thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud
bigcog said:thehog said:bigcog said:
Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment
Ah you are so cynical :lol:
Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud
Re: Re:
Lappy saying he knows who leaked case, said it wasn't UCI although he would say that .. Can't see it being Sky as it makes no sense, so who is it ? I don't trust Lappy one bit, a politician personified.
thehog said:bigcog said:thehog said:bigcog said:
Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment
Ah you are so cynical :lol:
Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud
Lappy saying he knows who leaked case, said it wasn't UCI although he would say that .. Can't see it being Sky as it makes no sense, so who is it ? I don't trust Lappy one bit, a politician personified.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Re:
There can't be a sanction until the AAF is confined in exactly the same way there can't be a sanction for EPO until the A sample is confirmed, either by B Sample or athlete accepting the A Sample.
Overriding everything you've said is the AAF never got past the explanation stage and WADA said there was no AAF. For there to have been a sanction, Froome's AAF needed to be confirmed, then sanctioned with an ADRV. WADA came back and undone the original AAF and Froome was cleared, so clearly there was never a sanction on the table.
As for presumed and confirmed. Confirmed is anti-doping terminology where the A sample is confirmed by the B or confirmed by the rider. For Salbutomol the athlete is allowed explanation before UCI/WADA confirm the AAF. While that explanation is taking shape the AAF is presumed to be an ADRV yet to be confirmed. It's not part of a rule or how things need to be described, but it's how WADA and Sky have described a leaked AAF in Froomes case for whatever reason. Never has the public known about an AAF so early. During the period it is being explained by the athlete it is not a confirmed AAF, that's all they mean in 'legal' terms by presumed.
For the 2 items rejected by UCI, but not WADA, I think there's clearly Salbutomol knowledge used by WADA in their decision making nobody knows about. I can't see any possible benefit for publishing data you are using to protect innocent athletes and on the flip of that assume could be of use to athletes that want to abuse salbutomol if they knew what WADA are looking or rather not looking for in those publications.
I repeat again though, no matter what we think happened, in terms of WADA results management Froome's AAF never got past that explanation stage because otherwise UCI confirmed his AAF and then WADA/UCI unconfirmed it, which clearly never happened.
Merckx index said:
There can't be a sanction until the AAF is confined in exactly the same way there can't be a sanction for EPO until the A sample is confirmed, either by B Sample or athlete accepting the A Sample.
Overriding everything you've said is the AAF never got past the explanation stage and WADA said there was no AAF. For there to have been a sanction, Froome's AAF needed to be confirmed, then sanctioned with an ADRV. WADA came back and undone the original AAF and Froome was cleared, so clearly there was never a sanction on the table.
As for presumed and confirmed. Confirmed is anti-doping terminology where the A sample is confirmed by the B or confirmed by the rider. For Salbutomol the athlete is allowed explanation before UCI/WADA confirm the AAF. While that explanation is taking shape the AAF is presumed to be an ADRV yet to be confirmed. It's not part of a rule or how things need to be described, but it's how WADA and Sky have described a leaked AAF in Froomes case for whatever reason. Never has the public known about an AAF so early. During the period it is being explained by the athlete it is not a confirmed AAF, that's all they mean in 'legal' terms by presumed.
For the 2 items rejected by UCI, but not WADA, I think there's clearly Salbutomol knowledge used by WADA in their decision making nobody knows about. I can't see any possible benefit for publishing data you are using to protect innocent athletes and on the flip of that assume could be of use to athletes that want to abuse salbutomol if they knew what WADA are looking or rather not looking for in those publications.
I repeat again though, no matter what we think happened, in terms of WADA results management Froome's AAF never got past that explanation stage because otherwise UCI confirmed his AAF and then WADA/UCI unconfirmed it, which clearly never happened.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
You want selfie Cokkosn back?
Lappy is slick. Wear his suit well.
bigcog said:thehog said:bigcog said:thehog said:bigcog said:
Froome making sure the UCI can’t purchase anymore X-rays equipment
Ah you are so cynical :lol:
Nah, I’m just enjoying how Lappy is dropping bombs all over the place for people to work out Froome is a fraud
Lappy saying he knows who leaked case, said it wasn't UCI although he would say that .. Can't see it being Sky as it makes no sense, so who is it ? I don't trust Lappy one bit, a politician personified.
You want selfie Cokkosn back?
Lappy is slick. Wear his suit well.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
From Fitch, 5-8% of athletes use salbutamol (it’s probably higher since the paper was published), so of the 212,000 athletes across all sports who were tested in 2016, roughly 10-16,000 of them might be expected to be taking the drug. From the data that WADA has furnished, only about six AAFs occurred per year that did not involve TUEs, or less than one in a thousand. Only 1-2 per year were exonerated, or about 20% of the AAFs not resolved with a TUE. So about 80% of salbutamol AAFs by athletes without TUEs result in sanctions.
Also, I forgot to mention that Backer’s group is not the only one that has studied the effect of exercise and dehydration on salbutamol levels. Dickinson has published several studies in which subjects were given a dose of 800 or 1600 ug prior to running exercise (also discussed in this thread). Some of his studies allowed subjects to exercise at their own pace, while some involved a 5 km time trial, which would have been similar to Backer’s studies, except that running rather than cycling was involved. A total of about 40 subjects were given 800 ug; none had a level > 1000 ng/ml. These values, moreover, were uncorrected for USG, despite the dehydrating conditions (2% and 5% BM loss).
What is particularly interesting about these studies is that subjects were also given 1600 ug, as in Backer’s study, and as in the latter, a few samples exhibited very high urinary levels, 2000 – 3500 ng/ml. This suggests that the conditions were similar to Backer’s, yet when 800 ug was given under the same conditions, as I noted, no sample reached 1000, yet alone 1200 or 1400. And again, no correction for USG was made.
To repeat, these are not unpublished studies, and they should be just as relevant to Froome’s situation as Backer’s, published or presumably unpublished. So it’s incumbent on WADA not only to furnish these unpublished studies, but to indicate why they reach a different conclusion from Dickinson’s, if in fact they actually do.
Also, I forgot to mention that Backer’s group is not the only one that has studied the effect of exercise and dehydration on salbutamol levels. Dickinson has published several studies in which subjects were given a dose of 800 or 1600 ug prior to running exercise (also discussed in this thread). Some of his studies allowed subjects to exercise at their own pace, while some involved a 5 km time trial, which would have been similar to Backer’s studies, except that running rather than cycling was involved. A total of about 40 subjects were given 800 ug; none had a level > 1000 ng/ml. These values, moreover, were uncorrected for USG, despite the dehydrating conditions (2% and 5% BM loss).
What is particularly interesting about these studies is that subjects were also given 1600 ug, as in Backer’s study, and as in the latter, a few samples exhibited very high urinary levels, 2000 – 3500 ng/ml. This suggests that the conditions were similar to Backer’s, yet when 800 ug was given under the same conditions, as I noted, no sample reached 1000, yet alone 1200 or 1400. And again, no correction for USG was made.
To repeat, these are not unpublished studies, and they should be just as relevant to Froome’s situation as Backer’s, published or presumably unpublished. So it’s incumbent on WADA not only to furnish these unpublished studies, but to indicate why they reach a different conclusion from Dickinson’s, if in fact they actually do.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Stop looking at simply urine Merckx, it really doesn't mean as much as you feel it should. The athlete explanation stage is clearly enough without having to go into pharmo. Pharmo is the end of the road, Froome escaped before confirmation not after. I'm not arguing he didn't challenge the regime itself, but he's allowed to do that, that can be part of the explanation for your high reading. WADA didn't have to believe him remember.
As they say expensive laywers can't defend wrong science. I honestly believe a 30 year old Salbutomol regime simply couldn't hold up to the science Froome provided and he proved it needs revising.
The rules and science those rules are founded on for Salbutomol have been changing continually since the 70s, Froome simply sparked another change in a long history of change. WADA don't term it the 'enigma' drug for nothing.
As they say expensive laywers can't defend wrong science. I honestly believe a 30 year old Salbutomol regime simply couldn't hold up to the science Froome provided and he proved it needs revising.
