All About Salbutamol

[AussieGoddess]

Re: Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

the AAF isnt evidence...it's the charge

and you've been listening to SDB too much...the 'crime' is not the amount inhaled....unless taking oral salbutomol not a 'crime'? As that could be an explanation could it not?

The AAF is not the charge. The ADRV is you inhaled more than the specified amount. The AAF is ultimately WADA's 'evidence' if it goes all the way, the athletes defence is his own evidence to explain the AAF within the boundary of not being an ADRV. That is why the substance is labled to be 'specified'. If the charge was the AAF, it would be labled 'non-specified' like Clenbutortol wouldnt it. And, the AAF would be essentially the ADRV with anything above the 1000 urine threshold immediatly sanctionable like Clenbutorol. It isn't and so the charge is based on the input of the prohibted substance, not the output like Clenbutorol is.

actually the charge is NOT that you inhaled more than the specified amount. The charge is that the amount in the urine is deemed to be not for therapeutic use. Effectively that a result of over 1000ng/ml means that it is deemed that you used over the amount allowed (either inhaled too much or used other banned methods), and you have to prove that your body excretes salbultamol in such a way that it is POSSIBLE that you could have inhaled the right amount and produced that result.

This is not suggesting that you prove what you DID inhale - just prove that you COULD have used the prescribed amount and returned that result. The ADRV is most definitely the urine measurement, not proving what you did take as it cant be proven.

 

[Robert5091]

25% think he will be cleared - says a lot!

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Who's disappointed?
Other than Fan boys?

Only takes thirty minutes to prove the assertion of my previous post - I am trying to discuss the 'actual issue' as I'm not interested in Sky or Froome or Sunweb or Peugoet or Seven-Eleven etc, etc, etc.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

the AAF isnt evidence...it's the charge

and you've been listening to SDB too much...the 'crime' is not the amount inhaled....unless taking oral salbutomol not a 'crime'? As that could be an explanation could it not?

The AAF is not the charge. The ADRV is you inhaled more than the specified amount. The AAF is ultimately WADA's 'evidence' if it goes all the way, the athletes defence is his own evidence to explain the AAF within the boundary of not being an ADRV. That is why the substance is labled to be 'specified'. If the charge was the AAF, it would be labled 'non-specified' like Clenbutortol wouldnt it. And, the AAF would be essentially the ADRV with anything above the 1000 urine threshold immediatly sanctionable like Clenbutorol. It isn't and so the charge is based on the input of the prohibted substance, not the output like Clenbutorol is.

actually the charge is NOT that you inhaled more than the specified amount. The charge is that the amount in the urine is deemed to be not for therapeutic use. Effectively that a result of over 1000ng/ml means that it is deemed that you used over the amount allowed (either inhaled too much or used other banned methods), and you have to prove that your body excretes salbultamol in such a way that it is POSSIBLE that you could have inhaled the right amount and produced that result.

This is not suggesting that you prove what you DID inhale - just prove that you COULD have used the prescribed amount and returned that result. The ADRV is most definitely the urine measurement, not proving what you did take as it cant be proven.

Exactly! And someone should send this post to Sir Dave Brailsford

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

the AAF isnt evidence...it's the charge

and you've been listening to SDB too much...the 'crime' is not the amount inhaled....unless taking oral salbutomol not a 'crime'? As that could be an explanation could it not?

The AAF is not the charge. The ADRV is you inhaled more than the specified amount. The AAF is ultimately WADA's 'evidence' if it goes all the way, the athletes defence is his own evidence to explain the AAF within the boundary of not being an ADRV. That is why the substance is labled to be 'specified'. If the charge was the AAF, it would be labled 'non-specified' like Clenbutortol wouldnt it. And, the AAF would be essentially the ADRV with anything above the 1000 urine threshold immediatly sanctionable like Clenbutorol. It isn't and so the charge is based on the input of the prohibted substance, not the output like Clenbutorol is.

actually the charge is NOT that you inhaled more than the specified amount. The charge is that the amount in the urine is deemed to be not for therapeutic use. Effectively that a result of over 1000ng/ml means that it is deemed that you used over the amount allowed (either inhaled too much or used other banned methods), and you have to prove that your body excretes salbultamol in such a way that it is POSSIBLE that you could have inhaled the right amount and produced that result.

This is not suggesting that you prove what you DID inhale - just prove that you COULD have used the prescribed amount and returned that result. The ADRV is most definitely the urine measurement, not proving what you did take as it cant be proven.

Exactly! And someone should send this post to Sir Dave Brailsford

indeed...which begs the questions WHY did SDB say it......

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

the AAF isnt evidence...it's the charge

and you've been listening to SDB too much...the 'crime' is not the amount inhaled....unless taking oral salbutomol not a 'crime'? As that could be an explanation could it not?

