veganrob said:
Well Petacchi recorded a urine SG of 1.033 when he won the stage to Pinerolo on 23rd of May 2007, where it's usually <20 degrees at that time of the year. I think you'll find that outside of laboratory tests designed to investigate dehydration, the primary factor in whether or not you will be dehydrated is *how much you had to drink*.
I've actually now looked at the WADA guidelines for urine collection again, and there is no upper limit. So they'll happily take urine with SG of 1.033 or even higher as long you can get the (pretty low) figure of 90 milliliters.
In retrospect they really pulled a number on this Petacchi guy, I'm sure he'll be beaming with happiness upon hearing they'll now be adjusting for SG :lol: They gave him 10 months, more than the dude Ulissi who outright admitted to exceeding the allowed dose
I was looking for confirmation on WADA applying urine SG correction for salbutamol (and didn't find it yet), but the list of modifications to the 2018 prohibited list published September 29th has this tidbit on salbutamol:
(Source: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/prohibited_list_2018_summary_of_modifications_en.pdf)
I'm sure some lawyer is already preparing a 10 page treatise on how the wording in the 2017 version allows Froome to take 1.6 mg in a short period of time.
(Source: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/prohibited_list_2018_summary_of_modifications_en.pdf)
I'm sure some lawyer is already preparing a 10 page treatise on how the wording in the 2017 version allows Froome to take 1.6 mg in a short period of time.
Good find on those files associated with the Russian doping investigation, haz. I count 10/154 samples > 1.030, or 6-7%.
I had forgotten that Petacchi’s USG was 1.033. He won the stage in a sprint, and while there were a few small hills, and a breakaway group or rider that had to be reeled in, he should have been able to ride at a comfortable pace most of the way, taking enough water I would have thought. However, it was hot:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/giro-ditalia-2007/stage-11/results/
Petacchi might have gotten shafted, but even correcting for USG, his level was > 800, which is still very unusual for someone inhaling within the allowed limits. In any case, his situation does nothing to suggest that a rider at cooler temperatures is likely to be dehydrated. However, as I said before, the USG of Froome’s sample ought to be known, or can be determined now if it isn’t.
With regard to the 800 ug/12 hours, that was a rule before 2018. I think the change in wording was to make it clear that a rider couldn’t take 800 ug at the end of a 12 hour period in which he had taken none previously, then take another 800 ug that would count for the next 12 hour period. I actually wondered about doing this before, but when I looked at the (pre-2018) rules, I was satisfied that this was not allowed.
But as you say, a sharp lawyer will no doubt try to seize on this. Still, if they take that approach, Froome will have to cop to taking a lot more puffs than what he’s been implying to now. Also, if he’s going to take advantage of the 2018 rules wrt USG, I’m not sure he can cherry-pick the 2017 rules to make an argument about doses.
I had forgotten that Petacchi’s USG was 1.033. He won the stage in a sprint, and while there were a few small hills, and a breakaway group or rider that had to be reeled in, he should have been able to ride at a comfortable pace most of the way, taking enough water I would have thought. However, it was hot:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/giro-ditalia-2007/stage-11/results/
Petacchi might have gotten shafted, but even correcting for USG, his level was > 800, which is still very unusual for someone inhaling within the allowed limits. In any case, his situation does nothing to suggest that a rider at cooler temperatures is likely to be dehydrated. However, as I said before, the USG of Froome’s sample ought to be known, or can be determined now if it isn’t.
With regard to the 800 ug/12 hours, that was a rule before 2018. I think the change in wording was to make it clear that a rider couldn’t take 800 ug at the end of a 12 hour period in which he had taken none previously, then take another 800 ug that would count for the next 12 hour period. I actually wondered about doing this before, but when I looked at the (pre-2018) rules, I was satisfied that this was not allowed.
But as you say, a sharp lawyer will no doubt try to seize on this. Still, if they take that approach, Froome will have to cop to taking a lot more puffs than what he’s been implying to now. Also, if he’s going to take advantage of the 2018 rules wrt USG, I’m not sure he can cherry-pick the 2017 rules to make an argument about doses.
The 800 ug/12h limit seems to have been introduced in 2017:
From "The enigma of inhaled salbutamol and sport: unresolved after 45 years" on the WADA status of salbutamol:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/dta.2184
It makes two other recommendations:
Re: Froomes SG, I think we will know soon enough, because if he was dehydrated (however likely that is) to the point of bringing the measurement under the decision limit, I'd expect WADA will simply drop the AAF. If they don't do that, Froome should probably start writing that CAS appeal. The timing of this is just all too suspicious for the clinic :lol:
From "The enigma of inhaled salbutamol and sport: unresolved after 45 years" on the WADA status of salbutamol:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/dta.2184
It makes two other recommendations:
Both of which seem to have come true now. Also has a longer discussion on Petacchi.
Re: Froomes SG, I think we will know soon enough, because if he was dehydrated (however likely that is) to the point of bringing the measurement under the decision limit, I'd expect WADA will simply drop the AAF. If they don't do that, Froome should probably start writing that CAS appeal. The timing of this is just all too suspicious for the clinic :lol:
Another very relevant find. The paper reports five of Petacchi’s samples in that Giro. I find it interesting that the one that exceeded the threshold was much higher (more than double) than the others, even after correction for USG. Also, the USG values were lower for all the other stages after which he was tested, in the range 1.026 – 1.028. The temperature at the outset of Stage 3 was also lower, 30o; Stage 7 was described as “warm”, while I couldn’t find any information on the other two stages. I'd guess temperatures as high as 35o are rare in Italy in May, so in general I think this supports other studies that find USG levels > 1.030 usually associated with very hot weather.
He also cites several other important papers. One I was particularly interested in reported huge intra- as well as inter-individual variation in urinary levels among elderly asthmatic patients. Unfortunately, I couldn’t access the complete article through sci hub. The data described in the abstract doesn’t make sense to me, though, with salbutamol levels up to 50,000 ng/ml. and variations of hundreds of fold. They made a distinction between total and unchanged salbutamol. WADA assays both free and gluco-conjugated, but as I understand it, not sulfated (which I don’t understand, as much of an oral dose is sulfated, so if you want to detect athletes using oral doses, why not maximize the amount detected?)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9373810
He also refers to an earlier paper that he wrote, in which he discusses three athletes with unusually high urinary levels. One is the Swiss track athlete, discussed here before. A second is a female fencer, who reportedly took 800-1000 ug 3 hr prior to giving a sample, and returned a level of 1270 ng/ml, with a USG of 1.015 (so even higher if corrected). She got off, apparently she was considered an outlier.
The third was a male rugger, who said he took a total of 800 ug beginning before a game, and up to half-time. He didn’t provide a sample until an hour and a half after the game, because his urine was too concentrated. When he did, it was 1640 ng/ml, with a USG of 1.030, but later measured as 1.025 in the lab. Two weeks earlier, he gave another sample 80 ng/ml, 1.012. Because of the huge discrepancy, he was suspended for two years, but the suspension was overturned because his enantiomeric ratio was considered compatible with inhalation. This could be very relevant to Froome’s case, in that he got off even though his value, even corrected, was far higher than a previous value. Still, Froome has maybe one hundred samples below the threshold, so it will be harder for him to argue that this is normal variation.
Also, none of these three cases was a laboratory study. I don't see how one can rule out that the athletes either lied about how much they took, or were simply mistaken. While the rugger's enantiomeric ratio was considered compatible with inhalation, I'm not sure from what was said that that ratio confirmed it must have been inhaled.
http://sci-hub.la/10.1385/CRIAI:31:2:259
A few other comments on the Fitch paper:
1) He says only 6.1% of athletes at 2008 Summer Olympics, and 4.6% at the 2010 Winter Olympics, confirmed they were medically approved to use salbutamol. Why, then, are 70% of UK swimmers asthmatic? I understand the point about breathing in a lot of air, and not all Olympic sports involve endurance, but still, if 70% of swimmers really have EIA, why isn't it that high for marathon runners, and for most track runners (even sprinters put in a lot of miles during training)? If 70% of all athletes who do a lot of heavy breathing during training are asthmatics, the total proportion for the Olympics ought to be much higher, surely?
Edit: He does discuss this further in another article, which also details exactly what athletes must do to get a TUE for salbutamol and other substances. He says 25.7% of triathletes, 17.3% of cyclists, 16.9% of X-country skiiers and 14.9% of speed-skaters were asthmatic. Also, of relevance to Froome, he cites data that indicate a higher proportion of approved asthmatics developed the condition after age 25, as opposed to when younger.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933613/
2)
Translation: There is still no test that can reliably distinguish oral from inhaled, and no athlete I’ve ever consulted with has ever confessed to being a doper.
3) He discusses another issue I had wondered about. Salbutamol is commonly administered as a racemic mixture, which means only half of the dose is actually effective. There are preparations which contain only the active R- form, though. Since both active and inactive forms are excreted, one could take twice as large a dose of the pure R- form to reach the same urine level. IOW, one could effectively double the allowed amount.
He also cites several other important papers. One I was particularly interested in reported huge intra- as well as inter-individual variation in urinary levels among elderly asthmatic patients. Unfortunately, I couldn’t access the complete article through sci hub. The data described in the abstract doesn’t make sense to me, though, with salbutamol levels up to 50,000 ng/ml. and variations of hundreds of fold. They made a distinction between total and unchanged salbutamol. WADA assays both free and gluco-conjugated, but as I understand it, not sulfated (which I don’t understand, as much of an oral dose is sulfated, so if you want to detect athletes using oral doses, why not maximize the amount detected?)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9373810
He also refers to an earlier paper that he wrote, in which he discusses three athletes with unusually high urinary levels. One is the Swiss track athlete, discussed here before. A second is a female fencer, who reportedly took 800-1000 ug 3 hr prior to giving a sample, and returned a level of 1270 ng/ml, with a USG of 1.015 (so even higher if corrected). She got off, apparently she was considered an outlier.
The third was a male rugger, who said he took a total of 800 ug beginning before a game, and up to half-time. He didn’t provide a sample until an hour and a half after the game, because his urine was too concentrated. When he did, it was 1640 ng/ml, with a USG of 1.030, but later measured as 1.025 in the lab. Two weeks earlier, he gave another sample 80 ng/ml, 1.012. Because of the huge discrepancy, he was suspended for two years, but the suspension was overturned because his enantiomeric ratio was considered compatible with inhalation. This could be very relevant to Froome’s case, in that he got off even though his value, even corrected, was far higher than a previous value. Still, Froome has maybe one hundred samples below the threshold, so it will be harder for him to argue that this is normal variation.
Also, none of these three cases was a laboratory study. I don't see how one can rule out that the athletes either lied about how much they took, or were simply mistaken. While the rugger's enantiomeric ratio was considered compatible with inhalation, I'm not sure from what was said that that ratio confirmed it must have been inhaled.
http://sci-hub.la/10.1385/CRIAI:31:2:259
A few other comments on the Fitch paper:
1) He says only 6.1% of athletes at 2008 Summer Olympics, and 4.6% at the 2010 Winter Olympics, confirmed they were medically approved to use salbutamol. Why, then, are 70% of UK swimmers asthmatic? I understand the point about breathing in a lot of air, and not all Olympic sports involve endurance, but still, if 70% of swimmers really have EIA, why isn't it that high for marathon runners, and for most track runners (even sprinters put in a lot of miles during training)? If 70% of all athletes who do a lot of heavy breathing during training are asthmatics, the total proportion for the Olympics ought to be much higher, surely?
Edit: He does discuss this further in another article, which also details exactly what athletes must do to get a TUE for salbutamol and other substances. He says 25.7% of triathletes, 17.3% of cyclists, 16.9% of X-country skiiers and 14.9% of speed-skaters were asthmatic. Also, of relevance to Froome, he cites data that indicate a higher proportion of approved asthmatics developed the condition after age 25, as opposed to when younger.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933613/
2)
Translation: There is still no test that can reliably distinguish oral from inhaled, and no athlete I’ve ever consulted with has ever confessed to being a doper.
3) He discusses another issue I had wondered about. Salbutamol is commonly administered as a racemic mixture, which means only half of the dose is actually effective. There are preparations which contain only the active R- form, though. Since both active and inactive forms are excreted, one could take twice as large a dose of the pure R- form to reach the same urine level. IOW, one could effectively double the allowed amount.
I think I can see the outlines of Froome’s defense. It begins with his USG (urine specific gravity). Thanks to the modification of the rules, that now becomes a key value. If his USG is 1.033 or higher, his corrected salbutamol concentration is lowered to the decision level of 1200 ng/ml. (more or less; we don’t know the exact uncorrected concentration, I assume it’s somewhere between 1950-2050). In that case, as haz says, he can get off, and we should probably expect an announcement fairly soon.
But even that possibility is not without complications. The change supposedly goes into effect in March (unlike the annual updates to the prohibited list, which go into effect on Jan. 1). At the very least, it seems technically Froome could not get off till then; he would have to stall until the rule went into effect.
But there is a bigger issue: when was the decision to modify the rules made? And this is a problem. If it was made before Froome was notified of his positive, Sept. 20, why wasn’t the correction made, and the conclusion determined that there was no AAF? If it was made after that date, then it certainly raises the suspicion that it was made specifically to help Froome. Granted, as the Fitch article makes clear, a change like this is probably needed, and maybe it was coming, anyway, but the timing has to make one wonder.
I’m guessing the decision was made before Froome’s positive, but since it was not to go into effect until March 2018, it did not factor into the decision to call the result an AAF. Maybe UCI did not even know about the change in the rule. But if that’s the case, the announcement that “currently adjudicated cases” can use that rule (or not, and as we will see, both sides of that equation could help Froome) certainly looks fishy. The AAF was made based on the rules at the time. Now it seems that rules that go into effect later can apply. We’re used to back-dated suspensions, but now we have the prospect of back-dated rules.
So if Froome gets off on the basis of the new dehydration rule, don’t expect the controversy to die down. But suppose he doesn’t? Suppose his USG is < 1.030. Based on the studies I’ve seen of riders at relatively moderate temperatures, as seems to have existed on Stage 18, my guess is his value will be below that threshold. But any correction could still help him, if the case goes to CAS.
Suppose, e.g., that his USG is 1.028, which is a fairly typical value. His corrected urine value would be about 1400 ng/ml, which is still above the decision level. But this is where the “whatever maximally benefits you” twist could come into play. We know that all his previous samples, numbering it seems close to a hundred, were < 1000 ng/ml, and probably not even close. Let’s say they ranged from 300-800 ng/ml. But suppose some of those samples had USG values < 1.020. Correcting them would increase the values, closer to 1000 ng/ml, and perhaps in a few cases maybe even to >1000 ng/ml. Not all of them would be higher; only those with relatively dilute urine. Correcting some of them would decrease the values, just as correcting his 2000 ng/ml value would, but because he can correct or not, whatever works best, he can ignore those that don’t help his case.
Now the lawyers can have a field day. They will argue that Froome was taking less than the maximum allowed amount of salbutamol, and he knew from his reported values he would stay comfortably below 1000 ng/ml. Based on those values, he had reason to believe he could take a few extra puffs, and still remain below the threshold. What he didn’t realize is that if those values had been corrected, some might have flirted with the threshold, maybe crossed it. So when on stage 18, when he took a few more puffs than he ever had in the past, he went well over the threshold. Because of his concentrated urine, he went even higher. But this was not really his fault, because a) he didn’t take more than the allowed amount; and b) he had reason to believe, based on his earlier values, that he wouldn’t exceed the threshold.
This is still a long shot, IMO; it assumes Froome is an outlier, with unusually high urine values. But it’s not as hopeless as his case would be if he couldn’t correct the values. The main point is that if he can bring the 2000 ng/ml values down somewhat, while raising the values of selected other samples that were well below the threshold, there is much less of a gap, which thus becomes easier to explain through a few extra puffs as well as just chance.
I'll bet Fitch is already on Froome's team. If I were Froome, I would definitely want him as an expert witness. Not only is very experienced in this field, but he seems sympathetic to these poor, honestly-not-doping asthmatics.
But even that possibility is not without complications. The change supposedly goes into effect in March (unlike the annual updates to the prohibited list, which go into effect on Jan. 1). At the very least, it seems technically Froome could not get off till then; he would have to stall until the rule went into effect.
But there is a bigger issue: when was the decision to modify the rules made? And this is a problem. If it was made before Froome was notified of his positive, Sept. 20, why wasn’t the correction made, and the conclusion determined that there was no AAF? If it was made after that date, then it certainly raises the suspicion that it was made specifically to help Froome. Granted, as the Fitch article makes clear, a change like this is probably needed, and maybe it was coming, anyway, but the timing has to make one wonder.
I’m guessing the decision was made before Froome’s positive, but since it was not to go into effect until March 2018, it did not factor into the decision to call the result an AAF. Maybe UCI did not even know about the change in the rule. But if that’s the case, the announcement that “currently adjudicated cases” can use that rule (or not, and as we will see, both sides of that equation could help Froome) certainly looks fishy. The AAF was made based on the rules at the time. Now it seems that rules that go into effect later can apply. We’re used to back-dated suspensions, but now we have the prospect of back-dated rules.
So if Froome gets off on the basis of the new dehydration rule, don’t expect the controversy to die down. But suppose he doesn’t? Suppose his USG is < 1.030. Based on the studies I’ve seen of riders at relatively moderate temperatures, as seems to have existed on Stage 18, my guess is his value will be below that threshold. But any correction could still help him, if the case goes to CAS.
Suppose, e.g., that his USG is 1.028, which is a fairly typical value. His corrected urine value would be about 1400 ng/ml, which is still above the decision level. But this is where the “whatever maximally benefits you” twist could come into play. We know that all his previous samples, numbering it seems close to a hundred, were < 1000 ng/ml, and probably not even close. Let’s say they ranged from 300-800 ng/ml. But suppose some of those samples had USG values < 1.020. Correcting them would increase the values, closer to 1000 ng/ml, and perhaps in a few cases maybe even to >1000 ng/ml. Not all of them would be higher; only those with relatively dilute urine. Correcting some of them would decrease the values, just as correcting his 2000 ng/ml value would, but because he can correct or not, whatever works best, he can ignore those that don’t help his case.
Now the lawyers can have a field day. They will argue that Froome was taking less than the maximum allowed amount of salbutamol, and he knew from his reported values he would stay comfortably below 1000 ng/ml. Based on those values, he had reason to believe he could take a few extra puffs, and still remain below the threshold. What he didn’t realize is that if those values had been corrected, some might have flirted with the threshold, maybe crossed it. So when on stage 18, when he took a few more puffs than he ever had in the past, he went well over the threshold. Because of his concentrated urine, he went even higher. But this was not really his fault, because a) he didn’t take more than the allowed amount; and b) he had reason to believe, based on his earlier values, that he wouldn’t exceed the threshold.
This is still a long shot, IMO; it assumes Froome is an outlier, with unusually high urine values. But it’s not as hopeless as his case would be if he couldn’t correct the values. The main point is that if he can bring the 2000 ng/ml values down somewhat, while raising the values of selected other samples that were well below the threshold, there is much less of a gap, which thus becomes easier to explain through a few extra puffs as well as just chance.
I'll bet Fitch is already on Froome's team. If I were Froome, I would definitely want him as an expert witness. Not only is very experienced in this field, but he seems sympathetic to these poor, honestly-not-doping asthmatics.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
Dawg arguing a technicality...and being let off...will do more harm for the sport than if he pleaded guilty any got 9 months.
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked arse rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked arse rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
I don't think the time of the WADA decision is very material to the outcome. Ultimately, if he has the urine SG to get off, WADA can do it now or delay till the CAS where Froome argues correction is necessary. And then obviously they can't claim the opposite.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re:
When I saw the proposed rule change in made me wonder if Dawg was silently waiting for the change to get himself off. I also wonder if a Reedie lead WADA has facilitated the change just for Froome.
After seeing the Impey outcome, nothing would surprise me.
sittingbison said:Dawg arguing a technicality...and being let off...will do more harm for the sport than if he pleaded guilty any got 9 months.
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked **** rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
When I saw the proposed rule change in made me wonder if Dawg was silently waiting for the change to get himself off. I also wonder if a Reedie lead WADA has facilitated the change just for Froome.
After seeing the Impey outcome, nothing would surprise me.
Re: Re:
I always thought it was the rules in force at the time of the offense that counted. Otherwise, every judicial decision would need to reviewed almost daily.
John Swanson
thehog said:sittingbison said:Dawg arguing a technicality...and being let off...will do more harm for the sport than if he pleaded guilty any got 9 months.
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked **** rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
When I saw the proposed rule change in made me wonder if Dawg was silently waiting for the change to get himself off. I also wonder if a Reedie lead WADA has facilitated the change just for Froome.
After seeing the Impey outcome, nothing would surprise me.
I always thought it was the rules in force at the time of the offense that counted. Otherwise, every judicial decision would need to reviewed almost daily.
John Swanson
Court of Arbitration for sport didn't tip you off? None of this has anything to do with real judicial proceedings and happens entirely under the purview of private contractual agreements that are made as precondition to participation in UCI governed races.
Re: Re:
The rates of asthma in the general population have also been rising for many years just like the increase of people with allergy problems especially children. Australia and New Zealand have a high rate of asthma something like one in every four people. Obviously there are no poor people manufacturing Salbutamol !
TheSpud said:
The rates of asthma in the general population have also been rising for many years just like the increase of people with allergy problems especially children. Australia and New Zealand have a high rate of asthma something like one in every four people. Obviously there are no poor people manufacturing Salbutamol !
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re:
Exactly and with no rule for precedence, CAS can rule how ever they please. If the Armistead & Impey (not CAS but CADF) outcomes were a surprise, the Froome case might top them all and of course the ruling can be sealed! Transparency at its finest!
hazaran said:
Exactly and with no rule for precedence, CAS can rule how ever they please. If the Armistead & Impey (not CAS but CADF) outcomes were a surprise, the Froome case might top them all and of course the ruling can be sealed! Transparency at its finest!
Re: Re:
So if Froome gets off then, as with Armitstead, we'll get nothing official from the UCI and/or CAS but there will be loads of self-serving press releases and soft interviews from the Dawg and Brailsfraud
As you were!
thehog said:hazaran said:
Exactly and with no rule for precedence, CAS can rule how ever they please. If the Armistead & Impey (not CAS but CADF) outcomes were a surprise, the Froome case might top them all and of course the ruling can be sealed! Transparency at its finest!
So if Froome gets off then, as with Armitstead, we'll get nothing official from the UCI and/or CAS but there will be loads of self-serving press releases and soft interviews from the Dawg and Brailsfraud
As you were!
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
You’ll get a press realase from the Froome’s about their “living hell” and Sky stating “cleared of any wrong doing”, as you were indeed!
Wiggo's Package said:thehog said:hazaran said:
Exactly and with no rule for precedence, CAS can rule how ever they please. If the Armistead & Impey (not CAS but CADF) outcomes were a surprise, the Froome case might top them all and of course the ruling can be sealed! Transparency at its finest!
So if Froome gets off then, as with Armitstead, we'll get nothing official from the UCI and/or CAS but there will be loads of self-serving press releases and soft interviews from the Dawg and Brailsfraud
As you were!
You’ll get a press realase from the Froome’s about their “living hell” and Sky stating “cleared of any wrong doing”, as you were indeed!
Re: Re:
Prior to that the Dawg will make bold "The things I'm gonna tell you once I've been cleared" statements...followed by radio silence as he scuttles off to his Monaco bolt hole...as you were!
thehog said:Wiggo's Package said:thehog said:hazaran said:
Exactly and with no rule for precedence, CAS can rule how ever they please. If the Armistead & Impey (not CAS but CADF) outcomes were a surprise, the Froome case might top them all and of course the ruling can be sealed! Transparency at its finest!
So if Froome gets off then, as with Armitstead, we'll get nothing official from the UCI and/or CAS but there will be loads of self-serving press releases and soft interviews from the Dawg and Brailsfraud
As you were!
You’ll get a press realase from the Froome’s about their “living hell” and Sky stating “cleared of any wrong doing”, as you were indeed!
Prior to that the Dawg will make bold "The things I'm gonna tell you once I've been cleared" statements...followed by radio silence as he scuttles off to his Monaco bolt hole...as you were!
Always the pessimist, hog. I remember when the feds dropped their case against LA, you lamented it was over, he would skate for the rest of his life. To be fair, it did look that way at that time, but..
The cat (or dawg) is out of the bag. I'm confident that whatever happens, details will have to be made public. Certainly if it goes to CAS they will, but even if it the case is resolved without taking that step.
Meanwhile, here is the most recent document—the one for 2018—specifying how the USG correction is made.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf
The document is dated 11/15/17, which means it was published after Froome’s sample tested positive. As noted previously, it goes into effect on 3/1/18. The decision limit (DL), as noted before, is now adjusted to the urine specific gravity (USG). I looked up the previous document, for 2017, and confirmed that this was not the case for salbutamol last year. So this is definitely a new rule, one that was not in place when Froome’s sample tested positive.
Some other important points. First, the adjusted or corrected value is rounded down to the nearest decimal. The DL for salubutamol is 1.2 ug/ml, or 1200 ng/ml, so after adjustment it would be rounded down to the nearest 100 ng/ml. This means that if Froome’s USG were 1.033, the adjusted DL would 1980 ng/ml, and this would be rounded down to 1900 ng/ml. So his sample would still be above the DL. His USG would have to be at least 1.034 for his sample’s level just to equal the adjusted threshold, which I think would be sufficient to get off. As I’ve noted before, this is quite high. I’ve now looked at many studies of cyclists, and values this high are rare when temperatures are below 30, let alone the 20 reported for Stage 18.
The sample’s reported concentration is also rounded down:
Thus the 2000 ng/ml level reported for Froome is a minimum. The actual value could range from 2000 – 2099 ng/ml. But assuming that it was reported as it was recorded by the laboratory that did the tesding, it can’t be less than 2000 ng/ml.
Another relevant passage:
This means that Froome could have had previous urine levels > 1000 ng/ml that would not have been recorded as AAFs as long as they were < the DL of 1200 ng/ml. Of course for all we know he had levels > 1200 that were resolved behind the scenes, but we know for certain that he could have had levels > 1000 that by the rules would not require any action. This could be important if he wants to argue that the 2000 ng/ml value, particularly if it can be lowered by USG correction, is not that different from the values of previous samples.
Finally, I've edited the OP, adding links to many of the topics discussed in this thread, including pharmacokinetics, urinary levels following oral/inhaled salbutamol, metabolic and performance enhancing effects of salbutamol, urine specific gravity of cyclists, legal issues, and more.
The cat (or dawg) is out of the bag. I'm confident that whatever happens, details will have to be made public. Certainly if it goes to CAS they will, but even if it the case is resolved without taking that step.
Meanwhile, here is the most recent document—the one for 2018—specifying how the USG correction is made.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf
The document is dated 11/15/17, which means it was published after Froome’s sample tested positive. As noted previously, it goes into effect on 3/1/18. The decision limit (DL), as noted before, is now adjusted to the urine specific gravity (USG). I looked up the previous document, for 2017, and confirmed that this was not the case for salbutamol last year. So this is definitely a new rule, one that was not in place when Froome’s sample tested positive.
Some other important points. First, the adjusted or corrected value is rounded down to the nearest decimal. The DL for salubutamol is 1.2 ug/ml, or 1200 ng/ml, so after adjustment it would be rounded down to the nearest 100 ng/ml. This means that if Froome’s USG were 1.033, the adjusted DL would 1980 ng/ml, and this would be rounded down to 1900 ng/ml. So his sample would still be above the DL. His USG would have to be at least 1.034 for his sample’s level just to equal the adjusted threshold, which I think would be sufficient to get off. As I’ve noted before, this is quite high. I’ve now looked at many studies of cyclists, and values this high are rare when temperatures are below 30, let alone the 20 reported for Stage 18.
The sample’s reported concentration is also rounded down:
Thus the 2000 ng/ml level reported for Froome is a minimum. The actual value could range from 2000 – 2099 ng/ml. But assuming that it was reported as it was recorded by the laboratory that did the tesding, it can’t be less than 2000 ng/ml.
Another relevant passage:
This means that Froome could have had previous urine levels > 1000 ng/ml that would not have been recorded as AAFs as long as they were < the DL of 1200 ng/ml. Of course for all we know he had levels > 1200 that were resolved behind the scenes, but we know for certain that he could have had levels > 1000 that by the rules would not require any action. This could be important if he wants to argue that the 2000 ng/ml value, particularly if it can be lowered by USG correction, is not that different from the values of previous samples.
Finally, I've edited the OP, adding links to many of the topics discussed in this thread, including pharmacokinetics, urinary levels following oral/inhaled salbutamol, metabolic and performance enhancing effects of salbutamol, urine specific gravity of cyclists, legal issues, and more.
Merckx index said:
Another great post, thanks. On the bit highlighted above, why do you think the details of the Dawg's case will end up in the public domain, particularly if he skates?
The closest analogy I can think of is the Armitstead case which like Froome's only made it into the public domain because of a leak, the UCI/CAS's policy being to keep such cases secret unless and until the rider has exhausted all avenues of appeal and been found guilty. There is some merit to this approach btw - to avoid genuinely innocent ahtlete's reputations being tainted (although IMO neither Froome nor Armitstead are genuinely innocent)
As we know Armitstead won her CAS appeal and in such circumstances the rider has the choice as to whether the appeal judgement should be made public. And Armitstead chose not to because from a PR perspective it was better for her to issue one sided press releases which the UCI/CAS couldn't challenge than have the full gory details of the CAS judgment published
But without the leak we would never have heard of the Armitstead case. And of course while her CAS case was heard she was training for Rio - confident of getting off eh. Bit like the Dawg blagging £2m for entering the Giro while his case rumbles on...
Re:
What a load of UTTER RUBBISH !!! What dream world are you living in, mate?
Chris Froome is an employee of Team Sky. He is under contract and, as such, has obligations towards his employer.
His participation in professional cycling races is governed by and protected by the UCI. He has every right under the rules to seek exoneration in relation to the AAF, including hiring expensive lawyers to help him and Team Sky with the case. If he is unsuccessful and receives a particular sanction, so be it. No complaints from me.
The best thing for cycling, in the minds of the majority of cycling fans, is that (an exonerated) Dawg lines up at the Giro. Reigning champ of the Giro, Tommy Du vs Dawg ... could be one of the best duels in years!!! It could be epic. Maybe Tommy will give Froome a good kicking. Now wouldn't that be sweet!
sittingbison said:Dawg arguing a technicality...and being let off...will do more harm for the sport than if he pleaded guilty any got 9 months.
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked **** rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
What a load of UTTER RUBBISH !!! What dream world are you living in, mate?
Chris Froome is an employee of Team Sky. He is under contract and, as such, has obligations towards his employer.
His participation in professional cycling races is governed by and protected by the UCI. He has every right under the rules to seek exoneration in relation to the AAF, including hiring expensive lawyers to help him and Team Sky with the case. If he is unsuccessful and receives a particular sanction, so be it. No complaints from me.
The best thing for cycling, in the minds of the majority of cycling fans, is that (an exonerated) Dawg lines up at the Giro. Reigning champ of the Giro, Tommy Du vs Dawg ... could be one of the best duels in years!!! It could be epic. Maybe Tommy will give Froome a good kicking. Now wouldn't that be sweet!
- Mar 29, 2016
- 6,974
- 2
- 9,485
Re: Re:
Really?
I suspect even the majority of Brit cycling fans may now have had a gutful of Froome and Team Sky. Certainly the ones who are concentrating anyway
Alpe73 said:sittingbison said:Dawg arguing a technicality...and being let off...will do more harm for the sport than if he pleaded guilty any got 9 months.
As to the USG, it was 20C, 4 hours, and Dawg kicked **** rather than suffering badly (dehydrated). His USG would be totally normal. If there was ANYTHING that could have been argued in the THREE MONTHS BETWEEN being notified and the leak, it would have been to make it go away. It's only because he doesn't have an excuse that it is now public, and he is lawyered up.
Remember, Lance got a TUE for saddle sore cream
What a load of UTTER RUBBISH !!! What dream world are you living in, mate?
Chris Froome is an employee of Team Sky. He is under contract and, as such, has obligations towards his employer.
His participation in professional cycling races is governed by and protected by the UCI. He has every right under the rules to seek exoneration in relation to the AAF, including hiring expensive lawyers to help him and Team Sky with the case. If he is unsuccessful and receives a particular sanction, so be it. No complaints from me.
The best thing for cycling, in the minds of the majority of cycling fans, is that (an exonerated) Dawg lines up at the Giro. Reigning champ of the Giro, Tommy Du vs Dawg ... could be one of the best duels in years!!! It could be epic. Maybe Tommy will give Froome a good kicking. Now wouldn't that be sweet!
Really?
I suspect even the majority of Brit cycling fans may now have had a gutful of Froome and Team Sky. Certainly the ones who are concentrating anyway
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram