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

06 Jul 2018 20:12

Look, the Results Management, clearly shows the process can end at the AAF explanation stage.
It is called a 'presumed' AAF because the rules surrounding Salbutomol state above the threshold will be 'presumed' to be an AAF. Not that it is an AAF like EPO or definitely an AAF or yet confirmed as a AAF. The AAF is 'presumed' at that moment in time until further explanation from the athlete which is the AAF notification to the athlete that he/she has a presumed AAF, can you explain why. In red is where Froome's case got to and where WADA say there is no AAF here.

Image

Froomes AAF is leaked at the Notification stage. Remember all of this is never usually seen. It sounds odd because the media have assumed the leak was confirmed and AAF confirmed and entering a formal notice of charge. There was no charge, the AAF wasn't even ever confirmed by WADA
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

06 Jul 2018 20:37

samhocking wrote:Look, WE were all mislead by the media when the AAF was leaked that it was a confirmed AAF. It wasn't, it was only presumed stage still. The decision to confirm it or not completed, on Froomes side on 4 June when Froome submitted his final explanation. On 28 June 2018, WADA provided its position on the case to UCI which they explain as:

"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"

Froomes sample as decided by WADA based on Froomes explanation do not constitute an AAF

I'm sorry, that is as obvious as I can make it. WADA/UCI never confirmed the AAF because WADA clearly says it doesn't constitute one. you can't confirm an AAF and then unconfirm it can they. It was never confirmed period! It was leaked early.


So you’re joining Sky’s doublespeak.

There is no such thing as a presumed AAF, OK? There is no mention of it anywhere on WADA’s website—not in the Code, not in the Prohibited List, not in the Statistics. This is a made-up, after-the-fact term to make Froome’s AAF look better in retrospect, to wipe away that little stain. Only a team or an institution really insecure about its reputation would play word games like this.

Here are the facts:

1) Froome had an AAF in September 2017. Source: UCI and WADA websites

2) It was one of probably 15-20 for salbutamol AAFs during that year, though most of them were dismissed because of TUEs. Source: Rabin

3) The AAF doesn’t disappear from the records. It's not like the Tours in the past which no longer have a winner. Source: WADA Code and WADA statistics

4) In order for an AAF not be considered an AAF, the rider must pass a CPKS. Source: WADA Prohibited List.

Notice the apparent contradiction between 3) and 4). To resolve that apparent contradiction, someone has invented the prefix “presumed”, though that word does not occur anywhere in the WADA rules. The reason for this contradiction is because the people who write and discuss the rules are apparently incapable of understanding the concept of transition. One can have an AAF which is resolved. That means one no longer has an AAF. It does not mean one never had an AAF.

There’s a simple analogy that will illustrate this. All of us were children at one point. We are no longer. This doesn’t mean that we were presumed children, and it also doesn’t mean that we never were children. It just means that child refers to a temporary station in life. Eventually we become something else.

An AAF is something like a child. It’s temporary. It doesn’t last forever, it generally doesn’t last very long. Either it becomes an ADRV, or it is dismissed for some reason. But when the AAF occurs, there is nothing presumed about it. It really exists at that point in time. And since it did exist at one time, it’s possible to keep records of that existence, just as all of us contribute to the records of children at some time in the past. If it were possible to declare that there never was an AAF, then there couldn't be official records of it, just as there no longer are official records of who won the TDF 1999-2005. An AAF is not like that. History is not revised to say that it never existed.

Unfortunately, some people either don't grasp this, or think it makes Froome look bad to admit he ever had an AAF. But it’s really not that difficult a concept.

With regard to your Results Management diagram, in the first place, there is no “presumed” or “confirmed” there. In the second place, while you have circled “explanation”, implying that is where the process ended, in fact we know there was a formal charge by UCI, leading to the appointment of Haas. He could not have been appointed prior to a formal charge.

There was a formal charge, because the explanation, including no CPKS, was deemed insufficient at the time. The process stopped before the hearing.
Last edited by Merckx index on 06 Jul 2018 20:51, edited 1 time in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,825
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

06 Jul 2018 20:50

samhocking wrote:Look, the Results Management, clearly shows the process can end at the AAF explanation stage.
It is called a 'presumed' AAF because the rules surrounding Salbutomol state above the threshold will be 'presumed' to be an AAF. Not that it is an AAF like EPO or definitely an AAF or yet confirmed as a AAF. The AAF is 'presumed' at that moment in time until further explanation from the athlete which is the AAF notification to the athlete that he/she has a presumed AAF, can you explain why. In red is where Froome's case got to and where WADA say there is no AAF here.

Image

Froomes AAF is leaked at the Notification stage. Remember all of this is never usually seen. It sounds odd because the media have assumed the leak was confirmed and AAF confirmed and entering a formal notice of charge. There was no charge, the AAF wasn't even ever confirmed by WADA

That is certainly justification for ruling that there was no AAF, absolutely. The problem with the process as it worked in the case of Froome is that the basis for WADA deciding that there was no AAF was that they seem to have done it without getting any documentation to verify the claims that Froome and his team made about why the results for the control in question showed with a reading for salbutamol that was in excess of their protocol for usage. Froome and his team provided what amounts to a possible explanation, and rather than requiring some sort of verification for these claims, WADA seems to have said, well, that's good enough for us.

WADA does definitely have the option of saying that since it never got beyond the explanation stage, the CPKS was not required, nor was any of their normal protocol for an AAF. The problem with that is, again, that they are effectively saying that rather than trying to independently verify the explanation provided by Froome and his team, using the protocol WADA themselves have set up which allows for empirical results to determine the validity of such a claim, this time they are choosing to endorse a more arbitrary determination proffered by a party concerned in the matter. It may not be the whole story, but WADA bowed out of their primary function in sport, which is to be an independent, results-based assessor of whether policies have been violated, and instead became an evaluation panel for credibility assessment of parties concerned in possible doping violations.
Summoned
Junior Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 16 Apr 2017 00:14

Re: All About Salbutamol

06 Jul 2018 20:56

Salbutomol AAFs presumption is implicit, it's NOT for EPO etc etc. Clearly for EPO the 'presumed' AAF is simply 'confirmed' by the B Sample if requested, or simply confirmed and athlete is notified of the ADRV if they don't request the B Sample as can clearly be seen in the flow diagram.

For Salbutomol however, the AAF is either confirmed, or nulled, 'only after' the athletes explanation is reviewed in private normally. It's always worked that way. It goes back to IOC days when the athlete had to explain the AAF for Salbutomol before the pharmo study was included.

2004 - IOC - If urinary concentration > 1000 ng/mL athlete must demonstrate was due to necessary therapy

The 'athlete must demonstrate was due to necessary therapy' from IOC days still exists today and that is the UCIs AAF explanation process Froome just went through with CADF & LADS, but it's before any pharmo study, which is kind of like a last chance saloon to say "right, I took x puffs within allowed rules that day, this is what it looks like, do I AAF my urine or not? If you AAF, the original AAF is then validated and confirmed and the ADRV process begins because your number of puffs is known legally and didn't cause you to AAF in the pharmo test.

The problem is, you're all looking for an explicit written process, it does't work like that. The presumed status of an AAF when notified to the athlete always exists internally first (remember its never been leaked before now) because nobody at that moment in time you AAF for Salbutomol can possibly have any inclination you took more than the allowed amount or not legally speaking, because the urine threshold is not related to how many puffs you take directly. However, again the ADRV requires it to be known you took more puffs than legally allowed in order to charge you, because that is the offence. Too many puffs.

Even an AAF for EPO is still 'presumed' until the B sample confirms the A, just like the athlete explanation review confirms the Salbutomol AAF. It's the same process as EPO, just involves an athletes explanation in-between.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 Jul 2018 00:06

I would say that the question of why Froome appeared to suddenly take a very high dosage of salbutomol is simply asking the wrong question, because very probably he didn't. Essentially the question rests on accepting Sky's narrative for Froome's use of the med, which is almost certainly a lie.

The much more likely scenario is that Froome routinely uses and abuses salbutamol as part of a range of drugs, some legal, some not, for performance-enhancing and yeah probably some 'normal' health benefit too. Whether this involved oral digestion, a nebuliser or anything else doesn't really matter - the point is he will frequently have a good solid dose of the stuff in his system, especially during a GT. Obviously Sky are usually very careful in ensuring that he takes amounts that are under the threshold. But then on stage 18 they got something a little bit wrong - a bit of panic after the poor ride the day before, a change in his other meds, his body reacting differently to expected deep into his second straight GT - and the result is that nasty AAF.

As such I would call it a spike following a history of sustained sal usage - fly close to the sun often enough and you might eventually get burned. Froome didn't suddenly decide to cheat on stage 18, rather he was already using the product for not strictly medical reasons for a long time, and then somehow pushed the envelope too far on one day. It is assuredly no coincidence that the day in question was critical to finally winning a race he'd been chasing for 6 years, after he again looked to be fading a little as in previous years. He didn't dope on one day, and indeed even misuse of sal for performance benefit is not strictly speaking illegal, depending on how much you take and how you take it. He has a doping regime, and a little bit of it, perhaps ironically one of the parts that is actually legal, within limits, caught him out.
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

07 Jul 2018 00:13

Rrrrr. Working so hard not to understand!! Measured above threshold and confirmed by b sample equals an AAF. Boop! The finding was adverse. They really did! And it really was! After that it's just up to whoever to decide if they believe the dog ate my homework story. Except in this case there was no dog ate my homework story. The teacher decided that there actually isn't a thing called late homework. On the outside looking in this seems totally legit!! Especially after a couple decades of kids getting caught smoking weed in the teachers lounge.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 Jul 2018 05:26

The latest from UCI:

(i) First, obviously, WADA’s position: WADA’s scientific department has access to information that UCI does not, including ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol (which is – as confirmed by WADA Scientific Director–subject to considerable variations). In those circumstances, the UCI had to trust WADA’s assessment of whether or not Mr. Froome’s control amounted to an anti-doping rule violation as per the rules adopted by WADA. Pursuing the case when the world supervising authority in anti-doping – which is the entity enacting the rules and the tests – tells you that there is no case is simply not an option. In the UCI’s view, it would not be fair to continue the proceedings against Mr. Froome considering WADA’s position that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation.

(ii) The second key element was the new WADA Technical Document of 2018 which entered into force on 1 March 2018 (WADA TD2018DL):

It is important to recall that according to WADA’s Technical Document (both in its version in force in September 2017 and today), only samples containing a concentration of salbutamol in excess of 1,200ng/ml are to be reported as abnormal results.

The new Technical Document implemented in March 2018 also now allows for the salbutamol Decision Limit to be increased above 1,200 ng/ml based on the specific gravity of the sample. This adjustment is intended to factor in the hydration status of the athlete which, as Professor Kenneth Fitch has publicly stated, was not contemplated when the salbutamol regime was first developed. In the course of the proceedings it also appeared that WADA would have been willing to accept a further adjustment based on the measurement uncertainty of the specific gravity.

(iii) Thirdly, Mr. Froome’s expert reports:
Having been tested 21 times during the Vuelta a España, Mr. Froome had access to the estimated concentration of salbutamol in his urine over three weeks. This allowed him to establish a significant variation in the way he excreted salbutamol, even at consistent, low, doses. Taking into account that he significantly increased his dose of salbutamol (to treat a chest infection) around the time of the test, it was accepted by WADA that this individual variation could explain the analytical results of his 7 September 2018 sample. Under these circumstances, a controlled pharmacokinetic study was unnecessary before closing the case, as Mr. Froome’s individual excretion could already be assessed from existing data.

(iv) The specific context of the substance and the case:
The reality is that salbutamol is permitted for therapeutic purposes and that Mr Froome uses salbutamol to treat asthma. In addition, Mr. Froome could expect to be (and was) tested on almost every day of the Vuelta a España. These contextual elements are not conclusive but were obviously elements to take into account in deciding to follow WADA’s position.

(v) New WADA commissioned studies:
During the proceedings, WADA confirmed that there are ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol. As the studies were not yet finalised, neither UCI or Mr. Froome had access to them, but this was taken into account in accepting WADA’s position.


http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/

The key points are in (i) and (iii). Point (ii) is the USG correction, (iv) is the psychological angle--why would he dope?, though they can't bring themselves to say that explicitly--and (v) is just a repeat of (i).

Regarding (i), where are these unpublished studies? We don’t have access to them, but we can get some idea from WADA’s research section, which lists recently funded grants. Vivian Backer did a study called “The Influence of Exercise and Dehydration on the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Profile of Beta2-Agonists in Various Human Populations.” I recognized it immediately, for the results had in fact been published and discussed in this thread:
Haase CB, Backer V, Kalsen A, Rzeppa S, Hemmersbach P, Hostrup M. (2016) The influence of exercise and dehydration on the urine concentrations of salbutamol after inhaled administration of 1600 µg salbutamol as a single dose in relation to doping analysis. Drug Test Anal. 8(7):613-20.

The problem with this study was the 1600 ug doses used, rather than the 800 ug that is the maximum allowed within twelve hours. I would guess the unpublished studies WADA is referring to were similar in format, except for the use of 800 ug. While I can’t comment on what I haven’t seen, I pointed out a long time ago that if one assumes rough linearity with dose, the 1600 ug study doesn’t suggest Froome’s value is very likely. The highest uncorrected level in the study was about 3600 ng/ml, which would correspond to about 1800 ng/ml for 800 ug. The highest corrected level was about 2600 ng/ml, half of which would be 1300 ng/ml. There were a total of about 120 samples. So by that rough measure, Froome’s value was in the first percentile, among subjects who were specifically treated in a way to maximize the urinary levels. Even assuming the 800 ug dose results in more than half the urinary levels of the 1600 ug dose, Froome's level would clearly be one of the very highest recorded.

Point (iii) indicates they used Froome’s other Vuelta samples to get an idea of the scatter. IOW, instead of just comparing his level to that of other subjects, he compared it to his own. But as I pointed out before, for this to be meaningful depends on knowing what doses he took on those days—being able to corroborate them--and when in relation to when he was tested. Beyond that, they would have to assume linearity, or make some other adjustment to allow comparison of samples following doses of different amounts.

On this basis, could they conclude they haven't proved that Froome took more than the allowed amount? Sure, he could be a very unusual outlier. But unless these alleged studies look quite different from the ones that have been published, they're really pushing the envelope.

And point (iv)--basically, why would he dope at just that point?--now becomes critical to their case. Because if you have, say, a 1-3% chance that the level could have come from an allowed dose, if you can convince WADA that all the other alternatives are even lower probability, they are even less likely than a very unlikely outlier, then you can make that case. And that apparently is what they did. WADA bought the claim that the possibility of intentionally doping was extremely low, even lower than a few %. They also seem to have accepted at face value Froome's insistence he didn't accidentally take too much--something I doubt he could prove--and still further, they seem unaware that the same arguments that could explain why staying within the limits could result in an outlier value only once could also explain why doping only resulted in an outlier only once. In other words--and no one at UCI or WADA has mentioned this at any time--all those unpublished studies that allegedly show how Froome could have had a very high urinary level from an allowed dose can just as easily be used to show that he could have been oral doping all along, but only had a high level once. He couldn't have been orally doping at the same dose on stage 18 as on all the other days, but the difference would not have to be that great--not once all this alleged variation is in play.

Many holes in this argument.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,825
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

07 Jul 2018 07:10

ScienceIsCool wrote:Rrrrr. Working so hard not to understand!! Measured above threshold and confirmed by b sample equals an AAF. Boop! The finding was adverse. They really did! And it really was! After that it's just up to whoever to decide if they believe the dog ate my homework story. Except in this case there was no dog ate my homework story. The teacher decided that there actually isn't a thing called late homework. On the outside looking in this seems totally legit!! Especially after a couple decades of kids getting caught smoking weed in the teachers lounge.

John Swanson


WRONG, above urine threshold and confirmed by b is not how it works for Salbutomol. The initial presumed AAF
and it's urine level is not confirmation of anything - EVER! That is why it is ALWAYS private to protect the right of the athlete until the AAF can be confirmed.

Look, for e.g. EPO the ENTIRE reason the B Sample is collected is to CONFIRM the findings in the first analysis. In some cases the analysis of the B-sample does not confirm the findings in the A-sample. Guess what. if it doesn't NO AFF, NO RULE VIOLATION because the AAF CAN'T BE CONFIRMED LEGALLY.
EXACTLY the same happens for Salbutomol apart from Salbutomol, the AAF has to get to the point where legally, it is known how much Salbutomol you took for the AAF to be confirmed THE INITIAL AAF DOESN'T LEGALLY CONFIRM you took more than the rules allow, because it is dumb, the AAF is simply A urine threshold not confirmation legally of a likely ADRV like an A+B EPO AAF is. Due to variation output in urine, the amount found in urine CAN'T be used to charge you for taking too much because amount in urine doesn't legally confirm that, it simply presumes you did. The amount you ingested is the ADRV, not the amount in your urine. THAT is why the athlete has to explain since 2004 why the high urine reading first and that explanation reviewed before his AAF get confirmed and later the pharmo test to confirm inhalation amount.

It's very simple. The Explanation & Pharmo Study is simply the equivalent of B Sample analysis in non-threshold substances like EPO. ONLY once the AAF is confirmed, can an AAF for Salbutomol be legally pursued by anti-doping. Froomes AAF wasn't confirmed by WADA or UCI so there was no CONFIRMED Adverse Analytical Finding therefore nothing legally possible UCI could pursue anymore.

The way to look at the process, is the Athlete is always considered innocent initially. THe whole process works on the assumption the Athlete is innocent until the AAF is confirmed that the Athlete is guilty of an ADRV that needs investigating. Anti-doping bolsters the strength of the initial presumed AAF using a confirmation procedure in order to protect individuals, and the very rare cases in which the analysis of the B-sample did not match the results of the A-sample have shown the usefulness of such procedure.
Last edited by samhocking on 07 Jul 2018 09:52, edited 2 times in total.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 Jul 2018 07:59

Merckx index wrote:The latest from UCI:

(i) First, obviously, WADA’s position: WADA’s scientific department has access to information that UCI does not, including ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol (which is – as confirmed by WADA Scientific Director–subject to considerable variations). In those circumstances, the UCI had to trust WADA’s assessment of whether or not Mr. Froome’s control amounted to an anti-doping rule violation as per the rules adopted by WADA. Pursuing the case when the world supervising authority in anti-doping – which is the entity enacting the rules and the tests – tells you that there is no case is simply not an option. In the UCI’s view, it would not be fair to continue the proceedings against Mr. Froome considering WADA’s position that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation.

(ii) The second key element was the new WADA Technical Document of 2018 which entered into force on 1 March 2018 (WADA TD2018DL):

It is important to recall that according to WADA’s Technical Document (both in its version in force in September 2017 and today), only samples containing a concentration of salbutamol in excess of 1,200ng/ml are to be reported as abnormal results.

The new Technical Document implemented in March 2018 also now allows for the salbutamol Decision Limit to be increased above 1,200 ng/ml based on the specific gravity of the sample. This adjustment is intended to factor in the hydration status of the athlete which, as Professor Kenneth Fitch has publicly stated, was not contemplated when the salbutamol regime was first developed. In the course of the proceedings it also appeared that WADA would have been willing to accept a further adjustment based on the measurement uncertainty of the specific gravity.

(iii) Thirdly, Mr. Froome’s expert reports:
Having been tested 21 times during the Vuelta a España, Mr. Froome had access to the estimated concentration of salbutamol in his urine over three weeks. This allowed him to establish a significant variation in the way he excreted salbutamol, even at consistent, low, doses. Taking into account that he significantly increased his dose of salbutamol (to treat a chest infection) around the time of the test, it was accepted by WADA that this individual variation could explain the analytical results of his 7 September 2018 sample. Under these circumstances, a controlled pharmacokinetic study was unnecessary before closing the case, as Mr. Froome’s individual excretion could already be assessed from existing data.

(iv) The specific context of the substance and the case:
The reality is that salbutamol is permitted for therapeutic purposes and that Mr Froome uses salbutamol to treat asthma. In addition, Mr. Froome could expect to be (and was) tested on almost every day of the Vuelta a España. These contextual elements are not conclusive but were obviously elements to take into account in deciding to follow WADA’s position.

(v) New WADA commissioned studies:
During the proceedings, WADA confirmed that there are ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of salbutamol. As the studies were not yet finalised, neither UCI or Mr. Froome had access to them, but this was taken into account in accepting WADA’s position.


http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/

The key points are in (i) and (iii). Point (ii) is the USG correction, (iv) is the psychological angle--why would he dope?, though they can't bring themselves to say that explicitly--and (v) is just a repeat of (i).

Regarding (i), where are these unpublished studies? We don’t have access to them, but we can get some idea from WADA’s research section, which lists recently funded grants. Vivian Backer did a study called “The Influence of Exercise and Dehydration on the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Profile of Beta2-Agonists in Various Human Populations.” I recognized it immediately, for the results had in fact been published and discussed in this thread:
Haase CB, Backer V, Kalsen A, Rzeppa S, Hemmersbach P, Hostrup M. (2016) The influence of exercise and dehydration on the urine concentrations of salbutamol after inhaled administration of 1600 µg salbutamol as a single dose in relation to doping analysis. Drug Test Anal. 8(7):613-20.

The problem with this study was the 1600 ug doses used, rather than the 800 ug that is the maximum allowed within twelve hours. I would guess the unpublished studies WADA is referring to were similar in format, except for the use of 800 ug. While I can’t comment on what I haven’t seen, I pointed out a long time ago that if one assumes rough linearity with dose, the 1600 ug study doesn’t suggest Froome’s value is very likely. The highest uncorrected level in the study was about 3600 ng/ml, which would correspond to about 1800 ng/ml for 800 ug. The highest corrected level was about 2600 ng/ml, half of which would be 1300 ng/ml. There were a total of about 120 samples. So by that rough measure, Froome’s value was in the first percentile, among subjects who were specifically treated in a way to maximize the urinary levels. Even assuming the 800 ug dose results in more than half the urinary levels of the 1600 ug dose, Froome's level would clearly be one of the very highest recorded.

Point (iii) indicates they used Froome’s other Vuelta samples to get an idea of the scatter. IOW, instead of just comparing his level to that of other subjects, he compared it to his own. But as I pointed out before, for this to be meaningful depends on knowing what doses he took on those days—being able to corroborate them--and when in relation to when he was tested. Beyond that, they would have to assume linearity, or make some other adjustment to allow comparison of samples following doses of different amounts.

On this basis, could they conclude they haven't proved that Froome took more than the allowed amount? Sure, he could be a very unusual outlier. But unless these alleged studies look quite different from the ones that have been published, they're really pushing the envelope.

And point (iv)--basically, why would he dope at just that point?--now becomes critical to their case. Because if you have, say, a 1-3% chance that the level could have come from an allowed dose, if you can convince WADA that all the other alternatives are even lower probability, they are even less likely than a very unlikely outlier, then you can make that case. And that apparently is what they did. WADA bought the claim that the possibility of intentionally doping was extremely low, even lower than a few %. They also seem to have accepted at face value Froome's insistence he didn't accidentally take too much--something I doubt he could prove--and still further, they seem unaware that the same arguments that could explain why staying within the limits could result in an outlier value only once could also explain why doping only resulted in an outlier only once. In other words--and no one at UCI or WADA has mentioned this at any time--all those unpublished studies that allegedly show how Froome could have had a very high urinary level from an allowed dose can just as easily be used to show that he could have been oral doping all along, but only had a high level once. He couldn't have been orally doping at the same dose on stage 18 as on all the other days, but the difference would not have to be that great--not once all this alleged variation is in play.

Many holes in this argument.


I think you're putting too much importance on the AAFs urine level and assuming WADA publish everything. Clearly there will be various WADA research that they use to catch dopers, so that would never be released publically, that's the tools of their trade. The other think is, the AAF urine level doesn't actually hold much weight legally for WADA because it can't legally say how much you took

I would say WADA have there own studies of athletes taking permitted doses and they know how wide that variation is longitudinally and if use is ramped up within that time. All they had to do was look at Froomes previous 20 urine levels and what Froome told them he inhaled that day and if the fluctuations of his sample correlate with their own findings, clearly their own findings confirmed how many puffs Froome claimed he used each sample. To me, it seems WADA are very aware the likelihood of false positives and although the rules realtivey defined, each case is looked at individually due to how much variation actually exists over longer testing periods.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2018 09:15

samhocking wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:Rrrrr. Working so hard not to understand!! Measured above threshold and confirmed by b sample equals an AAF. Boop! The finding was adverse. They really did! And it really was! After that it's just up to whoever to decide if they believe the dog ate my homework story. Except in this case there was no dog ate my homework story. The teacher decided that there actually isn't a thing called late homework. On the outside looking in this seems totally legit!! Especially after a couple decades of kids getting caught smoking weed in the teachers lounge.

John Swanson


WRONG, above urine threshold and confirmed by b is not how it works for Salbutomol.

That's exactly how it worked for Petacchi and Ulissi. WADA and UCI have bended their own rules to serve the interests of Team Sky.
La fatica in montagna per me è poesia (Fatigue in the mountains is poetry to me) - Marco Pantani
Van een ezel kunt ge geen koerspaard maken (You can't turn a donkey into a race horse) - Patrick Lefevere
User avatar Pantani_lives
Member
 
Posts: 1,459
Joined: 03 May 2010 13:27

07 Jul 2018 09:31

It didn't. Their presumed AAF and rider explanations were still first reviewed by UCI just like Froomes has been too, but UCI confirmed their AAF after their explanations and review and therefore issued Formal Charge Notices to them.

The problem here is the leak. People think the leaked AAF is already reviewed by UCI and confirmed and it never was. Froome's AAF never got beyond the UCI review stage. The review stage under UCI rules is Article 7.2 - Review Regarding Adverse Analytical Findings.

ONLY after that review process completes, did you then know Uliisi & Pettachi had an AAF, because that review process under 7.2 CONFIMED their explanations didn't explain the readings seen in their urine. i.e. they inhaled more than the rules allowed or couldn't be explained to convince the UCI review panel that an ADRV didn't take place. Then Ullissi & Pettachi went down the pharma test, various legal avenues, appeal, other reasons etc etc whatever their lawyers decided would be best to reduce their inevitable bans after 7.3 - Notification after Review Regarding Adverse Analytical Findings. Froome's 'case' simply didn't get as far as e.g. Ulissi's where he was asked to perform a pharmo test after his explanation.

People are wrongly assuming there has been some kind of case here with Froome because the media are simply guessing too what was happening. There was no case, there was UCI's 'review' of the AAF. After that review, UCI gave WADA their review findings and WADA said, "there's no AAF here".

Now, how much Froome has been able to justify his urine reading is basically what WADA need to make public. ONLY that decision making process can explain why Froome's AAF wasn't confirmed by WADA, but Ulissis and Pettachi's were. Looking at urine to associate Froome with Pettachi * Ullisi is a totally pointless comparison until you see WADA/UCI's decision making on each athlete.
Last edited by samhocking on 07 Jul 2018 11:17, edited 2 times in total.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

07 Jul 2018 10:21

Some other misconceptions I get the general sense of.

Article 3 PROOF OF DOPING
3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof
UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS
E0616 ANTI-DOPING RULES 12
The UCI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has
occurred.
The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI has established an anti-doping
rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the
seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where
these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Rider or other Person alleged
to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified
facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.


I often hear the burden of proof for an ADRV is on the athlete. Wrong, it's on UCI initially. This is why the AAF must be reviewed, because legally UCI have to confirm the AAF has greater than a mere balance of probability an ADRV has occurred using Article 3.2 - Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions. Levels in urine is not probable proof of an ADRV for inhaling too much Salbutomol. ONLY after that does a Standard of proof come into play based on a balance of probability if the rules require it. e.g The pharmo test would be where standard of proof then falls on the athlete I assume.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,084
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2018 13:26

Pantani_lives wrote:
samhocking wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:Rrrrr. Working so hard not to understand!! Measured above threshold and confirmed by b sample equals an AAF. Boop! The finding was adverse. They really did! And it really was! After that it's just up to whoever to decide if they believe the dog ate my homework story. Except in this case there was no dog ate my homework story. The teacher decided that there actually isn't a thing called late homework. On the outside looking in this seems totally legit!! Especially after a couple decades of kids getting caught smoking weed in the teachers lounge.

John Swanson


WRONG, above urine threshold and confirmed by b is not how it works for Salbutomol.

That's exactly how it worked for Petacchi and Ulissi. WADA and UCI have bended their own rules to serve the interests of Team Sky.

Level playing field == just lie down and let my train ride over you.
:mad:
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,131
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: All About Salbutamol

07 Jul 2018 14:14

samhocking wrote:
Blah Blah Blah PR Speak Blah Blah .......
I would say WADA have there own studies of athletes taking permitted doses and they know how wide that variation is longitudinally and if use is ramped up within that time. All they had to do was look at Froomes previous 20 urine levels and what Froome told them he inhaled that day and if the fluctuations of his sample correlate with their own findings, clearly their own findings confirmed how many puffs Froome claimed he used each sample.
Yadda Yadda Blah Blah


"what Froome told them he inhaled that day" - there's no way that could be falsified! :p
User avatar Ripper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,662
Joined: 14 Sep 2009 03:41
Location: It's a surprise!

07 Jul 2018 14:46

Last edited by bigcog on 07 Jul 2018 15:08, edited 1 time in total.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re:

07 Jul 2018 15:00

bigcog wrote:https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088


Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment :cool:

Lappartient confirms UCI spent 250,000 CHF on legal side on Froome case
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,492
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

07 Jul 2018 15:06

samhocking wrote:
I think you're putting too much importance on the AAFs urine level and assuming WADA publish everything. Clearly there will be various WADA research that they use to catch dopers, so that would never be released publically, that's the tools of their trade. The other think is, the AAF urine level doesn't actually hold much weight legally for WADA because it can't legally say how much you took.

I would say WADA have there own studies of athletes taking permitted doses and they know how wide that variation is longitudinally and if use is ramped up within that time. All they had to do was look at Froomes previous 20 urine levels and what Froome told them he inhaled that day and if the fluctuations of his sample correlate with their own findings, clearly their own findings confirmed how many puffs Froome claimed he used each sample. To me, it seems WADA are very aware the likelihood of false positives and although the rules realtivey defined, each case is looked at individually due to how much variation actually exists over longer testing periods.


They may not publish everything, but given they published the 1600 ug study, there’s no reason why the 800 ug study wouldn’t be published. I expect it will be eventually, though a big question remains: why did they wait so long to do it? The 1600 ug study was published in June 2016, which means they had all the data and conclusions a year and a half before Froome's AAF. They knew at that time that 800 ug was the twelve hour limit, so more relevant to anti-doping studies. Why didn't they embark on that study then? Maybe Backer had other commitments, I don't know. But they should have had those data in hand when Froome's AAF came to light; it seems they didn't.

In any case,what might not be published are studies of riders who received AAFs that never went public, but those have little value because one doesn’t know how much salbutamol the riders took. Obviously a scientific study can’t be based on unconfirmed values. What matters most are the controlled studies in the lab. And the same wrt Froome’s values. WADA has to take his word for them, I doubt very much there is independent verification of them.

People are wrongly assuming there has been some kind of case here with Froome because the media are simply guessing too what was happening. There was no case, there was UCI's 'review' of the AAF. After that review, UCI gave WADA their review findings and WADA said, "there's no AAF here".


It was reported that UCI proposed a sanction. If you have evidence they didn’t, please link it. It was also reported that Haas was appointed as judge, which only happens after a rider is given a Letter of Consequences, and refuses to accept it. Again, if you evidence for the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, you’re just spinning your wheels.

The UCI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.


Interesting how you quote the rules when (you think) it suits your purposes, while arguing that certain things aren’t in the rules (presumed AAF; confirmed AAF) when you can’t find them there.

Yes, that’s what they do when they furnish a laboratory test. If no problems with the testing procedure can be found, then by article 2.1 of the Code, it’s an ADRV. There is also this provided as a "rules of proof" from the WADA Code 3.2.1:

Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid.


At this point, the burden of proof is on the athlete, as the rest of this passage indicates:

Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Rider or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.


So when we say the burden of proof is on the athlete, of course we mean after a positive test has been established. Which is a usually an A and a B, or a decision limit for a threshold substance. Of course the initial burden of proof is on UCI. You can’t just say to a rider with no positive test, you have an ADRV, that’s bloody obvious. But as soon as there is a positive, then the burden shifts to the athlete.

This is why it’s said the burden of proof is on the rider. And it was supposed to be on Froome, too, unless he could pass the CPKS, which I will get to in a moment.

Also note:

This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


If you think Froome wasn’t guilty by that standard, I have a bridge for sale.

Now about this CPKS. Here’s what WADA said:

In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).


Now look at what UCI said:

The UCI did not take its decision based on the fact that Mr. Froome “took a certain number of medicines to treat [an infection]”, “other elements linked to his diet” or “dietary supplements” as referred to by WADA’s Scientific Director in recent interviews. The UCI considered those factors irrelevant and/or not substantiated. The UCI thus only took into consideration the elements listed in the section above, however it is possible that WADA had access to unpublished information that the UCI was not aware of.


IOW, UCI rejected two of three factors that WADA claimed made it impossible for a CPKS study to be undertaken. Though UCI did concede that WADA might have access to unpublished studies, in fact WADA has never claimed to have done unpublished studies of the effect of illness or medications on salbutamol levels. And there’s not much in the literature. None is listed in the past WADA projects.

That leaves only “chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition.” But that would be true for any rider who tested over the limit in a GT, such as Petacchi and Ulissi. And if it means any rider who was in a GT didn’t have to take the test, then you might as well say all riders, because any lawyer can argue that a one-day race, coming after hard training, would provide similar conditions.

So WADA’s rationale for allowing Froome to skip the CPKS test basically falls apart. The only justification they have is one that every other rider could use.

bigcog wrote:https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088


There were 57 salbutamol AAFs (what? I thought they never existed!) in the previous five years. It appears that 30 were sanctioned, 19 had TUEs, and 8 were cleared. So on average, 6 salbutamol AAFs per year that don't have TUEs and 1-2 are cleared.
Last edited by Merckx index on 07 Jul 2018 16:17, edited 4 times in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,825
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2018 15:08

thehog wrote:
bigcog wrote:https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088


Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment :cool:

Lappartient confirms UCI spent 250,000 CHF on legal side on Froome case


Ah you are so cynical :lol:
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2018 15:12

bigcog wrote:
thehog wrote:
bigcog wrote:https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088


Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment :cool:

Lappartient confirms UCI spent 250,000 CHF on legal side on Froome case


Ah you are so cynical :lol:


Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud :p
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,492
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

07 Jul 2018 15:17

thehog wrote:
bigcog wrote:
thehog wrote:
bigcog wrote:https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088


Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment :cool:

Lappartient confirms UCI spent 250,000 CHF on legal side on Froome case


Ah you are so cynical :lol:


Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud :p


Lappy saying he knows who leaked case, said it wasn't UCI although he would say that .. Can't see it being Sky as it makes no sense, so who is it ? I don't trust Lappy one bit, a politician personified.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests

Back to top