All About Salbutamol

[ScienceIsCool]

Just a few quick thoughts to add to all the great ones above:

- There's no way the lab would be allowed to know if the sample has an attached TUE because that is potentially identifying information. It doesn't straight up identify someone, but it allows you to narrow down who produced the sample. Enough data and you can identify the person. This has been shown on other anonymized datasets.

- I wonder how many tests are actually performed on a single urine or blood sample. On a practical level, each test takes up a volume of the sample, plus time and money. Unless of course, entire classes of drugs can be detected by a single test, but somehow that doesn't seem right. Being ignorant of the facts, it feels plausible that you could very well be positive for low-risk substances such as salbutamol or ephedrine but not test positive because they aren't actually measured very often. Whereas, in that scenario, things like EPO are checked for every single time.

- Information concerning the first two points would be super valuable for an athlete trying to avoid being caught doping. Enter Zorzoli, the UCI warning letters, and tours of the testing labs.

John Swanson

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

- I wonder how many tests are actually performed on a single urine or blood sample. On a practical level, each test takes up a volume of the sample, plus time and money. Unless of course, entire classes of drugs can be detected by a single test, but somehow that doesn't seem right. Being ignorant of the facts, it feels plausible that you could very well be positive for low-risk substances such as salbutamol or ephedrine but not test positive because they aren't actually measured very often. Whereas, in that scenario, things like EPO are checked for every single time.

Yes, entire classes of drugs can and routinely are detected by a single test, primarily GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry). Each substance can be identified by a characteristic peak in the chromatogram. Not only can a wide variety of substances be screened for simultaneously, but the scans can be stored and potentially used as evidence if new PEDs, not in use at the time of the analysis, emerge. A peak that didn't correspond to any banned substance at the time might turn out to be some new designer drug.

Not everything is detected with GC-MS (or LC-MS, liquid chromatorgraphy), of course. EPO has it's own test, testosterone, if the T/E is positive, requires a modification of MS to detect isotope ratios. Detection of peptide hormones may involve use of antibodies. But a large number of commonly abused substances can be screened for in any doping test, and salbutamol is one of them. Relatively small molecules, like steroids, stimulants, and beta2-agonists are all included in these screens, or certainly can be.

https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2014/january/sports-drug

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

been away missed the action..........for myself it's just a ? of how long...from when

of course froomester will be absolved he states quite candidly ' I've done nothing wrong..'

but only 72 votes....I guess? not everyone cares

Mark L

Mark ... in all seriousness ... what’s there to care/be overly concerned about?

A pro athlete did or did not use a bit of PEDs. And all of the permutations spinning off that. Villains. Victims. Crimes.

Meh.

Really?

When you’re in the deep dark depths of the Clinic ... it all seems so serious. But after a long day here, once you climb those long steps ... up onto the street ... and that beautiful sun hits your face. Beautiful.

Watch all those lads and lashes ride, my friend. All else is not your, my concern.

 

[samhocking]

UCI didn't in their statement, they simply said it was in excess of 1000ng/ml, but Team Sky confirmed it as 2000.

 

[Robert5091]

Yep, Sky put out this news release
https://www.teamsky.com/article/ts-statement

The UCI informed Chris that a urine test conducted on 7 September 2017, following Stage 18 of the Vuelta, revealed a concentration of Salbutamol which exceeds a threshold that requires him to provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose. Analysis indicated the presence of Salbutamol at a concentration of 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml), compared with the WADA threshold of 1,000ng/ml. None of the 20 other urine tests taken by Chris required any further explanation.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Yep, Sky put out this news release
https://www.teamsky.com/article/ts-statement

The UCI informed Chris that a urine test conducted on 7 September 2017, following Stage 18 of the Vuelta, revealed a concentration of Salbutamol which exceeds a threshold that requires him to provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose. Analysis indicated the presence of Salbutamol at a concentration of 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml), compared with the WADA threshold of 1,000ng/ml. None of the 20 other urine tests taken by Chris required any further explanation.

it requires him to to do bit more than that...nice spin from sky though

 

[Robert5091]

provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose

Gives a clue to Froome's defense?

 

[gillan1969]

provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose

Gives a clue to Froome's defense?

Indeed, which of course means he appears not to have one (a scientific one) and this chimes with the utterances of SDB. Focus on what can't be proven but which can be stated over and over again with as much conviction as possibe.....

Whilst it looked like he had done nothing from notification to December...they had probably realised that they weren't going to defend on a scientific basis......

Take the limited ban (9 months) but hopefully you'll have done enough to convince the faithful and keep them onside. There are people in Scotland, for example, who still think the pound "is as much ours as theirs"...because they want to believe and have been told so by people they want to believe......

 

[bambino]

provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose

Gives a clue to Froome's defense?

Indeed, which of course means he appears not to have one (a scientific one) and this chimes with the utterances of SDB. Focus on what can't be proven but which can be stated over and over again with as much conviction as possibe.....

Whilst it looked like he had done nothing from notification to December...they had probably realised that they weren't going to defend on a scientific basis......

Take the limited ban (9 months) but hopefully you'll have done enough to convince the faithful and keep them onside. There are people in Scotland, for example, who still think the pound "is as much ours as theirs"...because they want to believe and have been told so by people they want to believe......

Well I guess it has always been the headline of their defense, because the burden of proof is not the level measured, it is that he didn't take more than regulated. At the end the level of the AAF is scientifically set level and we all know it is very high. But Froome (and Sky) keeps on saying he did not take more than allowed in the rules and no-one can really proove whether he did or not. Froome probably can't supply evidence of that claim, but it is very hard - based on the sample - to exactly say that he did oral dose, or more puffs than allowed. So the burden of proof goes to both sides, also for the "prosecutor" that it is NOT possible to reach such level without taking more than allowed.

Froome's side propably cannot re-produce the same levels with allowed dose, but can the other side for 100% fact say that individual cannot reach the level measured without overdosing? I think Froome's defense is banking they can't, and are throwing things like kidney failures into the mix. This case is far from done and it all depends on what the judges believe to be possible and what not.

 

[Alpe73]

provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose

Gives a clue to Froome's defense?

Indeed, which of course means he appears not to have one (a scientific one) and this chimes with the utterances of SDB. Focus on what can't be proven but which can be stated over and over again with as much conviction as possibe.....

Whilst it looked like he had done nothing from notification to December...they had probably realised that they weren't going to defend on a scientific basis......

Take the limited ban (9 months) but hopefully you'll have done enough to convince the faithful and keep them onside. There are people in Scotland, for example, who still think the pound "is as much ours as theirs"...because they want to believe and have been told so by people they want to believe......

Well I guess it has always been the headline of their defense, because the burden of proof is not the level measured, it is that he didn't take more than regulated. At the end the level of the AAF is scientifically set level and we all know it is very high. But Froome (and Sky) keeps on saying he did not take more than allowed in the rules and no-one can really proove whether he did or not. Froome probably can't supply evidence of that claim, but it is very hard - based on the sample - to exactly say that he did oral dose, or more puffs than allowed. So the burden of proof goes to both sides, also for the "prosecutor" that it is NOT possible to reach such level without taking more than allowed.

Froome's side propably cannot re-produce the same levels with allowed dose, but can the other side for 100% fact say that individual cannot reach the level measured without overdosing? I think Froome's defense is banking they can't, and are throwing things like kidney failures into the mix. This case is far from done and it all depends on what the judges believe to be possible and what not.

Good post.

 

[Merckx index]

requires him to provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose.

No, it requires him to provide information that he ingested no more than the permissible dose, and that this ingestion was via inhalation. Notice how the Sky statement assumes that the drug entered his body through inhalation, when in fact this is part of what has to be established by Froome’s defense.

So the burden of proof goes to both sides, also for the "prosecutor" that it is NOT possible to reach such level without taking more than allowed.

The prosecutor does not have to prove this, and in fact it couldn’t be proved. The case of the Swiss runner shows that in exceptional cases it’s possible. That was known prior to Petacchi’s case, and it didn’t help him.

can the other side for 100% fact say that individual cannot reach the level measured without overdosing?

The standard of proof in a doping case is not 100%, it’s not even beyond reasonable doubt. It’s a flexible area between preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. And that standard has already been met by the fact of Froome’s urine level. It’s up to him to show otherwise. That’s why everyone has been waiting for Froome to produce a defense. The prosecution doesn’t have to present a case—again, their case is summarized by the urine level--all they have to do is show that Froome’s defense doesn’t rebut their case.

I was looking through Mike Morgan’s previous successful cases, and as someone here pointed out, he really takes advantage of technicalities:

Adrianova – sample analyzed after SOL expired
Devyatovskly – IRMS analysis interrupted
Bobby Lea – drug was in a pain-killer he took to sleep
Impey – contamination by pharmacist
Campbell-Brown – rules for how urine sample is to be collected were broken
Cilic – confused nicethamide, a banned drug, with nicotinamide, a B vitamin

If Froome is going to win his case, he will probably have to do it on such a technicality, or alternatively, establish no fault or negligence. Tucker mentioned something very interesting at his site, that the determination of no fault or negligence is based on subjective, not objective criteria. Following up on this, I found a case in which an athlete was given several bottles of water in order to provide a sufficient urine sample. He didn’t like the sound of one of the bottles when he opened it, refused to drink the contents, couldn’t provide a urine sample, and was charged with avoiding a test. He was exonerated because it was ruled that while a rational person would have realized the water was safe to drink, the athlete in his subjective state did not believe that.

Despite Mr Taylor’s reassurances and warnings that refusal to provide a sample could amount to an ADRV, Bailey refused to take the test on the basis that the water could have been contaminated. The tribunal found that this behaviour was entirely irrational: “Any ordinary rational person would not have refused to provide a sample because he had drunk from a water bottle which did not ‘crack’.”

The tribunal held, however, that the test for ‘no fault or negligence’ “does not depend on how a reasonable man would behave”: it is a subjective test. So, in the circumstances – where there was no doubt Bailey’s reason to refuse was genuine, albeit perverse – he bore no fault or negligence. The period of ineligibility was eliminated.

http://www.littletonchambers.com/an-update-on-fault-and-negligence-in-anti-doping-regulation-by-joseph-bryan-1227/

I love that phrase, "genuine, albeit perverse". As long as Froome maintains he broke no rules, I don’t think he can take this approach. But I can imagine a rider confessing that he took more than the allowed dose because he had an irrational belief that he had to in order to avoid an extremely devastating reaction. Actually, the rules allow in effect back-dated TUEs.

 

[gillan1969]

provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose

Gives a clue to Froome's defense?

Indeed, which of course means he appears not to have one (a scientific one) and this chimes with the utterances of SDB. Focus on what can't be proven but which can be stated over and over again with as much conviction as possibe.....

Whilst it looked like he had done nothing from notification to December...they had probably realised that they weren't going to defend on a scientific basis......

Take the limited ban (9 months) but hopefully you'll have done enough to convince the faithful and keep them onside. There are people in Scotland, for example, who still think the pound "is as much ours as theirs"...because they want to believe and have been told so by people they want to believe......

Well I guess it has always been the headline of their defense, because the burden of proof is not the level measured, it is that he didn't take more than regulated. At the end the level of the AAF is scientifically set level and we all know it is very high. But Froome (and Sky) keeps on saying he did not take more than allowed in the rules and no-one can really proove whether he did or not. Froome probably can't supply evidence of that claim, but it is very hard - based on the sample - to exactly say that he did oral dose, or more puffs than allowed. So the burden of proof goes to both sides, also for the "prosecutor" that it is NOT possible to reach such level without taking more than allowed.

Froome's side propably cannot re-produce the same levels with allowed dose, but can the other side for 100% fact say that individual cannot reach the level measured without overdosing? I think Froome's defense is banking they can't, and are throwing things like kidney failures into the mix. This case is far from done and it all depends on what the judges believe to be possible and what not.

Good post.

other than the issues raised by MI............

 

[Robert5091]

Did they use the new sample bottles?
https://sports.yahoo.com/olympic-co...-flaw-anti-doping-test-bottles-003456066.html

The Berlinger bottles were introduced last year as a measure to increase security around the Olympics. WADA received reports that those bottles could be opened if they were frozen. Using this method, the bottles showed no signs of tampering.

 

[Merckx index]

I posted this in the Unbelievable Doping Excuses thread, but it has possible relevance to Froome's case. Alonzo Trier, a basketball player at the U of Arizona, tested positive for ostarine, a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) used to build muscle and burn fat. He also tested positive for the same substance at the end of 2016, and he's claiming his current positive resulted from traces of the first positive (which he claimed was given to him without his knowledge) that didn't leave the body. Given that ostarine has a half life of about one day, and that Trier tested negative during the period between the two positives, his claim would seem preposterous, but his defense is arguing that the ostarine taken the first time accumulated somewhere in the body where it remained until suddenly being excreted. This is even harder to take seriously than Froome's kidney impairment or drug-drug interaction theory, but apparently the university is behind him on this.

“It would be quite difficult for that consistent passive diffusion to just stop magically for a month, or two months, or a day — and then start again,” [pharmacologist David] Ferguson said. “I’m a professor. ... We wouldn’t teach it that way. I can’t say positively because we don’t know the numbers, but it’s going to be tough for any of the scientists” to determine.

Under NCAA rules, an appeal has to be heard within 48 hours of the request, so a decision may come down fairly soon. I have to believe Froome's team is following this, though it may be too late, since if the Tribunal as reported was convened a couple of weeks ago, Froome would have about finished preparing his case, and may have even submitted it to the judge. But of course they could ask for more time if a decision in the Trier case is imminent.

http://tucson.com/arizona-s-allonzo-trier-practices-as-he-awaits-results-of/article_79afc236-1c3c-11e8-9f21-8faf3671b0be.html

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Tomorrow is USG Day. So is the Dawg gonna skate?

Unlikely IMO. For a start, if he knows he's got a free pass coming why stir up the hornet's nest by racing the Ruta de Sol? Coulda dodged that stress and done a Mount Teide Kenacort training camp instead

 

[Merckx index]

Guardian story (someone burning the midnight oil over there?) basically backs up what I've been saying about salbutamol AAFs:

Despite the high number of athletes with asthma, Salbutamol accounted for only three of the 109 AAFs Ukad processed in the three years between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017.

It has been suggested by sources close to Team Sky that AAFs are a relatively common occurrence and many of them never progress to anti-doping charges.

But the Ukad figures only partially support that view, as 77 of the 109 cases, or seven out of 10, did result in charges. And all three of the Salbutamol AAFs led to anti-doping rule violation cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/01/ukad-data-chris-froome-defence-anti-doping-charge

This is interesting, because this is the first information I've seen on the proportion of salbutamol AAFs that resulted in sanctions, though limited to UKAD it's obviously a very small sample size. These data are not available from WADA. However, WADA does publish data on the proportion of AAFs overall that lead to sanctions, and as I pointed out upthread, it's very high when TUEs and NCAs are eliminated.

In fact, the Guardian article neglected to point that out. When they said the UKAD figures "partially supported" Sky's view, they were implying that 32 cases were exonerated, but based on the WADA figures, that almost certainly is not the case. Most of the 32 cases that did not result in charges were probably dismissed because of TUEs or NCAs. The number of those 109 cases that actually progressed beyond that stage and resulted in the athlete's being exonerated is probably very low. Again, as I posted upthread, 61/111 AAFs in road cycling in 2015 led to ADRVs, but of the fifty that didn't, only four were cases not involving TUEs or NCAs, and likely most if not all four were clenbuterol meat contamination cases.

You can also see this in the pie chart in the 2015 ADRV Report that summarizes the ultimate disposition of the AAFs. While only 65% of AAFs resulted in ADRVs, 12% were dismissed because of TUEs, and 7% for NCAs. Another 8% were pending cases, leaving just 8% of cases exonerated. So 65/73 = 89% of cases that did not involve a TUE or NCA resulted in a sanction, and again, most of those were probably cases involving clenbuterol AAFs, which annually are about twenty times as frequent as those for salbutamol.

Also note that the UKAD data imply that there were no athletes with salbutamol TUEs that were tested during this three year period. Because if that had been the case, there would have been AAFs that did not result in ADRVs. In fact, as I discussed upthread, since the rules were changed in 2010 allowing salbutamol up to 1000 ng/ml., the number of AAFs has dropped dramatically, and so presumably has the number of athletes with TUEs for the substance.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2015_adrvs_report_web_release_0.pdf

Finally, the Guardian story ends with:

The next stage in Froome’s case, however, is still unclear, with cycling’s world governing body, the UCI, telling PA Sport there is “no update”.

Does this mean that the Tribunal hasn't in fact convened, as it was reported to be about to do so two weeks ago? Because if it had, and a judge appointed, and a hearing likely very soon, I would have expected some mention of that. But maybe not.

 

[gillan1969]

MI - directed at you mainly as you've done the digging

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uk-anti-doping-data-a-blow-to-chris-froomes-salbutamol-defence/

when SDB says “It has been proven that even if you take your puffer less than the amounts which you’re entitled to you can excrete more than the threshold in your urine,” Brailsford told Sky Sports News. “It has been proven time and time again, it can happen.”

from the various studies you've cited this doesn't not appear to be the case...are there multiple studies that "prove" this?

or is this spin rather than a lie...i.e. you could reach 1001 (conveniently conflated with the 2000 figure)....

 

[Merckx index]

MI - directed at you mainly as you've done the digging

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uk-anti-doping-data-a-blow-to-chris-froomes-salbutamol-defence/

when SDB says “It has been proven that even if you take your puffer less than the amounts which you’re entitled to you can excrete more than the threshold in your urine,” Brailsford told Sky Sports News. “It has been proven time and time again, it can happen.”

from the various studies you've cited this doesn't not appear to be the case...are there multiple studies that "prove" this?

or is this spin rather than a lie...i.e. you could reach 1001 (conveniently conflated with the 2000 figure)....

Let me note, first, that the CN story is the same one the Guardian ran earlier, which I linked above.

DB is playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, it does happen, but studies have consistently shown that if subjects take no more than the allowed amount of 800 ug at one time, their urine levels very rarely exceed 1000 ng/ml, and the only case I’m aware of where the level exceeded 2000 ng/ml was a Swiss runner, whose results reportedly were never replicated (so, yes, there is spin here; point out that the threshold is occasionally breached, while ignoring the fact that this is a major breach):

http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf

Here are three studies often cited:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181705c8c
Sporer et al (2008) – 8 subjects, with urine samples taken at three time points following inhalation; of the resulting 24 samples, none of the 800 ug group exceeded 1000 ng/ml as raw data; when the urine USG was corrected, one subject’s level at one time point was about 1400 ng/ml.

http://sci-hub.la/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000072
Dickinson et al (2014) – 32 subjects; none of the 800 ug group exceeded 1000 ng/ml at 2% dehydration; under conditions of 5% dehydration (which would be extremely debilitating in a bike race), one of the subjects exceeded 1000 ng/ml, but was still below the decision limit of 1200.

http://sci-hub.la/10.1002/dta.1828
Haase et al (2015) – 13 subjects; inhaled dose was 1600 ug (twice the allowed amount), followed by exercise under dehydrating conditions. It was reported that 20-30% of the samples exceeded 1000 ng/ml, while < 5% exceeded 2000 ng/ml (and none in the USG-corrected group exceeded 2400 ng/ml). The latter figure provides a rough estimate of the proportion expected to exceed 1000 ng/ml (or the DL of 1200 ng/ml) if the subjects had inhaled the allowed amount of 800 ug, if we assume rough linearity. That this assumption is valid is shown by a research proposal by this same group on the WADA site in which they report that the maximum mean urine value of subjects inhaling 800 ug was 340 ng/ml, and the maximum mean value for subjects inhaling 1600 ug was 600 ng/ml. These data, of course, are further evidence for the rarity of values exceeding the threshold.

If you combine these three studies, just 6/298 samples, or about 2%, from subjects inhaling 800 ug (or estimated from inhalation of a higher amount) exceeded the DL, and none was even close to 2000 ng/ml. In addition to these studies, researcher Ken Fitch has cited two others which he claims provide support for the existence of extremely high urine levels resulting from relatively small inhaled doses. One of the studies, a very old one by GlaxoSmithKline, I have not been able to find, despite extensive searching. Fitch just says that subjects inhaled 1200 ug--50% more than the allowed amount--and that 7/15 exceeded 1000 ng/ml, and one exceeded 3000 ng/ml. The latter subject might have reached 2000 ng/ml if s/he had inhaled 800 ug, but since I haven't been able to find the study, I can't comment further.

The other study cited by Fitch employed asthmatic patients, and has a number of problems including:

1) the out patient group, some of whom took relatively small doses, were asked to record how much they inhaled over a 24 hour period prior to providing a urine sample, so these amounts may not be completely accurate;

2) the inpatient group, usage of which was carefully monitored, generally took extremely high doses (median value 20 mg!), and so data from this group are not relevant to use of salbutamol by athletes;

3) the study reported only the range and mean or median of doses and urine levels, so there is no information available on possible outlier urine values resulting from small inhaled doses. Thus in the out patient group, 7/64 urine samples were > 1000 ng/ml, but the study doesn’t indicate the amounts inhaled by each of these seven subjects (the upper end of the range of inhaled amounts was 15 mg for this group, so at least one and presumably more of these subjects took far more than the WADA allowed amount). The median values, though, are entirely consistent with values from more recent studies; thus in the out patient group, the median amount inhaled was 400 ug, and the median urine level was 250 ng/ml.

http://sci-hub.la/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2710.1997.tb00005.x/abstract

 

[bigcog]

MI - directed at you mainly as you've done the digging

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uk-anti-doping-data-a-blow-to-chris-froomes-salbutamol-defence/

when SDB says “It has been proven that even if you take your puffer less than the amounts which you’re entitled to you can excrete more than the threshold in your urine,” Brailsford told Sky Sports News. “It has been proven time and time again, it can happen.”

from the various studies you've cited this doesn't not appear to be the case...are there multiple studies that "prove" this?

or is this spin rather than a lie...i.e. you could reach 1001 (conveniently conflated with the 2000 figure)....

Let me note, first, that the CN story is the same one the Guardian ran earlier, which I linked above.

DB is playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, it does happen, but studies have consistently shown that if subjects take no more than the allowed amount of 800 ug at one time, their urine levels very rarely exceed 1000 ng/ml, and the only case I’m aware of where the level exceeded 2000 ng/ml was a Swiss runner, whose results reportedly were never replicated (so, yes, there is spin here; point out that the threshold is occasionally breached, while ignoring the fact that this is a major breach):

http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf

Here are three studies often cited:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181705c8c
Sporer et al (2008) – 8 subjects, with urine samples taken at three time points following inhalation; of the resulting 24 samples, none of the 800 ug group exceeded 1000 ng/ml as raw data; when the urine USG was corrected, one subject’s level at one time point was about 1400 ng/ml.

http://sci-hub.la/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000072
Dickinson et al (2014) – 32 subjects; none of the 800 ug group exceeded 1000 ng/ml at 2% dehydration; under conditions of 5% dehydration (which would be extremely debilitating in a bike race), one of the subjects exceeded 1000 ng/ml, but was still below the decision limit of 1200.

http://sci-hub.la/10.1002/dta.1828
Haase et al (2015) – 13 subjects; inhaled dose was 1600 ug (twice the allowed amount), followed by exercise under dehydrating conditions. It was reported that 20-30% of the samples exceeded 1000 ng/ml, while < 5% exceeded 2000 ng/ml (and none in the USG-corrected group exceeded 2400 ng/ml). The latter figure provides a rough estimate of the proportion expected to exceed 1000 ng/ml (or the DL of 1200 ng/ml) if the subjects had inhaled the allowed amount of 800 ug, if we assume rough linearity. That this assumption is valid is shown by a research proposal by this same group on the WADA site in which they report that the maximum mean urine value of subjects inhaling 800 ug was 340 ng/ml, and the maximum mean value for subjects inhaling 1600 ug was 600 ng/ml. These data, of course, are further evidence for the rarity of values exceeding the threshold.

If you combine these three studies, just 6/298 samples, or about 2%, from subjects inhaling 800 ug (or estimated from inhalation of a higher amount) exceeded the DL, and none was even close to 2000 ng/ml. In addition to these studies, researcher Ken Fitch has cited two others which he claims provide support for the existence of extremely high urine levels resulting from relatively small inhaled doses. One of the studies, a very old one by GlaxoSmithKline, I have not been able to find, despite extensive searching. Fitch just says that subjects inhaled 1200 ug--50% more than the allowed amount--and that 7/15 exceeded 1000 ng/ml, and one exceeded 3000 ng/ml. The latter subject might have reached 2000 ng/ml if s/he had inhaled 800 ug, but since I haven't been able to find the study, I can't comment further.

The other study cited by Fitch employed asthmatic patients, and has a number of problems including:

1) the out patient group, some of whom took relatively small doses, were asked to record how much they inhaled over a 24 hour period prior to providing a urine sample, so these amounts may not be completely accurate;

2) the inpatient group, usage of which was carefully monitored, generally took extremely high doses (median value 20 mg!), and so data from this group are not relevant to use of salbutamol by athletes;

3) the study reported only the range and mean or median of doses and urine levels, so there is no information available on possible outlier urine values resulting from small inhaled doses. Thus in the out patient group, 7/64 urine samples were > 1000 ng/ml, but the study doesn’t indicate the amounts inhaled by each of these seven subjects (the upper end of the range of inhaled amounts was 15 mg for this group, so at least one and presumably more of these subjects took far more than the WADA allowed amount). The median values, though, are entirely consistent with values from more recent studies; thus in the out patient group, the median amount inhaled was 400 ug, and the median urine level was 250 ng/ml.

http://sci-hub.la/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2710.1997.tb00005.x/abstract

Have Sky/SDB/Froome said that this is his defence ? Looks like Brailsford just spinning for the press to me. Quite a jump to assume it is the basis of his explanation for his high reading. I'd say the way this is playing out in the press he is going to be more likely to be able to say the media has prejudiced his case, apart from the lack of confidentiality.

 

[Robert5091]

From http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf

Recently, in an urine of an athlete in competition, high concentration of Salbutamol (about 8000 ng/ml) was detected. This athlete took regularly Salbutamol Ventolin® and corticoids (Symbicort) because he suffered from an allergic and effort asthma.

Combination of drugs is Sky's defense? Happened once so ... Sounds a long shot to me.

 

[samhocking]

2016 figures are not out yet, they run a year behind the published report each year I believe,

A total of 229,412 samples were received and analyzed in 2015 by WADA-accredited
laboratories. 2,522 samples were reported as AAFs. Of these:
- 1,649 (65%) samples were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 300 (12%) samples were dismissed because of a valid medical reason;
- 178 (7%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other
than medical reasons);
- 194 (8%) samples resulted in “no sanction” because the athlete was exonerated (including
but not limited to meat contamination cases);
- 201 (8%) samples were still pending.



Medical Reasons: Cases in which the athlete had a valid TUE that justified the presence of
the prohibited substance in the athlete’s sample and cases that are
medically justified AAF (low-level athletes as per the definition of Athlete in
the Code3).
No Case to Answer: Cases closed at results management level, excluding TUE cases. Such
cases include for example: authorized route of administration for
glucocorticosteroids; departure from International Standards; and cases
outside WADA’s jurisdiction (including non-Code signatories); and any
other particular cases.
No Sanction: Cases in which the athlete was exonerated or deemed to have no fault or
negligence following a full disciplinary process. For example, meat
contamination cases where the athlete was exonerated are included in this
category.
Pending: WADA has not received all the documentation required to validate the case
decision. This may include information such as a reasoned decision, TUE,
the athlete’s name, etc.
ADRV: Cases closed for which a decision was rendered and an ADRV was recorded
against the athlete following a full disciplinary process. The sanction was
either a reprimand or a period of ineligibility.

 

[Merckx index]

Froome must be wishing he played in the NCAA...

Allonzo Trier, the AZ basketball star who claimed that a second positive for ostarine resulted from substance retained in his body for more than a year following the first positive, has been cleared to play. The NCAA not only bought his outrageous explanation, but Trier missed only two games. So the entire process I guess took only about a week to ten days.

No long investigative process, no calling of expert witnesses, no citing of peer-reviewed studies, certainly no lab tests, just this confident statement from his lawyer:

“The experts tell us Ostarine can be stored in fatty tissues for a long time, and tests can be negative but then later be positive as the substance comes out. The medical evidence also shows that the reappearance of a trace amount in his system now creates absolutely zero competitive advantage.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/ill-timed-gaffe-costs-louisville-signature-win-needed-secure-ncaa-bid-033540007.html

See how smoothly things can run when you don't even pretend to care about doping? I'm not sure why the NCAA even bothers to test athletes. This opens the door for other athletes who test positive for the same substance twice, in fact, it encourages them to look at the first positive as a future get-of-jail-free card. It's sort of like developing immunity. Once you've tested positive to some drug, you never have to worry about future positives to the same drug.

Oh, and on the same day as this was announced, Arizona announced they were retaining the basketball team's coach, who was caught in an FBI wiretap offering $100,000 to one of Trier's now current teammates.

All's well in the world of college sports.

 

[Alpe73]

Froome must be wishing he played in the NCAA...

Allonzo Trier, the AZ basketball star who claimed that a second positive for ostarine resulted from substance retained in his body for more than a year following the first positive, has been cleared to play. The NCAA not only bought his outrageous explanation, but Trier missed only two games. So the entire process I guess took only about a week to ten days.

No long investigative process, no calling of expert witnesses, no citing of peer-reviewed studies, certainly no lab tests, just this confident statement from his lawyer:

“The experts tell us Ostarine can be stored in fatty tissues for a long time, and tests can be negative but then later be positive as the substance comes out. The medical evidence also shows that the reappearance of a trace amount in his system now creates absolutely zero competitive advantage.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/ill-timed-gaffe-costs-louisville-signature-win-needed-secure-ncaa-bid-033540007.html

See how smoothly things can run when you don't even pretend to care about doping? I'm not sure why the NCAA even bothers to test athletes. This opens the door for other athletes who test positive for the same substance twice, in fact, it encourages them to look at the first positive as a future get-of-jail-free card. It's sort of like developing immunity. Once you've tested positive to some drug, you never have to worry about future positives to the same drug.

Oh, and on the same day as this was announced, Arizona announced they were retaining the basketball team's coach, who was caught in an FBI wiretap offering $100,000 to one of Trier's now current teammates.

All's well in the world of college sports.

When a butterfly flaps its wings in ... c'mon, that's easy for a scientist like you, MI.

 

[veganrob]

When it comes to criminal behavior, NCAA is real close behind FIFA and IOC.

 

[yaco]

MI - You are 100% right - Why on earth are NADO's wasting time on Amateur sports, even though I'm certain 'under the table' payment's happen in the NCAA - My guess is NADO's rely on the payments from these agencies for conducting tests.