Log in:  

Register

All About Salbutamol

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

What will the verdict in Froome's salbutamol case?

He will be cleared
43
34%
3 month ban
4
3%
6 month ban
15
12%
9 month ban
24
19%
1 year ban
16
13%
2 year ban
21
17%
4 year ban
3
2%
 
Total votes : 126

Re: All About Salbutamol

04 Nov 2018 08:14

8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.

Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated. It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,959
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

04 Nov 2018 14:03

One way or another Froome bought his exoneration and that's not a suspicion.
topcat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 04 Jul 2016 21:59

Re: All About Salbutamol

04 Nov 2018 23:22

samhocking wrote:8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.


I said the arguments he used were unique. Austin's approach had never been used before. A few months ago, you yourself were pointing this out, with "pharmo is the end of the road", "don't need urine samples", etc. You misinterpreted what Austin did, but you were right that this approach had never been used before.

Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated.


Which is what I said. I also pointed out, several times, and you continue to ignore it, that until the Froome case, no one knew that athletes could test positive for salbutamol without its ever being made public. That is why the focus on Froome's case, not because of some bias. Of course, being one of the best GT riders of all time, who has steadfastly refused to provide a coherent explanation for his overnight transformation, also makes a big difference, but the notion that the criticism results solely because of "bias" against Froome, independent of any context, is nonsense.

It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.


We have no idea whether those athletes were correctly exonerated. EPO test data indicate that riders with ambiguous gel profiles usually get off. That doesn't mean they were correctly exonerated. It just means that WADA bends over backwards to avoid false positives.

By the way, remember this?

Writing in Le Monde, Froome said that he would welcome publication by Wada of “the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me”.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,786
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: All About Salbutamol

05 Nov 2018 03:55

Merckx index wrote:
samhocking wrote:8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.


I said the arguments he used were unique. Austin's approach had never been used before. A few months ago, you yourself were pointing this out, with "pharmo is the end of the road", "don't need urine samples", etc. You misinterpreted what Austin did, but you were right that this approach had never been used before.

Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated.


Which is what I said. I also pointed out, several times, and you continue to ignore it, that until the Froome case, no one knew that athletes could test positive for salbutamol without its ever being made public. That is why the focus on Froome's case, not because of some bias. Of course, being one of the best GT riders of all time, who has steadfastly refused to provide a coherent explanation for his overnight transformation, also makes a big difference, but the notion that the criticism results solely because of "bias" against Froome, independent of any context, is nonsense.

It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.


We have no idea whether those athletes were correctly exonerated. EPO test data indicate that riders with ambiguous gel profiles usually get off. That doesn't mean they were correctly exonerated. It just means that WADA bends over backwards to avoid false positives.

By the way, remember this?

Writing in Le Monde, Froome said that he would welcome publication by Wada of “the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me”.



Unique, not unique, biased, unbiased, etc ... these are all banter snippets ... and fair enough ... where would the Clinic fun be without them? :razz:

Can professional cycling afford (via teams, WADA, UCI) ... the real dollars to fund a gold standard anti doping scrutiny ... while remaining viable as sports entertainment?

And related to that, in 2018, how elastic is demand to the odd rider getting popped?
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: All About Salbutamol

05 Nov 2018 09:10

Alpe73 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:
samhocking wrote:8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.


I said the arguments he used were unique. Austin's approach had never been used before. A few months ago, you yourself were pointing this out, with "pharmo is the end of the road", "don't need urine samples", etc. You misinterpreted what Austin did, but you were right that this approach had never been used before.

Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated.


Which is what I said. I also pointed out, several times, and you continue to ignore it, that until the Froome case, no one knew that athletes could test positive for salbutamol without its ever being made public. That is why the focus on Froome's case, not because of some bias. Of course, being one of the best GT riders of all time, who has steadfastly refused to provide a coherent explanation for his overnight transformation, also makes a big difference, but the notion that the criticism results solely because of "bias" against Froome, independent of any context, is nonsense.

It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.


We have no idea whether those athletes were correctly exonerated. EPO test data indicate that riders with ambiguous gel profiles usually get off. That doesn't mean they were correctly exonerated. It just means that WADA bends over backwards to avoid false positives.

By the way, remember this?

Writing in Le Monde, Froome said that he would welcome publication by Wada of “the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me”.



Unique, not unique, biased, unbiased, etc ... these are all banter snippets ... and fair enough ... where would the Clinic fun be without them? :razz:

Can professional cycling afford (via teams, WADA, UCI) ... the real dollars to fund a gold standard anti doping scrutiny ... while remaining viable as sports entertainment?

And related to that, in 2018, how elastic is demand to the odd rider getting popped?


they're not really banter snippets...they're demonstrable

the issue (for WADA/UCI) is that the charade needs to be seen to work...and that means if you are stupid/unlucky enought to fail a test you need to be punished.....it's in everyone's interest and a safegaurd for the dopers and the stupid/unlucky as much as those who don't dope

there's not point having a pretence if you then don't even have an......er.......pretence :)

the impacts of the erosion may not play out out in 2018/or 2019 but it will play out..........
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: All About Salbutamol

05 Nov 2018 10:03

gillan1969 wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
Merckx index wrote:
samhocking wrote:8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.


I said the arguments he used were unique. Austin's approach had never been used before. A few months ago, you yourself were pointing this out, with "pharmo is the end of the road", "don't need urine samples", etc. You misinterpreted what Austin did, but you were right that this approach had never been used before.

Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated.


Which is what I said. I also pointed out, several times, and you continue to ignore it, that until the Froome case, no one knew that athletes could test positive for salbutamol without its ever being made public. That is why the focus on Froome's case, not because of some bias. Of course, being one of the best GT riders of all time, who has steadfastly refused to provide a coherent explanation for his overnight transformation, also makes a big difference, but the notion that the criticism results solely because of "bias" against Froome, independent of any context, is nonsense.

It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.


We have no idea whether those athletes were correctly exonerated. EPO test data indicate that riders with ambiguous gel profiles usually get off. That doesn't mean they were correctly exonerated. It just means that WADA bends over backwards to avoid false positives.

By the way, remember this?

Writing in Le Monde, Froome said that he would welcome publication by Wada of “the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me”.



Unique, not unique, biased, unbiased, etc ... these are all banter snippets ... and fair enough ... where would the Clinic fun be without them? :razz:

Can professional cycling afford (via teams, WADA, UCI) ... the real dollars to fund a gold standard anti doping scrutiny ... while remaining viable as sports entertainment?

And related to that, in 2018, how elastic is demand to the odd rider getting popped?


they're not really banter snippets...they're demonstrable

the issue (for WADA/UCI) is that the charade needs to be seen to work...and that means if you are stupid/unlucky enought to fail a test you need to be punished.....it's in everyone's interest and a safegaurd for the dopers and the stupid/unlucky as much as those who don't dope

there's not point having a pretence if you then don't even have an......er.......pretence :)

the impacts of the erosion may not play out out in 2018/or 2019 but it will play out..........



Did you miss a day following the Giro and the Tour?

C'mon now, lad. Nowt but the truth.

As an aside, how'd you go with A.W's. mosquito byte story?
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archibald, Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 21 guests

Back to top