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

09 Jul 2018 11:39

You don't need evidence of Asthma to be prescribed Salbutomol for EIA in your team lol. Simply your team doctor gets you to do a flow test is usually enough. It's hardly even worth discussing. Crikey at one point Salbutomol was available off-the-shelf in UK supermarkets.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,622
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

09 Jul 2018 13:39

Benotti69 wrote:The Times of London has 2 seperate articles on Froome giving different information about his Salbutamol intake.

One article claims Froome never exceeded 8 puffs a day.

https://ton.twitter.com/1.1/ton/data/dm/1016041138678128644/1016041078061924352/lcbF3J-j.jpg:large


The other claims he was taking it up to 10 times a day.


https://ton.twitter.com/1.1/ton/data/dm/1016041359659192327/1016041322174730242/e0RBhtUb.jpg:large



I also saw an article a few days ago quoting Froome that he took 10 puffs one day. By one day he might have meant a 24 hour period, but it's more likely in that context he meant during a waking day--from when he got up till when he was tested at the end of the stage--which would mean he was over the allowed amount.

Regarding that, people may recall that only recently did WADA clarify the rule by using a diagram to explain how much salbutamol could be taken and when. The reason for this is because some people misinterpreted the rule. Suppose you took no salbutamol for ten hours, then took 800 ug. Some people interpreted the rules as meaning that after two additional hours you could take another 800 ug, with the first 800 ug counting towards one twelve hour period, and the second 800 ug counting towards a second twelve hour period. WADA put up the diagram to emphasize that this wasn't allowed, that the 800 ug rule applied to any twelve hour period. But it's quite possible Froome didn't get this. After all, this is the guy who referred to the causative agent in schisto--a disease he claimed to have had for many years--as a virus.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

09 Jul 2018 14:20

samhocking wrote:You don't need evidence of Asthma to be prescribed Salbutomol for EIA in your team lol. Simply your team doctor gets you to do a flow test is usually enough. It's hardly even worth discussing. Crikey at one point Salbutomol was available off-the-shelf in UK supermarkets.

So there really is no proof at all the Froome has asthma? None is needed right? Just have to ask him and that's enough.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

09 Jul 2018 15:45

I have no idea. I'd say, given he's just been exonerated for an Asthma-related drug, it might have been a question UCI asked him maybe lol. If they didn't, they deserve to be seen as baboons!
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,622
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

11 Jul 2018 18:01

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

11 Jul 2018 18:23

Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


We already know they didn't do a test, that's been stated previously.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,368
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 18:29

bigcog wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


We already know they didn't do a test, that's been stated previously.


No test needed. They looked into his eyes.........



:lol:
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: All About Salbutamol

11 Jul 2018 18:37

here's what UCI say

"The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

Here's what WADA say

"On 2 July 2018, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced that it would not be appealing the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI’s) decision not to assert an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) in the case involving British rider Christopher Froome."

"While WADA remains convinced that the UCI reached the right and fair outcome on this very complex case
...."

so UCI say its WADA and WADA say its UCI....in fairness it's looking like WADA.......WADA in effect they won't back up UCIO at CAS and will side with Froome...UCI has to call it a day

WADA conclusion based on Froomes Vuelta data....we need to see Froome's Vuelta data....simples
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,445
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

11 Jul 2018 19:38

In some other cases, athletes have been able to demonstrate an unusually high salbutamol excretion by conducting a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS). It was accepted by the UCI, however, that in this case such a study would not have provided reliable evidence as it would be impossible to adequately recreate similar conditions to when Mr. Froome was subjected to the test, taking into account his physical condition, which included an illness, exacerbated asthmatic symptoms, dose escalation over a short period of time, dehydration and the fact that he was midway through a multi-day road cycling race.


But in its own statement, UCI specifically ruled out illness as relevant. That leaves riding in a GT and dehydration as the only reasons for not performing a CPKS, which again, are factors in many AAFs. Nothing unique about those factors at all.

In order to stay on top of this complex area of anti-doping, and as outlined in the background document on salbutamol linked below, WADA has funded and supported a number of salbutamol studies over the years and continues to do so. Below is an extensive list of publications originating from WADA-sponsored studies related to salbutamol excretion as WADA encourages research teams to publish the results of their studios in peer-reviewed journals. (There have also been published studies, not sponsored by WADA, that have provided useful data.)

Sporer, Sheel & McKenzie, Med Sci Sport Exerc 2008, 40:149
• Sporer, Sheel, Taunton, Rupert & McKenzie, Clin J Sports Med 2008 18:282.
• Mareck, Guddat, Schwenke, Beuck, Geyer, Flenker, Elers, Backer, Thevis & Schanzer, Drug Test Analysis, 2011, 3:820

• Elers, Morkeberg, Jansen, Belhage, Backer, Scan J Sport Med 2012b: 22: 232–239
Dickinson, Hu, Chester, Loosemore & Whyte. Clin J Sport Med. 2014, 24:482
• Elers, Pedersen, Henninge, Hemmersbach, Dalhoff & Backer, Int J Sport Med 2011, 32:574
Elers, Pedersen, Henninge, Hemmersbach, Dalhoff & Backer, Clin J Sport Med 2012, 22:140
• Dickinson, Hu, Chester, Loosemore & Whyte, J Sport Sci Med, 2014, 13:271
• Dickinson, Hu, Chester, Loosemore & Whyte, Clin J Sport Med 2014, 24:482

• Haase, Backer, Kalsen, Rzeppa, Hemmersbach & Hostrup, Drug Test Analysis 2016, 8:613
• Hostrup, Kansel, Auchenberg, Rzeppa, Hemmersbach, Bangbo & Backer, Drug Testing Analysis 2014 6:528 (final abstract is pending)


The references in bold are the studies in which 800 ug was tested. All the others used higher doses, except the last, which hasn’t been published yet. Note also that one of the Dickinson references is repeated on the list. I hope WADA took a little more care in coming to its decision.

Of those studies in bold, there were a total of 187 samples, out of which only three (1.6%) exceeded 1000 ng/ml. Furthermore, only one sample exceeded the decision limit of 1200 ng. This was a corrected value, which was increased from the uncorrected value because of dilute urine, that is, the USG was < 1.020. Since the new rules specify that an athlete’s sample does not have use the corrected value if it raises the effective salbutamol concentration, this value would not have resulted in an AAF. In fact, none of the nearly two hundred samples would have.

So there are no published studies I’m aware of—and apparently, that WADA is aware of-- in which a subject inhaled 800 ug and reached Froome’s level. (Other than the Swiss runner, who technically took more than 800 ug, and clearly was a very unusual case).

Also, while WADA has repeatedly implied that intense exercise and dehydration can affect the urinary levels, several of the studies in bold examined these factors, and found no evidence for a significant effect. For example, in one of the Dickinson studies, 32 subjects exercised until they lost either 2% or 5% of their body mass. In the other study, 7 subjects performed a 5 km run. None of the more than 70 total samples exceeded 1000 ng/ml.

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal.


The key word here is "Tribunal". It wasn't UCI that refused, it was Haas. Why? WADA doesn't say, but maybe he didn't want another party complicating the proceedings. He may have already decided that he wasn't going to accept any challenge to the salbutamol threshold--I believe in fact he played a key role in creating it?--so WADA's participation was unnecessary.

It should be noted that, until WADA received Mr. Froome’s detailed explanations on 4 June, WADA considered that this case merited going through a CPKS and, if necessary, disciplinary proceedings at both the UCI and Court of Arbitration for Sport level.


So the decision not to require a CPKS was made long after Froome would have been asked to provide one. This would have been in January or February, and his refusal or inability to do such a study was no doubt a contributing factor in UCI's decision to propose a ban, and send the case to the Tribunal. If any more evidence were necessary, this makes it clear that Froome's case is unique in the annals of anti-doping cases.

However, based on what was provided by UCI to WADA, and once Mr. Froome’s explanations were assessed by the appropriate internal and external experts, it became clear to WADA that, in particular, the combination of his within-subject variability for salbutamol excretion, the sudden and significant increase in salbutamol dosage prior to the doping control, and the number of consecutive doping controls meant that the analytical result could not be considered inconsistent with the ingestion of a permissible dose of inhaled salbutamol.


The computer simulation model, which we don't get to see, because WADA/UCI/Froome are chicken-shit to let the wider scientific community evaluate it.

At present, there is no evidence that a change to the threshold or decision limit for salbutamol is required.


Because of the literature cited above. Note also that while WADA has referred to unpublished studies, their statement here basically reinforces the conclusion that these unpublished studies don't change anything. It all comes down to Froome's unique conditions, even though these conditions were not in fact unique.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

11 Jul 2018 19:54

Agreed. Now we have confirmation that the decision was bullshit (for want of a better word).
topcat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 04 Jul 2016 21:59

11 Jul 2018 20:13

If the UCI would have been the only body involved I would call BS, but WADA, they would love to bust a dirty cyclist to prove their worth. The UCI is bind, WADA is blind, if there was a neutral third party, they would be blind...
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,993
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re:

11 Jul 2018 21:56

jmdirt wrote:If the UCI would have been the only body involved I would call BS, but WADA, they would love to bust a dirty cyclist to prove their worth. The UCI is bind, WADA is blind, if there was a neutral third party, they would be blind...


Nope. WADA could bust loads of big names to prove its worth. It is not in the job of dragging sport through the dirt.

Hell, WADA could do lots more for clean sport, but that is not why it was set up. It is a smoke screen.

As Topcat said. Bullshit.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

11 Jul 2018 22:19

http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/fis-rules-and-keeping-quiet-why-you-didnt-hear-about-sundby-sooner/


mong athletes and fans, one of the biggest reactions was of surprise: Sundby’s samples had been collected in December 2014 and January 2015, yet the case had never been publicized.

That is primarily because despite the adverse analytical finding (AAF) of salbutamol — a common asthma medication — in two of Sundby’s urine samples, the International Ski Federation (FIS) concluded that he had not broken any rules.

Sundby’s urine samples both had over 1300 ng/mL of salbutamol, triggering an AAF and beginning the investigative process into whether he had an appropriate TUE.

The reason — that he was taking the medication through a nebulizer rather than an inhaler and believed that this made a TUE unnessecary



Froome claims he only took puffs. Sundy used a nebuliser and still only showed a level of 1300ng/ml. No way Froome reached his 2000 level on puffs.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 22:25

Benotti69 wrote:Nope. WADA could bust loads of big names to prove its worth. It is not in the job of dragging sport through the dirt.

Hell, WADA could do lots more for clean sport, but that is not why it was set up. It is a smoke screen.

As Topcat said. Bullshit.


I don’t think it’s quite that simple. They weren’t afraid to go after Contador, even after his fed had cleared him.

Considering that change from May 15 to June 28, it has crossed my mind that there might have been a deal, at least implicit if not explicit: We will drop the case if you promise not to make a big deal claiming that the salbutamol threshold needs to be changed. Because there could be a lot of lawsuits if the threshold were seriously challenged. I really don't understand why Petacchi isn't suing over the new USG rule. I know it's a general legal principle that you can't have court decisions reversed because of later changes in the law, but in civil and criminal cases it can be argued that the law changed because of new conditions that didn’t exist previously. That isn’t the case here. There has been no new research supporting the USG correction. The rationale for it is the same as it was during Petacchi's case.

Anyway, WADA is walking a very fine line here. On the one hand, they're insisting that the threshold is fine. On the other hand, they have to explain why, that being the case, Froome was not sanctioned.

I think this is why they made public the eight other AAFs that were exonerated in the past five years. The threshold is OK, they’re saying, because though it may be breached on rare occasion by an innocent athlete, a closer examination will clear him. This is part of their strategy for showing the current threshold is compatible with an occasional AAF of an innocent rider.

The other part is arguing that Froome rode under unique conditions, though it seems quite clear he didn't. They keep hammering away at how special Froome's situation was, even as UCI has denied that illness or other medications made any difference. Now I notice that WADA has thrown in exacerbated asthma, though there is no evidence that would affect urinary levels, either. Good luck trying to show that, either in the lab or on the road. In fact, you would expect that other athletes have upped their dosages when they’ve had a serious asthma attack, and thus would be more likely to get an AAF then, rather than when they were inhaling only occasionally.

The one thing WADA doesn’t want to suggest is that Froome has a unique physiology. Because that would imply a get-out-of-jail-free card not just now, but in the future. If he were ever to exceed the limit again, he could just say, it's already been proven that I'm the rare individual that can exceed the limit within the allowed amount. Asked and answered.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 22:33

Merckx index wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Nope. WADA could bust loads of big names to prove its worth. It is not in the job of dragging sport through the dirt.

Hell, WADA could do lots more for clean sport, but that is not why it was set up. It is a smoke screen.

As Topcat said. Bullshit.


I don’t think it’s quite that simple. They weren’t afraid to go after Contador, even after his fed had cleared him.

Considering that change from May 15 to June 28, it has crossed my mind that there might have been a deal, at least implicit if not explicit: We will drop the case if you promise not to make a big deal claiming that the salbutamol threshold needs to be changed. Because there could be a lot of lawsuits if the threshold were seriously challenged. I really don't understand why Petacchi isn't suing over the new USG rule. I know it's a general legal principle that you can't have court decisions reversed because of later changes in the law, but in civil and criminal cases it can be argued that the law changed because of new conditions that didn’t exist previously. That isn’t the case here. There has been no new research supporting the USG correction. The rationale for it is the same as it was during Petacchi's case.

Anyway, WADA is walking a very fine line here. On the one hand, they're insisting that the threshold is fine. On the other hand, they have to explain why, that being the case, Froome was not sanctioned.

I think this is why they made public the eight other AAFs that were exonerated in the past five years. That's part of their evidence that other athletes have had special cases, and were able to convince WADA they didn't inhale more than the allowed amount. The threshold is OK, they’re saying, because though it may be breached on rare occasion by an innocent athlete, a closer examination will clear him.

The other part is arguing that Froome rode under unique conditions, though it seems quite clear he didn't. They keep hammering away at how special Froome's situation was, even as UCI has denied that illness or other medications made any difference. Now I notice that WADA has thrown in exacerbated asthma, though there is no evidence that would affect urinary levels, either. Good luck trying to show that, either in the lab or on the road. In fact, you would expect that other athletes have upped their dosages when they’ve had a serious asthma attack, and thus would be more likely to get an AAF then, rather than when they were inhaling only occasionally.

The one thing WADA doesn’t want to suggest is that Froome has a unique physiology. Because that would imply a get-out-of-jail-free card not just now, but in the future. If he were ever to exceed the limit again, he could just say, it's already been proven that I'm the rare individual that can exceed the limit within the allowed amount. Asked and answered.


WADA have opened the flood gates with Froome. Anyone with a sponsor/s willing to spend $$$s to protect their athletes will take WADA to task and will win. If they lose at CAS they could still go the civil courts as this has set a precendence.

I think behind the scenes in the administration of Sport there are politics at play. Why did they bust Contador? Did they do it for Lance, Nike, etc....Did they bust Contador becuase the Spanish bust Fuentes? Who knows the real reasons? Why let Froome off any obvious AAF? None of it, imo, is for sporting reasons.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 22:45

Benotti69 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Nope. WADA could bust loads of big names to prove its worth. It is not in the job of dragging sport through the dirt.

Hell, WADA could do lots more for clean sport, but that is not why it was set up. It is a smoke screen.

As Topcat said. Bullshit.


I don’t think it’s quite that simple. They weren’t afraid to go after Contador, even after his fed had cleared him.

Considering that change from May 15 to June 28, it has crossed my mind that there might have been a deal, at least implicit if not explicit: We will drop the case if you promise not to make a big deal claiming that the salbutamol threshold needs to be changed. Because there could be a lot of lawsuits if the threshold were seriously challenged. I really don't understand why Petacchi isn't suing over the new USG rule. I know it's a general legal principle that you can't have court decisions reversed because of later changes in the law, but in civil and criminal cases it can be argued that the law changed because of new conditions that didn’t exist previously. That isn’t the case here. There has been no new research supporting the USG correction. The rationale for it is the same as it was during Petacchi's case.

Anyway, WADA is walking a very fine line here. On the one hand, they're insisting that the threshold is fine. On the other hand, they have to explain why, that being the case, Froome was not sanctioned.

I think this is why they made public the eight other AAFs that were exonerated in the past five years. That's part of their evidence that other athletes have had special cases, and were able to convince WADA they didn't inhale more than the allowed amount. The threshold is OK, they’re saying, because though it may be breached on rare occasion by an innocent athlete, a closer examination will clear him.

The other part is arguing that Froome rode under unique conditions, though it seems quite clear he didn't. They keep hammering away at how special Froome's situation was, even as UCI has denied that illness or other medications made any difference. Now I notice that WADA has thrown in exacerbated asthma, though there is no evidence that would affect urinary levels, either. Good luck trying to show that, either in the lab or on the road. In fact, you would expect that other athletes have upped their dosages when they’ve had a serious asthma attack, and thus would be more likely to get an AAF then, rather than when they were inhaling only occasionally.

The one thing WADA doesn’t want to suggest is that Froome has a unique physiology. Because that would imply a get-out-of-jail-free card not just now, but in the future. If he were ever to exceed the limit again, he could just say, it's already been proven that I'm the rare individual that can exceed the limit within the allowed amount. Asked and answered.


WADA have opened the flood gates with Froome. Anyone with a sponsor/s willing to spend $$$s to protect their athletes will take WADA to task and will win. If they lose at CAS they could still go the civil courts as this has set a precendence.

I think behind the scenes in the administration of Sport there are politics at play. Why did they bust Contador? Did they do it for Lance, Nike, etc....Did they bust Contador becuase the Spanish bust Fuentes? Who knows the real reasons? Why let Froome off any obvious AAF? None of it, imo, is for sporting reasons.


You really can’t go to civil courts. You need some form of civil infringement to sue through tort law. No civil court will set precedence on a sports case if it falls in line with sports law, none. The European Court can be used if your civil rights have been violated but there is very little room to those regards, some have tried. Unless you just want to the other side to burn up bunch of cash and be exposed to discovery then sue otherwise there is little point.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,378
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: All About Salbutamol

11 Jul 2018 23:02

Point in case, the Heras judgment. Means jack **** and nothing changed.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,378
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 23:21

Merckx index wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Nope. WADA could bust loads of big names to prove its worth. It is not in the job of dragging sport through the dirt.

Hell, WADA could do lots more for clean sport, but that is not why it was set up. It is a smoke screen.

As Topcat said. Bullshit.




Considering that change from May 15 to June 28, it has crossed my mind that there might have been a deal, at least implicit if not explicit: We will drop the case if you promise not to make a big deal claiming that the salbutamol threshold needs to be changed. Because there could be a lot of lawsuits if the threshold were seriously challenged. I really don't understand why Petacchi isn't suing over the new USG rule. I know it's a general legal principle that you can't have court decisions reversed because of later changes in the law, but in civil and criminal cases it can be argued that the law changed because of new conditions that didn’t exist previously. That isn’t the case here. There has been no new research supporting the USG correction. The rationale for it is the same as it was during Petacchi's case.


The change was ASO wrote to Sky 3 weeks before the Tour started stating they were going to exclude him. That applied the pressure on WADA (not to mention Sky pressuring all sides) to force the UCIs hand.

Then WADA and the UCI ran from the crime scene saying it had nothing to do with them. A dead body, Froome holding gun but found innocent.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,378
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

12 Jul 2018 01:09

We now have some idea of the key events. In late January, Froome’s team sent some requests for information to WADA. They didn’t reply until early March, leading some to conclude that it wasn’t Froome who delayed the proceedings. Why did WADA take so long? Because Froome’s team had raised the possibility of challenging the salbutamol threshold. WADA probably consulted with their lawyers as well as their scientists. They wanted to be very sure of what they were doing.

About a month later, in April, WADA told UCI they were willing to join them, in order to defend the salbutamol threshold. This is evidence that WADA was still concerned that Froome’s team would challenge the threshold. By that time, Haas had been appointed in charge of the Tribunal, and he refused. Why? As I said before, I think because he was not going to admit questions about the threshold into the proceedings. He felt that had been adequately justified, and the defense was just fishing. If he felt otherwise, I don’t know how he could have possibly justified excluding WADA.

In the middle of May, WADA, perhaps wanting to be sure the threshold wouldn’t be challenged, sent more information to Froome’s team. This seems to have been initiated at their end, not in response to anything more Froome had requested. At this point, WADA was still siding with UCI in believing Froome had no satisfactory explanation. Froome then replied on June 4, with the documents that apparently changed WADA’s mind.

What happened? In April, Heuberger et al published their paper claiming that their model predicted a very high level of false positives. While UCI in one of its early statements said that that model did not figure into the Froome decision, I suspect it did, in two ways. First, it gave Froome’s team the idea of using simulations to estimate the probability of exceeding the threshold. Though this is not a new idea in pharmacology, it may have only occurred then to his scientific team that they could use the same general approach, but employing Froome’s Vuelta samples. And second, the Heuberger paper emphasized that peak salbutamol urinary concentrations occur within one hour of inhaling. So the team would have realized that the way of maximizing the probability of exceeding the threshold would be to maintain that Froome took the maximum allowed dose all very soon before providing the urine sample after stage 18. They would contrast this with the other stages, where they would argue he not only took a much lower dose, but long before the end of the stage, and perhaps urinating in between. Since the stage 18 level was far above any of the other tested levels, it was important to show that what happened on that day was very different from what happened on every other day.

Still, it’s hard for me to believe that that argument carried the day. Did WADA’s scientists really buy it? If so, why didn’t UCI’s scientists, since nothing in the UCI statement suggests that they came to the same conclusion independently? If WADA’s scientists didn’t buy it, why did WADA drop the case?

Maybe because all the other options looked worse? There’s no indication that Haas was going to issue a ruling before the Tour; as far as we know, there hadn’t even been a hearing, though one isn’t required. If WADA hadn’t acted, Froome would either have been banned from the Tour—with a very messy legal situation that ASO probably would have lost—or he would have ridden under a cloud. If the decision had been issued after the Tour, he might have been stripped of his results, confirming what all the critics of the delay had been predicting all along; or been allowed to keep both the Giro and the Tour, which would have been a near-complete victory for him, and made it look as though he was allowed to delay until both races were done. If Haas had ruled in favor of Froome, and WADA had appealed, they would have been seen by many as the ones responsible for delaying for months the official status of the results. The public had already been stewing for months over what seemed to be taking an inordinate amount of time. Now WADA was going to make everyone wait a lot longer?

At least when WADA and UCI appealed the Contador decision, it was well before the Giro. While Contador had a right to ride, he entered knowing he might lose his results. There was no pressure as I recall to ban him from the race, and if WADA had suddenly wanted to back out, it would have been very difficult for them to rationalize it.

Maybe this is not the explanation. Maybe Froome’s team made a convincing case. But a lot of us won’t buy that until/unless they release more information. The urinary values for all of Froome’s Vuelta samples would be a good place to start. WADA/UCI could also ask the eight other exonerated athletes to allow their decisions to be published. What ever happened to that old saying, If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide?

Edit: Something just occurred to me—I wonder if any of those high-powered pharmacologists at WADA or on Froome ‘s team thought about this. According to one (unconfirmed) report, the model predicted 10% of samples would exceed the threshold or limit. If that were true, then when testing the perhaps hundreds of samples that have been provided by athletes that inhaled 800 ug, there would be certain to be several or more false positives, and this would not be acceptable. You could not have a test with this high a rate of false positives applied to a population.

But the model Froome’s test used apparently was created from only his own samples, and applies only to him. It’s not intended for anyone else (because of those “unique conditions”, remember?). And for him alone, a 10% probability of a false positive should be acceptable. It means there is a 90% chance that the positive is genuine, i.e., resulted from taking more than allowed amount. The standard for judging doping cases is between preponderance of evidence—more than 50% probability—and beyond reasonable doubt, which might be considered > 95%, or perhaps 99%. So a 90% probability that Froome did exceed the allowed amount ought to be enough to warrant a sanction.

Froome’s supporters have been crowing about how the Glaxo model allows Froome to avoid considering laboratory results, and only focus on himself. But the downside of that approach is that the acceptable level of false positives is much higher than it would be for a large pool of subjects. If you’re going to argue that you are unique, you can’t appeal to the crowd when determining standards of probability.

The rebuttal, I suppose, would be that while there was only a 10% chance he was within the allowed amount, this would be greater than the probability that he intentionally doped. That seems to be one of the other arguments WADA/UCI used. But what about the probability that he accidentally or on purpose took more than the allowed amount?
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

12 Jul 2018 09:41

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


Twisting a 10% false positive simulation model also being 90% true positive is ambiguous is it not? Surely the 10% false positive model simulation was based on the the allowed max amount was inhaled and within limits, not illegal amounts that would be required to suggest the other 90% were true positive in Froomes own data?
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,622
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Libertine Seguros, Saint Unix, yetiyeti, Zinoviev Letter and 44 guests

Back to top