samhocking said:
I think you're putting too much importance on the AAFs urine level and assuming WADA publish everything. Clearly there will be various WADA research that they use to catch dopers, so that would never be released publically, that's the tools of their trade. The other think is, the AAF urine level doesn't actually hold much weight legally for WADA because it can't legally say how much you took.
I would say WADA have there own studies of athletes taking permitted doses and they know how wide that variation is longitudinally and if use is ramped up within that time. All they had to do was look at Froomes previous 20 urine levels and what Froome told them he inhaled that day and if the fluctuations of his sample correlate with their own findings, clearly their own findings confirmed how many puffs Froome claimed he used each sample. To me, it seems WADA are very aware the likelihood of false positives and although the rules realtivey defined, each case is looked at individually due to how much variation actually exists over longer testing periods.
They may not publish everything, but given they published the 1600 ug study, there’s no reason why the 800 ug study wouldn’t be published. I expect it will be eventually, though a big question remains: why did they wait so long to do it? The 1600 ug study was published in June 2016, which means they had all the data and conclusions a year and a half before Froome's AAF. They knew at that time that 800 ug was the twelve hour limit, so more relevant to anti-doping studies. Why didn't they embark on that study then? Maybe Backer had other commitments, I don't know. But they should have had those data in hand when Froome's AAF came to light; it seems they didn't.
In any case,what might not be published are studies of riders who received AAFs that never went public, but those have little value because one doesn’t know how much salbutamol the riders took. Obviously a scientific study can’t be based on unconfirmed values. What matters most are the controlled studies in the lab. And the same wrt Froome’s values. WADA has to take his word for them, I doubt very much there is independent verification of them.
People are wrongly assuming there has been some kind of case here with Froome because the media are simply guessing too what was happening. There was no case, there was UCI's 'review' of the AAF. After that review, UCI gave WADA their review findings and WADA said, "there's no AAF here".
It was reported that UCI proposed a sanction. If you have evidence they didn’t, please link it. It was also reported that Haas was appointed as judge, which only happens after a rider is given a Letter of Consequences, and refuses to accept it. Again, if you evidence for the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, you’re just spinning your wheels.
The UCI shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.
Interesting how you quote the rules when (you think) it suits your purposes, while arguing that certain things aren’t in the rules (presumed AAF; confirmed AAF) when you can’t find them there.
Yes, that’s what they do when they furnish a laboratory test. If no problems with the testing procedure can be found, then by article 2.1 of the Code, it’s an ADRV. There is also this provided as a "rules of proof" from the WADA Code 3.2.1:
Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid.
At this point, the burden of proof is on the athlete, as the rest of this passage indicates:
Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Rider or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.
So when we say the burden of proof is on the athlete, of course we mean after a positive test has been established. Which is a usually an A and a B, or a decision limit for a threshold substance. Of course the initial burden of proof is on UCI. You can’t just say to a rider with no positive test, you have an ADRV, that’s bloody obvious. But as soon as there is a positive, then the burden shifts to the athlete.
This is why it’s said the burden of proof is on the rider. And it was supposed to be on Froome, too, unless he could pass the CPKS, which I will get to in a moment.
Also note:
This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you think Froome wasn’t guilty by that standard, I have a bridge for sale.
Now about this CPKS. Here’s what WADA said:
In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
Now look at what UCI said:
The UCI did not take its decision based on the fact that Mr. Froome “took a certain number of medicines to treat [an infection]”, “other elements linked to his diet” or “dietary supplements” as referred to by WADA’s Scientific Director in recent interviews. The UCI considered those factors irrelevant and/or not substantiated. The UCI thus only took into consideration the elements listed in the section above, however it is possible that WADA had access to unpublished information that the UCI was not aware of.
IOW, UCI rejected two of three factors that WADA claimed made it impossible for a CPKS study to be undertaken. Though UCI did concede that WADA might have access to unpublished studies, in fact WADA has never claimed to have done unpublished studies of the effect of illness or medications on salbutamol levels. And there’s not much in the literature. None is listed in the past WADA projects.
That leaves only “chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition.” But that would be true for any rider who tested over the limit in a GT, such as Petacchi and Ulissi. And if it means any rider who was in a GT didn’t have to take the test, then you might as well say all riders, because any lawyer can argue that a one-day race, coming after hard training, would provide similar conditions.
So WADA’s rationale for allowing Froome to skip the CPKS test basically falls apart. The only justification they have is one that every other rider could use.
bigcog said:
https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088
There were 57 salbutamol AAFs (what? I thought they never existed!) in the previous five years. It appears that 30 were sanctioned, 19 had TUEs, and 8 were cleared. So on average, 6 salbutamol AAFs per year that don't have TUEs and 1-2 are cleared.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram