All About Salbutamol

[yaco]

Re:

the change to USG concentrations would have been one or two years in the making

And you know this because…?

The existence of WADA has been a sad day for sport.

Got a better idea?

if Froome loses he will appeal to CAS, and if Froome wins, then WADA will be forced to appeal to CAS to test this new regulation.

If Froome wins, it will most likely be because of the new regulation, so how can WADA appeal its own rule? Froome’s win in that circumstance would in fact constitute a successful upholding of the new rule.

If Froome wins despite not being able to take full advantage of the new rule, then WADA might appeal, but it will do so for some other reason.

All these technical changes to substances/measurements of substances etc are done by a group of scientists under the WADA banner - And as we know scientists study substances for long periods of time.

I have no faith in WADA and it's cohorts the NADO's to run anti-doping - They give very little value for money, and hang their hats on catching ' low flying fruit ' to boost their results - Catching virtual amateur athletes should not be the purvey of WADA and NADO's - Maybe if WADA could ensure fully functioning NADO's in more than a minority of countries then it may have a chance - I am much happier if sporting codes adopt their own anti-doping rules - Lets face it WADA was set up for Olympic sports and primarily for individuals in sports - Unfortunately it's influence has spread to Non-Olympic sports, especially team sports and it can be argued the WADA Code doesn't effectively cater for team sports.

The Froome scenario - Let's wait and see what transpires as I suspect there will be twists and turns along the way.

 

[thehog]

Now that AD is handle internally to the UCI any result can be expected. Formally the UCI would appeal to CAS if a overly lenient federation let their rider off the hook. If Froome escapes we are unlikely to ever understand why or how as there’s no requirement for a reasoned decision. How times have changed in the transparent new clean era of cycling

 

[samhocking]

I would be very surprised if WADA are updating their policy and procedures as a reaction to a Froome AAF. Cycling is a tiny minority sport for WADA

You're looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Sam. Cycling might be a minority sport for WADA but for the Brits cycling is at the forefront of the Team GB Olympic gold medal land grab with crossover into Sky's TdF victories

So for the Brits gaming the system so the Dawg skates would be a very big deal indeed. And once Cookson got booted from the UCI having Reedie at WADA is good contingency planning eh

That's quite a bacon stretcher you have there, WP.

Hey there's more dude

Mo and Paula must be praying Seb doesn't lose the IAAF gig...

Mo, Paula and Nike.

I'm talking about the position 'cycling' has in IOC's priorities based on the fact for Froome, it's relatively insignificant to his career to win the Olympic Road Race or ITT and Froome being banned is therefore relatively speaking not an issue for WADA like it might be for their more global superstar Olympic IOC dependable athletes where the Olympics is primarily everything such as Bolt or Mo etc. Cycling to IOC and WADA if you want to assume the two have a cosy relationship is like football and golf. The Olympics simply really don't matter that much to their existence and Cycling, Football & Golf really don't matter much to IOC either other than to not appear bias towards track and field. The big money in Cycling is locked up by ASO primarily, not IOC and any reaction WADA might have to an athlete with a minor AAF compared to EPO, Testosterone, HGH etc that don't have a permitted threshold whatsoever.

 

[topcat]

State sponsored doping

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

All these technical changes to substances/measurements of substances etc are done by a group of scientists under the WADA banner - And as we know scientists study substances for long periods of time.

The long period of time passed a, well, long period of time ago. Scientists have known for years that the distinction between endogenous and exogenous substances didn’t make sense. They could have changed the rule at any time. I'm quite sure nothing was learned in the past year that made the difference. That doesn't mean the rule was changed in response to Froome's case, but it does allow one to ask why it happened now.

I have no faith in WADA and it's cohorts the NADO's to run anti-doping - They give very little value for money, and hang their hats on catching ' low flying fruit ' to boost their results.

Or maybe low flying fruit is easier to catch, because, you know, the more successful riders have more resources at their disposal to evade positives.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

"I'm talking about the position 'cycling' has in IOC's priorities based on the fact for Froome, it's relatively insignificant to his career to win the Olympic Road Race or ITT and Froome being banned is therefore relatively speaking not an issue for WADA like it might be for their more global superstar Olympic IOC dependable athletes where the Olympics is primarily everything such as Bolt or Mo etc. Cycling to IOC and WADA if you want to assume the two have a cosy relationship is like football and golf. The Olympics simply really don't matter that much to their existence and Cycling, Football & Golf really don't matter much to IOC either other than to not appear bias towards track and field. The big money in Cycling is locked up by ASO primarily, not IOC and any reaction WADA might have to an athlete with a minor AAF compared to EPO, Testosterone, HGH etc that don't have a permitted threshold whatsoever."

Still looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Sam

Not difficult to imagine Brailsford finding out about Froome's AAF and thinking Reedie might be able to make it go away. How many intermediaries required to ask that question? Probably only one. After all, the Brit sports administrators strangling the life out of pro sports are thick as thieves, and the priority is protecting the backs of other Brits, not playing fair

Not saying that definitely happened btw, we don't know and will probably never find out. But IMO your "WADA/IOC don't care about cycling" theory is just the usual deflection tactic

 

[samhocking]

50% of WADA's budget comes from IOC who match the total generated by a regional formula that fixes what each world government contributes and which all countries agreed to in 2005 in the Copenhagen Declaration and came into effect in 2007 and that hasn't changed afaik. It's simply not possible for any government in the World to pay more or less than what they previously agreed in 2005 unless its cash in brown paper bags which is on a whole new level of conspiracy and surely if money was the way to change WADA rules, why has it only happened after Froome's AAF. I just can't see that Froome's AAF in cycling would be seen at UK government level that damaging to push WADA to changes rules. If it's that easy to change rules, why do WADA's rules change so slowly?

 

[Alpe73]

"I'm talking about the position 'cycling' has in IOC's priorities based on the fact for Froome, it's relatively insignificant to his career to win the Olympic Road Race or ITT and Froome being banned is therefore relatively speaking not an issue for WADA like it might be for their more global superstar Olympic IOC dependable athletes where the Olympics is primarily everything such as Bolt or Mo etc. Cycling to IOC and WADA if you want to assume the two have a cosy relationship is like football and golf. The Olympics simply really don't matter that much to their existence and Cycling, Football & Golf really don't matter much to IOC either other than to not appear bias towards track and field. The big money in Cycling is locked up by ASO primarily, not IOC and any reaction WADA might have to an athlete with a minor AAF compared to EPO, Testosterone, HGH etc that don't have a permitted threshold whatsoever."

Still looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Sam

Not difficult to imagine Brailsford finding out about Froome's AAF and thinking Reedie might be able to make it go away. How many intermediaries required to ask that question? Probably only one. After all, the Brit sports administrators strangling the life out of pro sports are thick as thieves, and the priority is protecting the backs of other Brits, not playing fair

Not saying that definitely happened btw, we don't know and will probably never find out. But IMO your "WADA/IOC don't care about cycling" theory is just the usual deflection tactic

Well yeah ... when that's your bread 'n butter, WP.

Imagination, suspicion, conspiracy theories, Hans Christian Andersen and Robin Hood ...all congealed in a Mass for the Shut-Ins milieu. No wonder you like your credibility, bro. :lol:

"Ev'ry time you kiss me
I'm still not certain that you love me."

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

All these technical changes to substances/measurements of substances etc are done by a group of scientists under the WADA banner - And as we know scientists study substances for long periods of time.

The long period of time passed a, well, long period of time ago. Scientists have known for years that the distinction between endogenous and exogenous substances didn’t make sense. They could have changed the rule at any time. I'm quite sure nothing was learned in the past year that made the difference. That doesn't mean the rule was changed in response to Froome's case, but it does allow one to ask why it happened now.

I have no faith in WADA and it's cohorts the NADO's to run anti-doping - They give very little value for money, and hang their hats on catching ' low flying fruit ' to boost their results.

Or maybe low flying fruit is easier to catch, because, you know, the more successful riders have more resources at their disposal to evade positives.

- There are two elements to consider what is defined as professional and what sports should be included under the WADA code You need to understand some of these ' low flying fruit ' are often weekend warriors who compete in local competitions and are nowhere near professional - How these events fall under WADA's jurisdiction is beyond me - It's the same for Indigenous sports like Australian rules footy or gaelic footy in Ireland which should never be under the WADA code , and the WADA code isn't suited for team sports.

 

[samhocking]

Depends what you consider low-hanging fruit yaco. Within cycling at UCI & ASO level for CADF, Froome obviously isn't, but at WADA & IOC level he certainly is compared to far bigger UK and other World athletes. Froome's net worth is only £11M, Sky Corps sponsorship of cycling is 1% of their annual sponsorship and marketing budget which is almost entirely invested in non-cycling sports and their stars. They spend nearly a £Billion a year on other sports. Froome, Cycling, UCI, Team Sky are simply not that important financially to Sky Corp, UK government, WADA or IOC. They are low-hanging fruit in world sport anti-doping terms and even lower when it comes to a return on investment for sponsorship money or government protection of any kind for anyone to need WADA to change rules to suit Froome and protect his image and therefore their investments within cycling and him in my opinion.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

"I'm talking about the position 'cycling' has in IOC's priorities based on the fact for Froome, it's relatively insignificant to his career to win the Olympic Road Race or ITT and Froome being banned is therefore relatively speaking not an issue for WADA like it might be for their more global superstar Olympic IOC dependable athletes where the Olympics is primarily everything such as Bolt or Mo etc. Cycling to IOC and WADA if you want to assume the two have a cosy relationship is like football and golf. The Olympics simply really don't matter that much to their existence and Cycling, Football & Golf really don't matter much to IOC either other than to not appear bias towards track and field. The big money in Cycling is locked up by ASO primarily, not IOC and any reaction WADA might have to an athlete with a minor AAF compared to EPO, Testosterone, HGH etc that don't have a permitted threshold whatsoever."

Still looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Sam

Not difficult to imagine Brailsford finding out about Froome's AAF and thinking Reedie might be able to make it go away. How many intermediaries required to ask that question? Probably only one. After all, the Brit sports administrators strangling the life out of pro sports are thick as thieves, and the priority is protecting the backs of other Brits, not playing fair

Not saying that definitely happened btw, we don't know and will probably never find out. But IMO your "WADA/IOC don't care about cycling" theory is just the usual deflection tactic

Well yeah ... when that's your bread 'n butter, WP.

Imagination, suspicion, conspiracy theories, Hans Christian Andersen and Robin Hood ...all congealed in a Mass for the Shut-Ins milieu. No wonder you like your credibility, bro. :lol:

"Ev'ry time you kiss me
I'm still not certain that you love me."

Well, I said we don't know why the USG rule change has come about. But MI finds the timing suspicious and he's possibly the most rational person on here. So if (note the IF) Froome's AAF was the trigger for the rule change then someone from Sky got a message to someone at WADA. No escaping that

And we know that Brailsfraud is dodgy as all hell. So much in the public domain. And when he's cornered he can be creative. Remember the conversation with Lawton to try and make the jiffybag story go away

Plus we know that Reedie wasn't parachuted into WADA to improve the anti-doping effort. So much in the public domain on that as well

So we have one dodgy Brit with a big problem. Who thinks another dodgy Brit might be able to solve it. If you think it's implausible that the first dodgy Brit isn't going to see what the second dodgy Brit might be able to do to help then you don't understand how the levers of power work. Lobbying via back channels is just part of the game

 

[samhocking]

I would think the USG rule change was already published to all NADOs and NGBs already, so the delay in Froome's case, could simply be everyone being aware of it complicating things legally. Do we know

WADA was only created after the Festina Affair in 1998

Global harmonisation of NADOs (WADA) was being discussed long before Festina. It probably contributed to that harmonisation argument for those that wanted to see WADA materialise, but certainly WADA was created because IOC was struggling to manage anti-doping and keep up, in light of what was being seen with GDR, Ben Johnson and basically the worlds biggest sporting event should not be controlling anti-doping much like UCI shouldn't control anti-doping and why CADF was created. It's easy to think cycling is somehow influential, but it really isn't. Festina was important to cycling but compared to Ben Johnson it wasn't in terms of changing the direction towards harmonisation. In terms of public awareness too, ask any non-cycling sports fan what the Festina affair or who Richard Virenque or Willy Voet is and they simply won't have a clue. Ask them who Ben Johnson was and they will. Cycling is a minority sport, with no money to be found beyond ASO and even then is nothing compared to mainstream TV sports.

 

[yaco]

Depends what you consider low-hanging fruit yaco. Within cycling at UCI & ASO level for CADF, Froome obviously isn't, but at WADA & IOC level he certainly is compared to far bigger UK and other World athletes. Froome's net worth is only £11M, Sky Corps sponsorship of cycling is 1% of their annual sponsorship and marketing budget which is almost entirely invested in non-cycling sports and their stars. They spend nearly a £Billion a year on other sports. Froome, Cycling, UCI, Team Sky are simply not that important financially to Sky Corp, UK government, WADA or IOC. They are low-hanging fruit in world sport anti-doping terms and even lower when it comes to a return on investment for sponsorship money or government protection of any kind for anyone to need WADA to change rules to suit Froome and protect his image and therefore their investments within cycling and him in my opinion.

My comment about ' low flying fruit ' and WADA is referring to all sports - Go through a list of AAF's and there are many amateurs or weekend warriors or indigenous sports played professionally in one country - A country's NADO's trumpets they got 40 AAF's and I'll guarantee over half come from amateurs or even from indigenous sports who shouldn't even be in the testing pool - My posts on Froome have CLEARLY indicated ( despite being waylaid by Merckx Index ), I can see no evidence of WADA changing rules to protect Froome.

 

[yaco]

I would think the USG rule change was already published to all NADOs and NGBs already, so the delay in Froome's case, could simply be everyone being aware of it complicating things legally. Do we know

WADA was only created after the Festina Affair in 1998

Global harmonisation of NADOs (WADA) was being discussed long before Festina. It probably contributed to that harmonisation argument for those that wanted to see WADA materialise, but certainly WADA was created because IOC was struggling to manage anti-doping and keep up, in light of what was being seen with GDR, Ben Johnson and basically the worlds biggest sporting event should not be controlling anti-doping much like UCI shouldn't control anti-doping and why CADF was created. It's easy to think cycling is somehow influential, but it really isn't. Festina was important to cycling but compared to Ben Johnson it wasn't in terms of changing the direction towards harmonisation. In terms of public awareness too, ask any non-cycling sports fan what the Festina affair or who Richard Virenque or Willy Voet is and they simply won't have a clue. Ask them who Ben Johnson was and they will. Cycling is a minority sport, with no money to be found beyond ASO and even then is nothing compared to mainstream TV sports.

Harmonisation may have been in the wings, but there is no way the IOC wanted to see Police searching through athletes/countries headquarters at an Olympic Games - My guess is the IOC was also worried that more countries would criminalise doping which could include future Olympic Games host cities, hence the setting up of WADA - I personally believe WADA has outgrown its usefulness, has spread its wings beyond its intended target which were professional athletes in Olympic Sports, it has and will always be to inter-wined with the IOC and it delivers little value for money - To be honest, I'd dismantle WADA and its affiliates being NADO's - Let Olympic sports set up their own drug code and attendant tribunals and let other professional sports do likewise.

 

[samhocking]

Sports self-policing their own anti-doping code? What could possibly go wrong lol!

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I think this is the WADA decision, don't know if it was discussed here. Maybe MI can help what is exactly about.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf

That’s it, thanks. It’s a long read but there is scope in document for Froome to evade a ban.

This is the WADA decision which was effective by the time Froome tested positive. It was created May 2017 and became effective September 1st. Again, help to decipher this would be great, maybe we could spot the differences.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-td2017dl-v2-en_0.pdf

The rule change appears to allow for Froome to challenge the test result rather than him proving he is a “outlier”. Basically the burden of proof is now on the lab not the athlete.

Looking at the pdf metadata of the 2018 file td2018dl_v1_en.pdf confirms it was created on wada's server in 2017 on 30/10/2017 at 14:25 and had its last modification 5 minutes later at 14:30. Of course this metadata can be edited, but luckily googles robot also crawled it once only on 15 Nov 2017, two weeks after being uploaded, which looks exactly the same wording, suggesting no edits have been made to the file since upload. If the file was later edited under Estimating Measurement Uncertainty (MU) Appendix 1, googles robot would have cached the file again noticing the change in content because that's how googles robot indexes the internet. Clearly no edit has likely to have been been made since 30th Oct 2017, so although could be seen as suspicious, Froome's AAF was leaked on Dec 13th 2017 iirc, but he legally knew on September 20th. Pretty sure once WADA publishes the document online, it's that date going forward that it can be used legally to benefit the athlete, not the effective date? If you wanted to give Froome some legal help, you would have really needed to publish the file to the server before his AAF was known to him, but known to WADA and even if later edited, google's cache history should show an earlier version, which it does not. The file was created once, published once and appears t have no edits.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A_3cqTdF7iEJ:https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

[DirtyWorks]

My comment about ' low flying fruit ' and WADA is referring to all sports - Go through a list of AAF's and there are many amateurs or weekend warriors or indigenous sports played professionally in one country - A country's NADO's trumpets they got 40 AAF's and I'll guarantee over half come from amateurs or even from indigenous sports who shouldn't even be in the testing pool - My posts on Froome have CLEARLY indicated ( despite being waylaid by Merckx Index ), I can see no evidence of WADA changing rules to protect Froome.

Ok, this is wrong about 100 different ways, retelling the old lie that a NADO, or even WADA for that matter have some sanctioning authority.

• 
  An AAF is opened by the sports federation. No one else.
  
  WADA doesn't change rules to protect single athletes. That would be the UCI. Because the UCI's anti-doping rules are exclusively their own, and only share WADA compliance with the other sports federations.
  
  Sports federations have been playing the "sanction someone that won't generate news" game for a long time. Their reports look like they are testing and miraculously, the percentage of athletes doping is always around 2% every year.

It seems to be strange timing that the positive occurs as Lappartient takes over the UCI.

This might go down like Contador's sanction. S-L-O-W motion process to walk it out two years while Alberto rides events collecting appearance fees, then conclude with a "ban" that miraculously fits into a single off season. Alberto never actually stopped riding, then a new year and he's back officially with a WADA compliant sanction even though he never stopped racing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

but certainly WADA was created because IOC was struggling to manage anti-doping and keep up,.

False. Yet another doping scandal threatens the IOC brand and the IOC's response was to create WADA as a kind of theater. The sports federations never lost their total authority over sanctions.

much like UCI shouldn't control anti-doping and why CADF was created.

An organization with no external accountability and funded by the UCI with the UCI still retaining authority over who is/isn't sanctioned. CADF is more acronyms and obscurity, that's all.

I personally believe WADA has outgrown its usefulness, has spread its wings beyond its intended target which were professional athletes in Olympic Sports, it has and will always be to inter-wined with the IOC and it delivers little value for money - To be honest, I'd dismantle WADA and its affiliates being NADO's - Let Olympic sports set up their own drug code and attendant tribunals and let other professional sports do likewise.

It's really impressive how many things you manage to *** up in just a couple of sentences.

99% of IOC athletes are not getting paid nearly enough to even come close to the concept of a pro athlete.
WADA is still the remit of the IOC.

Olympic sports all have their own anti-doping code. Their rules are WADA compliant, but unique to each sport in every way.

As for "attending tribunals", that's what an anti-doping hearing is.

Give up already.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I would be very surprised if WADA are updating their policy and procedures as a reaction to a Froome AAF. Cycling is a tiny minority sport for WADA

You're looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Sam. Cycling might be a minority sport for WADA but for the Brits cycling is at the forefront of the Team GB Olympic gold medal land grab with crossover into Sky's TdF victories

So for the Brits gaming the system so the Dawg skates would be a very big deal indeed. And once Cookson got booted from the UCI having Reedie at WADA is good contingency planning eh

There are so many ways to smooth this over it doesn't need to look so obvious. I cannot imagine the UCI/ASO actually turning off the British money spigot, so it will probably go like Contador's, eventually a standards compliant sanction that happens in the off season meanwhile Froome races the whole time.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Looking at the pdf metadata of the 2018 file td2018dl_v1_en.pdf confirms it was created on wada's server in 2017 on 30/10/2017 at 14:25 and had its last modification 5 minutes later at 14:30. Of course this metadata can be edited, but luckily googles robot also crawled it once only on 15 Nov 2017, two weeks after being uploaded, which looks exactly the same wording, suggesting no edits have been made to the file since upload. If the file was later edited under Estimating Measurement Uncertainty (MU) Appendix 1, googles robot would have cached the file again noticing the change in content because that's how googles robot indexes the internet. Clearly no edit has likely to have been been made since 30th Oct 2017, so although could be seen as suspicious, Froome's AAF was leaked on Dec 13th 2017 iirc, but he legally knew on September 20th. Pretty sure once WADA publishes the document online, it's that date going forward that it can be used legally to benefit the athlete, not the effective date? If you wanted to give Froome some legal help, you would have really needed to publish the file to the server before his AAF was known to him, but known to WADA and even if later edited, google's cache history should show an earlier version, which it does not. The file was created once, published once and appears t have no edits.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A_3cqTdF7iEJ:https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

This is very interesting, but I don't see why the file needed to be published before the AAF was known to him. Any time after the AAF was known to someone would do it.

But I think most here are making a mistake—again, this is something I discussed upthread—in viewing the question of a rule change as a black-and-white issue. Either it was made to help Froome, or it wasn’t.

There’s plenty of middle ground possible. E.g., WADA may have discussed this last year, or in some recent year, and concluded that they would consider changing the rule depending on how many athletes exceeded the threshold, and how many of them had high USG values. Froome’s positive could have contributed to that.

In 2015, which I believe is the most recent year for which data are available, there were just sixteen AAFs reported for salbutamol in the ADAMS system (Table 18). So they're not very common,though hundreds or thousands of athletes are taking the substance, and getting tested regularly. This past year, Froome may have been one of the relatively few who exceeded the threshold and who also had a relatively high USG value. Not to mention, of course, that he obviously isn’t just another athlete, but the biggest name in cycling. If WADA was thinking of making a rule change specifically because they thought that some athletes were unfairly being punished, Froome’s case could have been a trigger. Assuming a panel of some sort makes the final decision, I can certainly imagine someone on that panel making an impassioned plea on Froome’s basis. Really, someone could do this without even knowing the sample was Froome's.

Meanwhile, here are several key questions I really wish I had answers to:

1. What was Froome's USG?
2. When can Froome or any other athlete make use of the rule change? Is it only in March, or as Sam believes, as soon as the technical document is published online? (If Sam is correct, then we can conclude that Froome's USG is not high enough to get him off without any other tests or evidence).
3. Did Froome's sample undergo an enantiomers test, and was an AAF recorded only after the results of this test were known?
4. Did Froome have any other relatively high salubutamol levels during the Vuelta?
5. Does he claim to have taken as much as the maximum of 800 ug/12 hr on stage 18, and if so, was all of this taken during the stage?

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Looking at the pdf metadata of the 2018 file td2018dl_v1_en.pdf confirms it was created on wada's server in 2017 on 30/10/2017 at 14:25 and had its last modification 5 minutes later at 14:30. Of course this metadata can be edited, but luckily googles robot also crawled it once only on 15 Nov 2017, two weeks after being uploaded, which looks exactly the same wording, suggesting no edits have been made to the file since upload. If the file was later edited under Estimating Measurement Uncertainty (MU) Appendix 1, googles robot would have cached the file again noticing the change in content because that's how googles robot indexes the internet. Clearly no edit has likely to have been been made since 30th Oct 2017, so although could be seen as suspicious, Froome's AAF was leaked on Dec 13th 2017 iirc, but he legally knew on September 20th. Pretty sure once WADA publishes the document online, it's that date going forward that it can be used legally to benefit the athlete, not the effective date? If you wanted to give Froome some legal help, you would have really needed to publish the file to the server before his AAF was known to him, but known to WADA and even if later edited, google's cache history should show an earlier version, which it does not. The file was created once, published once and appears t have no edits.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A_3cqTdF7iEJ:https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

This is very interesting, but I don't see why the file needed to be published before the AAF was known to him. Any time after the AAF was known to someone would do it.

But I think most here are making a mistake—again, this is something I discussed upthread—in viewing the question of a rule change as a black-and-white issue. Either it was made to help Froome, or it wasn’t.

There’s plenty of middle ground possible. E.g., WADA may have discussed this last year, or in some recent year, and concluded that they would consider changing the rule depending on how many athletes exceeded the threshold, and how many of them had high USG values. Froome’s positive could have contributed to that.

In 2015, which I believe is the most recent year for which data are available, there were just sixteen AAFs reported for salbutamol in the ADAMS system (Table 18). So they're not very common,though hundreds or thousands of athletes are taking the substance, and getting tested regularly. This past year, Froome may have been one of the relatively few who exceeded the threshold and who also had a relatively high USG value. Not to mention, of course, that he obviously isn’t just another athlete, but the biggest name in cycling. If WADA was thinking of making a rule change specifically because they thought that some athletes were unfairly being punished, Froome’s case could have been a trigger. Assuming a panel of some sort makes the final decision, I can certainly imagine someone on that panel making an impassioned plea on Froome’s basis. Really, someone could do this without even knowing the sample was Froome's.

Meanwhile, here are several key questions I really wish I had answers to:

1. What was Froome's USG?
2. When can Froome or any other athlete make use of the rule change? Is it only in March, or as Sam believes, as soon as the technical document is published online? (If Sam is correct, then we can conclude that Froome's USG is not high enough to get him off without any other tests or evidence).
3. Did Froome's sample undergo an enantiomers test, and was an AAF recorded only after the results of this test were known?
4. Did Froome have any other relatively high salubutamol levels during the Vuelta?
5. Does he claim to have taken as much as the maximum of 800 ug/12 hr on stage 18, and if so, was all of this taken during the stage?

OK, so what is important is the files modified date and the date google indexed it (first found the file on wada's servers and scanned the .pdf and saved the text into it's google cache). When new files are FTP'd up to a web server that don't exist, the file's 'created' date metadata is usually changed from the users machine to the date it was copied to the web server by the FTP upload process, but the modified is usually left untouched, unless you are physically editing files on a live server, which generally, unless your IT department haven't got a clue about security, would never happen.
The point is, Froome's legal team can't use the USG changes to td2018dl_v1_en.pdf because both google indexed that file, the file was published 'after' Froome gave his urine sample AAF and the file's modified date is also after his AAF sample. The WADA rules do allow the athlete to use changes in the anti-doping code 'before' their effective date and can use the files published date instead, if it is to their advantage. The file wasn't published before Froome gave his AAF sample to anti-doping control, so any changes in that file can't be used by Froome's legal team to reduce his measured level of salbutomol using USG changes in that technical update.

Thinking about this outside the box terms of why such a long delay, I'm wondering if the B sample request was after the file was published. That would create a bit of a legal issue for WADA perhaps. Maybe, the A sample will actually have to be re-tested using td2018dl_v1_en.pdf and almost use the A sample to confirm the B with its USG adjustment?

 

[yaco]

Sports self-policing their own anti-doping code? What could possibly go wrong lol!

Well you could hardly say that WADA is doing a good job - Let them catch the weekend warriors ( amateur ) which have no relationship to professional sport.

 

[yaco]

My comment about ' low flying fruit ' and WADA is referring to all sports - Go through a list of AAF's and there are many amateurs or weekend warriors or indigenous sports played professionally in one country - A country's NADO's trumpets they got 40 AAF's and I'll guarantee over half come from amateurs or even from indigenous sports who shouldn't even be in the testing pool - My posts on Froome have CLEARLY indicated ( despite being waylaid by Merckx Index ), I can see no evidence of WADA changing rules to protect Froome.

Ok, this is wrong about 100 different ways, retelling the old lie that a NADO, or even WADA for that matter have some sanctioning authority.

• 
  An AAF is opened by the sports federation. No one else.
  
  WADA doesn't change rules to protect single athletes. That would be the UCI. Because the UCI's anti-doping rules are exclusively their own, and only share WADA compliance with the other sports federations.
  
  Sports federations have been playing the "sanction someone that won't generate news" game for a long time. Their reports look like they are testing and miraculously, the percentage of athletes doping is always around 2% every year.

It seems to be strange timing that the positive occurs as Lappartient takes over the UCI.

This might go down like Contador's sanction. S-L-O-W motion process to walk it out two years while Alberto rides events collecting appearance fees, then conclude with a "ban" that miraculously fits into a single off season. Alberto never actually stopped riding, then a new year and he's back officially with a WADA compliant sanction even though he never stopped racing.

Of course NADO's can charge an athlete if they return an AAF and then recommend an ADRV which is usually actioned and then it goes onto a tribunal - Of course it may be a different story if the actual sport conducts a test - Your 2% figure seems about right and around half that figure is weekend warriors who are hardly professional athletes - Now of course amateur type of sporting events can conduct their own tests if they desire, but they don't need to be governed by the WADA code to determine banned substances or penalties - WADA's doping figures are a sham.

 

[samhocking]

The good old days of NGBs like UCI or IWF running their own anti-doping resulted in situations a thousand times worse than today. I'd rather not see the sport return to how things were completely at the mercy of pushing doping to the limit and even death of Coppi's, Simpson's, Anquetil's or even Merckx, Hinault and Indurain era before WADA. Since 1998 pretty much every top 3 GT winner has served a WADA ban either directly due to anti-doping or indirectly, but nonetheless sanctioned under anti-doping harmonisation not controlled by the NGBs & IOC, including Armstrong lets not forget. Would his ban be the same, had USADA & UCI not been a WADA member? I very much doubt it. Their anti-doping codes would still be how it was in the early 90's no doubt like it still is for all the non-WADA/IOC governed NGBs like NFL and MLB and american wrestling etc.

 

[yaco]

Re:

The good old days of NGBs like UCI or IWF running their own anti-doping resulted in situations a thousand times worse than today. I'd rather not see the sport return to how things were completely at the mercy of pushing doping to the limit and even death of Coppi's, Simpson's, Anquetil's or even Merckx, Hinault and Indurain era before WADA. Since 1998 pretty much every top 3 GT winner has served a WADA ban either directly due to anti-doping or indirectly, but nonetheless sanctioned under anti-doping harmonisation not controlled by the NGBs & IOC, including Armstrong lets not forget. Would his ban be the same, had USADA & UCI not been a WADA member? I very much doubt it. Their anti-doping codes would still be how it was in the early 90's no doubt like it still is for all the non-WADA/IOC governed NGBs like NFL and MLB and american wrestling etc.

What you say is good and well, but many of these 'big busts' have not been through the detective work of WADA or NADO's, but rather through the work of police/customs type agencies and happen to land in the laps of WADA or NADO's - Yes, American Sports,except for the MLB, are a different issue with their ridiculously short bans for PED use, but at the end of the day, there is no rule that you must have world-wide standard bans for AAF's - I could possibly accept the WADA code with tweaks for Olympic sports, but it's not required for Non-Olympic Sports or indigenous sports.