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

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 00:32

Merckx index wrote:
By the way, I find this Walsh claim extremely interesting for another reason than the ones I suggested before. Consider this possible sequence of events:

1) Froome never took salbutamol prior to joining Sky. I've already discussed the evidence for this, viz., a) no mention of a salbutamol TUE in the Fancy Bears hack of Froome's ADAMS account; and b) Froome himself, upon being confronted by the FB hack showing his prednisolone TUEs, said those were the only TUEs he ever had.

2) The year Froome joined Sky, a TUE was no longer needed to use salbutamol, up to the established limits. This of course was an invitation for any rider to orally dose, if he took a reasonable amount of caution. But even salbutamol levels well within the allowed amounts might look suspicious for a rider with no history of asthma. As long as Froome was a relatively unknown and unimportant rider, this was unlikely to be a problem, because this information is not public, and the difficulty of a reporter's obtaining it wouldn't be worth it for such a rider. But after the 2011 Vuelta, of course, this started to change, and after the 2013 Tour, Froome was gaining recognition as one of the best GC riders of his generation. So he not only began to use an inhaler, but made a public show of it, so everyone would know that he took salbutamol.

3) Initially, he told Kimmage he used salbutamol only for "great efforts". If Walsh's claim is correct, though Froome later changed this story. He no longer took salbutamol during a race. Why would he say this? Well, if the whole purpose of claiming to inhale was just a cover for oral dosing, actually using an inhaler during a race would not only be unnecessary, but I would think would hinder him. When you're on the edge of the red zone on a final climb, the last thing you want to do is pull our your inhaler and start puffing. So just dispense with that show. The point had already been made.

I'm not pushing this story as what likely has been going on. But I've seen nothing to refute it, and Froome, who could easily refute at least 1), by furnishing proof of his salbutamol TUE, so far hasn't done so. Also, it isn't an either-or situation. E.g., Froome could have mild, EIA, such that he does use an inhaler sometimes, but is not dependent on it regularly. As long as he uses it occasionally, he has an adequate cover for regularly testing for salbutamol in the urine.

You seem to be really stretching here. To address your three points.

1. Would he even be on ADAMS at Barloworld? And would he even know what a TUE is? Also Sky may have suggested he upgrade to a more effective asthma drug. Braloworld were a team run on a shoestring. They were a collection of riders with the same jersey.

2. You say that it was an invitation to dose orally. But so was having a TUE for asthma. We have had plenty of confessionals from old dopers. Not a single one of them has mentioned using salbutamol as a PED. Don't you think that the likes of Rasmussen, Jaksche, Landis etc would pipe up about it?
And why? Because it's been shown to be a lousy performance enhancer, barely worth bothering with. Don;t fool yourself into believing that salbutamol is the cornerstone of a doping programme.

And as for Froome making a public show - it was a three second clip in the Tour of Romandie spotted by someone on Twitter. Two and a half years after he became a contender. If he wanted to really make a public show of it, maybe he should have written about it in his book.

3. He's clearly changed his behaviour due to the hysterical reaction to people viewing an inhaler as if it's a bloodbag. I'm sure he'll take it in a race if he needs to. He can use as his sees fit. He can use it as maximum security against asthma if he wants. In fact non-asthmatics are allowed to use an inhaler if they want.


I'll add a fourth point. More a question. If this doping programme you are proposing is correct. What went wrong on the day in question? He's had six years of getting the dosage right.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 01:27

Parker wrote:
1. Would he even be on ADAMS at Barloworld? And would he even know what a TUE is? Also Sky may have suggested he upgrade to a more effective asthma drug. Braloworld were a team run on a shoestring. They were a collection of riders with the same jersey.


As I noted before, Froome's teammate at Barlo, Steve Cummings, had a TUE for salbutamol. If your point is that Froome was taking some other drug for asthma back then, OK, that's an interesting idea, that hadn't occurred to me, but what drug might work that would not also be on the prohibited list? In addition to salbutamol, salmeterol and formoterol are permitted at certain levels. But they were banned in 2009, i.e., a TUE was required for their use, just as with salbutamol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933613/

Is there some non-prohibited substance that one could take for asthma? Maybe some asthmatic could weigh in here, but I doubt it, as all beta2-agonists and glucocorticoids are on the prohibited list. The latter require a TUE for in-competition use, and I assume did back in 2009 as well.

2. You say that it was an invitation to dose orally. But so was having a TUE for asthma. We have had plenty of confessionals from old dopers. Not a single one of them has mentioned using salbutamol as a PED. Don't you think that the likes of Rasmussen, Jaksche, Landis etc would pipe up about it?


The use of various drugs may change over time. The riders you mention mostly were active prior to the bio passport, which limited the amount of blood doping possible. In those circumstances, riders may seek out other substances to supplement more important drugs. Also, I think removing the requirement for a TUE was a significant change. At that point, a rider didn't have to do anything except be careful about doses. Even if salbutamol has only a minor effect, that's a nothing-to-lose situation. If it doesn't have an adverse effects, and it might help, why not use it?

And why? Because it's been shown to be a lousy performance enhancer, barely worth bothering with. Don;t fool yourself into believing that salbutamol is the cornerstone of a doping programme.


Of course not, nobody I know of has claimed that. Testosterone isn't the cornerstone of a doping program, either, not for cyclists, but it's still used. Salbutamol may, though, be especially useful in weight loss, and unquestionably that was a key element in Froome's transformation. That wouldn't explain why he was taking it during a GT--and I pointed this out on Day 1--but he may have found other benefits that were worth it to him. A lot of studies report that it can increase anaerobic power.

And as for Froome making a public show - it was a three second clip in the Tour of Romandie spotted by someone on Twitter. Two and a half years after he became a contender. If he wanted to really make a public show of it, maybe he should have written about it in his book.


Well, in the Lowe article linked upthread, it was described as "clearly done with a view to being seen." YMMV, but we know there are certain portions of a race where the leader will definitely be on the screen, and that's why it was observed. If he had been taking it for years on finishing climbs, it seems a little strange that no one ever noticed before. After the news broke, I don't recall a single journalist, rider or anyone else associated with cycling say, oh, of course, I've seen him puffing away before.

3. He's clearly changed his behaviour due to the hysterical reaction to people viewing an inhaler as if it's a bloodbag. I'm sure he'll take it in a race if he needs to. He can use as his sees fit. He can use it as maximum security against asthma if he wants. In fact non-asthmatics are allowed to use an inhaler if they want.


Again, it doesn't have to be one or the other. There may be more than one explanation for the change. In fact, some might argue (I won't) that the "hysterical reaction" was just a convenient rationalization for doing what he wanted to do, anyway.

I'll add a fourth point. More a question. If this doping programme you are proposing is correct. What went wrong on the day in question? He's had six years of getting the dosage right.


Why do riders ever get busted for anything? How long had Tyler been using before he was popped? What about Floyd? Contador? Vino? Getting dosages right usually isn't difficult if one is careful. The problem is that it's not necessarily that easy to be careful dozens, hundreds of time, when there are so many other details involved in racing that one also has to pay attention to.

Beyond that, your question, of course, applies just as much to scenarios in which Froome was not intentionally doping. If he accidentally took too much, how could that happen after all this time? It also applies to random chance theories: how could one test be so much higher than all the others?
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,758
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 12:16

Merckx index wrote:As I noted before, Froome's teammate at Barlo, Steve Cummings, had a TUE for salbutamol.


Cummings was on the British track programme for many years

Merckx index wrote:Even if salbutamol has only a minor effect, that's a nothing-to-lose situation. If it doesn't have an adverse effects, and it might help, why not use it?

It's clearly not a nothing to lose situation. What readings would do pills give. Isn't that the point of the threshold?


Merckx index wrote:Of course not, nobody I know of has claimed that. Testosterone isn't the cornerstone of a doping program, either, not for cyclists, but it's still used. Salbutamol may

But lots of people have talked about taking testosterone as a performance enhancer. Nobody at all has mentioned taking salbutamol for anything but asthma.

Merckx index wrote:Well, in the Lowe article linked upthread, it was described as "clearly done with a view to being seen." YMMV, but we know there are certain portions of a race where the leader will definitely be on the screen, and that's why it was observed. If he had been taking it for years on finishing climbs, it seems a little strange that no one ever noticed before. After the news broke, I don't recall a single journalist, rider or anyone else associated with cycling say, oh, of course, I've seen him puffing away before.

What did you think he should do? Drop back down the bunch and hide behind people. No-one had seen him puffing away before because they weren't looking for it. It barely looks any different to someone eating something.

Merckx index wrote:Beyond that, your question, of course, applies just as much to scenarios in which Froome was not intentionally doping. If he accidentally took too much, how could that happen after all this time? It also applies to random chance theories: how could one test be so much higher than all the others?

Precisely my point. But a person who knows they are doing something wrong will always be more cautious.

The most rational explanation is that he overdid his asthma drugs and/or the test isn't perfect (probably a combination of both). Not that he had some sort of overarching scheme plotted over many years to abuse an ineffective drug that no-one else has ever bothered with before.

I know you really, really want this to be a proper doping scandal, but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

09 Feb 2018 13:19

Sport history and doping state show that doping is the most rational explanation !
When Froome has an episode of asthma during a race, that should have happened if he had really that illness?
User avatar poupou
Member
 
Posts: 751
Joined: 18 Jul 2009 23:27

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 15:24

Parker wrote:
Merckx index wrote:As I noted before, Froome's teammate at Barlo, Steve Cummings, had a TUE for salbutamol.


Cummings was on the British track programme for many years

Merckx index wrote:Even if salbutamol has only a minor effect, that's a nothing-to-lose situation. If it doesn't have an adverse effects, and it might help, why not use it?

It's clearly not a nothing to lose situation. What readings would do pills give. Isn't that the point of the threshold?


Merckx index wrote:Of course not, nobody I know of has claimed that. Testosterone isn't the cornerstone of a doping program, either, not for cyclists, but it's still used. Salbutamol may

But lots of people have talked about taking testosterone as a performance enhancer. Nobody at all has mentioned taking salbutamol for anything but asthma.

Merckx index wrote:Well, in the Lowe article linked upthread, it was described as "clearly done with a view to being seen." YMMV, but we know there are certain portions of a race where the leader will definitely be on the screen, and that's why it was observed. If he had been taking it for years on finishing climbs, it seems a little strange that no one ever noticed before. After the news broke, I don't recall a single journalist, rider or anyone else associated with cycling say, oh, of course, I've seen him puffing away before.

What did you think he should do? Drop back down the bunch and hide behind people. No-one had seen him puffing away before because they weren't looking for it. It barely looks any different to someone eating something.

Merckx index wrote:Beyond that, your question, of course, applies just as much to scenarios in which Froome was not intentionally doping. If he accidentally took too much, how could that happen after all this time? It also applies to random chance theories: how could one test be so much higher than all the others?

Precisely my point. But a person who knows they are doing something wrong will always be more cautious.

The most rational explanation is that he overdid his asthma drugs and/or the test isn't perfect (probably a combination of both). Not that he had some sort of overarching scheme plotted over many years to abuse an ineffective drug that no-one else has ever bothered with before.

I know you really, really want this to be a proper doping scandal, but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.


to the bolded...I'm not sure you are following the same 'doping' case as the reast of us...the allegation only relates to its treatment for asthma as Froome (allegedly) has asthma...it would be being taken for its other performance enhancing properties....or on the day in question it was taken by mistake orally assumed to be sometjhing else...2000 does not relate to puffs for asthma...unless of course you believe Froome..... 2+2 does not equal 2000 however much you might want to believe it does...keep on believin' hold onto that feelin' ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 16:04

gillan1969 wrote:.2000 does not relate to puffs for asthma...unless of course you believe Froome..... 2+2 does not equal 2000 however much you might want to believe it does...keep on believin' hold onto that feelin' ;)

You say this with absolute certainty (despite having specialized no knowledge of the subject). If it was an absolute certainty why are people in this situation submitted to further testing?
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 16:20

Parker wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:.2000 does not relate to puffs for asthma...unless of course you believe Froome..... 2+2 does not equal 2000 however much you might want to believe it does...keep on believin' hold onto that feelin' ;)

You say this with absolute certainty (despite having specialized no knowledge of the subject). If it was an absolute certainty why are people in this situation submitted to further testing?


people with above the threshold have the opportunity to "show their working" in order to achieve their own particular result...Froome was offered the opportunity to to say he inadvertently inputed 1998 into the calculator instead of 2...however he maintained he put 2 in. As MI has pointed out, with some well thought out scenarios...if Froome had taken a different approach he might have been able to explain away a figure above 1200 but quite far below 2000 but would have needed to acknowledge he could have made a mistake.....

but he never..............
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 16:22

Parker wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:.2000 does not relate to puffs for asthma...unless of course you believe Froome..... 2+2 does not equal 2000 however much you might want to believe it does...keep on believin' hold onto that feelin' ;)

You say this with absolute certainty (despite having specialized no knowledge of the subject). If it was an absolute certainty why are people in this situation submitted to further testing?


reminds of the other sky rider explaining things away...it wasn't so much the 32 units that was unbelievable...it was not drinking water at all the next day :) ...but when you need to get a certain number you need to try anything to get there....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: All About Salbutamol

09 Feb 2018 23:45

There was talk of dehydration in 2016-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-doctor-palfreeman-says-functional-dehydration-could-help-froome-climb-quicker/
Team Sky doctor Roger Palfreeman has put forward the idea that 'functional dehydration' could be used in order to increase a rider’s power to weight ratio, according to Spanish newspaper El Pais. Palfreeman added that using the technique Chris Froome would be able to cut 47 seconds off his climb up Alpe d'Huez
"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: 2,853
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Feb 2018 00:17

Parker wrote:
Cummings was on the British track programme for many years


But he wasn’t when he was at Barloworld, was he?

Look, maybe there’s an explanation for why FB didn’t find a TUE for salbutamol for Froome. Or why Froome, when asked, said those prednisolone TUEs were the only ones he ever had. I’m putting this out because it’s obviously very germane to this case, and I’m frankly mystified why no one in the media cares. Just as no one in the media cared about his USG, when that one value had the potential to get Froome off immediately, case closed. You seem content that there might be an explanation for this, so aren't interested in pursuing it any further. I’m not. I want to know for sure.

It's clearly not a nothing to lose situation. What readings would do pills give. Isn't that the point of the threshold?


It’s not that difficult to take oral doses and remain below the threshold. I’ve discussed this before.

But lots of people have talked about taking testosterone as a performance enhancer. Nobody at all has mentioned taking salbutamol for anything but asthma.


What riders talk about, and are actually heard talking about, is not the ultimate arbiter of whether something is performance enhancing. There are many studies showing salbutamol can help, and of course the existence of a threshold implies WADA takes this possibility seriously.

What did you think he should do? Drop back down the bunch and hide behind people. No-one had seen him puffing away before because they weren't looking for it. It barely looks any different to someone eating something.


So after seven years or so as a pro, and several years at the top, Froome is seen inhaling. Not only has the most-watched rider in the peloton never been seen doing this before, but none of his teammates or other riders in the peloton came forward to confirm that he’s been doing this.

Precisely my point. But a person who knows they are doing something wrong will always be more cautious.


Like Ricco?

The most rational explanation is that he overdid his asthma drugs and/or the test isn't perfect (probably a combination of both). Not that he had some sort of overarching scheme plotted over many years to abuse an ineffective drug that no-one else has ever bothered with before.


I really don’t think one can claim at this point that there is a “most rational” explanation, not with the certainty implied by your claim. There’s too much information we don’t have access to. And I'm not sure what you mean by the test isn't perfect. It certainly measures urinary concentration of salbutamol with high precision, so there's no reason at all to doubt the level reported. Like any pharmacological test, there is some uncertainty in working backward from there to dose taken.

If Froome were a little over the threshold, and he admitted he might have taken too much, I would certainly be inclined to accept that as the most likely explanation, though even then I wouldn’t rule out doping. The threshold has been set at a level that for most athletes, most of the time, is well above what they will test at. Unless Froome is an outlier, he probably wouldn’t exceed it even slightly unless he took considerably more than allowed.

But his level is so high that it’s hard to see how he could have reached it without taking a massive dose. Many researchers believe the most likely cause is that he intentionally did this, probably through a nebulizer. Again, if he admitted to doing that, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

But Froome has said over and over and over that he didn’t inhale too much. At a certain point, I think you have to take him at his word—not assume he’s telling the truth, but that this is the framework within which a decision has to be made. And that means you have to compare the likelihood of doping to the likelihood of some unusual physiology, like renal impairment. Made a mistake is off the table. That's why doping, despite some reasonable objections, looks to be the more likely answer. We know riders dope. Kidney problems are unusual.

But if you want to stick with the notion that he took too much by mistake or accident, you're basically saying Froome is a liar. That makes you more or less just like anyone who thinks he was doping, you're just focusing on a different kind of lie. But lying and cheating are close cousins, and if someone would lie about taking too much salbutamol, it's difficult to trust anything else he says related to potential doping.

I know you really, really want this to be a proper doping scandal, but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.


I’m always amused when someone accuses me, a scientist, of being more biased than he is. In the past, I've taken flak from fans of riders like Tyler, Floyd, LA and Contador because I pointed out how science undermined their defense.

I’m trying to understand what happened, and though I’ve long thought Froome was a doper, that suspicion doesn’t compromise my ability to think rationally and based on facts. In the very beginning of this thread I shot down the blood contamination hypothesis—a notion that obviously would appeal to anyone who thinks Froome is doping—because it was clearly highly improbable. As I noted above, I’ve also puzzled over the fact that salbutamol is not a drug that one would expect a rider to take during a race. I’ve never maintained that there is an obvious explanation for the positive, particularly when I’m not privy to some of the most important data that could shed more light on Froome’s usage of the drug.



This was discussed upthread. Most researchers don't believe this is possible, though there has been some recent work suggesting that riders can lose as much as 2% of body weight (this would correspond to that 47 seconds up Alpe) through dehydration without compromising power.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,758
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

10 Feb 2018 13:54

WADA director of Science Oliver Rabin discusses nebulization and the anabolic effects of Salbutamol

‘We have an upper limit because we have multiple publications showing that systemic use of beta-2 agonists, including salbutamol, can be performance enhancing,’ Rabin explains.

‘It’s not the medical practice that we’re trying to control, it’s fundamentally that beta-2 agonists can be performance enhancing in high doses,’ says Rabin.

Dr Hull suggested that this (nebulization) could become more common as teams ‘opt to avoid using an oral corticosteroid (ie, to prevent accusation of use for performance gain).’


http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re:

10 Feb 2018 14:44

70kmph wrote:WADA director of Science Oliver Rabin discusses nebulization and the anabolic effects of Salbutamol

‘We have an upper limit because we have multiple publications showing that systemic use of beta-2 agonists, including salbutamol, can be performance enhancing,’ Rabin explains.

‘It’s not the medical practice that we’re trying to control, it’s fundamentally that beta-2 agonists can be performance enhancing in high doses,’ says Rabin.

Dr Hull suggested that this (nebulization) could become more common as teams ‘opt to avoid using an oral corticosteroid (ie, to prevent accusation of use for performance gain).’


http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada


thanks for the link
v.informative article
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,745
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Feb 2018 16:43

Merckx index wrote:
Parker wrote:
Cummings was on the British track programme for many years


But he wasn’t when he was at Barloworld, was he?

Look, maybe there’s an explanation for why FB didn’t find a TUE for salbutamol for Froome. Or why Froome, when asked, said those prednisolone TUEs were the only ones he ever had. I’m putting this out because it’s obviously very germane to this case, and I’m frankly mystified why no one in the media cares. Just as no one in the media cared about his USG, when that one value had the potential to get Froome off immediately, case closed. You seem content that there might be an explanation for this, so aren't interested in pursuing it any further. I’m not. I want to know for sure.

It's clearly not a nothing to lose situation. What readings would do pills give. Isn't that the point of the threshold?


It’s not that difficult to take oral doses and remain below the threshold. I’ve discussed this before.

But lots of people have talked about taking testosterone as a performance enhancer. Nobody at all has mentioned taking salbutamol for anything but asthma.


What riders talk about, and are actually heard talking about, is not the ultimate arbiter of whether something is performance enhancing. There are many studies showing salbutamol can help, and of course the existence of a threshold implies WADA takes this possibility seriously.

What did you think he should do? Drop back down the bunch and hide behind people. No-one had seen him puffing away before because they weren't looking for it. It barely looks any different to someone eating something.


So after seven years or so as a pro, and several years at the top, Froome is seen inhaling. Not only has the most-watched rider in the peloton never been seen doing this before, but none of his teammates or other riders in the peloton came forward to confirm that he’s been doing this.

Precisely my point. But a person who knows they are doing something wrong will always be more cautious.


Like Ricco?

The most rational explanation is that he overdid his asthma drugs and/or the test isn't perfect (probably a combination of both). Not that he had some sort of overarching scheme plotted over many years to abuse an ineffective drug that no-one else has ever bothered with before.


I really don’t think one can claim at this point that there is a “most rational” explanation, not with the certainty implied by your claim. There’s too much information we don’t have access to. And I'm not sure what you mean by the test isn't perfect. It certainly measures urinary concentration of salbutamol with high precision, so there's no reason at all to doubt the level reported. Like any pharmacological test, there is some uncertainty in working backward from there to dose taken.

If Froome were a little over the threshold, and he admitted he might have taken too much, I would certainly be inclined to accept that as the most likely explanation, though even then I wouldn’t rule out doping. The threshold has been set at a level that for most athletes, most of the time, is well above what they will test at. Unless Froome is an outlier, he probably wouldn’t exceed it even slightly unless he took considerably more than allowed.

But his level is so high that it’s hard to see how he could have reached it without taking a massive dose. Many researchers believe the most likely cause is that he intentionally did this, probably through a nebulizer. Again, if he admitted to doing that, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

But Froome has said over and over and over that he didn’t inhale too much. At a certain point, I think you have to take him at his word—not assume he’s telling the truth, but that this is the framework within which a decision has to be made. And that means you have to compare the likelihood of doping to the likelihood of some unusual physiology, like renal impairment. Made a mistake is off the table. That's why doping, despite some reasonable objections, looks to be the more likely answer. We know riders dope. Kidney problems are unusual.

But if you want to stick with the notion that he took too much by mistake or accident, you're basically saying Froome is a liar. That makes you more or less just like anyone who thinks he was doping, you're just focusing on a different kind of lie. But lying and cheating are close cousins, and if someone would lie about taking too much salbutamol, it's difficult to trust anything else he says related to potential doping.

I know you really, really want this to be a proper doping scandal, but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.


I’m always amused when someone accuses me, a scientist, of being more biased than he is. In the past, I've taken flak from fans of riders like Tyler, Floyd, LA and Contador because I pointed out how science undermined their defense.

I’m trying to understand what happened, and though I’ve long thought Froome was a doper, that suspicion doesn’t compromise my ability to think rationally and based on facts. In the very beginning of this thread I shot down the blood contamination hypothesis—a notion that obviously would appeal to anyone who thinks Froome is doping—because it was clearly highly improbable. As I noted above, I’ve also puzzled over the fact that salbutamol is not a drug that one would expect a rider to take during a race. I’ve never maintained that there is an obvious explanation for the positive, particularly when I’m not privy to some of the most important data that could shed more light on Froome’s usage of the drug.



This was discussed upthread. Most researchers don't believe this is possible, though there has been some recent work suggesting that riders can lose as much as 2% of body weight (this would correspond to that 47 seconds up Alpe) through dehydration without compromising power.


Excellent and well balanced post MI. Difficult to argue with any of what you say when presented in that matter.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

10 Feb 2018 21:25

Claiming the testing isnt perfect is ludicrous....there are 10000 Sal tests per annum, only a few at 1000, and only one at 2000

Dawg has repeatedly stated he only took a legal dose via inhaler. So no accidental overdose, or pills etc

Go read a bodybuilder forum , or even the XC ski one here to see discussion about Sal as a PED
User avatar sittingbison
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,299
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 08:11
Location: Perth WA

Re:

10 Feb 2018 21:44

sittingbison wrote:Claiming the testing isnt perfect is ludicrous....there are 10000 Sal tests per annum, only a few at 1000, and only one at 2000

Dawg has repeatedly stated he only took a legal dose via inhaler. So no accidental overdose, or pills etc

Go read a bodybuilder forum , or even the XC ski one here to see discussion about Sal as a PED


Sky's lawyers will try to find doubt, inaccuracies, human error, sloppy routines, anything to cast doubt on the test. Sky have to find only one mess up with a sample to throw some mud (maybe Cookson can help them out there?) Throw in an "infected procedure" due to a leak, that might well have come from the UCI because of a possible anti-British bias and suddenly, Froome's the victim! Wow! :surprised:
"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: 2,853
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

10 Feb 2018 22:13

Robert5091 wrote:
sittingbison wrote:Claiming the testing isnt perfect is ludicrous....there are 10000 Sal tests per annum, only a few at 1000, and only one at 2000

Sky's lawyers will try to find doubt, inaccuracies, human error, sloppy routines, anything to cast doubt on the test. Sky have to find only one mess up with a sample to throw some mud (maybe Cookson can help them out there?) Throw in an "infected procedure" due to a leak, that might well have come from the UCI because of a possible anti-British bias and suddenly, Froome's the victim! Wow! :surprised:
At the Anti-Doping Tribunal, defendants' lawyers challenging the doping control procedures, chain-of-custody of urine/blood samples, consistency of A sample vs. B sample, doping lab testing methods, accreditation history of one lab vs other facilities, all that stuff... has never worked. Ever. So Froome's lawyers might as well try anything in that category but chances of success are minimal.

Possible bias of the judges, well, for the UCI it would have been smart not to appoint the French judge, leaving the choices as: Denmark, Germany, USA, or Greece, nationality of judge is not likely to succeed on challenge, and challenging the first judge antagonizes all the other ones, who have to vote on the challenge and replacement judge if approved. Froome's lawyers could try something related to the 'leak' of the AAF to the news media as a possible source of bias. Anything that they claim vs. the judges already has to have been submitted a while ago, my guess is that the judge was already appointed and approved before Lappartient interview at Valkenburg

Looking at the CAS appeal stage, and what appears on paper in those submissions, Froome does not get to start over with a 'clean slate' re-trial, the UCI will definitely submit the judgments of the Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS. And there is their same evidence used, plus anything else they want to add. UCI can save time by re-submitting the same conclusions from the first stage, and can even strengthen their positions, during the interim before CAS appeal stage. So it's like "Mr. Froome, this has been covered before, so what do you contend now, how are your claims novel this second time around?"
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

10 Feb 2018 23:37

If Froome's let off we might never know why -
http://uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/
If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed.

So, has there been people acquited?
"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: 2,853
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

11 Feb 2018 00:11

Robert5091 wrote:If Froome's let off we might never know why -
http://uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/
If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed.

So, has there been people acquited?

There are no published judgments in which Anti-Doping Tribunal acquitted the defendant, and we couldn't find any examples of a case where the cyclist went into ADT but their case was sealed
http://www.uci.ch/news/article/anti-doping-tribunal/

The ADT has only existed since January 2015, and most cyclists who get an AAF would cut a deal with LADS before getting sent to ADT. So the cases published by ADT are exclusively those of cyclists who refused Acceptance of Responsibility when they were offered a bargain by LADS

This is a recent list of cyclists suspended or banned by UCI and the dates of their ADRV and periods of ineligibility. Some of them go way back in time before ADT existed, such as the lifetime-bans for Armstrong, Di Luca, etc.
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/17/32/52/20170913SanctionADRVENG2.0_English.pdf
So on that Consequences Imposed list, someone could look into: who had ADRV after January 2015, but did not go to Anti-Doping Tribunal, and why ? Probably it's because they accepted their original sanction or a reduced sanction in exchange for not getting sent to ADT

I think the answer is no, and every single case sent by UCI to their Anti-Doping tribunal resulted in a ban, that there have been no acquittals. That's not totally proven yet, but there cannot be a lot of cases in which :

    (1) AAF, which was deemed necessary to refer to authorities, after January 2015
    (2) Rider was not suspended neither by their own team, nor their own volition, nor by the UCI. Would have to be someone who continued riding, with no announcement ever, and ...
    (3) AAF was determined to be ADRV, and...
    (4) Rider refused sanction, and ...
    (5) Rider also refused deal with LADS, and ...
    (6) Rider got sent to Anti-Doping Tribunal, but was acquitted, and ...
    (7) Entire ADT case was sealed, and has remained secret.

Important legal point for someone out there to clarify, has that sequence ever happened ? ? ?
But I just don't think it exists
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re:

11 Feb 2018 00:40

70kmph wrote:WADA director of Science Oliver Rabin discusses nebulization and the anabolic effects of Salbutamol


From this article:

if someone were admitted to hospital in the UK with a severe exacerbation (an asthma attack), the patient might expect a 2,500 microgram dosage every two hours – far exceeding the WADA maximum. This would generally be done with nebulisation, where a high volume of salbutamol in aerosol form is inhaled through a mask. A cyclist could require this dosage in the event of a serious attack and in such cases an athlete could be granted a TUE even after the incident.


That seems to rule out the theory, supposedly favored by most researchers familiar with asthma and salbutamol, that Froome took a supra-maximal dose for medical reasons, and lied about it. We’ve already discussed why Froome’s all-or-none strategy is necessary to optimize the chances of any explanation he comes up with being accepted. To this I think we can add this possibility of a TUE after the fact, something I hadn’t been aware of till now. If he had taken a massive dose via nebulizer, it seems he could have obtained the TUE, so he clearly didn’t. At the very least, the possibility of getting a TUE would certainly be a strong point in arguing for no sanction. Sundby admitted to using a nebulizer, and even on WADA's appeal, he only got two months.

The only other option for Froome would be to claim he took a few extra puffs. Not only could he not get a TUE on that basis, but a few extra puffs would be unlikely to account for his urine level, anyway. That strategy did work for Ulissi—he got a relatively light suspension—but I don’t think it’s a sure thing for someone with a urine level that high. If he made that claim, I think the response might be, you must have taken a lot of extra puffs, and if you needed that much salbutamol, you must have had a very severe attack, why didn’t you use a nebulizer?

In the Sundby case--which is likely to come up during the hearing--the athlete in a controlled lab test took 1600 ug in a half hour period, and still did not reach 2000 ng/ml. A few subjects in some studies have exceeded 2000 ng/ml following 1600 ug, but they're fairly uncommon (about 4% of the samples in the oft-referred to Haase study that investigated exercise and dehydration), so the prosecution could argue that to get to that level, Froome couldn't have been unaware that he was exceeding the allowed amount.

So Froome's all-or-nothing strategy is beginning to look to me less like a bold if not reckless gamble, and more the result of necessity. I don't think his team can have a lot of confidence that admitting to a mistake would get him a light sentence, just because it worked in the past. More data from lab studies are available now, and while they do suggest that outliers can exceed the WADA threshold without taking more than the allowed amount, they also show that values well above threshold in the great majority of cases require far more than the allowed amount. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,758
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

11 Feb 2018 01:49

Merckx index wrote: If he made that claim, I think the response might be, you must have taken a lot of extra puffs, and if you needed that much salbutamol, you must have had a very severe attack
"if you needed that much salbutamol [in order to ride nonstop for five hours over three categorized climbs, then drop noted climber Vincenzo Nibali by 21 seconds], you must have had a very severe attack!"
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests

Back to top