The rules and science those rules are founded on for Salbutomol have been changing continually since the 70s, Froome simply sparked another change in a long history of change. WADA don't term it the 'enigma' drug for nothing.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Re:
This is one of the most flagrantly ignorant statements I've ever seen posted in this forum. I really wish you would just post in the Froome thread, so there could be at least one thread in the Clinic that tries to discuss facts instead of just recycling the same opinions over and over.
samhocking said:
This is one of the most flagrantly ignorant statements I've ever seen posted in this forum. I really wish you would just post in the Froome thread, so there could be at least one thread in the Clinic that tries to discuss facts instead of just recycling the same opinions over and over.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Ken Fitch, Morten Hostrup, Daren Austin (Senior DIrector, Clinical Pharmacology at GlaxoSmithKline) have all written reports for Froome. They are claiming 10% false positives using Froomes own urine data, Daren Austin saying WADA saw 75 cases like Froomes in last 5 years etc etc. The existing regime has been broken using science Merckx, it's obviously flawed. Keep looking for explanation in WADA's rules and documents, but maybe Froome's team simply proved the regime never worked in the first place. Remember Sky take urine and store it from GC riders every morning. It doesn't take much to realise they've clearly worked with GlaxoSmithKline probably running virtual simulations uisng medical software WADA could only dream of having and relatively easily porved the false positive was just that. GlaxoSmithKline helped Froome for free apparently! Remember this is Sky PLC and all those business relations scratching each others backs. Why would GlaxoSmithKline run simulations for Froomes case for free huh?
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Re:
Link? Nothing in the literature remotely supports the notion of 10% false positives. WADA says there were 38 non-TUE salbutamol cases in the past five years, only eight of which were cleared, so clearly there weren't 75 cases like Froome's. The problems with simulations have already been shown with Heuberger's model.
If they want to convince people, they have to show the data. I'm open to having my mind changed, but I'm not open to people saying, trust us, we know the decision was fair. But it seems now they aren't going to release the data:
https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-de-france/leaked-froomes-case_471571
Oh, give me a break. If Froome had been sanctioned, the report would have had to be released, and WADA’s own statistics show that’s the case in 80% of the salbutamol cases that don’t involve TUEs. So it’s all right to release those, but not the occasional one when the athlete is cleared? So Lappartient basically saying that if you wanted to cheat, you would imitate Froome as much as possible?
samhocking said:
Link? Nothing in the literature remotely supports the notion of 10% false positives. WADA says there were 38 non-TUE salbutamol cases in the past five years, only eight of which were cleared, so clearly there weren't 75 cases like Froome's. The problems with simulations have already been shown with Heuberger's model.
If they want to convince people, they have to show the data. I'm open to having my mind changed, but I'm not open to people saying, trust us, we know the decision was fair. But it seems now they aren't going to release the data:
https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-de-france/leaked-froomes-case_471571
Oh, give me a break. If Froome had been sanctioned, the report would have had to be released, and WADA’s own statistics show that’s the case in 80% of the salbutamol cases that don’t involve TUEs. So it’s all right to release those, but not the occasional one when the athlete is cleared? So Lappartient basically saying that if you wanted to cheat, you would imitate Froome as much as possible?
- May 3, 2010
- 4,385
- 4,247
- 21,180
It looks like the UCI wants to keep up the tradition of punishing the whistleblower and protecting the doping user.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Friend at The times sent it to me. I don't know when it will be published. It might be now, but it's all behind a paywall obviously so not on google anyway.
I think the story is "10% of tests could be false positives" because that was how many false positives he identified in Froomes samples using WADA methods.
I think the story is "10% of tests could be false positives" because that was how many false positives he identified in Froomes samples using WADA methods.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
You think a senior fellow and senior director of clinical pharmacology at Glaxosmithkline is gonna risk it all for a £40M cycling team in the parochial sport of european cycling while working for a £30.19 billion medical company?
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Re: Re:
Doesn't that depend on the model ? It looks like WADA took notice of it to some extent. The current rules are ultimately only based on a predictive model. They aren't an ultimate immutable fact, nothing in science is. You will argue it is based on evidence but now WADA have new evidence to suggest that their model is incorrect to some extent ?
Merckx index said:
Doesn't that depend on the model ? It looks like WADA took notice of it to some extent. The current rules are ultimately only based on a predictive model. They aren't an ultimate immutable fact, nothing in science is. You will argue it is based on evidence but now WADA have new evidence to suggest that their model is incorrect to some extent ?
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Thanks for the link. It seems I can’t access without signing up for a subscription, so I’ll just go on this:
I’m not sure what he means by statistical methods, so any discussion at this point is quite speculative, but remember, all of this depends on knowing how much salbutamol Froome took every day, and when. It’s not like a lab study where you take a known dose all at one time, and provide a urine sample a fixed time later. If/when Froome took a low dose, say just two puffs, you would have to know if it was near the end of the stage, or much earlier, and if he urinated between then and giving the sample. With high doses, it’s more difficult, because he probably wouldn’t take all of it at once, but over a period of time. You could simulate all of that, but there would be considerable error in knowing the timing of the doses, and since he apparently didn’t take a high dose very often, there would be a very small sample size for those doses. And to repeat, because it really is critical: you probably have to trust Froome on all of the information. I doubt he had a way of verifying his doses independently, certainly not when he took them.
The simplest statistical method would just be to correlate dose with urine level, and see how much variability there was. From media reports, it seems there was a lot of it, such that a dose of a particular amount could result in a wide variation of urine levels. This is not new, that’s always been the case in published studies, but the published data don’t support anything at all like exceeding the limit 10% of the time. But errors in the amount and timing of the doses could probably have quite a big effect on how often the limit was exceeded. Basically, you're asked to believe the lab data are done under irrelevant conditions, rather than that errors or uncertainy in the model might be so large as to render the conclusions highly tentative.
Beyond that, they could have used various physiological parameters to model the route of salbutamol through the body, as Heuberger did. But here you get into more assumptions, and more potential errors. The bottom line is that a simulation like this is supposed to be validated first, before it’s used to predict anything. Heuberger’s model, for example, was not validated, and in fact there are a lot of data indicating it’s quite a bit off. I don’t know how you can validate a model like this, other than through data already in the literature. You probably can’t use other riders with AAFs for salbutamol, because there wouldn’t be enough samples; Froome’s case is unusual in that he was tested about every day for three weeks, that isn’t the case for most other riders. Petacchi, e.g., gave only five samples in that Giro. You could do something with those, but not as much.
I don’t know if they did this kind of modeling, but in the context of an anti-doping investigation, I don’t think it’s really science. You’re taking data given to you by someone who is supposed to be in a position where nothing he says can be trusted without independent verification, and fit it to a model. You should begin with data you know are correct—the various physiological parameters of a particular subject--build the model from that, then input the subject’s dose and urine levels obtained under controlled conditions, and see how well they fit. For Froome, they might have used data from a general population of subjects, except if part of the argument is that taking doses every day in a GT is different, some of those data wouldn’t be appropriate.
Finally, as I pointed out before, if Froome only exceeded the limit one time, you would not expect it to be by so much. That isn’t the way random distributions work. E.g., 8.0 earthquakes are far less common than 7.0, which are far less common than 6.0, and so on. If you set any arbitrary limit for an earthquake, the odds are much higher that the first event that exceeds that will be by a small margin, not a large one. It’s much the same with drug levels. It’s not impossible that this one time over the limit it would be far over, but it certainly adds more improbability.
I also think people should know Fitch has been pushing this salbutamol levels are unfair notion for a long time. That’s his right, and he’s a good researcher, but like so many other scientists, his default setting is that athletes are honest, and if they tell him they didn’t cheat, he believes them. He’s tried to provide empirical evidence for his claim. One was a Glaxo study I searched for for hours, it just isn’t there; he said 7/15 subjects exceeded the threshold after 1200 ug, which of course is more than allowed. The other was a nursing home study that had a lot of problems, as I discussed before, the worst one being there were no individual data, so no urine levels could be linked to specific amounts inhaled. The study as a whole showed a lot of variability, but it couldn’t be used to confirm that anyone taking 800 ug would go over the limit.
As for Hostrup, he’s a colleague/co-author of Backer, so what I said about her work applies as well to him. In particular, if he had unpublished data from WADA AAFs that seriously modified the conclusions of the work he has published, I'm sure he would take steps to publish them in some form, or at least announce that his previous work needed correction.
I’m not sure what he means by statistical methods, so any discussion at this point is quite speculative, but remember, all of this depends on knowing how much salbutamol Froome took every day, and when. It’s not like a lab study where you take a known dose all at one time, and provide a urine sample a fixed time later. If/when Froome took a low dose, say just two puffs, you would have to know if it was near the end of the stage, or much earlier, and if he urinated between then and giving the sample. With high doses, it’s more difficult, because he probably wouldn’t take all of it at once, but over a period of time. You could simulate all of that, but there would be considerable error in knowing the timing of the doses, and since he apparently didn’t take a high dose very often, there would be a very small sample size for those doses. And to repeat, because it really is critical: you probably have to trust Froome on all of the information. I doubt he had a way of verifying his doses independently, certainly not when he took them.
The simplest statistical method would just be to correlate dose with urine level, and see how much variability there was. From media reports, it seems there was a lot of it, such that a dose of a particular amount could result in a wide variation of urine levels. This is not new, that’s always been the case in published studies, but the published data don’t support anything at all like exceeding the limit 10% of the time. But errors in the amount and timing of the doses could probably have quite a big effect on how often the limit was exceeded. Basically, you're asked to believe the lab data are done under irrelevant conditions, rather than that errors or uncertainy in the model might be so large as to render the conclusions highly tentative.
Beyond that, they could have used various physiological parameters to model the route of salbutamol through the body, as Heuberger did. But here you get into more assumptions, and more potential errors. The bottom line is that a simulation like this is supposed to be validated first, before it’s used to predict anything. Heuberger’s model, for example, was not validated, and in fact there are a lot of data indicating it’s quite a bit off. I don’t know how you can validate a model like this, other than through data already in the literature. You probably can’t use other riders with AAFs for salbutamol, because there wouldn’t be enough samples; Froome’s case is unusual in that he was tested about every day for three weeks, that isn’t the case for most other riders. Petacchi, e.g., gave only five samples in that Giro. You could do something with those, but not as much.
I don’t know if they did this kind of modeling, but in the context of an anti-doping investigation, I don’t think it’s really science. You’re taking data given to you by someone who is supposed to be in a position where nothing he says can be trusted without independent verification, and fit it to a model. You should begin with data you know are correct—the various physiological parameters of a particular subject--build the model from that, then input the subject’s dose and urine levels obtained under controlled conditions, and see how well they fit. For Froome, they might have used data from a general population of subjects, except if part of the argument is that taking doses every day in a GT is different, some of those data wouldn’t be appropriate.
Finally, as I pointed out before, if Froome only exceeded the limit one time, you would not expect it to be by so much. That isn’t the way random distributions work. E.g., 8.0 earthquakes are far less common than 7.0, which are far less common than 6.0, and so on. If you set any arbitrary limit for an earthquake, the odds are much higher that the first event that exceeds that will be by a small margin, not a large one. It’s much the same with drug levels. It’s not impossible that this one time over the limit it would be far over, but it certainly adds more improbability.
I also think people should know Fitch has been pushing this salbutamol levels are unfair notion for a long time. That’s his right, and he’s a good researcher, but like so many other scientists, his default setting is that athletes are honest, and if they tell him they didn’t cheat, he believes them. He’s tried to provide empirical evidence for his claim. One was a Glaxo study I searched for for hours, it just isn’t there; he said 7/15 subjects exceeded the threshold after 1200 ug, which of course is more than allowed. The other was a nursing home study that had a lot of problems, as I discussed before, the worst one being there were no individual data, so no urine levels could be linked to specific amounts inhaled. The study as a whole showed a lot of variability, but it couldn’t be used to confirm that anyone taking 800 ug would go over the limit.
As for Hostrup, he’s a colleague/co-author of Backer, so what I said about her work applies as well to him. In particular, if he had unpublished data from WADA AAFs that seriously modified the conclusions of the work he has published, I'm sure he would take steps to publish them in some form, or at least announce that his previous work needed correction.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Well it clearly worked for Froome, whatever science those 3 handed WADA. I think Froome simply out-gunned science having the inventor of the regime on one side in Fitch knowing WADA rules and even the test inside out, passed that to Austin using Froomes Vuelta data and a few £million worth of free simulations off a supercomputer later and the blew up the existing rules if you ask me,
- Jul 4, 2016
- 3,311
- 5,878
- 19,180
We didn't ask you Sam. It has been an unbelievable sequence of events. We were already skeptical about CF. We're more skeptical now.
1. Did wada take CF's word on what doses of Sal he took during each of the stages?
2. We need to see the data, the 'unpublished research' to see if it stands up or not.
3. It appears wada did not want a lengthy expensive legal case.
4. From what we know so far it's extremely likely he exceeded the maximum allowable dose and should have been punished.
1. Did wada take CF's word on what doses of Sal he took during each of the stages?
2. We need to see the data, the 'unpublished research' to see if it stands up or not.
3. It appears wada did not want a lengthy expensive legal case.
4. From what we know so far it's extremely likely he exceeded the maximum allowable dose and should have been punished.
- Jul 30, 2011
- 7,539
- 107
- 17,680
Re: Re:
I couldn’t decipher it upwards to the level of flagrant ignorance.
Merckx index said:
I couldn’t decipher it upwards to the level of flagrant ignorance.
GSK are notoriously corrupt and unscrupulous. I wouldn't be pushing anything they do as an example of virtuous, impartial involvement in the case.
Learning that they played a part makes me more suspicious of how Froome got off, not less.
Learning that they played a part makes me more suspicious of how Froome got off, not less.
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
The enigma of inhaled salbutamol and sport: unresolved after 45 years was one of the first things I read on Froome's 'cas'e that really convinced me WADA threshold is simply not fit for purpose.
I assume it formed the core of Fitch's statement/report for Froomes defence anyway given it was submitted Jan 2017 so long before Froome's AFF. I assume carries no bias anyway other than Fitch believes WADA rules are flawed for the last 11 years.
It's interesting that WADA's own Physician Guildelines for Asthma even reference this paper too.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa...pg_-_asthma_-_version_6.0_-_december_2017.pdf
I assume it formed the core of Fitch's statement/report for Froomes defence anyway given it was submitted Jan 2017 so long before Froome's AFF. I assume carries no bias anyway other than Fitch believes WADA rules are flawed for the last 11 years.
It's interesting that WADA's own Physician Guildelines for Asthma even reference this paper too.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa...pg_-_asthma_-_version_6.0_-_december_2017.pdf
- Mar 13, 2013
- 4,857
- 903
- 17,680
Re:
It sounds like glaxo's pharmocology director took Froomes inhalation record throughout La Vuelta, took his known urine specific gravity from each days WADA sample, ran it through various virtual simulations on what one can only imagine is bespoke glaxo supecomputer/simulations and proved statistically that Froomes own statement of how many puffs he said he took caused the AAF actually triggered up to 10% false positives during the period he was using maximum allowed dose.
There's clearly little research that simulates salbutomol use in a grand tour over 3 weeks with all the other physiological events that are going on in the body and with nutrition and whatever interaction there might have been with Froomes antibiotics at that time. It would seem simply, Fitch has proved why the urine test is flawed and WADA have publicly accepted that now and glaxo have demonstrated it flawed with Froomes own data and medical record.
Given WADA's recent comments they've finally accepted that a PCKS study is not practical in asserting that salbutamol levels in urine at above its permitted limit are consistent with inhalation at below its limit due to the testing's false premise, it would seem that what Fitch told them in 2007 is part of their decision making before Froome's case, for AAFs, even though the rules are not yet written that way explicitly. As Rabin says, Froomes case has happened before and they are well aware the PCKS is not workable for every case, but because it is Froome and because it was leaked, it now seems to be a unique case with Froome. The only thing unique, is Froome's was leaked and no other salbutomol cases like it have been, they all got resolved privately as it should and are not part of any AAF statistics that would have to be confirmed AAFs, not presumed ones.
topcat said:
It sounds like glaxo's pharmocology director took Froomes inhalation record throughout La Vuelta, took his known urine specific gravity from each days WADA sample, ran it through various virtual simulations on what one can only imagine is bespoke glaxo supecomputer/simulations and proved statistically that Froomes own statement of how many puffs he said he took caused the AAF actually triggered up to 10% false positives during the period he was using maximum allowed dose.
There's clearly little research that simulates salbutomol use in a grand tour over 3 weeks with all the other physiological events that are going on in the body and with nutrition and whatever interaction there might have been with Froomes antibiotics at that time. It would seem simply, Fitch has proved why the urine test is flawed and WADA have publicly accepted that now and glaxo have demonstrated it flawed with Froomes own data and medical record.
Given WADA's recent comments they've finally accepted that a PCKS study is not practical in asserting that salbutamol levels in urine at above its permitted limit are consistent with inhalation at below its limit due to the testing's false premise, it would seem that what Fitch told them in 2007 is part of their decision making before Froome's case, for AAFs, even though the rules are not yet written that way explicitly. As Rabin says, Froomes case has happened before and they are well aware the PCKS is not workable for every case, but because it is Froome and because it was leaked, it now seems to be a unique case with Froome. The only thing unique, is Froome's was leaked and no other salbutomol cases like it have been, they all got resolved privately as it should and are not part of any AAF statistics that would have to be confirmed AAFs, not presumed ones.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro D'italia 2025 Stage 16: Piazzola sul Brenta – San Valentino- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 31K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 32K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Stage 17: San Michele all’Adige – Bormio, 155 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 742
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram