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: Re:

11 Jan 2018 16:14

bigcog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
How do you know when Froome hired Morgan? Musta missed that link!


I would expect in September after Sky knew.


David Walsh has said that Sky are not funding Froome's defence because Froome didn't back the team and Brailsfraud last year over the Wiggo's jiffybag debacle

So if Froome is funding his own defence that might have led to a delay in him getting lawyered up. Especially if he was expecting the problem to go away

But realistically, even if Brailsfraud is hanging Froome out to dry on the legal fees, surely he would have still told Froome to hire Morgan, the best doping case lawyer in the business, PDQ


I wouldn't be surprised if DB sees it as a way of getting rid of Froome. Lot's of new young riders and a chance for G etc.


Lots of new young riders to pump full of Salbutamol and get them winnings GTs! :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

11 Jan 2018 17:10

thehog wrote:
bigcog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:
How do you know when Froome hired Morgan? Musta missed that link!


I would expect in September after Sky knew.


David Walsh has said that Sky are not funding Froome's defence because Froome didn't back the team and Brailsfraud last year over the Wiggo's jiffybag debacle

So if Froome is funding his own defence that might have led to a delay in him getting lawyered up. Especially if he was expecting the problem to go away

But realistically, even if Brailsfraud is hanging Froome out to dry on the legal fees, surely he would have still told Froome to hire Morgan, the best doping case lawyer in the business, PDQ


I wouldn't be surprised if DB sees it as a way of getting rid of Froome. Lot's of new young riders and a chance for G etc.


Lots of new young riders to pump full of --------- and get them winnings GTs! :cool:


well, insert a banned substance/method there and that´s the way you win GTs ;)
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,335
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

12 Jan 2018 00:56

Dr Ferrari has a confusing theory
From his website forum he says


% Of asthmatics in endurance sports is higher than normal population due to chronic inhalation of irritants / allergens, low temperatures, vehicle exhaust, etc.
It would therefore be, at least in part, a sort of professional pathology.
The urinary excretion of salbutamol is quite variable and depends on various factors, some of which are unknown.
Salbutamol does not improve performance in non-asthmatic individuals. It is not true that it has anabolic effects, even at high dosage. There is not a single scientific study in man that proves the opposite.

Personally I think that Froome has exaggerated with the "smurf", maybe not voluntarily (he lost / wrong the bill ...). In the previous stages its concentration in the urine seems to be constantly around 600ng / ml: maybe he thought that doubling the usual dose would go to 1200 (always below the threshold) not calculating that over a certain dosage the metabolism of the substance could be "saturated "And therefore urinary elimination be greater.

Making a more broad-spectrum speech, I could say that Froome,
without salutations, he would probably never have won 4 TdF.
As well as a cyclist with 38 of Hct without EPO.
Both things (salbutamol and EPO) remedy the injustices of genetics ...
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re:

12 Jan 2018 01:28

70kmph wrote:Dr Ferrari has a confusing theory
From his website forum he says

% Of asthmatics in endurance sports is higher than normal population due to chronic inhalation of irritants / allergens, low temperatures, vehicle exhaust, etc. It would therefore be, at least in part, a sort of professional pathology.
True. And we can run through every Ferrari statement here with True/False
The urinary excretion of salbutamol is quite variable and depends on various factors, some of which are unknown.
True
Salbutamol does not improve performance in non-asthmatic individuals.
False
It is not true that it has anabolic effects, even at high dosage.
False
There is not a single scientific study in man that proves the opposite.
False

And at this point, about Ferrari's overall theory, I also am not seeing what he is getting at ...
maybe he thought that doubling the usual dose would go to 1200 (always below the threshold) not calculating that over a certain dosage the metabolism of the substance could be "saturated "And therefore urinary elimination be greater.
... because if metabolism of salbutamol is by sulfation in the liver and gut, then, raising a tiny dose of the drug by a factor of two, will "saturate" and overwhelm the enzymes in both major organs? Maybe he means "saturation" of something else, but what?
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Jan 2018 01:39

Maybe its lost in the translator
He thinks Froome miscalculated his dosages and used wrong mathematics
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re: All About Salbutamol

12 Jan 2018 09:45

The line about doping remedying the injustices of genetics is almost poetic - hats off to Google translate!
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

15 Jan 2018 22:54

70kmph wrote:Dr Ferrari has a confusing theory
From his website forum he says


Personally I think that Froome has exaggerated with the "smurf", maybe not voluntarily (he lost / wrong the bill ...). In the previous stages its concentration in the urine seems to be constantly around 600ng / ml: maybe he thought that doubling the usual dose would go to 1200 (always below the threshold) not calculating that over a certain dosage the metabolism of the substance could be "saturated "And therefore urinary elimination be greater.


There's no proof behind it but it's not a ridiculous guess. There's a reason my friend who did their PhD thesis on drug metabolism got headhunted straight after they finished.

70kmph wrote:Making a more broad-spectrum speech, I could say that Froome,
without salutations, he would probably never have won 4 TdF.


Assuming salutations is autocorrect for salbutamol, no, not even close. Given the whole peloton has legal access to this old, well-known drug, why Froome? It's like saying Contador won those GTs with clenbuterol, when the same 2010 test results showed string evidence of blood transfusions. Al Capone for tax evasion.
User avatar vedrafjord
Member
 
Posts: 860
Joined: 15 Jan 2013 03:35
Location: Land of Ire

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 04:52

vedrafjord wrote:Given the whole peloton has legal access to this old, well-known drug, why Froome?

You are missing Ferrari's point. He basically means that without asthma treatment Froome would not be competitive. He uses the 38 Hct as an example although 38 Hct doesn't exactly imply some underlying pathology so it's not a very good example. Not sure that WADA will be giving people with 38 Hct TUEs for EPO anytime soon.
rata de sentina
Member
 
Posts: 769
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 09:11

16 Jan 2018 06:04

'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155
Bronstein
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re:

16 Jan 2018 06:55

Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155


Hmm... why would they try to explore such remote avenues unless the test in Lausanne has already failed?

Kidney malfunction might be pretty difficult to prove and replicate.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 835
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re: All About Salbutamol

16 Jan 2018 07:35

As Bambino says, when they’re reduced to shots in the dark like this, we know for sure they don’t expect to pass the lab test. The problem with this approach is the same with just about every other idea that could be thrown out there: if Froome has a pathological condition that caused the high salbutamol level, why did it only appear on one stage? He could have developed the condition before stage 18, conceivably, but then why didn’t he have a high level on succeeding stages? No doubt his team would argue this is just a contributory factor, along with puffing more than usual, but if it really is, the levels after stage 18 should at least be quite a bit higher than those before.

And there’s another problem. The premise of the argument, at least as phrased on the twitter feed (I couldn’t access the entire L’Equipe article) is that Froome took an allowed amount of salbutamol, but a much larger than normal portion of it went into the urine sample that he provided. His level of 2000 ng/ml, or 2 ug/ml, corresponds to 500 ug in a typical 250 ml sample of urine. That puts an approximate floor on how much salbutamol he took, depending on exactly how large his urine sample was, and because of additional factors (WADA apparently does not assay the sulfated form of salbutamol, so what they report is an underestimate; and not all of any drug is ever excreted in the urine in any short period of time, there's always some that basically just hangs around in the body), the amount he took would be even higher. He’s basically reduced to arguing that he took all or most of the maximum allowed amount of 800 ug in the previous twelve hours (if he wants to go back another twelve hours for another 800 ug, that should have affected his test on stage 17, unless his condition very fortuitiously began right about at the end of that stage), and that virtually all of it ended up in a single urine sample. I don’t know much about the effects of kidney diseases on drug excretion, but this sounds like a very hard sell to me.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 10:08

bambino wrote:
Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155


Hmm... why would they try to explore such remote avenues unless the test in Lausanne has already failed?

Kidney malfunction might be pretty difficult to prove and replicate.


Yeah I think they would have got a lot further if they could create doubt and demonstrate flaws in the test itself (e.g. if they could show that other foods or drugs taken could alter test results, or that the relationship between ingested and excreted doses was variable or nonlinear) rather than having to prove Froome has actual alien kidneys (or even better, did on that day, just not all the other days he was tested on).
User avatar vedrafjord
Member
 
Posts: 860
Joined: 15 Jan 2013 03:35
Location: Land of Ire

Re:

16 Jan 2018 11:19

Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155

How does he plan on proving this? Why has this only occurred once despite him using that puffer on the regular? How can a kidney- and asthma-patient win a grand tour? Why did it take so long to come up with this clarification?
User avatar DNP-Old
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,225
Joined: 06 Aug 2014 17:38
Location: Sevilla, España

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 11:20

vedrafjord wrote:...rather than having to prove Froome has actual alien kidneys (or even better, did on that day, just not all the other days he was tested on).


soooo....Dawg was abducted by OTHER aliens :eek: the night after stage 17, who then conducted despicable scientific experiments on him whilst hypnotised with Mozart playing gently, soft pillows and beetroot juice, and after inseriting their new alien DNA and organs they popped him back into the hotel bed sans original crazy adaptive alien kidneys just in time for a breakfast of champions :cool:

The new aliens don't have hayfever or asthma in their quadrant of the galaxy, so no sal required

Yup, twittersphere, ATO, UCI and CAS will buy that no problemo ;)
User avatar sittingbison
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,299
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 08:11
Location: Perth WA

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 13:19

DNP-Old wrote:
Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155

How does he plan on proving this? Why has this only occurred once despite him using that puffer on the regular? How can a kidney- and asthma-patient win a grand tour? Why did it take so long to come up with this clarification?



Brailsford really has hung him out to dry. Not an altitude natives study to be seen anywhere. Gone are he days of a quick phone call and postive disappeared. I also feel sympathetic for Froome.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 13:36

DNP-Old wrote:
Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155

How does he plan on proving this? Why has this only occurred once despite him using that puffer on the regular? How can a kidney- and asthma-patient win a grand tour? Why did it take so long to come up with this clarification?


This. This stuff makes cycling look ridiculous. We already had Froome with Typhoid, Badzhilla, etc, etc. which was unbelievable. Now this "defense" will run in the general press where non-cycling fans see it and the sport becomes even more of a joke to Joe Public.

Reminds me of when that story came out a few years ago about how the testers could wake guys up in the middle of the night for testing 24/7, and it played out on the general news media as "these cyclists are such big dopers they even have to test them at 3AM and still can't get them to stop using drugs."

UCI needs to get a handle on Froome ASAP. Just pop him for something else, automatic suspension, two offenses, and get him out of the sport. Spend your money fighting it like a fool, or be smart and retire with the money and do something else.
“She lost the old-fashioned way, by being a terrible candidate. Case closed.”
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,660
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50


Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 13:51

thehog wrote:
DNP-Old wrote:
Bronstein wrote:'L'Equipe reporting that Chris Froome's defence exploring whether his kidneys could have "malfunctioned", storing up salbutamol only to release a large quantity for the anti-doping test.'

https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Article/La-defense-risquee-de-christopher-froome-apres-son-controle-anormal-au-salbutamol/867155

How does he plan on proving this? Why has this only occurred once despite him using that puffer on the regular? How can a kidney- and asthma-patient win a grand tour? Why did it take so long to come up with this clarification?



Brailsford really has hung him out to dry. Not an altitude natives study to be seen anywhere. Gone are he days of a quick phone call and postive disappeared. I also feel sympathetic for Froome.


2 years holiday if the kidneys are still working.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,532
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

Re:

16 Jan 2018 13:55




This part of that article seems to affirm MI and Bambino's points above:

Having discounted the dehydration hypothesis initially suggested as a possible cause for a spike in the salbutamol concentration and decided against a pharmacokinetic option that might have shown that external factors were the cause because of the difficulty of recreating the same conditions of that day, Froome’s team of experts are said to be focusing on this new hypothesis.


Last ditch effort?
“She lost the old-fashioned way, by being a terrible candidate. Case closed.”
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,660
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re: All About Salbutamol

16 Jan 2018 13:59

G for the Tour?

What L’Equipe describes as Froome’s “double or quits” defence could lead to the British rider receiving a two-year ban, his sacking by Sky and, potentially, given that he is 33, the end of his career.

User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,481
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Back to top