Home
News breaks just days before Tour de France; rider denies ever knowingly using masking agent

Just three days before the start of the Tour de France in Leeds and one day after 21-year-old Simon Yates was a surprise inclusion in their Tour lineup, it has been revealed that Orica-GreenEdge’s Daryl Impey, who wore the leader’s jersey during last year’s race, has been charged with a doping offence.

The South African Insititute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) confirmed today that the 30-year-old South African had tested positive for the prescription diuretic, Probenecid, which can be used as a masking agent. Impey dentes ever having knowingly used the substance and has vowed to clear his name.

The revelation of doping infringements just before the Tour starts has become almost a traditional part of the pre-race build up as labs, governing bodies, teams and national federations seek to avoid the embarrassment and turmoil involved with pulling a rider from a team mid-race.

Impey's positive result came from samples taken at the time trials during the South African Road Cycling Championships in Durban on 6 February this year, but according to SAIDS it is only being revealed now due to delays caused by factors including the death of a member of staff at the laboratory that conducted the tests. 

“Khalid Galant, CEO of SAIDS, explained: “The delay in making the announcement has been due to an extra confirmation analysis requirement, which is routine for banned substances of this nature.

“The unfortunate passing of a key staff member at the doping control laboratory in Bloemfontein in March 2014 also affected the standard turnaround time of presenting the final result of the samples from the SA Road Cycling Championships.”

Impey, not named in Orica-GreenEdge’s Tour de France team yesterday, is provisionally suspended from 23 June 2014 but will have the right to defend himself at an independent tribunal.

On his website, the cyclist said that he was notified of the adverse analytical finding on 23 June.

He went on: “I had no knowledge of Probenecid nor have I ever taken the substance knowingly in any manner. I am committed to drug-free sport and fully intend to take all steps necessary to clear myself of any suspicion.

“The notification came as a complete shock to me just days before the start of the Tour de France, particularly since anti-doping tests conducted on me on 8 and 9 February 2014 yielded no adverse results.

“I immediately flew back to South Africa and was present at the analysis of my B sample on 27 June 2014, the results of which confirmed the initial analysis.

“I am extremely distressed by the finding, as I have always raced clean throughout my career. Every result that I have achieved to date has been as a result of hard work and dedication on my part.

Impey added: “I notified my team immediately after being informed by Cycling South Africa of the adverse finding. I would like to thank them, my family and friends for their support during this difficult time. I remain confident that I will be vindicated and proved innocent of any wrongdoing.”

In a statement, his team said it “would like to underline that it respects Daryl Impey’s right to prove his full innocence and will not comment any further until the process has run its due course and final conclusion has been made.”

It added: “As per the team’s code of conduct, Daryl Impey will not feature on the team’s roster until the case has been closed and he is fully eligible to ride.”

Whatever the reason for the delay in Impey’s case, it means that news of the positive test breaks at a time when it is likely to cast a shadow over the Yorkshire Grand Départ, and also comes days after Tinkoff-Saxo stood down Roman Kreuziger due to biological passport irregularities. Seasoned Tour de France watchers will be aware however that such stories are a near-perennial part of the build-up to the race.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

32 comments

Avatar
Yennings [237 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Bad news but does this mean Adam Yates will get a ride in the Tour now, alongside Simon?

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Impey wasn't named in their Tour squad.

As they only announced their team yesterday, perhaps they knew this was coming and this is the reason for a) Him not being named and b) Them being the last to announce?

Avatar
anarchy [99 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

cunt

Avatar
therevokid [911 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

and so it begins ......  2

Avatar
Yennings [237 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Okay thanks only1redders, not sure the shouty capital letters were needed though, was only a perfectly innocent question...

Avatar
only1redders [54 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Yennings, no, Simon Yates is in the squad specifically because of Impey's withdrawal......and also the squad including Yates and excluding Impey has already been announced. Adam Yates has been deemed 'over-raced'

Apologies for previous caps - not sure why I felt that necessary!

Avatar
notfastenough [3661 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Yennings wrote:

Okay thanks only1redders, not sure the shouty capital letters were needed though, was only a perfectly innocent question...

I was thinking more of a Harry Enfield sketch - Oiii! Yennings! Noooo!

Avatar
Gkam84 [9068 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

We'll see what comes of this, if I have read everything that has come out so far.

He got tested on 6th February, tested positive for Probenecid by South African anti doping body, yet when he was tested on 7th and 8th February it was not found.

Then when his B sample was tested it still contained Probenecid.

I know a bit about Probenecid because quite a few of my family have kidney issues. It is used to prolong the effects of certain medications and prevents them just flooding through your body and out in your urine.

So as a masking agent it is perfect, depending on the type of drug you take. It will increase absorption into the body of the drug and prevent it being wasted out in urine. Unlike most masking agents which just increase your urine output, thus diluting the amount of drugs your produce in your sample. Probenecid keeps the drug in your body, preventing it from getting into your urine.

The problem with it, Probenecid only lasts around 4-6 hours. so unless he was particularly stupid and took it the morning of the race, I find it hard to see how it was still present enough in his sample to make it an illegal dose.

Avatar
VVV73 [408 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

An Australian Silver Medallist swimmer returned a positive to this a while ago and it was revealed it was in a medication a doctor had prescribed for a chest infection. He got suspended for 4 months.
I guess it is like horse racing, were he wasn't at fault, but was presented to races with a prohibited substance, so they have to do something, unless they were nobbled.

I will give benefit of doubt till case is heard. This news really did saddened me when I heard, as I am a big Greenedge fan.
I have to admit I commented to fellow Aussie cycling friends that Impey was absolutely flying early this year.
Lets hope it was all down to hard work  2
GOOD LUCK Daryl  17

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Is this a bad-news story?

Individually? Yes!
To our sport as a whole? No!

Let me explain.
On an individual level it is devastating. There is the long road to try to clear your name or the shame of admitting wrongdoing. And lets face it; even if you clear your name mud sticks.
On a sporting level this is good news. We are catching people who are either knowingly or unknowingly cheating. There are fewer and fewer places to hide. Even if we can't find the drug then we are starting to find the masking agents, the patterns of behaviour and the abnormal race results. The noose is getting tighter, and tighter and tighter. We have to be brave and hold our nerve, we have to keep peering under the rocks and in the dark places, we have to strive for a clean sport.

If we have the will and the drive then we will have a clean sport but the road will be long and in the stony places.

Here endeth the lesson.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1636 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Blow it out your ass lever monkey.

I doubt WADA and ADA are anywhere defeating doping. These cases are small busts. If they were really dealing with the issue Chris Horner would not have won the Vuelta.

The fact that it is masking agent suggests that most of the time they don't get caught because they've covered it up. Popping a rider for EPO or blood bags hardly, if ever, happens. Instead it's the secondary equipment that they get nailed e.g. Frank Schleck. It's easy to give the benefit of the doubt, but these guys will lie and twist and turn and deny till their blue in the face. You only need to see Lance do it to know how much.

The reason they ban these substances is that there is no reason it should be found in an athlete without deliberate consumption. And the athletes know better when it comes to what they can and can't use.

Avatar
levermonkey [646 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Blow it out your ass lever monkey.

I doubt WADA and ADA are anywhere defeating doping. These cases are small busts. If they were really dealing with the issue Chris Horner would not have won the Vuelta.

The fact that it is masking agent suggests that most of the time they don't get caught because they've covered it up. Popping a rider for EPO or blood bags hardly, if ever, happens. Instead it's the secondary equipment that they get nailed e.g. Frank Schleck. It's easy to give the benefit of the doubt, but these guys will lie and twist and turn and deny till their blue in the face. You only need to see Lance do it to know how much.

The reason they ban these substances is that there is no reason it should be found in an athlete without deliberate consumption. And the athletes know better when it comes to what they can and can't use.

Try reading what I wrote. Troll! That also goes for the illiterate morons who liked your comment without reading what you were commenting on!

I never said that we were anywhere near a clean sport, I said that the road is a long one. Are you saying we should stop trying?

So basically take your gratuitous abuse and blow that out of your arse. Note the spelling dickhead, I am neither American nor own a donkey.

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Froome's mate popped for a poz - I wonder if he'll still claim the peloton is largely clean now?

Avatar
kcr [106 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Probenecid will be familiar to any TdF fan with a long memory. Delgado tested positive while leading the 88 Tour, but got off on a technicality because it was banned by the IOC, not the UCI.
I wonder how much has changed if people are still using the same masking agent 26 years later?

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
kcr wrote:

Probenecid will be familiar to any TdF fan with a long memory. Delgado tested positive while leading the 88 Tour, but got off on a technicality because it was banned by the IOC, not the UCI.
I wonder how much has changed if people are still using the same masking agent 26 years later?

A great interview with Delgado in current Rouleur (issue 47, July 14), his attitude is that he didn't break the rules, because he didn't test positive for any banned substances, so no problem. Sound familiar?

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
levermonkey wrote:

I never said that we were anywhere near a clean sport, I said that the road is a long one. Are you saying we should stop trying?...

That depends on which side of the debate one sits. Some fans believe the UCI are complicit in maintaining a facade of fighting the fight whilst protecting conflicting interests.

Colin makes some good and valid points, all-be-it in a slightly aggressive manner.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

That depends on which side of the debate one sits. Some fans believe the UCI are complicit in maintaining a facade of fighting the fight whilst protecting conflicting interests.

Colin makes some good and valid points, all-be-it in a slightly aggressive manner.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were to move on to claiming that Team Sky and the UCI were responsible for 9/11.

It's a bit desperate.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

You've associated yourself with lunacy. As proven by that response.

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

You've associated yourself with lunacy. As proven by that response.

Care to expand pls?

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

There is an irony in asking someone to expand, then condensing the word 'please' to 'pls', but I think that your response of "So you sit on the other side of the fence, believe everything your told even if evidence points to the contrary, and don't question things" pretty much speaks for itself.

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

There is an irony in asking someone to expand, then condensing the word 'please' to 'pls', but I think that your response of "So you sit on the other side of the fence, believe everything your told even if evidence points to the contrary, and don't question things" pretty much speaks for itself.

Not really.

Anyway, try countering the points I've made re this case and doping in cycling, rather than trying to paint me as a lunatic (typical tactic seen in politics when the counter argument is weak!)

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if you were to move on to claiming that Team Sky and the UCI were responsible for 9/11.

It's a bit desperate.

So you sit on the other side of the fence, believe everything your told even if evidence points to the contrary, and don't question things.

That's fine and safe - but no need to paint me as a mad conspiracy-theorist, and try to debunk my position by associating me with lunacy!

Avatar
fukawitribe [1430 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
farrell wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if you were to move on to claiming that Team Sky and the UCI were responsible for 9/11.

It's a bit desperate.

So you sit on the other side of the fence, believe everything your told even if evidence points to the contrary, and don't question things.

I do find this quite strange coming from someone who seems to show little or no equivocation about their beliefs about some teams, no matter what the evidence.

Similarly, not agreeing with you does not, in my book, mean others merely "believe everything your told" - I think you go too far there.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
farrell wrote:

There is an irony in asking someone to expand, then condensing the word 'please' to 'pls', but I think that your response of "So you sit on the other side of the fence, believe everything your told even if evidence points to the contrary, and don't question things" pretty much speaks for itself.

Not really.

Anyway, try countering the points I've made re this case and doping in cycling, rather than trying to paint me as a lunatic (typical tactic seen in politics when the counter argument is weak!)

Ok, so at what point have believed everything I've been told?

At what point have I been shown evidence that I have dismissed?

At what point have I avoided questioning things?

None of those apply to me, yet here you are repeating them, presumably in the hope that it eventually appears true.

That approaching to slurring people is a popular tactic used by conspiracy theorists, screaming that everyone else must be wrong, have their heads in the sand etc.

Feels familiar.

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
farrell][quote=daddyELVIS wrote:

Ok, so at what point have believed everything I've been told?

At what point have I been shown evidence that I have dismissed?

At what point have I avoided questioning things?

None of those apply to me, yet here you are repeating them, presumably in the hope that it eventually appears true.

That approaching to slurring people is a popular tactic used by conspiracy theorists, screaming that everyone else must be wrong, have their heads in the sand etc.

Feels familiar.

Which, as you well know, was my exaggerated response to an exaggerated attack you first made against me:

Quote: "I wouldn't be surprised if you were to move on to claiming that Team Sky and the UCI were responsible for 9/11"

If you can't debate the points I make properly, don't attack me with trash-talk and not expect trash-talk back!

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

Ok, so at what point have believed everything I've been told?

At what point have I been shown evidence that I have dismissed?

At what point have I avoided questioning things?

None of those apply to me, yet here you are repeating them, presumably in the hope that it eventually appears true.

That approaching to slurring people is a popular tactic used by conspiracy theorists, screaming that everyone else must be wrong, have their heads in the sand etc.

Feels familiar.

Which, as you well know, was my exaggerated response to an exaggerated attack you first made against me:

Quote: "I wouldn't be surprised if you were to move on to claiming that Team Sky and the UCI were responsible for 9/11"

If you can't debate the points I make properly, don't attack me with trash-talk and not expect trash-talk back!

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:

I do find this quite strange coming from someone who seems to show little or no equivocation about their beliefs about some teams, no matter what the evidence.

Similarly, not agreeing with you does not, in my book, mean others merely "believe everything your told" - I think you go too far there.

Point 1) - which teams and what evidence?

Point 2) - I've answered above - hopefully you can now see the context in which it was written.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1430 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

I do find this quite strange coming from someone who seems to show little or no equivocation about their beliefs about some teams, no matter what the evidence.

Similarly, not agreeing with you does not, in my book, mean others merely "believe everything your told" - I think you go too far there.

Point 1) - which teams and what evidence?

Sky and almost anything, e.g. WADA reactions to Skys behaviour, published results, treatment of riders with anomalous results, the actual UCI regs regarding TUEs versus what people think, Froomes medical history, Brailsfords policies on doctors and so on.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Point 2) - I've answered above - hopefully you can now see the context in which it was written.

I can see someone lash out and then say, when pressed on that, "Oh but I only did it because you did, I didn't actually mean that". Clearly I can't say whether that was your intent, but I have reasons to doubt it.

Avatar
daddyELVIS [654 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

I do find this quite strange coming from someone who seems to show little or no equivocation about their beliefs about some teams, no matter what the evidence.

Similarly, not agreeing with you does not, in my book, mean others merely "believe everything your told" - I think you go too far there.

Point 1) - which teams and what evidence?

Sky and almost anything, e.g. WADA reactions to Skys behaviour, published results, treatment of riders with anomalous results, the actual UCI regs regarding TUEs versus what people think, Froomes medical history, Brailsfords policies on doctors and so on.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Point 2) - I've answered above - hopefully you can now see the context in which it was written.

I can see someone lash out and then say, when pressed on that, "Oh but I only did it because you did, I didn't actually mean that". Clearly I can't say whether that was your intent, but I have reasons to doubt it.

So not teams then, but one team. Thanks for clearing that up.

So you refute the evidence that I've seen that has led me to conclude that Sky and Brailsford spout PR bullsh!t about their ethics. That's fine, that's your stance, and I respect it. But let's get this clear:

1) You mentioned Sky in this thread, not me
2) I have never stated that Sky riders are doping
3) Just because I'm not a Sky fan, I still have a right to hit back at somebody who trash-talks me. Not a case of 'you said this first' - just a case of giving one back to somebody who needs to paint me as a lunatic conspiracy theorist to debate against me, instead of dealing with the points I've actually made.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1430 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

But let's get this clear:

1) You mentioned Sky in this thread, not me

Yes - in relation to your apparently un-shiftable attitude.

daddyELVIS wrote:

2) I have never stated that Sky riders are doping

You just say Sky are full of shit (like just now) and make insinuations - backing off when required, as here, by saying "oh but I never actually said they were cheating". MTFU and say what you mean - I may disagree with you, and vice versa, but i'd be more inclined to listen to what you have to say and have a shit load more respect. Opinions I can stand, school yard antics - not so much.

Pages