All About Salbutamol

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

What will the verdict in Froome's salbutamol case?

  • He will be cleared

    Votes: 43 34.1%
  • 3 month ban

    Votes: 4 3.2%
  • 6 month ban

    Votes: 15 11.9%
  • 9 month ban

    Votes: 24 19.0%
  • 1 year ban

    Votes: 16 12.7%
  • 2 year ban

    Votes: 21 16.7%
  • 4 year ban

    Votes: 3 2.4%

  • Total voters
    126
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Robert5091 said:
This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication.
This is what gets the Swedes all riled up over the Norwegians. So now lots of Swedes are "asthmatic" too :mad:
indeed, the studies all indicate that asthmatic athletes outperform non-asthmatic....perhaps MI has covered that in some of his posts? Do they have a theory as to why? I mean other than the obvious :) :) My cursory quick look hasn't found one......
Yes. and since we know the doping doctors are years ahead of the testers...And that doesn't even account for the other shenanigans that go on.
 
An overview of asthma and airway hyper-responsiveness in Olympic athletes

Kenneth D Fitch

Abstract

Data from the past five Olympic Games obtained from athletes seeking to inhale β2 adrenoceptor agonists (IBA) have identified those athletes with documented asthma and airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR). With a prevalence of about 8%, asthma/AHR is the commonest chronic medical condition experienced by Olympic athletes. In Summer and Winter athletes, there is a marked preponderance of asthma/AHR in endurance-trained athletes. The relatively late onset of asthma/AHR in many older athletes is suggestive that years of endurance training may be a contributory cause. Inspiring polluted or cold air is considered a significant aetiological factor in some but not all sports. During the last five Olympic Games, there has been improved management of athletes with asthma/AHR with a much higher proportion of athletes combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with IBA and few using long-acting IBA as monotherapy. Athletes with asthma/AHR have consistently outperformed their peers, which research suggests is not due to their treatment enhancing sports performance. Research is necessary to determine how many athletes will continue to experience asthma/AHR in the years after they cease intensive endurance training.
Asthma and the elite athlete: Summary of the International Olympic Committee's Consensus Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, January 22-24, 2008

Kenneth D. Fitch, MBBS, MD'Correspondence information about the author MBBS, MD Kenneth D. FitchEmail the author MBBS, MD Kenneth D. Fitch
, Malcolm Sue-Chu, MBChB, PhD
, Sandra D. Anderson, PhD, DSc
, Louis-Philippe Boulet, MD, FCCP, FRCPC
, Robert J. Hancox, MBChB, MD
, Donald C. McKenzie, MD, PhD
, Vibeke Backer, MD, DMSci
, Kenneth W. Rundell, PhD
, Juan M. Alonso, MD
, Pascale Kippelen, PhD
, Joseph M. Cummiskey, MD
, Alain Garnier, MD
, Arne Ljungqvist, MD, PhD

Why are patients with asthma successful at the Olympic Games?

Athletes who notified β2-agonist use in Sydney and were approved to inhale β2-agonists in Salt Lake City, Athens, and Torino won more individual Olympic medals than their counterparts without asthma at each Games (see this article's Fig E3 in the Online Repository at http://www.jacionline.org).

The differences were greater in winter athletes than in summer athletes because a greater percentage of winter competitions can be classed as endurance events. Of the 28 summer sports, 6—boxing, wrestling, gymnastics, judo, shooting, and weightlifting—award 42% of all individual medals, and none of these can be classed as an endurance sport. This raises the intriguing question whether some endurance athletes develop asthma or AHR after achieving success as an elite athlete. There is some evidence that the age of onset of asthma/AHR is unusually high in endurance winter athletes.3 In addition, the psychology of having a chronic disease and competing at this level may represent an additional training stimulus for the elite athlete. Inhaled β2-agonists are not considered to enhance endurance performance,89, 90 although oral salbutamol does increase strength.91 Every medalist is drug-tested after the event, and oral salbutamol is distinguishable from inhaled,92 a test introduced before the 2000 Olympics. For further details see “The effects of inhaled β2-agonists on endurance performance: Olympic medalists inhaling β2-agonists” in the Online Repository at http://www.jacionline.org.
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(08)01305-5/fulltext#sec7

Froome fans will love that idea: that athletes work harder to compensate for having a chronic disease. I don't buy it. Also:

There is little or no evidence that denying athletes permission to inhale a β2 -agonist has resulted in unfavorable outcomes on their performance. In Salt Lake City, 30 (23.1%) of the130 athletes who were approved to inhale a β2 agonist won 46 medals (30 individual and 16 team medals). Seven (24.1%) of the 29 athletes who were denied permission to inhale a B2-agonist won a total of eight medals (two individual and six team medals). In Athens, 6 (8.5%) of the 45 athletes who were refused permission to inhale a B2-agonist won six medals (three gold, two silver, and one bronze medal).
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1385/CRIAI:31:2:259
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.

