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: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

What will the verdict in Froome's salbutamol case?

He will be cleared
29
26%
3 month ban
4
4%
6 month ban
15
14%
9 month ban
25
23%
1 year ban
15
14%
2 year ban
21
19%
4 year ban
2
2%
 
Total votes : 111

Re: Re:

05 May 2018 22:24

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Cons
A meta-study combining lots of different tests done by other groups under different protocols and conditions
- A theoretical study using computer math equations alone, which has no physical basis


The key weakness is that while they used real data to fit the model, they did not use the resulting model to predict other data, which are available from other studies. It’s frequently rather easy to fit one study’s data to a model. The real test is when the model is then used to predict the results of other studies.

Offers nothing new to explain how 2000ng/ml could have been 'accidentally' exceeded, since no iteration of their computer model is claimed to have reached 2000ng/ml. That actually is more damaging to Froome's case than helpful


No, some iterations reached that level, they just didn’t report how many.

Comes out too late for Froome's defense at Anti-Doping Tribunal, anything that his legal team wanted to submit to Ulrich Haas had to be submitted on paper a long time ago, new 'evidence' is not accepted at this point


Have a link for this? It’s up to Haas to decide when no more documents can be submitted, and it’s very unlikely the public would know if/when he makes that decision. In fact, from what Lappartient said in the interview with L'Equipe, it seems pretty clear that at that time submission of documents was still ongoing. If it wasn't, there should have been a hearing by now.
-
Very suspicious in its timing and specific references to Froome, tailor-made to his doping case


Definitely, which makes their omission of the 2000 ng/ml results all the more puzzling. My guess is that this level is reached 1% of the time or less.

In press, not actually published, so the final version and date of publication is unknown


That’s not a con, the paper at this point can be cited by other authors.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,623
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

05 May 2018 23:57

Merckx index wrote:. It’s frequently rather easy to fit one study’s data to a model. The real test is when the model is then used to predict the results of other studies.
I was going to suggest to the authors that they change the working title of their paper to "Futility Of Using Canine Physiology To Predict Human Results"...
In short, a PK model of salbutamol in dogs was used as the basis, and extrapolated to humans using allometric scaling... Calibration of the parameters derived from the dog model
was required, to better correspond to the data...
But then suddenly, it hit me: That must be why Froome is called The DAWG .

Xenogenetics explains so much. I'm going to write a letter of apology to Mike Morgan now. I was looking at this doping case the wrong way all along
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

06 May 2018 00:39

Chris Froome: give drug cheats lifetime bans

"I definitely think there need to be harsher penalties for people who break the rules," he told the Mail on Sunday.
"I'm not so sure they should be allowed back into the sport at all.

"I've got faith in the testing procedures" :D


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10250504/Chris-Froome-give-drug-cheats-lifetime-bans.html
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 552
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re: Re:

06 May 2018 03:23

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:So it won't save Froome from being banned by ADT, but is likely to be used as a reference during his appeal to CAS


So it's possible they know they'll lose in the tribunal and the work is already underway for the appeal.
User avatar fasthill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 00:42

06 May 2018 03:24

Is this forum censored by CN? One of my posts is gone.
User avatar fasthill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 00:42

Re: Re:

06 May 2018 10:16

fasthill wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:So it won't save Froome from being banned by ADT, but is likely to be used as a reference during his appeal to CAS
So it's possible they know they'll lose in the tribunal and the work is already underway for the appeal.
Probably Froome's lawyers always expected to lose in the tribunal, whether they told Froome that or not. Every previous defendant with UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal lost. There are thirteen published cases since 2015, plus two appeals from ADT to CAS. The two cyclists who appealed to CAS lost again on appeal

15 - 0 record by the UCI. Some critics in this forum call it a 'kangaroo court' which just 'rubber-stamps' the petition of the UCI lawyers. But it's not, the decisions are very detailed in their reasoning. The defendants lose mostly because the UCI has pre-selected the cyclists whose cases they feel certain to win. Otherwise they wouldn't send it to ADT

MerckxIndex pointed out correctly that we don't know for certain that Ulrich Haas would not admit this physiology paper as 'evidence'. My opinion is: that if ever presented with this very weak paper Haas would probably dismiss it as a theoretical math study based on the physiology of dogs, which doesn't reveal new facts about Froome's real-world actions... and isn't proof that the "Adverse Analytical Finding" does not constitute an "Anti-Doping Rule Violation".

In his previous published decisions, Haas showed impatience for superfluous material, and sardonically refused to consider some hypothetical arguments... because it's "not what the Judge is looking for". Would Ulrich Haas admit this paper as 'evidence', only in order to dismantle its flaws, in order to save CAS the trouble of dismantling it later? I think he wouldn't, if he saw this paper at all, he would be more likely to dismiss it as frivolous stalling, and would want to wrap up the case instead.
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

06 May 2018 21:38

It's a kangaroo court precisely because *it is the UCI*. 15-0 record for the UCI makes no sense because again *this is the UCIs decision we are waiting on*. Just because the UCI is so profoundly incompetent and corrupt that they felt the need to make up this ADT doesn't mean it's now some impartial court proceeding.
hazaran
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 14 Jul 2015 00:37

Re:

06 May 2018 22:10

hazaran wrote:It's a kangaroo court precisely because *it is the UCI*. 15-0 record for the UCI makes no sense because again *this is the UCIs decision we are waiting on*. Just because the UCI is so profoundly incompetent and corrupt that they felt the need to make up this ADT doesn't mean it's now some impartial court proceeding.


It's 15-0 because the criterion for an AAF is so strict--to avoid false positives--that almost all positives are genuine in the first place. Even before the Tribunal, even before LADS, the odds are overwhelmingly against the rider. The process after that mostly just crosses the t's and dots the i's. When the occasional rider does get off, most of the time it's not because of a false positive or some other mistake in the test, but because of a technicality.

Anyone who understands the science behind doping tests knows that the UCI is bending over backwards to make it as easy as possible for a rider not to test positive. When some dumb or careless rider nevertheless does test positive, he's almost definitely guilty. We've been through this so many times before.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,623
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

06 May 2018 23:40

According to Times article about this new study and Froome's case, Froome's adjusted reading was 1429ng/mL under the new WADA rules. Dr Rabin science director of WADA has read Leiden paper and says WADA will defend it's current threshold and they have also done their own tests in preparation for Froome's case.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,289
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re:

06 May 2018 23:49

hazaran wrote:It's a kangaroo court precisely because *it is the UCI*. 15-0 record for the UCI makes no sense because again *this is the UCIs decision we are waiting on*.


We're waiting on the tribunal's decision, not the UCI's. It's like blaming police for what happens in a court.
User avatar fasthill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 00:42

Re: Re:

07 May 2018 00:15

fasthill wrote:
hazaran wrote:It's a kangaroo court precisely because *it is the UCI*. 15-0 record for the UCI makes no sense because again *this is the UCIs decision we are waiting on*.


We're waiting on the tribunal's decision, not the UCI's. It's like blaming police for what happens in a court.


See, this is exactly the bullshit confusion we get. No, we're still waiting for the police to hand out the ticket. UCI (or the "tribunal" aka UCI) need to look into their little book of WADA guidelines, pick out the right row and column, write a form letter rejecting all his arguments since the WADA science isn't questioned, and send it off. That is what we are waiting for here, that is what the "tribunal" is. Any challenge happens at CAS; that's the court. This phase right now, that's Froome arguing with the police. And hey, sometimes you can talk yourself out of your ticket with the police. But at the end of the day they *apply* the law, just as the UCI is expected to, and challenges to the law aren't the domain of the police.
hazaran
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 14 Jul 2015 00:37

Re:

07 May 2018 00:44

bigcog wrote:According to Times article about this new study and Froome's case, Froome's adjusted reading was 1429ng/mL under the new WADA rules. Dr Rabin science director of WADA has read Leiden paper and says WADA will defend it's current threshold and they have also done their own tests in preparation for Froome's case.


Have a link? If his adjusted reading was 1429, then his USG was 1.028. I was wondering what it was, and if it would help him. It does. He could now use the corrected figure, together with the theoretical study, to argue that there is some probability--5%?--of his urine level if he inhaled 800 ug in the last hour of the stage. Also, the data in the literature might show a value that low for 800 ug. I need to check that. Still a stretch, but better for him than 2000 ng/ml.

Edit: Still doesn't look good for him. In five studies of subjects inhaling 800 ug, only 4/344 samples were > 1000 ng/ml, and only 1 was > 1200 ng/ml. That sample was 1387 ng/ml, but only as a result of correction of a raw value of around 560 ng/ml. The subject had very dilute urine, which can result in a very large correction factor.

I have a better idea of why the case is taking so long, though. The 1429 ng/ml level is close enough to the decision limit that Froome's team is probably arguing for some other factors to push it down a little more.
Last edited by Merckx index on 07 May 2018 01:43, edited 1 time in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,623
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 May 2018 01:27

Dr Olivier Rabin, Wada’s science director, told The Times that the organisation would vigorously defend its position and had already read the Leiden paper. “I read the article you refer to, and no, no concern at all. Nothing new as their model is based on three well-known studies,” Rabin said.

He added: “Wada has conducted several studies on salbutamol and continues to conduct studies on beta-2 agonists. We believe the current threshold is solid considering the scientific literature published on salbutamol over the past 20 years. Based upon the published and unpublished information in our possession, we see no reason to change the salbutamol threshold.”

Image

The Team Sky rider has said that he increased his puffs during the race under the guidance of the team doctor, believed to have gone from two puffs per day up to ten during the last week of the Vuelta because he felt worsening asthma conditions.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/study-raises-doubts-about-chris-froomes-salbutamol-test-ldbsx5sdn
Last edited by 70kmph on 07 May 2018 03:08, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 552
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re: Re:

07 May 2018 01:28

hazaran wrote:No, we're still waiting for the police to hand out the ticket.


Let's not go with the analogy too far. The Tribunal does not punish automatically after the discovery of the infringement as a police officer would. The fact of the infringement goes to the Tribunal to give the offender the opportunity to explain the infringement. The Tribunal's function is nothing like the police's.
User avatar fasthill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 00:42

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 May 2018 11:49

70kmph wrote:Dr Olivier Rabin, Wada’s science director, told The Times that the organisation would vigorously defend its position and had already read the Leiden paper. “I read the article you refer to, and no, no concern at all. Nothing new as their model is based on three well-known studies,” Rabin said.

He added: “Wada has conducted several studies on salbutamol and continues to conduct studies on beta-2 agonists. We believe the current threshold is solid considering the scientific literature published on salbutamol over the past 20 years. Based upon the published and unpublished information in our possession, we see no reason to change the salbutamol threshold.”

Image

The Team Sky rider has said that he increased his puffs during the race under the guidance of the team doctor, believed to have gone from two puffs per day up to ten during the last week of the Vuelta because he felt worsening asthma conditions.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/study-raises-doubts-about-chris-froomes-salbutamol-test-ldbsx5sdn

I'm no expect here, but if 15% are found to be false positives over 1000mg, isn't that why there is the 1200mg limit in place as well? And a 1500mg finding would have a statistically negligible chance of being a false positive? So this study and its findings are actually nothing new, and basically irrelevant to the case?
Brullnux
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,253
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

07 May 2018 12:19

Ross Tucker chimes in on the Let-Froome-Go paper:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/993413989890707457
User avatar fasthill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 00:42

07 May 2018 12:28

And these are the same people who claimed EPO was no good? Lucky for Froome they decided to do this study after Froome's "troubles" were leaked to the press. Smells ...
"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: 2,057
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

07 May 2018 15:18

fasthill wrote:Ross Tucker chimes in on the Let-Froome-Go paper:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/993413989890707457


That saved me a lot of head scratching. THanks.

However, this is probably the key takeaway, from Tucker: I think the point is that this is how Sky and Froome need it to be, and this study is a big bullet in their chamber. It’s all about sowing doubt. Attack the foundations, then jump out the window when the house falls down.

So, probably not Froome's life preserver, but definitely something that he can clutch at.
Bolder
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

07 May 2018 16:13

Deleted post
Last edited by Djoop on 07 Jun 2018 13:34, edited 1 time in total.
Djoop
New Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 20 Aug 2015 16:13

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 May 2018 21:37

Brullnux wrote:

I'm no expect here, but if 15% are found to be false positives over 1000mg, isn't that why there is the 1200mg limit in place as well? And a 1500mg finding would have a statistically negligible chance of being a false positive? So this study and its findings are actually nothing new, and basically irrelevant to the case?

The 1200 DL is to account for possible uncertainty in the measurement, is not relevant to the 15%. And 1500 (1429) would not be negligible in their model, but somewhere between 5-10%. To repeat what I said earlier, 4/344 samples in five well-known studies were> 1000, only 1 > 1200, and that was a corrected value. The reason why there are so few--and the answer to Tucker's question of why there are so few positives in the peloton--is because it would be quite rare that a rider would take 800 ug in a short period of time, then give a sample within an hour. Most of the studies in the literature assayed urine after four hours, some even longer. It would be fairly easy at this point to run a study in which subjects all took 800 ug and were tested one hour later, and someone should do that. My prediction is that there will definitely be > 1% > 1000, and maybe > 1% > Froome's value, but unless Froome can prove he took 800 ug within an hour of the end of the stage, that doesn't help him. Mostly it shows that if a rider wanted to go out of his way to stay within the limit allowed to inhale, and still test over the limit in urine concentration, he could do it! Sorry but the computer I'm on now doesn't allow me to make new paragraphs, just should add that such a study should look at one hour, two hours, and four hours. It would be very easy to test this model.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,623
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wansteadimp and 26 guests

Back to top