Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

08 Jan 2018 23:24

macbindle wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Do we have to wait for his explanation to confirm that he is a doper?

I don't think so. At least I don't care for his explanation. Well, I want to know what he has to say just to have a good laugh.


In so far as Salbutamol is deemed doping ONLY if no reasonable explanation can be given for an amount in his urine that exceeds what is permitted. He hasn't presented an explanation yet. It's not confirmed, at least in the eyes of sports rules.

Actually, I don't care about his explanation either. For me a ban for Salbutamol or no ban won't satiate my curiosity. For me its a huge unintended red-herring. Ive no idea how he came to have so much in his body, but I strongly believe that it does not explain his performance.

I think there is something else. That 'something else' might even be something yet to be even on the anti-doping radar.

Wouldn't that be ironic if so? Taking next level super dope, but banned for a blue inhaler.


Agreed - if Froome can prove / recreate the level from a pharmokinetic study, or prove mishandling / testing of his pee then he won't be a confirmed doper. However I find it very unlikely that he'll succeed on either count. Red F's point about being twice the very generous limit does kind of scupper any chance he has.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,364
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

09 Jan 2018 07:25

Appears that we might never know what we don't know -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ulissis-salbutamol-ruling-kept-secret-froomes-might_454257
Many have drawn comparisons between Froome and Ulissi. The Italian served a nine-month ban for high levels of Salbutamol. Both he and Froome tested for similar levels of Salbutamol — Ulissi with 1,920 ng/l to Froome’s 2,000. Both argue they suffer from asthma. So it’s natural to look at the Ulissi case to guess what might happen with Froome.

Efforts to parse documents for a comparison between the two cases have proven frustrating. Why? Because the Ulissi documents were never released.

No one in the public ever read those documents, however. Swiss Anti-Doping authorities confirmed to VeloNews that the agency does not publicly release documents involving disciplinary actions. A request to view the Ulissi documents was denied.

And just like Ulissi’s ruling, details surrounding Froome’s case might never be publicly revealed.
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,241
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

09 Jan 2018 08:44

Robert5091 wrote:Appears that we might never know what we don't know -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ulissis-salbutamol-ruling-kept-secret-froomes-might_454257
Many have drawn comparisons between Froome and Ulissi. The Italian served a nine-month ban for high levels of Salbutamol. Both he and Froome tested for similar levels of Salbutamol — Ulissi with 1,920 ng/l to Froome’s 2,000. Both argue they suffer from asthma. So it’s natural to look at the Ulissi case to guess what might happen with Froome.

Efforts to parse documents for a comparison between the two cases have proven frustrating. Why? Because the Ulissi documents were never released.

No one in the public ever read those documents, however. Swiss Anti-Doping authorities confirmed to VeloNews that the agency does not publicly release documents involving disciplinary actions. A request to view the Ulissi documents was denied.

And just like Ulissi’s ruling, details surrounding Froome’s case might never be publicly revealed.


Proper thing ... you’d want, expect and deserve the same confidentiality if it were you. That the public knows all the details serves little purpose beyond a satisfied curiosity. Of course, curiosity is normal ... but accepting uncertainty can contribute to your good health.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 09:24

A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 10:38

Vayerism wrote:A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out


Image
:confused: :confused: :confused:
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,470
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 10:49

Vayerism wrote:A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out


Whether your theory is right -- some kind of adverse reaction with other substances, sounds plausible to me -- the question you post is at the heart of the case -- and also why it is frustrating that Ulissi documents aren't available. Surely there's answer there, given that Sal levels were similar. I agree that what we might be seeing is the "topper," as I doubt that Salbutamol is enough to build a doping regime around.
Bolder
Member
 
Posts: 428
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 10:53

Vayerism wrote:A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out


I think you are reading that paper wrong.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,172
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:14

"In a recent study by Hancoxet al 50 clear evidence of tolerance to the bronchodilator action of inhaled β agonist was seen in 34 asthmatic patients following six weeks treatment with regular inhaled terbutaline in a dose of 1 mg four times daily. After inducing bronchoconstriction with methacholine, the acute response to sequential doses of inhaled salbutamol was significantly reduced compared with placebo"

KB - I don't think I am, corticosteroids reduced the response to inhaled salbutamol, they had to give a more powerful corticosteroid to overcome this impact

"but the addition of regular budesonide to terbutaline in a dose of 400 μg twice daily did not prevent this effect. In one in vitro study some protection against the development of tolerance was achieved with the administration of dexamethasone,15 which is arguably a more potent corticosteroid"

I think consistent use of corticosteroids inhibits the response to Salbuamol.

I maintain an internal logic if nothing else ;)
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:32

Vayerism wrote:"In a recent study by Hancoxet al 50 clear evidence of tolerance to the bronchodilator action of inhaled β agonist was seen in 34 asthmatic patients following six weeks treatment with regular inhaled terbutaline in a dose of 1 mg four times daily. After inducing bronchoconstriction with methacholine, the acute response to sequential doses of inhaled salbutamol was significantly reduced compared with placebo"

KB - I don't think I am, corticosteroids reduced the response to inhaled salbutamol, they had to give a more powerful corticosteroid to overcome this impact


Terbutaline isn't a corticosteroid, it's in the same class of drugs as Salbutamol. If you read the first part of the paper you'll see they describe a likely pathway to loss of responsiveness through uncoupling of beta receptors and G-proteins. Corticosteroids reverse this. Corticosteroids also increase the rate of gene transcription that increases the number of b receptors synthesised.