The AAF is not the charge. The ADRV is you inhaled more than the specified amount. The AAF is ultimately WADA's 'evidence' if it goes all the way, the athletes defence is his own evidence to explain the AAF within the boundary of not being an ADRV. That is why the substance is labled to be 'specified'. If the charge was the AAF, it would be labled 'non-specified' like Clenbutortol wouldnt it. And, the AAF would be essentially the ADRV with anything above the 1000 urine threshold immediatly sanctionable like Clenbutorol. It isn't and so the charge is based on the input of the prohibted substance, not the output like Clenbutorol is.

actually the charge is NOT that you inhaled more than the specified amount. The charge is that the amount in the urine is deemed to be not for therapeutic use. Effectively that a result of over 1000ng/ml means that it is deemed that you used over the amount allowed (either inhaled too much or used other banned methods), and you have to prove that your body excretes salbultamol in such a way that it is POSSIBLE that you could have inhaled the right amount and produced that result.

This is not suggesting that you prove what you DID inhale - just prove that you COULD have used the prescribed amount and returned that result. The ADRV is most definitely the urine measurement, not proving what you did take as it cant be proven.

Sam is hanging his hat on the leaked psotive might get Froome a free ride. He also can’t say the word “postive”.

 

[samhocking]

What decides 'if' your Salbutomol use was theraputic or not, is not the urine reading. What decides therapeutic use or not is the threshold allowed of the specified substance via inhalation. Above 16 puffs (i'm simplifying we all know the whole ADRV by now) is not therapeutic, below 16 puffs is therapeutic. THAT is the legal case. UIlissi's lawyers tackled the threshold and so will Froomes, because that is the violation. You cannot reverse the AAF using legal procedure unless it is considered wrong, which Froomes doesn't appear to think.

If there was no case to answer, the AAF would equal the violation with immediate provisional suspension, like it does for say Clenbutorol. Contador's lawer (Froomes lawyer too) fought 'how' the prohibited substance got there, because it being there was the ADRV for Contador. For Froome, it being there is clearly not the violation, the violation is 'how much' you took for it to get there in the first place and if that was above or below inhalationh threshold. This is where Ulissi's case fell down, because he didn't have detailed records of his salbutomol use to fall back on as far as i've read the case. Basically he was sanctioned for being negligent of not knowing how many puffs he took after his crash but that he wasn't intending to use it non-therapeutically.

 

[Blanco]

What decides 'if' your Salbutomol use was theraputic or not, is not the urine reading. What decides therapeutic use or not is the threshold allowed of the specified substance via inhalation. Above 16 puffs (i'm simplifying we all know the whole ADRV by now) is not therapeutic, below 16 puffs is therapeutic. THAT is the legal case. UIlissi's lawyers tackled the threshold and so will Froomes, because that is the violation. You cannot reverse the AAF using legal procedure unless it is considered wrong, which Froomes doesn't appear to think.

If there was no case to answer, the AAF would equal the violation with immediate provisional suspension, like it does for say Clenbutorol. Contador's lawer (Froomes lawyer too) fought 'how' the prohibited substance got there, because it being there was the ADRV for Contador. For Froome, it being there is clearly not the violation, the violation is 'how much' you took for it to get there in the first place and if that was above or below inhalationh threshold. This is where Ulissi's case fell down, because he didn't have detailed records of his salbutomol use to fall back on as far as i've read the case. Basically he was sanctioned for being negligent of not knowing how many puffs he took after his crash but that he wasn't intending to use it non-therapeutically.

Are you really just dumb, or you're playing one? Who the hell, and how, can prove how many puffs he took? It can't be proven, so it's not much relevant. Urine level is, though, cause that's where the violation is. Seems like you're listening Sir Dave way too much!
And Ulissi's case didn't fell down, he made a deal, knowing he can't escape sanction. He admitted using inhalator too much, because otherwise he will end up getting longer ban, failing to explain how the hell that level of salbutamol get to his body if he used inhalator in proper doses. That would mean he took salbutamol orally or via nebulizer which is immediate 2 years ban.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

What decides 'if' your Salbutomol use was theraputic or not, is not the urine reading. What decides therapeutic use or not is the threshold allowed of the specified substance via inhalation. Above 16 puffs (i'm simplifying we all know the whole ADRV by now) is not therapeutic, below 16 puffs is therapeutic. THAT is the legal case. UIlissi's lawyers tackled the threshold and so will Froomes, because that is the violation. You cannot reverse the AAF using legal procedure unless it is considered wrong, which Froomes doesn't appear to think.

