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
41
33%
3 month ban
4
3%
6 month ban
15
12%
9 month ban
25
20%
1 year ban
16
13%
2 year ban
21
17%
4 year ban
2
2%
 
Total votes : 124

10 Jan 2018 09:19

The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,859
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

Re:

10 Jan 2018 09:48

Rollthedice wrote:The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.


If true then can we assume that the Dawg's lawyer's have given up on looking for legal/procedural loopholes...? Including that his USG is low enough that there's no point in waiting for the new rule to come in in March...?
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

10 Jan 2018 11:18

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Rollthedice wrote:The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.


If true then can we assume that the Dawg's lawyer's have given up on looking for legal/procedural loopholes...? Including that his USG is low enough that there's no point in waiting for the new rule to come in in March...?


There's another piece on tuttobiciweb where they say that Mike Morgan, the lawyer is talking with LADS (Legal Anti-Doping Services) in order to demonstrate through technical analyses, testimonies, documents and tests that there is no fraud and that only physiological causes made Froome to reach that level. Interesting thing is that tuttobici says that in all other tests for salbutamol in Vuelta he did not surpass the 600 level " un risultato che in tutti gli altri controlli della Vuelta non ha mai superato quota 600". The logic dictates that during January or February LADS will propose Froome an "Acceptance of consequences". If he accepts it's over. If not then the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal steps in and everything will take months and months with appeals on the horizon.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,859
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

10 Jan 2018 11:33

The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal who could decide Dawg's fate - one of these -
http://www.uci.ch/news/article/anti-doping-tribunal/

Helle Qvortrup Bachmann (DEN)
Prof. Ulrich Haas (GER)
Emily Wisnosky (USA)
Andreas Zagklis (GRE)
Julien Zylberstein (FRA)
"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: 2,212
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

10 Jan 2018 11:55

Rollthedice wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Rollthedice wrote:The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.


If true then can we assume that the Dawg's lawyer's have given up on looking for legal/procedural loopholes...? Including that his USG is low enough that there's no point in waiting for the new rule to come in in March...?


There's another piece on tuttobiciweb where they say that Mike Morgan, the lawyer is talking with LADS (Legal Anti-Doping Services) in order to demonstrate through technical analyses, testimonies, documents and tests that there is no fraud and that only physiological causes made Froome to reach that level. Interesting thing is that tuttobici says that in all other tests for salbutamol in Vuelta he did not surpass the 600 level " un risultato che in tutti gli altri controlli della Vuelta non ha mai superato quota 600". The logic dictates that during January or February LADS will propose Froome an "Acceptance of consequences". If he accepts it's over. If not then the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal steps in and everything will take months and months with appeals on the horizon.


So Froome's lawyer is still looking for legal/procedural loopholes. Not sure why he'd go into the UCI lab with that ongoing

Btw, would an "acceptance of consequences" result in Froome getting a ban and losing the Vuelta?
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

10 Jan 2018 12:03

Rollthedice wrote:The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.

Here the link to the article in Italian.
http://www.corriere.it/sport/18_gennaio_07/ciclismo-doping-froome-accerchiato-pedala-ritiro-studia-strategia-db981f44-f319-11e7-a586-43e3ef84081a.shtml
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,457
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re:

10 Jan 2018 12:20

Merckx index wrote: Values above 1.030, even under dehydrating conditions, are fairly rare except in hot weather, > 30 degrees, when a significant portion of the subject pool may exhibit them. Petacchi's USG as stated in the CAS decision was 1.033, but the temperature at one point in that stage was reported as 34 degrees.

This one had 93 athletes in "dry tropical" climate and had 6% in serious dehydration (USG >1.030)
"Incidence of pre-game dehydration in athletes competing at an international event in dry tropical conditions"
http://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/61-4-Incidence-of-pre-game-dehy.pdf
.. in temperatures around ~24 - 28 °C, before the competitions started. None of the athletes in that one were cyclists, but the inference is that in very dry climate and moderately hot temperatures, they could be dehydrated before the start.

I looked at the Petacchi case now, because I had no idea the USG had been that high. His lawyers argued that 1352 ng/ml should have been corrected to 819 ng/ml, which would fall below the threshold.

This part of the CAS decision was interesting, they had testimony that salbutamol >1000ng/ml occured in athletes in competition in about 1 out of 10,000 samples. One-in-ten-thousand result, for it to be accidental was already making an exceptional claim :
Dr Botré, who had been Director of the Rome Laboratory since 1999 and Director of the Olympic Laboratory at the 2006 Turin Olympics, gave evidence of the rarity of finding a Salbutamol concentration as high as that found in the present case [Petacchi]. He stated that in the last nine years at the Rome Laboratory he had had overall responsibility for checking 60-70,000 samples for Salbutamol, of which about 80% were from athletes in competition. Only about five or six samples had been found to contain a concentration of more than1000 ng/ml of Salbutamol.
Anyway ...
WADA pointed out that the practice of adjusting results to take into account variations in specific gravity is only used by it in relation to endogenous substances. Salbutamol is not an endogenous substance.
Further, the specific gravity of the urine is irrelevant to the enantiomer analysis by the Barcelona Laboratory.

.. at the time the rule didn't allow for USG correction, and even if that were permitted, they still got Petacchi on the enantiomer test

Values > 1.040 aren't impossible. I saw a study of women soccer players in a tropical climate, a few of whom had values higher than this before the game even started.
Very possible, what the authors of the textbook were saying is: that figures greater than 1.040 in humans are not due to dehydration alone, there has to be some other iatrogenic factor involved.
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Jan 2018 12:29

Deleted post
Last edited by Djoop on 07 Jun 2018 13:35, edited 1 time in total.
Djoop
New Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 20 Aug 2015 16:13

Re: Re:

10 Jan 2018 12:51

Rollthedice
tuttobici says that in all other tests for salbutamol in Vuelta he did not surpass the 600 level


It doesnt sound like hes an outlier, they would have known this already
The only good argument is its below the threshold which has built-in cushion
But 600ng/ml would normally represent a lot of puffing, a supratherapeutic dose
Its higher than Petacchi whose max was 537
And Petacchi was found to be supplementing his inhaler use
Ullissi numbers were like 80-140, very modest amounts as he would only take 2 puffs
Froome is using 6 times what Ulissi took
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 561
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

10 Jan 2018 13:41

Could Froome really be the only human being on the planet to produce such a high reading without overdosing? Yeah I know we all agree he is an Alien anyway but gee is everyone really so naïve?

If a driver gets breathalysed and is double the allowed limit, can he tell the court that he produces such high alcohol readings even on just one glass of beer or could he say that he was dehydrated which spiked up his alcohol readings? Can there be that one driver on the planet?
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 263
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Jan 2018 13:49

Great find, RolltheDice. I'm quite surprised that Froome is going to take the lab test. I thought he felt he couldn't pass, and would take the case directly to CAS. And I'm also puzzled that he's waited so long to do this. What was he doing last fall?

This is a big gamble for him, because if he fails, he should get suspended, and while he can appeal, he will stay suspended until the process finishes. His only hope if he is suspended is that the suspension is back-dated and short enough to allow him to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. But it would certainly mess up his preparation for them.

Also very interested to hear that his previous levels were all < 600 ng/ml:

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/2018/01/09/108011/chris-froome-la-battaglia-E-cominciata-lads-uci-salbutamolo

This is what i expected, a little higher than i would have thought--remember, he claims he only inhales when he's making great efforts--but consistent with inhaling the allowed amounts. So he can't claim he's an outlier, and while he's quoted as saying he has trouble metabolizing salbutamol, or something to that effect, it doesn't appear that he does, unless those 600 ng/ml levels follow just one or two puffs. But if that were really the case, he should have been aware that taking a lot more puffs would put him over the threshold.

As someone mentioned, this pretty much ends speculation that he was going to skate based on his USG. His taking the lab test also has to mean that his team does not have a very plausible explanation for his high level. Of course they will be working on that, in anticipation of an appeal if he's initially suspended, but I can't see his taking the lab test if they thought they had a convincing explanation.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,701
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Jan 2018 14:14

Merckx index wrote:I'm quite surprised that Froome is going to take the lab test. I thought he felt he couldn't pass, and would take the case directly to CAS. And I'm also puzzled that he's waited so long to do this. What was he doing last fall? This is a big gamble for him, because if he fails, he should get suspended, and while he can appeal, he will stay suspended until the process finishes. His only hope if he is suspended is that the suspension is back-dated and short enough to allow him to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. But it would certainly mess up his preparation for them.
Exactly, in essence Froome / Sky want for him to fail the Lausanne testing - since Froome is certain to fail it in the same manner as Ulissi. So what's the strategy behind that ? With months to have come up with something, Froome now chooses to fail the lab test..

Could it be that he would rather fail on the irreproducible salbutamol levels now, thereby making the enantiomer test moot later? Accept a suspension, rather than have proof of oral salbutamol come out, since the results of future proceedings would not be made public? Is that a possible scenario, or would that not work anyway ?

I don't get it.
They must know already that Froome is gonna fail the Lausanne testing if he goes to the lab
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

10 Jan 2018 14:16

Great find, RolltheDice. I'm quite surprised that Froome is going to take the lab test. I thought he felt he couldn't pass, and would take the case directly to CAS. And I'm also puzzled that he's waited so long to do this. What was he doing last fall?


I think he can't take anything to CAS until he's handed a decision by the UCI anti-doping tribunal.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,859
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

Re:

10 Jan 2018 14:31

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Could it be that he would rather fail on the irreproducible salbutamol levels now, thereby making the enantiomer test moot later? Accept a suspension, rather than have proof of oral salbutamol come out, since the results of future proceedings would not be made public? Is that a possible scenario, or would that not work anyway ?


The enantiomer test does not actually distinguish oral from inhaled, it's designed to distinguish oral or inhaled beyond the allowed amounts from inhaled within the allowed amounts. And it's quite possible that Froome's sample has already been subjected to the enantiomer test, Petacchi's was before he was notified of the positive.

In fact, if his sample did fail the enantiomer test, that could be why he wants to take the lab test. The combination of a high level of salbutamol, plus an S/R ratio of > 2.5, would be very difficult to beat with any kind of scientific presentation. Showing that he could reproduce those results in the lab might be his only hope.

Rollthedice wrote:I think he can't take anything to CAS until he's handed a decision by the UCI anti-doping tribunal.


Yes, he can: Article 8.5 of the WADA code. He can take it directly to CAS. WADA or UCI have to agree, but in a case this high profile, I think they would. The only reason they wouldn't is because he would be in limbo for a very long time, riding the Giro and probably Tour before a decision was announced.
Last edited by Merckx index on 11 Jan 2018 00:36, edited 3 times in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,701
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

10 Jan 2018 14:38

samhocking wrote:So Uncle Brian is notifying Froome of the AAF he will never have to answer? Is that not like a corrupt policeman filling you out a speeding ticket and giving it to the magistrate even though he's accepted money to not issue you with a ticket? WADA has to be notified of the result at some point, AAFs can't simply be deleted off an athletes ADAMS file you know because UCI don't have the access to do that.


Are you saying that nothing has ever been swept under the carpet by the UCI? Really? It's strange that Lance and his whole team admitted to full on doping, yet they got away with it. The whole team doped during the Tour for years. No one at the UCI can have a connection with someone at WADA either? You do realise the world is full of corruption don't you.
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 263
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: Re:

10 Jan 2018 14:48

Wiggo's Package wrote:
Rollthedice wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Rollthedice wrote:The Italian Corriere dela Serra suggests that Froome is waiting to be summoned in Lausanne for a counter analysis (pharmacokinetic testing). Sky will provide a detailed memo on what happened on that day, what he ate and drank, the number of puffs and at what moment they were inhaled. This memo will set the rules and circumstances under which Froome will have to ride the rollers for 2 hours and then provide a urine sample. If the sample is in the vicinity of the values of the AAF then he walks free, if not he's done.


If true then can we assume that the Dawg's lawyer's have given up on looking for legal/procedural loopholes...? Including that his USG is low enough that there's no point in waiting for the new rule to come in in March...?


There's another piece on tuttobiciweb where they say that Mike Morgan, the lawyer is talking with LADS (Legal Anti-Doping Services) in order to demonstrate through technical analyses, testimonies, documents and tests that there is no fraud and that only physiological causes made Froome to reach that level. Interesting thing is that tuttobici says that in all other tests for salbutamol in Vuelta he did not surpass the 600 level " un risultato che in tutti gli altri controlli della Vuelta non ha mai superato quota 600". The logic dictates that during January or February LADS will propose Froome an "Acceptance of consequences". If he accepts it's over. If not then the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal steps in and everything will take months and months with appeals on the horizon.


So Froome's lawyer is still looking for legal/procedural loopholes. Not sure why he'd go into the UCI lab with that ongoing

Btw, would an "acceptance of consequences" result in Froome getting a ban and losing the Vuelta?


I’m surprised his lawyer has direct access to LADS but assume this is to get all of the information regarding the test rather than to poke holes and apply pressure.

Considering this is Froome there’s abound to be some twists and turns. What is surprising is Froome hired his lawyer so late on he game. Only after the leak.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: All About Salbutamol

10 Jan 2018 15:13

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Merckx index wrote:I'm quite surprised that Froome is going to take the lab test. I thought he felt he couldn't pass, and would take the case directly to CAS. And I'm also puzzled that he's waited so long to do this. What was he doing last fall? This is a big gamble for him, because if he fails, he should get suspended, and while he can appeal, he will stay suspended until the process finishes. His only hope if he is suspended is that the suspension is back-dated and short enough to allow him to ride the Giro or at least the Tour. But it would certainly mess up his preparation for them.
Exactly, in essence Froome / Sky want for him to fail the Lausanne testing - since Froome is certain to fail it in the same manner as Ulissi. So what's the strategy behind that ? With months to have come up with something, Froome now chooses to fail the lab test..

Could it be that he would rather fail on the irreproducible salbutamol levels now, thereby making the enantiomer test moot later? Accept a suspension, rather than have proof of oral salbutamol come out, since the results of future proceedings would not be made public? Is that a possible scenario, or would that not work anyway ?

I don't get it.
They must know already that Froome is gonna fail the Lausanne testing if he goes to the lab

I think they're going to game this.

My bet is that the delay is because they HAVE been in the lab, testing the various combinations of legal dosages and intervals and their effect on Froome. If they can manage to convince everyone that's what happened on the day in question then maybe Froome can get close enough to 2000 during the test. Say he gets a 1370. Now it's up to the lawyers to do some hand-waving and poking at the uncertainties.

It's transparent as hell, but it would be his best shot given the evidence.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

10 Jan 2018 15:20

Yeah. They're basically giving Froome the chance to cheat his way out. If they can't distinguish oral from inhaled, what's to stop them from gaming it with pills if they want.

DId other riders who tested positive for this drug get the opportunity to test it in a lab?
Veni, Vidi, Kirby

I came, I saw, I was dead wrong as per usual
User avatar Red Rick
Administrator
 
Posts: 13,874
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15

Re:

10 Jan 2018 15:39

Red Rick wrote:Yeah. They're basically giving Froome the chance to cheat his way out. If they can't distinguish oral from inhaled, what's to stop them from gaming it with pills if they want.

DId other riders who tested positive for this drug get the opportunity to test it in a lab?


Yes.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

10 Jan 2018 15:41

gillan1969 wrote:first...if 1200 is the trigger, presumably it drops back down to 1000 for the actual analysis? Otherwise, why even have 1000 formally recognised if it's only a staging post to get to the actual level of 1200?


Its all about measurement uncertainty and making a case defensible in court.
Set the limit at 1000, and any reading above 1200 is pretty much bullet proof assuming no test abnormalities.

Set the limit at 1200, then you need ~1450 to have just a strong a case.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,990
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: King Boonen and 20 guests

Back to top