Terbutaline is, I believe, longer acting than salbutamol as it is less likely to be metabolised by COMT, which would mean it likely has a stronger binding affinity and is more likely to desensitise the beta receptor it binds to. The part quoted above indicates this. Treatment with Terbutaline reduces Salbutamol effectiveness as it's more likely to cause desensitisation.

"but the addition of regular budesonide to terbutaline in a dose of 400 μg twice daily did not prevent this effect. In one in vitro study some protection against the development of tolerance was achieved with the administration of dexamethasone,15 which is arguably a more potent corticosteroid"

I think consistent use of corticosteroids inhibits the response to Salbuamol.

I maintain an internal logic if nothing else ;)


this is saying that Budesonide (which is a corticosteroid) isn't strong enough to reverse the effects of Terbutaline, a stronger corticosteroid was required.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,172
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:46

Well there goes my internal logic:)
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:49

So basically he'd need to be on another stronger beta 2, to limit the impact of sal, which would be alleviated by a strong corticosteroid.

Maybe, but less sexy
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:51

"The results suggest that a β agonist facilitates the actions of inhaled corticosteroids, perhaps simply by improving airway drug deposition or, alternatively, by enhancing the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids at a subcellular level.26"

That's interesting
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 11:52

also interesting

Although the design of most of these studies may not permit final conclusions to be drawn, their results suggest that the benefits of long acting β agonists are likely to be greatest among patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids, thus raising the possibility that a positive interaction may be occurring. This seems more plausible than that long acting β agonists have intrinsic anti-inflammatory effects

On Corticosteroids and beta 2's
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 12:25

Vayerism wrote:So basically he'd need to be on another stronger beta 2, to limit the impact of sal, which would be alleviated by a strong corticosteroid.

Maybe, but less sexy


This would be very disease/treatment dependent. The body produces corticosteroids (cortisol being the one people will recognise and, I believe, the route of the class name) that will do the same job as exogenous corticosteroids. This is what happens in healthy individuals. Mild asthma, or asthma that only occurs under specific, rare conditions, that can be treated with the occasional use of salbutamol might not need exogenous corticos to reverse Salbutmaol tolerance (and this tolerance will be person specific anyway). More severe asthma may require corticos due to increased use of Salbutamol or similar or other similar products. This is a fairly valid explanation for why Fancy Bears found a good few cortico TUEs (I'm not saying it's the real reason, just a very useful cover if one were needed). It's also probably a contributory factor as to why corticosteroids are only banned in competition (along with their other uses).

This is where the problems with the TUE system come in and highlight how easy it could be to game the system. It's a really difficult area to control. A move to externally funded doctors from a central pool would massively help, I've suggested that before here. But there would nee to be a will.

Vayerism wrote:"The results suggest that a β agonist facilitates the actions of inhaled corticosteroids, perhaps simply by improving airway drug deposition or, alternatively, by enhancing the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids at a subcellular <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">level.26</span>"

That's interesting


Vayerism wrote:also interesting

Although the design of most of these studies may not permit final conclusions to be drawn, their results suggest that the benefits of long acting β agonists are likely to be greatest among patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids, thus raising the possibility that a positive interaction may be occurring. This seems more plausible than that long acting β agonists have intrinsic anti-inflammatory effects

On Corticosteroids and beta 2's


Both of those are definitely interesting. Of course, this is in relation to Salbutamol etc. as a treatment for asthma, but I think it would be reasonable to think that it could extend to the possible thermogenic effects of these drugs.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,172
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

09 Jan 2018 12:31

I don’t see that the details of Ulissi’s case are that important. The panel probably treated his arguments the same as CAS treated Petacchi’s arguments. I don’t see any important differences in their cases. His lawyer has actually said quite a bit about the case.

In any case, even all the details of the Ulissi case wouldn’t be nearly as helpful as riders like Ulissi, Petacchi and Piepoli just coming clean. They probably know exactly what happened, and why, but aren’t going to help by being honest.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,708
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Froome Talk Only

09 Jan 2018 14:22

any danger they picked Salmeterol instead of salbutamol.

That explains pretty much everything. Wrong version of the drug

Ha!
Vayerism
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re: Froome Talk Only

10 Jan 2018 12:04

It's all fairly straightforward. The doc just accidentially gave Froomey the new, improved BIG Ventilon.

Image
User avatar Froomster
Junior Member
 
Posts: 110
Joined: 18 Jul 2013 13:23

10 Jan 2018 12:14

Tim Wellens speaks out about the puffs and the grey zone:

https://www.rtbf.be/sport/cyclisme/detail_tim-wellens-anti-puff-anti-langue-de-bois-anti-omerta?id=9806517

It's an interesting interview in French, to be noted he is anti-puff and anti-TUE. He abandoned TdF refusing TUE's.

"If the public would know how many riders are on the puff"

"As a pro rider, I do a lot of tests in the hospital, I sometimes feel some discomfort in the bronchi, so I learned that with a puff I could increase my breathing capacity by 7 or 8%! The doctors told me that I could use a puff, without a certificate, but I'm against puffs, I do not want to improve my breathing by 7% that way, and I think that when we starts using puffs, after we do not know how to live without, I refuse to be dependent on this kind of things."

"When I was a beginner, five of my seven teammates had a puff! I can accept that a person needs a puff but not five out of seven."

"I would like it to be white or black and not gray. We all know that a product like cortisone - which is in the gray zone - causes a lot of benefits in terms of physical benefits. When riders use it, it's obviously annoying. It's called ... cheating! Sometimes, because we are sick, we have no choice, we must use it. But we can still decide to stop (riding) "
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,875
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

10 Jan 2018 14:29

What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re:

10 Jan 2018 14:51

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview


It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,875
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Escarabajo, Google Adsense [Bot] and 31 guests

Back to top