is required to vigorously pursue all anti-doping rule violations within our jurisdiction. We did so and checked the veracity of Impey’s account to the fullest extent possible. We sought opinions from our own experts, which confirmed that cross-contamination was indeed possible in the manner proposed by Impey’s experts. Galant adds that SAIDS is satisfied with the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal’s finding that Daryl Impey was not at fault for the doping violation on the facts of this particular case and that he should not face any further consequences. “We would like to take this opportunity to remind all athletes that, due to the principle of strict liability, athletes must exercise extreme caution at all times with regards to any food and/or medical products they may come into contact with.” concludes Galant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted August 29, 2014 Share Not really double standards. DI - accidentally and unknowingly injested a trace amount of non-performance enhancing substance due to the neglince of a pharmacist. BS - intentionally and in full knowledgle took performance enhancing testorone while competing without an exemption ...Agreed. Very to the point and accurate. I fail to see why other people are comparing the cases. The only thing they have in common was that SAIDS took too long to reach both conclusions. This doesn't mean their conclusions were wrong though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanbritchford Posted August 29, 2014 Share Hang on at the beginning of this the articles all said probenicide was a marking agent and that no body really used the product anymore,and hadn't for years. Now the excuse is that a pharmacist conveniently had this chemical on his fingers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 29, 2014 Share Hang on at the beginning of this the articles all said probenicide was a marking agent and that no body really used the product anymore,and hadn't for years. Now the excuse is that a pharmacist conveniently had this chemical on his fingers??? We did discuss to long length in the other thread the other uses of this drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted August 29, 2014 Share Hang on at the beginning of this the articles all said probenicide was a marking agent and that no body really used the product anymore,and hadn't for years. Now the excuse is that a pharmacist conveniently had this chemical on his fingers???Also used for treating gout etc....athletes abuse common medications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted August 29, 2014 Share Off topic: Wonder if they ever caught that guy that gave Contador the contaminated meat I heard he was caught and they butchered him. Hat, coat...door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headshot Posted August 29, 2014 Share Hang on at the beginning of this the articles all said probenicide was a marking agent and that no body really used the product anymore,and hadn't for years. Now the excuse is that a pharmacist conveniently had this chemical on his fingers??? Not on his hands, on the pill counter that dispensed DI's empty caps. It seems that Probenecid is not a capsule but a tablet so the possibility of contamination is there. I would like to know how much of the banned drug needed to "leak" onto the empty caps to give a positive test. It does not look as if this evidence was part of the inquiry, or was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubehunter Posted August 29, 2014 Share Attention Nay Sayers! SAIDS: “We’re Satisfied Impey Was Not At Fault” http://www.bicycling...ed-impey-fault/ “Under the Anti-Doping Rules, SAIDS is required to vigorously pursue all anti-doping rule violations within our jurisdiction. We did so and checked the veracity of Impey’s account to the fullest extent possible. We sought opinions from our own experts, which confirmed that cross-contamination was indeed possible in the manner proposed by Impey’s experts. Lets just highlight this piece again, so that those experts of the hub trying to ride into the sunset with this part can see it all over again.... dracs, Tumbleweed and Wannabe 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now