Log in:  

Register

All About Salbutamol

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

What will the verdict in Froome's salbutamol case?

He will be cleared
43
34%
3 month ban
4
3%
6 month ban
15
12%
9 month ban
24
19%
1 year ban
16
13%
2 year ban
21
17%
4 year ban
3
2%
 
Total votes : 126

12 Jul 2018 12:20

To contribute anything to this thread, one needs at least a basic knowledge of science, logic and probability.
topcat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 04 Jul 2016 21:59

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Jul 2018 13:20

Medical science is not my forte, but common sense and logic tells me that if a rider like Froome, who must have been tested hundreds of times over the last 6 years, has never previously tested over the salbuatmol threshold, let alone record a result double the limit, despite supposedly taking the drug consistently for years, then the chances of his body producing such a result without him exceeding the maximum allowed dosage on that day must be infinitely small. Almost impossible. All the 'clever' journal articles and studies in the world will not convince me otherwise.

Since it is also highly unlikely that a team as organised as Sky and a rider as meticulous as Froome was so silly as to simply take a few too many puffs, then it follows that the whole 'how many puffs' question is simple misdirection and largely irrelevant. The amount of the drug in his system, and the causes of the stuff up leading to such a high amount, surely lie elsewhere.

Which is why for me so much of what has been released regarding the reasoning for the 'no AAF' decision, from the importance placed on Froome's self-reported dosages during the Vuelta, to the bizarre 'why would he dope?' argument, simply convince me that WADA lost the will or interest to pursue the case properly. Not because of the 'science', but due to political and/or financial considerations.
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re:

12 Jul 2018 14:10

samhocking wrote:

It means there is a 90% chance that the positive is genuine


Twisting a 10% false positive simulation model also being 90% true positive is ambiguous is it not? Surely the 10% false positive model simulation was based on the the allowed max amount was inhaled and within limits, not illegal amounts that would be required to suggest the other 90% were true positive in Froomes own data?


The probability of a false positive + that of a genuine positive by definition = 100%. Saying there is a 10% chance of a false positive means there is a probability of 90% of a genuine positive.

The issue concerns the acceptable probability of a false positive. As I said, for a standard doping test, 10% is far too high, because the test will be applied to thousands of athletes, resulting in about 10% x the number tested. That's not the case with salbutamol, because a) the number of athletes who have asthma is probably < 10% of all athletes; and b) the 10% only refers to athletes taking 800 ug shortly before being tested. So even if this model is correct, the number of actual false positives would be quite low. And the stats bear that out--very few AAFs.

However, 10% is still far too high, because WADA can't assume athletes usually will not take 800 ug. As long as they're allowed to, one has to assume the worst case, that they're always taking that much. That's only fair.

All of what I've just said applies to a test applied to a large population. But Froome's model only applies to him. It's not intended to apply to others. If it did, and WADA accepted the conclusion, they would be forced to change the theshold. The 10% false positive rate rate (assuming they really found that high a figure, which I doubt) refers to the chances of Froome--only he--exceeding the threshold or limit if he took 800 ug. And in those circumstances, 10% ought to low enough. It means the odds that he took the allowed amount are about 10:1. Not very likely.

So how can they conclude that the results are "consistent with taking a legal dose"? The balance of probabilities also applies to weighing various other explanations. What is the probability he intentionally doped? What is the probability he intentionally inhaled too much, because he needed it, and lied about it? What is the probability that he accidentally inhaled too much, and didn't realize that? All of this was referred to by UCI when they stated as a factor in the decision that Froome was of course allowed to take some salbutamol for therapeutic purposes. It's not like EPO, where the probability that someone took it for doping would be considered very high.

I assume WADA decided all of these probabilities were less than 10% (or less than whatever the figure the model came up with), making the false positive, though quite unlikely, still the most likely scenario. The problem, of course, is there is no way to estimate accurately the probabilities of these other possibilities. It's sheer guesswork.

Mamil wrote:Medical science is not my forte, but common sense and logic tells me that if a rider like Froome, who must have been tested hundreds of times over the last 6 years, has never previously tested over the salbuatmol threshold, let alone record a result double the limit, despite supposedly taking the drug consistently for years, then the chances of his body producing such a result without him exceeding the maximum allowed dosage on that day must be infinitely small.


That's why it was so important for Froome to establish he didn't take 800 ug except on that one day, or a few other days. Part of the explanation for the spike is to be that he took far more that one day than he ordinarily did. The remainder of the argument is that there is very high variation in the relationship of dose take to urine level. However, the part about his exceeding the limit by so much is, as you allude to, harder to explain. If he went over the limit one time, one would expect it would not be by very much.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,776
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 15:37

Merckx index wrote:That's why it was so important for Froome to establish he didn't take 800 ug except on that one day, or a few other days. Part of the explanation for the spike is to be that he took far more that one day than he ordinarily did. The remainder of the argument is that there is very high variation in the relationship of dose take to urine level. However, the part about his exceeding the limit by so much is, as you allude to, harder to explain. If he went over the limit one time, one would expect it would not be by very much.


That makes sense. But as others have said, the fact that Froome has seemingly been allowed to use self-reporting of dosages as part of the reasoning for his results seems ludicrous, and a dangerous precedent, all the more so in the context of a threshold that is already acknowledged as generous, and a rider who at the time was winning a GT, rather than just clinging on and suffering in the grupetto. This is particularly so in the absence of any impartial, controlled baseline. Froome's team argued that a pharmacokinetic study was not relevant because it couldn't replicate GT conditions, but surely it should have been countered that it would still be important, indeed necessary, to obtain at least some idea of his dosage/concentration correlation in a controlled study, even if it couldn't be said that the results of this were definitive in determining whether the recorded result was possible. Otherwise Froome's results for each day are all based on unverified data, easily capable of manipulation.

But since the lawyers challenged the entire validity of the pharmacokinetic study as part of the AAF review model, since it can't replicate the exact conditions in which test results are obtained and was therefore probably argued as lacking procedural fairness for athletes, and WADA accepted this, then WADA's method for testing and making determinations on salbutamol AAFs, and any other controlled substances, is broken, whether they admit it or not. Once WADA accepted that their assessment model was defective, it's a quick and slippery slope to them caving in.
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: All About Salbutamol

13 Jul 2018 19:11

"When it was put to Wada that they only had Froome’s word for his salbutamol intake, Rabin accepted that he could not be “absolutely sure of the dose that has been taken”. He said: “That is not possible with the level of variability with salbutamol, for a simple reason – with inhaled salbutamol, part of it is going into your gut intestinal tract, very similar to an oral intake. So there is quite a bit of variability even for anyone inhaling.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut?CMP=share_btn_tw

Love the second part of his quote...nothing to do with the self reporting but hey...nothing like a red herring......

you can't make these guys up :D
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: All About Salbutamol

13 Jul 2018 20:10

gillan1969 wrote:"When it was put to Wada that they only had Froome’s word for his salbutamol intake, Rabin accepted that he could not be “absolutely sure of the dose that has been taken”. He said: “That is not possible with the level of variability with salbutamol, for a simple reason – with inhaled salbutamol, part of it is going into your gut intestinal tract, very similar to an oral intake. So there is quite a bit of variability even for anyone inhaling.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut?CMP=share_btn_tw

Love the second part of his quote...nothing to do with the self reporting but hey...nothing like a red herring......

you can't make these guys up :D


It's pretty simple logic. If you aren't allowed to believe Froome when he says he inhaled 800 ug, no more, on stage 18, then how can you believe him when he says how much he took on other stages? The whole point of the proceedings is because you can't take an athlete at his word. If they really wanted to know the relationship between dose and urine level, why didn't they have him do the lab tests? Even if they insist--without any published evidence, and in large part rejected by UCI--that the conditions in the Vuelta were different, wouldn't you want to do a lab test to show just how different the conditions were? Wouldn't that be pretty relevant to the next time a rider has an AAF in a GT?

The story also notes that the decision to allow Froome to skip the test was not made until near the end, in June. So either Froome took the test earlier, and failed, or he managed to stall all that time.

That bit about inhaling vs. swallowing is a red herring, but it could also be used against Froome's case. If their point is that more of it would be swallowed than inhaled during the race--because of the breathing hard, paying attention to the race, maybe the lung infection--then that should reduce urine levels, because swallowed salbutamol is metabolized and takes longer to be excreted. It might increase variability, but that's a factor that could easily be tested in the lab.
Last edited by Merckx index on 13 Jul 2018 20:15, edited 1 time in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,776
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

13 Jul 2018 20:15

Merckx index wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:"When it was put to Wada that they only had Froome’s word for his salbutamol intake, Rabin accepted that he could not be “absolutely sure of the dose that has been taken”. He said: “That is not possible with the level of variability with salbutamol, for a simple reason – with inhaled salbutamol, part of it is going into your gut intestinal tract, very similar to an oral intake. So there is quite a bit of variability even for anyone inhaling.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut?CMP=share_btn_tw

Love the second part of his quote...nothing to do with the self reporting but hey...nothing like a red herring......

you can't make these guys up :D[/quote

It's pretty simple logic. If you aren't allowed to believe Froome when he says he inhaled 800 ug, no more, on stage 18, then how can you believe him when he says how much he took on other stages? The whole point of the proceedings is because you can't take an athlete at his word. If they really wanted to know the relationship between dose and urine level, why didn't they have him do the lab tests? Even if they insist--without any published evidence, and in large part rejected by UCI--that the conditions in the Vuelta were different, wouldn't you want to do a lab test to show just how different the conditions were? Wouldn't that be pretty relevant to the next time a rider has an AAF in a GT?

The story also notes that the decision to allow Froome to skip the test was not made until near the end, in June. So either Froome took the test earlier, and failed, or he managed to stall all that time.


Thank you for you're extremely insightful post's. I take their are no governing bodies to ever appeal this decision ?
chuuurles
New Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 08 Jun 2016 16:31

14 Jul 2018 05:40

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut
Maybe the weakness in the system is that we are being too nice”...‘You are going to have to take less, otherwise you need a TUE.’”


Seems to be an admittance of a faulty testing system.

... in this particular case there was a procedural agreement made by the UCI with the athlete to give him an opportunity to provide his explanation in the early stage.

Niggli admitted that until last month Wada had nonetheless expected Froome to undergo the test. “However in June we received a lot of explanation and a lot of different studies from the athlete,” he said. “And there were two factors. One was that reproducing the same conditions from this athlete in this particular case was almost impossible, in particular because he had an illness.

“The second part is that we got explanations which experts came to the conclusion were not inconsistent with having taken a therapeutic dose.”


So did Cookson or Lappy agree to let Froome explain himself? Whoever did, was it a breach of protocol? The CPKT test is now useless since every case will say it can not reproduce conditions exactly. The whole procedure seems to be just dragging out a decision until Froome does the TdF. ASO threatening to not allow Froome to race seems to have quickened UCI's decision.
"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: 3,019
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: All About Salbutamol

14 Jul 2018 07:00

chuuurles wrote:
Merckx index wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:"When it was put to Wada that they only had Froome’s word for his salbutamol intake, Rabin accepted that he could not be “absolutely sure of the dose that has been taken”. He said: “That is not possible with the level of variability with salbutamol, for a simple reason – with inhaled salbutamol, part of it is going into your gut intestinal tract, very similar to an oral intake. So there is quite a bit of variability even for anyone inhaling.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut?CMP=share_btn_tw

Love the second part of his quote...nothing to do with the self reporting but hey...nothing like a red herring......

you can't make these guys up :D[/quote

It's pretty simple logic. If you aren't allowed to believe Froome when he says he inhaled 800 ug, no more, on stage 18, then how can you believe him when he says how much he took on other stages? The whole point of the proceedings is because you can't take an athlete at his word. If they really wanted to know the relationship between dose and urine level, why didn't they have him do the lab tests? Even if they insist--without any published evidence, and in large part rejected by UCI--that the conditions in the Vuelta were different, wouldn't you want to do a lab test to show just how different the conditions were? Wouldn't that be pretty relevant to the next time a rider has an AAF in a GT?

The story also notes that the decision to allow Froome to skip the test was not made until near the end, in June. So either Froome took the test earlier, and failed, or he managed to stall all that time.


Thank you for you're extremely insightful post's. I take their are no governing bodies to ever appeal this decision ?


If I understand correctly, this was a decision to discontinue proceedings, as opposed to any sort of ruling, by the UCI. The decision to discontinue proceedings was taken by the UCI after WADA withdrew scientific support for the case.

So, any "appeal" would be a resumption of proceedings, rather than an appeal. I think only WADA or the UCI could do that. The chances in reality are zero.
User avatar wirral
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 28 Mar 2011 06:05

15 Jul 2018 19:17

I’ve discussed the Froome case in detail elsewhere, and I think it will be online soon, but here’s another salient point. Glaxo’s Daren Austin claimed that in computer simulations, a false positive rate as high as 10% may have resulted. I assume by false positive, he means a sample exceeding 1200 ng/ml. But what would be the probability of exceeding Froome’s corrected value of 1430 ng/ml?

We can estimate an upper limit on that from some published data. Several studies have published mean +/- SD values for urinary concentrations in samples following inhalation of 800 ug. The highest SD reported was 285 ng/ml. Like all the published lab studies, this examined between-subject variation, giving a group of subjects the same dose of salbutamol, and taking samples a certain time later. Austin’s simulation was based on within-subject variation, taking samples at different times (every day in the Vuelta) from the same subject. It’s widely recognized that between-subject variation is usually greater than within-subject variation, because differences in physiology between different subjects are expected to be greater than fluctuations in physiology in a single subject. But to be conservative, let's assume that the variation in Froome’s samples was just as great, 285 ng/ml.

Using this value, and the 10% of samples exceeding 1200 ng/ml reported for Austin’s simulation, we can determine the % of samples exceeding 1430 ng/ml. The 10% figure corresponds to 1.3 SD above the mean in a random distribution, or 285 x 1.3 = 370 ng/ml. So the mean of Froome’s samples (as calculated for 800 ug inhalation) would be 1200 – 370 = 830 ng/ml. This is more than twice as high as the highest mean reported in lab studies, but it would be expected that if Austin’s simulations have any chance of reaching that 1430 ng/ml level, his mean value had to be much higher than the mean of other subjects. Outliers in the published studies have urinary levels around this high, and we assume Froome is an outlier.

If his mean value was 830 ng/ml, then 1430 ng/ml is 600 ng/ml above the mean, which = 2.1 SD (600/285). This corresponds to about 1.8% of samples. Thus if 10% of Froome’s samples were predicted to exceed the limit of 1200 ng/ml, less than 2% would exceed his actual value of 1430 ng/ml. In other words, the probability that Froome took more than 800 ug is > 98%. That sure sounds like beyond reasonable doubt territory to me. And remember, that is making very conservative assumptions that in effect increase the final probability of 1.8% calculated.

Now maybe Austin has very different numbers. Maybe he claims that Froome's samples, because of his efforts and illness, exhibited a degree of variation unknown to science previously. Maybe he claims that Froome's mean values are higher than just about any that have been published. Maybe he has reason to believe the distribution isn't random. But taking him at his word about a false positive rate of 10%; assuming Froome's typical urinary levels following inhalation of salbutamol are among the highest ever recorded; and assuming the variation among his samples is as high as the highest published between subject variation--that's being, to put it mildly, extremely generous. And unless/until the report is published, he and the rest of Froome’s defense, and WADA, and UCI, can count on more criticism like this.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,776
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

17 Jul 2018 13:07

Here’s a very interesting parallel to the Froome case. A few years after the EPO test was published and approved, a few cases of apparent false positives emerged. One involved Rutger Beke, a Belgian triathlete, who was originally sanctioned, but then won an appeal. Beke’ argument was that when he engaged in intense exercise, his body produced a lot of different proteins, one or more of which behaved like EPO on the gel test. He claimed that his kidneys malfunctioned, so that these proteins that normally would have been reabsorbed into the blood stream were excreted into the urine. Sound familiar?

After extensive lab tests, an article was published that upheld his claim:

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/107/12/4711?ijkey=f4754747c0764b147009744d429d3883e5efed39&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Beke commented:
"EPO is a protein," Beke said. "Everybody has it in their body. The main problem is when I do high physical activity, especially anaerobic, I produce a lot of proteins. The problem is that with everybody else there is a filter in the kidneys that stops your proteins from ending up in your urine. When I do anaerobic exercise the filter doesn't work properly and all these proteins end up in my urine.

"Now the big problem is that the anti-doping agencies don't see that the EPO proteins I produce are the same as synthetic. So I had to prove that mine are natural. Unfortunately it took 10 months."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/sep/20/athletics.sport

The article, from 2005, concludes with this beauty: “it seems premature to condemn Armstrong and others as cheats.”

Suppose WADA had modified its rules, as it could have, to say that an EPO AAF would be cleared if the athlete could prove in the lab that he actually produced these proteins which interfered with the EPO test. Give Beke credit for doing that (though see below). Then suppose an athlete tested positive for EPO, but argued that because of illness and other factors, he could not replicate the conditions that led to secretion of these other proteins. WADA accepted this argument—citing unpublished studies that sometimes the conditions that resulted in an EPO false positive could not be replicated in the lab—and cleared the athlete.

This is basically the way the Froome case was handled. Notice that WADA did not simply break its own rule. There is nothing in the Code—wasn’t before, there isn’t now—that specifies that an athlete may be excused from the test if the conditions under which the AAF occurred can’t be replicated.

Oh, and there’s a relevant postscript to the case. Don Catlin examined Beke’s claims, and found several flaws in the study. And he concluded with this:

Finally, the athlete has a puzzling renal disease characterized by a concentrating defect and an excessive number of casts that apparently does not interfere with his athletic prowess. He should have a full nephrology evaluation.

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/108/5/1778.1?sso-checked=true

I think Froome should have a full nephrology evaluation, too. After all, if he excretes salbutamol differently from everyone else while riding GTs, who knows what other havoc his kidneys may be wreaking on this body.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,776
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

17 Jul 2018 14:40

That's a very interesting explanation, Merckx index. I remember the case of Rutger Beke and I believe he was innocent and his case was well argued as a false positive. However in the case of Froome my guess is that his lawyers have studied precedents like this and used it to create "reasonable doubt" and let him get away with it.
La fatica in montagna per me è poesia (Fatigue in the mountains is poetry to me) - Marco Pantani
Van een ezel kunt ge geen koerspaard maken (You can't turn a donkey into a race horse) - Patrick Lefevere
User avatar Pantani_lives
Member
 
Posts: 1,287
Joined: 03 May 2010 13:27

29 Jul 2018 14:51

Pantani posted this in the Froome thread, deserves posting here as well:

Pantani_lives wrote:USADA head Travis Tygart says Froome's salbutamol case is a blow to WADA's credibility:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/44924435


Seems to be a conflict:

Tygart said in nearly 75,000 drug tests conducted by Usada since the salbutamol rule was updated in 2011, the organisation did not find "a single athlete" in any sport that exceeded the maximum permitted amount.


vs.

In response, a Wada spokesperson told BBC Sport: "Wada has publicly set out the reasoning for its position on the case of Mr Froome. Mr Tygart's assessment appears uninformed, is unconstructive, and, quite frankly is surprising given that Usada has itself previously taken the decision to close a salbutamol case where the athlete exceeded the threshold without a controlled pharmacokinetic study being conducted.


Maybe that was before 2011? In any case, we just have more trust-us-we-know-what-we’re-doing-and-aren’t-going-to-be-transparent. "Setting out the reasoning" is obviously not sufficient lacking details. Remember how Froome said, right after the announcement that he had been cleared, that the full report would be made public in a a few days? If he said he wanted it released, I don't know how UCI could prevent it, but even if they could, Froome in that event could publicly state that he wanted it released, but UCI wasn't allowing it. Just like this UCI vs. WADA on who initially reached the final decision, no one on either side has the balls to be open and honest about what happened. Maybe now that the TDF is over, someone will be more forthcoming, but I doubt it.

I have critiqued the decision based on the little we know about it here:

https://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Froome-adverse-analytical-finding/
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,776
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

29 Jul 2018 16:06

That's a very thorough article, MI. It's the deepest assessment of the case that I have found anywhere.
La fatica in montagna per me è poesia (Fatigue in the mountains is poetry to me) - Marco Pantani
Van een ezel kunt ge geen koerspaard maken (You can't turn a donkey into a race horse) - Patrick Lefevere
User avatar Pantani_lives
Member
 
Posts: 1,287
Joined: 03 May 2010 13:27

30 Jul 2018 11:26

Nothing (if nothing to hide) prevents Froome to realease the pleading of his team and lawyers!
User avatar poupou
Member
 
Posts: 751
Joined: 18 Jul 2009 23:27

Re: All About Salbutamol

11 Aug 2018 17:57

Merckx index wrote:all those unpublished studies that allegedly show how Froome could have had a very high urinary level from an allowed dose can just as easily be used to show that he could have been oral doping all along, but only had a high level once. He couldn't have been orally doping at the same dose on stage 18 as on all the other days, but the difference would not have to be that great--not once all this alleged variation is in play.

Hinault says that the parents of French junior cyclists are giving their kids Ventolin inhalers in the hopes that this will allow them to grow up to be just like Froome.
Hinault a estimé que l'impunité dont bénéficie Froome durait depuis «trop longtemps» et qu'elle nuisait au cyclisme jusque chez les jeunes.«Ils ont beaucoup d'argent pour le défendre, mais est-ce que c'est une bonne image pour le cyclisme ? Dans les courses de cadets, aujourd'hui, ils ont tous de la Ventoline alors qu'ils ne sont pas malades.»
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hinault-sticks-to-his-guns-regarding-chris-froome-comments/

But the funny thing about that, is that it shows that even aspiring would-be dopers still don't understand how to dope with salbutamol. All of these people (possibly including Hinault himself) are thinking the way to climb the Ventoux like Froome is to gas-huff Ventolin inhalers, in imitation of their idol Puff Daddy...when the truth is: the whole asthma-doping thing is a ruse to cover habitual use of oral salbutamol, out-of-competition. Resembles clenbuterol, but with plausible deniability, and not a strict-liability substance if caught.

So, not only did he get away with it, by escaping sanction... in addition, framing the narrative as a debate about asthma was very successful as distraction from the proper, substantial doping. With salbutamol being one of the metabolic tools in the Sky arsenal. Was that fact ever made clear in the mass media, or even in sporting journalism? I don't think so...

That having been said, this thread was a very good documentation for the future. Anyone inclined to look closely enough can find the proof of discrepancy between Froome and reality. He will not be entirely unscathed in retrospect
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

11 Aug 2018 23:21

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:So, not only did he get away with it, by escaping sanction... in addition, framing the narrative as a debate about asthma was very successful as distraction from the proper, substantial doping. With salbutamol being one of the metabolic tools in the Sky arsenal. Was that fact ever made clear in the mass media, or even in sporting journalism? I don't think so...


I don't think it was. Firstly because Sky, even after everything that has gone down, can still be very good at controlling the narrative, and secondly because for any mainstream journalist or publication to actually claim or insinuate that Froome was really taking salbutamol orally or by injection would be considered slanderous without evidence. It's quite simple to join the logical dots and determine that this is indeed what he was doing, but there's no actual direct evidence of it either from the data or any personal statements. So no-one was prepared to push that line for fear of recriminations from Sky. Guys like Kimmage alluded to it on podcasts or blogs, but not in print or in front of a camera.
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Aug 2018 06:41

Mamil wrote:I don't think it was. Firstly because Sky, even after everything that has gone down, can still be very good at controlling the narrative, and secondly because for any mainstream journalist or publication to actually claim or insinuate that Froome was really taking salbutamol orally or by injection would be considered slanderous without evidence. It's quite simple to join the logical dots and determine that this is indeed what he was doing, but there's no actual direct evidence of it either from the data or any personal statements. So no-one was prepared to push that line for fear of recriminations from Sky. Guys like Kimmage alluded to it on podcasts or blogs, but not in print or in front of a camera.
You're right about that, probably true. Evidence, but not proof. But as you know, I think a lot of people just missed the point, and I don't blame them, because it's not at all intuitive that oral salbutamol is being used in that way in sports doping. Seth Davidson is an attorney himself (and a MAMIL) and thus one of the few examples where someone got the salbutamol case right, by thinking independently. Seth 'goes there' explicitly, in this piece from the very beginning, last December... "no doubt at all that this is what Chris Froome has been doing"
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

A bit contrived in its pseudo-legalistic reasoning and writing style, but otherwise I thought that was a good article. Can't remember any other good examples of that specific subject having been exposed. (From the legal standpoint, about a possible claim of libel it probably makes not much difference that Seth wrote that on a personal blog, versus publishing it in print media)

Anyway, MerckxIndex and others succeeded in the original medico-legal intent of this "All About Salbutamol", the thread turned out to be quite extensive
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Aug 2018 11:29

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Mamil wrote:I don't think it was. Firstly because Sky, even after everything that has gone down, can still be very good at controlling the narrative, and secondly because for any mainstream journalist or publication to actually claim or insinuate that Froome was really taking salbutamol orally or by injection would be considered slanderous without evidence. It's quite simple to join the logical dots and determine that this is indeed what he was doing, but there's no actual direct evidence of it either from the data or any personal statements. So no-one was prepared to push that line for fear of recriminations from Sky. Guys like Kimmage alluded to it on podcasts or blogs, but not in print or in front of a camera.
You're right about that, probably true. Evidence, but not proof. But as you know, I think a lot of people just missed the point, and I don't blame them, because it's not at all intuitive that oral salbutamol is being used in that way in sports doping. Seth Davidson is an attorney himself (and a MAMIL) and thus one of the few examples where someone got the salbutamol case right, by thinking independently. Seth 'goes there' explicitly, in this piece from the very beginning, last December... "no doubt at all that this is what Chris Froome has been doing"
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

A bit contrived in its pseudo-legalistic reasoning and writing style, but otherwise I thought that was a good article. Can't remember any other good examples of that specific subject having been exposed. (From the legal standpoint, about a possible claim of libel it probably makes not much difference that Seth wrote that on a personal blog, versus publishing it in print media)

Anyway, MerckxIndex and others succeeded in the original medico-legal intent of this "All About Salbutamol", the thread turned out to be quite extensive


This part is a bit nonsensical if you consider Froome's performance in 2013 compared to 2017 or now:

If you have any doubt at all that this is what Chris Froome has been doing, take a look first at this photo of his legs from 2013. Then compare it with 2017. In four short years he has put on a visible amount of muscle and lost weight. Not a lot of muscle, and not a lot of weight. Just a marginal gain … and not coincidentally one that has gone hand-in-glove with his very public announcement of a lifelong asthma condition that requires constant use of Salbutamol.

i.e. he was more dominant in 2013 than later, when he is supposedly using salbutamol for weight loss/muscle gain.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,415
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Aug 2018 17:59

bigcog wrote:This part is a bit nonsensical if you consider Froome's performance in 2013 compared to 2017 or now:

If you have any doubt at all that this is what Chris Froome has been doing, take a look first at this photo of his legs from 2013. Then compare it with 2017. In four short years he has put on a visible amount of muscle and lost weight. Not a lot of muscle, and not a lot of weight. Just a marginal gain … and not coincidentally one that has gone hand-in-glove with his very public announcement of a lifelong asthma condition that requires constant use of Salbutamol.

i.e. he was more dominant in 2013 than later, when he is supposedly using salbutamol for weight loss/muscle gain.
Yeah, I also disagree with Seth Davidson about those photos of body composition being proof of anything, since there are other drugs which can (and were used) to achieve the same results - also the "Before" and "After" don't necessarily correlate with WT racing victories. Seth Davidson also claimed in his "Truth About Chris Froome's Doping" piece that the performance-enhancing effects of inhaled salbutamol are "none", which is just untrue. For the reasons already covered in this thread and others like the XC skiing doping threads. That said, Davidson got it mostly right, almost immediately after the Froome case broke in the media. Pretty good one from a crit-racing 'Mamil' who invites Sky to sue him in US court
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

Back to top