As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
yup...quite interesting study :D

"In the case of our own data, 21% of athletes previously diagnosed with asthma and using inhalers did not meet the IOC-MC criteria. This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication."

the expert that got it wrong that last time? That expert? That demonstrates he has the capacity to get things....er...wrong ;)
I think you're missing the point, or misreading to favricate something that is in fact the opposite, that none of those athletes as far as i'm aware in 2004 Olympics tested positive > 1000 limit (introduced in 2000) and that the study if you read on, actually concludes the misdiagnosis meant salbutomol was being taken by some with neither benefit to performance and was essentially doing nothing and other misdiagnoses as not having EIA were not being treated when they did in fact have EIA with more accurate testing. No difference in the 21% figure between 2000 and 2004 despite in 2004 was the first olympics you required medical evidence to receive an IOC TUE for Salbutomol.

The key part of the Team GB conclusion by Dickinson was:

In conclusion, the prevalence of asthma in 2004 Team GB athletes remained similar to that in 2000 (No criteria for asthma diagnosis in 2000, it started in 2001 with IOC MC) Team GB athletes, despite changes in IOC-MC requirements. The improved diagnostic techniques, however, identified a large number of false positive diagnoses and also identified a number of previously unknown asthmatics. These athletes were either removed from unnecessary treatment or placed on appropriate medication, and therefore received an improved level of care
For Clarity and most importantly, the 21% IOC MC Requirement of Asthma diagnosis was a comparison between number of athletes diagnosed EIA in 2000, and the 2004 team that needed to also meet IOC MC requirement. ie proves diagnosis was not being abused by Team GB in 2000 games when there was no medical diagnosis required.

So in simple terms. In 2000 there was no IOC MC conditions to meet for asthma, it was free-for-all, no diagnosis was medically required to take salbutomol in 2000 Olympics. The prevalence of asthma within Team GB remained unchanged however between 2000 (no medical diagnosis required) and 2004 (medical diagnosis required) to be granted the old IOC equivalent of a WADA TUE.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.

As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
yup...quite interesting study :D

"In the case of our own data, 21% of athletes previously diagnosed with asthma and using inhalers did not meet the IOC-MC criteria. This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication."

the expert that got it wrong that last time? That expert? That demonstrates he has the capacity to get things....er...wrong ;)
I think you're missing the point, or misreading to favricate something that is in fact the opposite, that none of those athletes as far as i'm aware in 2004 Olympics tested positive > 1000 limit (introduced in 2000) and that the study if you read on, actually concludes the misdiagnosis meant salbutomol was being taken by some with neither benefit to performance and was essentially doing nothing and other misdiagnoses as not having EIA were not being treated when they did in fact have EIA with more accurate testing. No difference in the 21% figure between 2000 and 2004 despite in 2004 was the first olympics you required medical evidence to receive an IOC TUE for Salbutomol.

The key part of the Team GB conclusion by Dickinson was:

In conclusion, the prevalence of asthma in 2004 Team GB athletes remained similar to that in 2000 (No criteria for asthma diagnosis in 2000, it started in 2001 with IOC MC) Team GB athletes, despite changes in IOC-MC requirements. The improved diagnostic techniques, however, identified a large number of false positive diagnoses and also identified a number of previously unknown asthmatics. These athletes were either removed from unnecessary treatment or placed on appropriate medication, and therefore received an improved level of care
For Clarity and most importantly, the 21% IOC MC Requirement of Asthma diagnosis was a comparison between number of athletes diagnosed EIA in 2000, and the 2004 team that needed to also meet IOC MC requirement. ie proves diagnosis was not being abused by Team GB in 2000 games when there was no medical diagnosis required.

So in simple terms. In 2000 there was no IOC MC conditions to meet for asthma, it was free-for-all, no diagnosis was medically required to take salbutomol in 2000 Olympics. The prevalence of asthma within Team GB remained unchanged however between 2000 (no medical diagnosis required) and 2004 (medical diagnosis required) to be granted the old IOC equivalent of a WADA TUE.

wood/trees

asthmatic athletes outperform non-asthmatic athletes
large number of athletes 'diagnosed' with asthma who don't have asthma

MI posted a few links above...what are you thoughts as to the 'outperformance'?
 
