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:

12 Feb 2018 01:04

70kmph wrote:Rabin talks about this also

Is there specific knowledge of the factors that cause excretion (the action by which the body discharges a substance) to evolve from salbutamol?

I would be wary of considering all possible pharmacological, toxicological or physiological cases where there may be interference with the renal excretion of a substance or its metabolism. It is enough that you have taken another substance that goes through the same cytochrome P-450 [organic molecule involved in the biodegradation of exogenous molecules, including salbutamol] : it can have an effect on the excretion time. At the renal level, there may also be a substance that interferes with excretion. But we do not rely on assumptions. We want facts.


While antibiotics like erythromycin have been shown to inhibit P450, I don't think a defense based on P450 is as strong as one based on transporters. In the first place, while P450 is present in the lungs, apparently very little salbutamol is metabolized there. So most salubutamol metabolism following inhaling occurs on that portion of the drug that is accidentally swallowed. And for that portion, more of it is metabolized via sulfation and glucoronidation than via P450. Of course, it's possible the two effects could combine. But as you (or are you quoting Rabin? link?) say, those are just assumptions.

http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/39/5/864.long

It could get wild if Froome's team requested a very long delay in order to carry out a study supporting their theory. That would definitely push the hearing and final decision past the TDF. I wonder if any athlete has ever tried that before.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,774
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

12 Feb 2018 01:20

70kmph wrote:Rabin talks about this also :

At the renal level, there may also be a substance that interferes with excretion. But we do not rely on assumptions. We want facts.
Yes, the lawyers or 'experts' for Froome's defense probably got the antibiotics idea from the Rabin interview in December
viewtopic.php?p=2214401#p2214401
For them hypothesize a drug-drug renal inhibition is easy, but for Froome to prove that would be hard.
From the Matzka case judgment :

Picking the most likely among several very improbable scenarios is not what the UCI ADR are looking for: there needs to be an objective evaluation... the UCI has indeed a duty to collaborate – which it has done in the present proceedings by conducting own research and calling an expert witness – and not simply to leave the Rider with the insurmountable task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios... Thus, while the Single Judge accepts the Rider’s submission that his task is to put forward an objectively credible scenario, it does not accept the argument that the UCI needs to bring forward a doping scenario which is more likely to have happened.
Froome has something to prove such that the Judge will accept his explanation to be more likely true than false. That will be hard if his explanation depends on multiplication of several factors, each of which is independently improbable. And meanwhile, the UCI doesn't have to prove that the salbutamol positive occurred some other way.

If necessary, the UCI could just have Froome's samples tested for antibiotics, and if there are none found, to avoid the whole theoretical discussion.
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: Re:

12 Feb 2018 03:35

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Yes, the lawyers or 'experts' for Froome's defense probably got the antibiotics idea from the Rabin interview in December


No, Froome has scientific experts working for him, I expect they came up with this idea on their own. The evidence that antibiotics can affect P450 catalysis has apparently been around for quite a while, and while AFAIK their effect on transporters is literally hot off the presses, they surely would have considered inhibition of transporters by something. The bottom line is that anything Rabin is aware of, Froome's advisors should also know about. Rabin, after all, is not a specialist, he oversees all kinds of doping cases.

From the Matzka case judgment :

Picking the most likely among several very improbable scenarios is not what the UCI ADR are looking for: there needs to be an objective evaluation... the UCI has indeed a duty to collaborate – which it has done in the present proceedings by conducting own research and calling an expert witness – and not simply to leave the Rider with the insurmountable task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios... Thus, while the Single Judge accepts the Rider’s submission that his task is to put forward an objectively credible scenario, it does not accept the argument that the UCI needs to bring forward a doping scenario which is more likely to have happened.


This passage doesn’t make much sense to me. First it says “UCI has indeed a duty to collaborate” and not “leave the Rider with the insurmountable task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios”, but then it denies “that the UCI needs to bring forward a doping scenario which is more likely to have happened.” If the UCI does not promote a specific scenario, how can the rider not be left with the task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios?

What Froome has to do is provide evidence for his theory, then show that on the basis of that evidence, that theory is more plausible than alternatives. I don’t see how that process doesn’t involve discussing and in effect disproving several alternatives.

Froome has something to prove such that the Judge will accept his explanation to be more likely true than false. That will be hard if his explanation depends on multiplication of several factors, each of which is independently improbable. And meanwhile, the UCI doesn't have to prove that the salbutamol positive occurred some other way.


A lab test can establish how improbable the scenario is. The lab test should demonstrate that while Froome is on antibiotics, his plasma levels of salbutamol rise and his urine levels fall, compared to when he's not on antibiotics. If he can establish that, the second step is to provide evidence that he actually took antibiotics during a time frame that is consistent with his salbutamol levels during the Vuelta.

If necessary, the UCI could just have Froome's samples tested for antibiotics, and if there are none found, to avoid the whole theoretical discussion.


But if he took an antibiotic such as erythromycin that is mostly metabolized then excreted by the liver, urine levels might be too low to detect (that is another point the lab test could address). What would really be helpful would be blood samples. It’s possible Froome was singled out for a passport test at some point during the Vuelta. At a minimum, of course, if he’s going to claim he was on antibiotics, he at least needs to provide a prescription dated at that time. That would not be as compelling as detection in bodily fluids, but certainly better than nothing.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,774
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

12 Feb 2018 06:46

Merckx index wrote:This passage doesn’t make much sense to me. First it says “UCI has indeed a duty to collaborate” and not “leave the Rider with the insurmountable task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios”
In that case quoted, what the Judge was getting at, if it were projected onto the Froome case, is that the procedure can't be like :
UCI: Prove that you didn't inject.
UCI: Okay, now prove that you didn't take tablets
UCI: Very good, that was skillful, but we're not finished - so furthermore, now prove you didn't nebulize
UCI: And, in order to make you jump through a endless series of circus hoops, now prove you didn't do X, Y, or Z...
but then it denies “that the UCI needs to bring forward a doping scenario which is more likely to have happened.” If the UCI does not promote a specific scenario, how can the rider not be left with the task of disproving several hypothetical scenarios?
What Froome has to do is provide evidence for his theory, then show that on the basis of that evidence, that theory is more plausible than alternatives. I don’t see how that process doesn’t involve discussing and in effect disproving several alternatives.
The UCI petitions that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has occurred, and they present the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) as primary evidence. Froome has always contended that he didn't break the rules, and that the AAF level of 2000ng/ml occurred starting from a permissible dosage within the rules. Like you said many times before. So Froome and his lawyers and 'experts' need to convince the Judge that it is more likely false than true that an ADRV occurred. Froome's team have submitted something on paper consisting of their explanation and evidence. And the Expert Panel for the UCI comments in order to dismiss the explanation, by convincing the Judge that Froome's evidence is insufficient as proof. "In effect disproving" sounds like a reasonable way to describe that. Froome is guilty until he proves himself innocent, and the UCI doesn't have to prove exactly what did occur

An interesting aspect of the Anti-Doping Tribunal not discussed yet is, if they convince the Judge that the ADRV was intentional, they can fine the Rider for an amount equal to the Rider's net income from cycling for one year. In theory, if the UCI did prove that Froome's misuse of salbutamol was deliberate, then they could also fine Froome 1.5 million Swiss Francs = approximately $1,600,000
    The amount of the fine shall be equal to the net annual income from cycling that the
    Rider or other Person was entitled to for the whole year in which the anti-doping
    violation occurred...
    Income from cycling includes the earnings from all the contracts with the Team
    and the income from image rights, amongst others. The net income shall be deemed to be 70 (seventy) % of the corresponding gross income...
    In all cases, no fine may exceed CHF 1,500,000.
    For the purpose of this article, the UCI shall have the right to receive a copy of the full
    contracts and other related documents
...but, the UCI is not going to try to prove intentionality, in my opinion. Too elaborate, too severe for a 'Specified Substance', and their whole public position is: that they want Froome to be treated "like any other rider". (Although they would hit the jackpot if they were to successfully target a rider as highly-paid as Froome. 70 percent of his gross income would be over 2 million euros, maybe even 3 million. So 1.5 million CHF is the lesser amount). Some of the riders in the ADT cases actually were fined according to their incomes
A lab test can establish how improbable the scenario is. The lab test should demonstrate that while Froome is on antibiotics, his plasma levels of salbutamol rise and his urine levels fall, compared to when he's not on antibiotics.
Froome would need to have already done an in-vivo test on himself in which he was taking both drugs under controlled conditions, then to have submitted the results of his tests a couple weeks ago. At this point, the UCI doesn't have to accept additional testing as evidence, and even if the UCI agrees to it, the judge doesn't have to admit new evidence. Something went down on paper already, when Froome submitted his 'Answer' to the Tribunal. Maybe Sky did do some kind of drug-drug competitor test last autumn, and that's what the whole 'kidney failure' angle was really about - they meant 'impairment of excretion' by something else. But, I doubt they did anything at that level of sophistication in a lab, it would have been prescient on their part. It looks more like Froome was left to his own devices
If he can establish that, the second step is to provide evidence that he actually took antibiotics during a time frame that is consistent with his salbutamol levels during the Vuelta.
That too, Froome did say hesitantly in the BBC interview that he has medical records from the period of the Vuelta, but if an antibiotics prescription is not among them, that means another credibility problem. And as you already pointed out, the required scenario for antibiotic inhibition of excretion, then 'dumping' a lot of salbutamol into the urine all on one day, would be complex. A normal dosage of erythromycin or something similar would result initially in molarity way in excess of the salbutamol, and it does has a shorter half-life.

Froome is going to get owned by the Anti-Doping Tribunal judge no matter what he contends.
Reading through the judgments, some of them are just brutal in their dissection of the riders' claims, it makes the defense attorneys look amateur
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

12 Feb 2018 07:16

Froome/Sky would happily pay a fine and keep riding ... just give 'em the 2 mill Euro and call it quits? :)

Whoever is the Judge I would suggest staying off a mobile phone - the Murdochs have a history you know (SDB did panic one time too I recall)
"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: 2,989
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

12 Feb 2018 16:40

To what degree does it matter legally that the Froome team are juggling theories and basically reverse engineering the story?
Veni, Vidi, Kirby

I came, I saw, I was dead wrong as per usual
User avatar Red Rick
Administrator
 
Posts: 15,523
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15

Re:

12 Feb 2018 16:47

Red Rick wrote:To what degree does it matter legally that the Froome team are juggling theories and basically reverse engineering the story?

Do we know they are doing that? There's loads of supposition about what's going on based on what evidence can be found but we don't really know do we?

Either way, I don't think it matters. As others have pointed out, they just need to show that those values are possible to hit within usage guidelines in a way that could happen. The could will be the main argument if they manage it I would think.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,446
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

12 Feb 2018 16:52

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
yaco wrote:Any subsequent case heard at CAS after a hearing at an Anti-Doping Tribunal is always a 'DE Novo' case which means a completely new trial - So in other words fresh evidence and tactics.
Froome's defense can try something different on appeal to CAS, but UCI will have submitted the judgment and reasoning of Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS, when and if those proceedings begin. So, for Froome's lawyers to contradict their original claims, would make them look more confused at CAS. Different approach to the same UCI evidence, except from a worse standing point, having already been found guilty.

CAS appeal would be more likely to get Froome's ban reduced in duration, than to clear him completely.
Also, depends whether Froome has already admitted responsibility on paper, or whether his defense has contended complete innocence. Maybe deny responsibility at Anti-Doping Tribunal (meaning he gets banned for two years), then admit it at CAS, in hopes of getting a reduced ban. Or 'double down' on a losing gamble, who knows...

A De Novo hearing means that both sides can produce new evidence, different specialist witnesses, run different angles etc, etc, etc - It's not like pre 2015 when an appeal was strictly on a point of law etc from the original hearing - Think of it as a completely new hearing and that the first hearing never happened.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,492
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

12 Feb 2018 18:39

Robert5091 wrote:Froome/Sky would happily pay a fine and keep riding ... just give 'em the 2 mill Euro and call it quits? :)
Whoever is the Judge I would suggest staying off a mobile phone - the Murdochs have a history you know

The monetary fine at the Anti-Doping Tribunal is only if the Rider was found responsible for their Rule Violation (and proved to have done it intentionally) and it isn't an option in exchange for not getting banned ...
it would be both getting banned for two years, AND fined an amount equal to net income from cycling, in the year the Rule Violation occurred. So in court, the rich riders can't buy their way out of a ban, by paying off the UCI with a big fine.

And bribery of these particular Judges is not likely either, given the way the judgments are published, and referenced in journals and books and academic law conferences. It's like a whole ongoing field of sports law, and they have their professional reputations to maintain, among their colleagues. Actually some of the Judges might see putting Froome away as a prestigious accomplishment
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re:

12 Feb 2018 18:45

Red Rick wrote:To what degree does it matter legally that the Froome team are juggling theories and basically reverse engineering the story?


Good question

Of course we don't know the Froome team are doing that for sure. But the possibility will not escape the ADT judge or the CAS judges if it gets that far. These people aren't stupid

And with an AAF the onus is on the Froome team to positively prove with robust evidence (including the Dawg in a lab) why their guy tripped the wire. Scatter gunning blacmange at the wall simply doesn't cut it. Unless you get lucky and find a procedural **** up. But that's a technicality. Lizzie just got lucky, right

In that context the reverse engineered the juggling theories approach shouldn't sway the judge. Maybe it's a tactic designed for the fanboys. And the gullible journalists like Walsh

But surely Brailsfraud/Sky wouldn't prioritise PR above all else. That would play against type :rolleyes:
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

12 Feb 2018 22:40

Red Rick wrote:To what degree does it matter legally that the Froome team are juggling theories and basically reverse engineering the story?
Yaco is right, that Froome's team can re-group after the ADT judgment, and then have a lot of time before appealing and opening a case at CAS
- to think whether there is any way out of it and how ? Any weakness found in the UCI ADT salbutamol arguments ?
- Should they change the plea from "no fault", to "responsible, but accidental"
- do their own original lab testing, or strengthen their file with evidence on salbutamol points which didn't work the first time or weren't covered
- try something else entirely (but at the risk of contradicting themselves)
- contend that the ban by ADT is too severe and try to get the duration reduced

Apparently Sky is not paying Froome's legal bills for any of this, and there's personally not much love lost between Froome and Brailsford. The resources for a defense are large but not bottomless
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2018 03:30

yaco wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
yaco wrote:Any subsequent case heard at CAS after a hearing at an Anti-Doping Tribunal is always a 'DE Novo' case which means a completely new trial - So in other words fresh evidence and tactics.
Froome's defense can try something different on appeal to CAS, but UCI will have submitted the judgment and reasoning of Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS, when and if those proceedings begin. So, for Froome's lawyers to contradict their original claims, would make them look more confused at CAS. Different approach to the same UCI evidence, except from a worse standing point, having already been found guilty.

CAS appeal would be more likely to get Froome's ban reduced in duration, than to clear him completely.
Also, depends whether Froome has already admitted responsibility on paper, or whether his defense has contended complete innocence. Maybe deny responsibility at Anti-Doping Tribunal (meaning he gets banned for two years), then admit it at CAS, in hopes of getting a reduced ban. Or 'double down' on a losing gamble, who knows...

A De Novo hearing means that both sides can produce new evidence, different specialist witnesses, run different angles etc, etc, etc - It's not like pre 2015 when an appeal was strictly on a point of law etc from the original hearing - Think of it as a completely new hearing and that the first hearing never happened.


While a De Novo hearing is indeed a completely new trial, where the legal team are free to pursue a different line of reasoning or defence ... it certainly is not 'as if the first hearing never happened'. They cannot give conflicting evidence.
User avatar AussieGoddess
Member
 
Posts: 1,018
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 13:26

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2018 04:44

AussieGoddess wrote:
yaco wrote:A De Novo hearing means that both sides can produce new evidence, different specialist witnesses, run different angles etc, etc, etc - It's not like pre 2015 when an appeal was strictly on a point of law etc from the original hearing - Think of it as a completely new hearing and that the first hearing never happened.

While a De Novo hearing is indeed a completely new trial, where the legal team are free to pursue a different line of reasoning or defence ... it certainly is not 'as if the first hearing never happened'. They cannot give conflicting evidence.
The UCI will re-submit the Judgment of the Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS.
Then, CAS works using that as a starting point. The CAS appeal awards refer many times to the reasoning of "The Single Judge", which is the judge who decided the Anti-Doping Tribunal case earlier. There isn't a blank-slate restart for the defendant at CAS. So what Froome contends now at UCI-ADT will be very important later at the CAS appeal.
ClassicomanoLuigi
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2018 06:56

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
Robert5091 wrote:Froome/Sky would happily pay a fine and keep riding ... just give 'em the 2 mill Euro and call it quits? :)
Whoever is the Judge I would suggest staying off a mobile phone - the Murdochs have a history you know

The monetary fine at the Anti-Doping Tribunal is only if the Rider was found responsible for their Rule Violation (and proved to have done it intentionally) and it isn't an option in exchange for not getting banned ...
it would be both getting banned for two years, AND fined an amount equal to net income from cycling, in the year the Rule Violation occurred. So in court, the rich riders can't buy their way out of a ban, by paying off the UCI with a big fine.

And bribery of these particular Judges is not likely either, given the way the judgments are published, and referenced in journals and books and academic law conferences. It's like a whole ongoing field of sports law, and they have their professional reputations to maintain, among their colleagues. Actually some of the Judges might see putting Froome away as a prestigious accomplishment

Biased judge? Case dismissed! :D

The telephone reference was to bugging - not bribery. Any dirt in a judge's past might "surprisingly" become public ...
A big fine? No ... though a donation or two to the UCI might help? :D
"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: 2,989
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2018 15:24

AussieGoddess wrote:
yaco wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
yaco wrote:Any subsequent case heard at CAS after a hearing at an Anti-Doping Tribunal is always a 'DE Novo' case which means a completely new trial - So in other words fresh evidence and tactics.
Froome's defense can try something different on appeal to CAS, but UCI will have submitted the judgment and reasoning of Anti-Doping Tribunal to CAS, when and if those proceedings begin. So, for Froome's lawyers to contradict their original claims, would make them look more confused at CAS. Different approach to the same UCI evidence, except from a worse standing point, having already been found guilty.

CAS appeal would be more likely to get Froome's ban reduced in duration, than to clear him completely.
Also, depends whether Froome has already admitted responsibility on paper, or whether his defense has contended complete innocence. Maybe deny responsibility at Anti-Doping Tribunal (meaning he gets banned for two years), then admit it at CAS, in hopes of getting a reduced ban. Or 'double down' on a losing gamble, who knows...

A De Novo hearing means that both sides can produce new evidence, different specialist witnesses, run different angles etc, etc, etc - It's not like pre 2015 when an appeal was strictly on a point of law etc from the original hearing - Think of it as a completely new hearing and that the first hearing never happened.


While a De Novo hearing is indeed a completely new trial, where the legal team are free to pursue a different line of reasoning or defence ... it certainly is not 'as if the first hearing never happened'. They cannot give conflicting evidence.


I personally think ' De Novo ' hearings are rubbish because it is in effect double jeopardy - Any appeal should be based purely on 'points of law' arising from the original hearing
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,492
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

14 Feb 2018 11:33

I've always wondered how consistent a dose you might get from asthma enhalers. Research would suggest it depends on your shaking technique.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jamp.2015.1284?journalCode=jamp

Results: All of the suspension pMDIs produced variable amounts of drug over the shake-fire delays tested. A comparison of the delivered doses after the 0- and 60-second delays showed that the drug delivered increased for the Flovent HFA (320%), Ventolin Evohaler (346%), and Airomir Inhaler (230%) pMDIs;

It just seems more likely that Chris was getting variable doses from his medical equipment than having a kidney issue.
EricDolphy
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 14 Feb 2018 11:23

Re:

14 Feb 2018 13:44

EricDolphy wrote:I've always wondered how consistent a dose you might get from asthma enhalers. Research would suggest it depends on your shaking technique.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jamp.2015.1284?journalCode=jamp

Results: All of the suspension pMDIs produced variable amounts of drug over the shake-fire delays tested. A comparison of the delivered doses after the 0- and 60-second delays showed that the drug delivered increased for the Flovent HFA (320%), Ventolin Evohaler (346%), and Airomir Inhaler (230%) pMDIs;

It just seems more likely that Chris was getting variable doses from his medical equipment than having a kidney issue.

There you go - case dismissed! :D (PS - sue the inhaler maker too!)
"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: 2,989
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 13:54

There you go - case dismissed! :D (PS - sue the inhaler maker too!)


Inadvertant doping -> strict liability -> guilty
EricDolphy
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 14 Feb 2018 11:23

Re:

14 Feb 2018 13:59

EricDolphy wrote:I've always wondered how consistent a dose you might get from asthma enhalers. Research would suggest it depends on your shaking technique.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jamp.2015.1284?journalCode=jamp

Results: All of the suspension pMDIs produced variable amounts of drug over the shake-fire delays tested. A comparison of the delivered doses after the 0- and 60-second delays showed that the drug delivered increased for the Flovent HFA (320%), Ventolin Evohaler (346%), and Airomir Inhaler (230%) pMDIs;

It just seems more likely that Chris was getting variable doses from his medical equipment than having a kidney issue.


Great first post. Love the additional variable -could have been this, ciuld have been that. Chewbacca Defense. Working hypotheisis is cyclists dope to imprive performace, and try to do so in grey areas. Froome mainlining salbutamol is no differenr. That he shook his kidneys the wrong way and got busted isnt going to fly.
User avatar Random Direction
Member
 
Posts: 487
Joined: 13 May 2011 06:17
Location: North and West

14 Feb 2018 14:08

The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,994
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

Back to top