If there was no case to answer, the AAF would equal the violation with immediate provisional suspension, like it does for say Clenbutorol. Contador's lawer (Froomes lawyer too) fought 'how' the prohibited substance got there, because it being there was the ADRV for Contador. For Froome, it being there is clearly not the violation, the violation is 'how much' you took for it to get there in the first place and if that was above or below inhalationh threshold. This is where Ulissi's case fell down, because he didn't have detailed records of his salbutomol use to fall back on as far as i've read the case. Basically he was sanctioned for being negligent of not knowing how many puffs he took after his crash but that he wasn't intending to use it non-therapeutically.

Sam what does this say new that you haven't said two pages ago?
Remember there is a Multiple Posting warning thread at the top of the Forum.
Ps. try to keep the noise down.

 

[samhocking]

It's not a multiple post, it's a reply to gillan1969 who thinks the AAF is not evidence it is the charge. It simply isn't the charge until it is proven Froome must have inhaled more than 16 puffs. That is what the rules say, that is what the lawyers will attempt to prove didn't happen, that Froome didn't inhale more than 16 puffs for that AAF, because inhaling more than 16 puffs results in an ADRV as we know happened for Ulissi.

Blanco
Froome's lawyer will undoubtedly be using the ADAMS files that will show a Salbutomol urine level historically for Froome and will most likely present a cross-reference between that and Froomes medical records with the team. That will then build a baseline correlation between Froome's usual inhalation amount and the expected typical urine level. From that evidence, he will then add further evidence (none of which we are in knowledge of here, but clearly Braislford says exists) to explain the higher than usual baseline urine level in this AAF compared to what is probably 40 other levels taken while in leaders jersey at Tour & Vuelta for example and therefore proving the AAF is due to theraputic use, but it most definitely isn't the charge in itself. The charge is you are considered to have inhaled more than 16 puffs without an explanation for it.

 

[thehog]

Re:

It's not a multiple post, it's a reply to gillan1969 who thinks the AAF is not evidence it is the charge. It simply isn't the charge until it is proven Froome must have inhaled more than 16 puffs. That is what the rules say, that is what the lawyers will attempt to prove didn't happen, that Froome didn't inhale more than 16 puffs for that AAF, because inhaling more than 16 puffs results in an ADRV as we know happened for Ulissi.

Blanco
Froome's lawyer will undoubtedly be using the ADAMS files that will show a Salbutomol urine level historically for Froome and will most likely present a cross-reference between that and Froomes medical records with the team. That will build a baseline correlation between usual inhalation amount and expected urine amount. From that evidence, he will then use further evidence (none of which we are in knowledge of here) to explain the higher than baseline urine level in this one AAF compared to what is probably 40 earlier samples from Tour & Vuelta for example, despite inhalation quantity and frequency being within the rules for what makes Salbutomol specified in the first place.

It is a multiple post as you’ve been going on this same topic for 48 hours straight. Now your just trolling the forum with repeated posts.

The UCI own statement clearly outlines the infraction and the charge;

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) confirms that British rider Christopher Froome was notified of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) of Salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml (*) in a sample collected during the Vuelta a España on 7 September 2017. The rider was notified of the AAF on 20 September 2017.

The anti-doping control was planned and carried out by the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF), the independent body mandated by the UCI, in charge of defining and implementing the anti-doping strategy in cycling.

The analysis of the B sample has confirmed the results of the rider’s A sample and the proceedings are being conducted in line with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

As a matter of principle, and whilst not required by the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI systematically reports potential anti-doping rule violations via its website when a mandatory provisional suspension applies. Pursuant to Article 7.9.1. of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider.

At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further on this matter.

(*) WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above

Can it be anymore clearer and states nothing in regards to “puffs”. Period.

 

[samhocking]

So what is the point of a lawyer then if the 'charge' is you have over 1000ng/ml in your urine? How is Froomes lawyer going to change that charge as you call it? He can't, it's a lab reading, but the rAAF is not yet the charge because the rules allow him to prove Froome didn't take more than 16 puffs because that is what decides theraputic use and therefore the AAF is nulled. If he can do that, Froome is not guilty of the AAF is he. If it was not possible for evidence of inhalation amount to nullify the AAF, Salbutomol would be non-specified with no evidence of amount taken possible, simply +1000ng/ml in urine is the end of the story and sanctioned.

 

[thehog]

Re:

So what is the point of a lawyer then if the 'charge' is you have over 1000ng/ml in your urine? How is Froomes lawyer going to change that? He can't, it's a lab reading, but the rAAF is not yet the charge because the rules allow him to prove Froome didn't take more than 16 puffs because that is what decides theraputic use and therefore the AAF is nulled. If he can do that, Froome is not guilty of the AAF is he. If it was not possible for evidence of inhalation amount to say otherwise, Salbutomol would be non-specified with no explanation possible, simply 1000ng/ml end of story and a sanction.

More trolling and double speak not to mention you’re being completely obtuse.

A lawyer (solicitor in the UK) or lay representative is a nominated person you select to represent you who has more time than you. Froome can train and race his bike the lawyer can handle the postive test. Simple.

A charge is the definition of what you have to defend yourself against. The charge is not “doping” in general but a specific substance found in his urine at a specific point in time. Froome has a right to a defence, which he is preparing to explain possible permissible reasons why he exceeded the specific value and the UCI has the right to present their side.

So what point are you now attempting to make? Or are you just deliberately clogging up the forum?

 

[samhocking]

The point is the leaking of the AAF, this is what we are talking about here for the past 48 hours?
The AAF would not yet be any charge (as you put it) in the public eye like a non-specified substance found in your urine is and will pretty much always be the charge and can therefore be in the public eye.

 

[thehog]

Re:

The point is the leaking of the AAF, this is what we are talking about here for the past 48 hours?
The AAF would not yet be any charge as you put it in the public eye, unlike non-specified substances found in your urine where it will pretty much always be the charge and should therefore be in the public eye.

My friend, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

The UCI have clearly laid out the charge sheet in public with the positive A and positive B substance and indicated it is an AAF over the specific and allowable amount. It’s that simple.

Froome can present his defence in private as can the UCI.

So what’s your problem? Other than wanting to disrupt the forum?

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) confirms that British rider Christopher Froome was notified of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) of Salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml (*) in a sample collected during the Vuelta a España on 7 September 2017. The rider was notified of the AAF on 20 September 2017.

 

[samhocking]

We are talking about should an AAF charge that might end up not being a charge be possible to be leaked when the public opinion of an athlete with an AAF is they must be guilty, especially in cycling because traditionally an AAF has always been for a non-specified substance and therefore pretty much always proof of doping because you cannot justify them being in your system at all, only appeal the sanction. If you believe that is right then explain why, but the best answer you get is if everything was transparent none of this would be an issue. It would still be an issue, simply have shifted from one of transparency to one of believing what is made available as being real or fake or falsified because that is the nature of many cycling fans it seems.

 

[thehog]

Re:

We are talking about should an AAF charge that might end up not being a charge be possible to be leaked when the public opinion of an athlete with an AAF is they must be guilty, especially in cycling because traditionally an AAF has always been for a non-specified substance and therefore pretty much always proof of doping because you cannot justify them being in your system at all, only appeal the sanction. If you believe that is right then explain why, but the best answer you get is if everything was transparent none of this would be an issue. It would still be an issue, simply have shifted from one of transparency to one of believing what is made available as being real or fake or falsified because that is the nature of many cycling fans it seems.

No we are not. That’s what you and you are alone are talking about.

Suspicions around Froome have been rife ever since his transformation at the 2011 Vuelta and have continued through his odd performances like Ventoux 2013 and so on. Froome has caused the questions all on his own, from not revealing his asthma in his biography to the ever changing Bilharzia diagnosis.

Regardless of all of that Froome can in private and in his own time present his defence to his postive test. Which makes me wonder why you have wasted 3 days of your life claiming Froome has been disadvantaged in some way? He is racing and free citizen until his case is heard nothing changes.

So, stop trolling.

 

[yaco]

To argue that the Froome case should have remained confidential until sanctioned, is not trolling in any shape of form Possibly, Sam at times is long-winded in his posts, but that's the nature of forums.

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

Ok, this back and forth and constant rehashing needs to stop. I don’t even know how it has come about and I’m not going to pick back through several pages of posts.

The WADA code is there for everyone to read and make their own interpretation. Froome has to explain the reading. It shouldn’t have been released but it has so really the point is moot. This thread is about salbutamol, this discussion is not. Let’s end it here.

People can argue that the high reading is evidence, it is also the only reason Froome has to explain anything.

 

[rick james]

Can I just point out I’m on 3 different kinds of asthma treatment and I’m horse sh!t on a bike

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

I’ve just removed several posts continuing after my previous warning. Please leave it and move on. If it continues there will likely be bans.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

To argue that the Froome case should have remained confidential until sanctioned, is not trolling in any shape of form Possibly, Sam at times is long-winded in his posts, but that's the nature of forums.

Good post.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Can I just point out I’m on 3 different kinds of asthma treatment and I’m horse **** on a bike

In the spririt of transparency, Rick, have submitted a claim to CN ... to retrieve costs to replace a brand spanking new laptop ... totally feckin fried ... by a gobfull of coffee projected onto the keyboard at StraightOutaNewark airport ... upon reading your post. As first responder, CN may contact YOU for damages. Just sayin, bro. :lol:

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

25% think he will be cleared - says a lot!

Details ..... please. Thanks.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

To argue that the Froome case should have remained confidential until sanctioned, is not trolling in any shape of form Possibly, Sam at times is long-winded in his posts, but that's the nature of forums.

Good post.

Bad Post