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, what any other study concludes. IOC set the 1600 intake limit in 1997 and the 1000 threshold came into effect in 2000 when you didn't need a medical diagnosos or even a TUE to use Salbutomol in Olympics anyway. You just needed to stay below 1000 limit in urine within a 1600 intake limit. Team GB had 21% of 2000 Olympics squad diagnosed using Salbutmol legally within the rules of the time regardless if they had asthma or not because at the time you didn't need to prove asthma to use it, just use it within the rules.
The IOC-MC(old TUE equivalent with medical diagnosis required) came into effect for first time in 2001 based on what IOC-MC considered valid criteria for proving EIA and what the various medical diagnosis needed to prove you had EIA should validate. With improved testing between 2000 & 2004, Team GB had 21% of athletes diagnosed 'again' and those 21% received IOC-MC to take it below 1600 for the 2004 Olympics within the rules.
If others/studies are saying <1600 intake is performance enhancing, then it makes no difference to what athletes need to and not do as the rules to abide with are the IOC/WADA rules at the time you compete, not anyone elses at random times in history.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.

As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
I'm with the MPCC ;)

http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/news-uk/item/719-open-letter-to-the-world-anti-doping-agency
 
MPCC Committee Structure

President: Roger Legeay (Z-Peugeot, GAN, CA etc)
Tested positive for amphetamines in Paris Nice
11 riders with doping violations under him

Vice-President: Iwan Spekenbrink (Managed/DS for Skill Shimano through to Sunweb)
2 riders with doping violations under him

Treasurer: Yvon Sanque (Managed/DS for Astana, Festina, Cofidis, FdeJ)
Too complicated to quickly count, but lots and lots of violations under him

Assistant Treasurer: Marc Sergeant (Lotto rider etc, Manager of Lotto)
Tested positive for Norephedrine in Scheldeprijs
Tested positive for Undisclosed Substance in Vuelta a Andalucia
4 riders with doping violations under him

Assistant Secretary: Christophe Brandt (Rider for Sergeant, WB Aqua Protect Manager)
Tested positive at Lotto for Methadone under Sergeant, later cleared as accidental contamination by pharmacist by Belgian Federation

Board Member: Sébastien Hinault (Rider for Legeay, AG2R etc. DS/Manager for Fortuneo–Samsic since 2015 iirc)
No violations, but considered team was paying Bernard Saiz for homeopathy medicines in a TV documentary.

Board Member: Gianni Savio (Androni Giocattoli)
6 doping violations in last 6 years alone. Too many others under Selle Italia etc

Board Member: Vincent Lavenu (Manager for AG2R)
5 riders with doping violations
Cash investigations, arrested as part of Festina affair etc etc.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
MPCC Committee Structure

President: Roger Legeay (Z-Peugeot, GAN, CA etc)
Tested positive for amphetamines in Paris Nice
11 riders with doping violations under him

Vice-President: Iwan Spekenbrink (Managed/DS for Skill Shimano through to Sunweb)
2 riders with doping violations under him

Treasurer: Yvon Sanque (Managed/DS for Astana, Festina, Cofidis, FdeJ)
Too complicated to quickly count, but lots and lots of violations under him

Assistant Treasurer: Marc Sergeant (Lotto rider etc, Manager of Lotto)
Tested positive for Norephedrine in Scheldeprijs
Tested positive for Undisclosed Substance in Vuelta a Andalucia
4 riders with doping violations under him

Assistant Secretary: Christophe Brandt (Rider for Sergeant, WB Aqua Protect Manager)
Tested positive at Lotto for Methadone under Sergeant, later cleared as accidental contamination by pharmacist by Belgian Federation

Board Member: Sébastien Hinault (Rider for Legeay, AG2R etc. DS/Manager for Fortuneo–Samsic since 2015 iirc)
No violations, but considered team was paying Bernard Saiz for homeopathy medicines in a TV documentary.

Board Member: Gianni Savio (Androni Giocattoli)
6 doping violations in last 6 years alone. Too many others under Selle Italia etc

Board Member: Vincent Lavenu (Manager for AG2R)
5 riders with doping violations
Cash investigations, arrested as part of Festina affair etc etc.
yup.......says a lot when SKY and Froome are pushing the limit from where these guys are :D :D
 
Similar to Millar. Claiming to be superior ethically than everyone else in order to save their past doping reputations by inventing their own credibility to continue their careers in cycling as ex dopers and ex managers of teams they helped facilitate doping. All of MPCC board manage pro teams today.
 
brownbobby said:
veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
70kmph said:

Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
Is she British?
Depends who you ask....
whilst I don't think Froome got off based on the 'establishment'...more commercial interests...you know that's not how the establishment works...like our unwritten constitution, one knows ones duty.......
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Similar to Millar. Claiming to be superior ethically than everyone else in order to save their past doping reputations by inventing their own credibility to continue their careers in cycling as ex dopers and ex managers of teams they helped facilitate doping. All of MPCC board manage pro teams today.
i take it that's an irony free post??? :D

At least the MPCC has something concrete

when SKY's action's were tested beyond there words in front of the select commmttee the whole shambles was laid bare......medical records were there none.....testosterone patches there were plenty....... :D :D
 
brownbobby said:
70kmph said:

Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
you might see why the sceptical amongst us look at the circular argument provided by WADA to be....well...er.......circular.....WADA force UCI into a postion then WADA use UCI postion to back up their postion.....then to add insult to injury they blame lack of knowledge of the case when they don't publish the knowledge to which they refer.......

“In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome,” read the UCI statement on Monday morning.

"While WADA remains convinced that the UCI reached the right and fair outcome on this very complex case..."

I see Reedie literally repeats previous press release.....

"WADA remains convinced that the UCI reached the correct and fair outcome in what was a very complex case," Reedie wrote. "Your efforts to over-simplify it, without having knowledge of the voluminous file of the case and both the scientific and legal challenges it raised, demonstrate an unfortunate attempt to cast a shadow on WADA's credibility and an obvious refusal to accept the reality of what happened."


Give us the knowledge Craig...give us the knowledge :D
 
No WADA case has ever been published to the public before, so not sure what difference or why Froome's case should really change that. If you've only come to this public knowledge/transparency conclusion 'after' the Froome case and not before, then it suggests either bias related to Froome or you simply were not bothered about it for all the other athletes exonerated before?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
No WADA case has ever been published to the public before, so not sure what difference or why Froome's case should really change that. If you've only come to this public knowledge/transparency conclusion 'after' the Froome case and not before, then it suggests either bias related to Froome or you simply were not bothered about it for all the other athletes exonerated before?
I assume you mean no case in which the athlete was exonerated. Many, many cases have of course been published. Even cases in which a rider was exonerated, sufficient details have often been published for us to draw our own conclusions, e.g., Impey, Heras, Rogers. In fact, other than Froome, I can’t think of a major case in which a rider was ultimately cleared in which we don’t know the details. Can you? There are salbutamol cases in which the rider was cleared, but since we don't even know who the riders were, we can't say anything about how important the cases might have been. There are other cases where the rider was not cleared, and we don’t know the details, e.g., Ulissi, but that is because of a particular federation’s rules. And in any case, since he was sanctioned, there is less need for the public to know why, though it would be helpful.

Let’s also not forget that after the decision was announced, just prior to the Tour, Froome said he expected the details would be published “within a few days”, and wanted them to be. I have a lot of trouble believing that if Froome actually gave his approval, WADA/UCI would overrule him.
 
Let’s also not forget that after the decision was announced, just prior to the Tour, Froome said he expected the details would be published “within a few days”, and wanted them to be. I have a lot of trouble believing that if Froome actually gave his approval, WADA/UCI would overrule him.
Since Sky gave all their own info to the UCI, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome
Mr. Froome was able to show the UCI Tribunal ...
I would think it was Sky who put the brakes on releasing data.
 
Mr. Froome was able to show the UCI Tribunal ...
What they mean is that Darren Austin was able to convince the tribunal. I see nothing in that link that suggests Sky was responsible for the secrecy. What would Sky have to lose if Froome's salbutamol concentrations during the Vuelta were published? I can imagine WADA rationalized that releasing the decision could help athletes trying to beat the system, but if Froome were insistent that he wanted the details published, I don't think they could stop him.

Also note that the link states that only one rider other than Froome from 2013-2017 was exonerated oin a salbutamol case. We don't know who that was, so it's hardly evidence of Froome bias to want his case published. In fact, prior to Froome, most people were not aware that athletes could test positive for salbutamol and be exonerated, without the public knowing anything at all. Not to mention that we know that Froome's case involved arguments never before used in a salbutamol decision, making knowing the details even more important.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS