Rollthedice said:
I think this is the WADA decision, don't know if it was discussed here. Maybe MI can help what is exactly about.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2018dl_v1_en.pdf
Yes, that’s it. I posted that link upthread. If you look on p. 2, footnote c describes the process of correcting the DL for USG. This footnote existed in previous years, but the difference is that it didn’t appear next to DL, at the top of the last column, but rather next to some, but not all, of the individual substances listed in that column:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-12-13_td2017dl.pdf
Salbutamol was one of the substances it did not designate at the time. By placing the footnote at the top of the DL column this year, they’re indicating that all substances in the table now make use of a corrected DL.
If you look at the previous year’s technical document, you see that most substances in fact did not use the corrected DL. In fact, only endogenous substances—those found naturally in the body—were so designated. Now all the others are as well. So while the timing of the rule change certainly is suspicious, salbutamol is not the only substance affected.
And as I also noted upthread, there was reason to believe this change was coming even before Froome's positive, because researchers like Ken Fitch had been arguing for years that WADA's use of USG was inconsistent, allowing in effect corrections to identify riders trying to dilute their urine, but not allowing them when levels are affected by concentrated urine. That said, I wouldn't rule out that the change was put into place this year specifically because of Froome's positive. It might not have been as blatant as, if we do this, we can get him off, but rather, here's another example of a guy, like Petacchi, who isn't getting the benefit of a high USG, isn't it about time we did something about this?
What a journo investigating this has to examine is the process culminating in the rule change announcement on Nov. 15. Were the wheels for that change set in motion prior to Sept. 20, when Froome and other interested parties were notified of his AAF? If so, then it would be hard to argue that the AAF triggered the change. But if they weren't,then it definitely does look suspicious.
The Nov. 15 announcement could hardly come out of the blue, of course. It must have been preceded by discussions about USG corrections. Finding this paper trail could be really difficult, though. I'm talking about emails and other communications among WADA officials, discussing the problem of USG corrections. The problem is especially difficult because probably discussions like this have gone on for years. The question is, when does a discussion become more than just a conversation among academics, and part of a process inexorably leading to a rule change.
And just to repeat what I posted before: the key value is the DL of 1200 ng/ml. This is based on the threshold of 1000 ng/ml, taking into account measurement uncertainty (MU). All that discussion of MU is just a general explanation of how they arrive at that value. A USG of 1.034, applied to 1200 ng/ml, raises the DL to 2000, same as Froome's reported level, in which case he should get off. Any value > 1.034 raises the DL even more.
hazaran said:
I think the March 2018 date isn't very important. These are WADA procedures. WADA is the defendant (well, as far as we are expecting..) in any CAS challenge, so naturally he can challenge the validity of these procedures then, see Petacchi. In Petacchis case, WADA had no plan to correct for USG, so their scientific advisers testified that it wasn't necessary and CAS sided with them, as they are inclined to do. Now that WADA is making their own plans for changes, they can't then contradict that in any challenge - there is after all no scientific argument for why those procedures should only apply from March 2018.
The date isn't important for a CAS hearing, agreed. And even if his corrected DL isn't high enough, if it is higher, that could help him in CAS. But the date and the level have to be critical to any hearing taking place prior to CAS.
Re: the case, for all we know he might have had his hearing by now. The modus operandi seems to be for both parties to be entirely silent all the way to a final decision.
If he had his hearing, why wouldn't he point this out to people like Vegni and Prudhomme, who are having nightmares about the case not being resolved by the time their GTs begin? Even if Froome didn't want it publicly known that the hearing had already been held, wouldn't he at least reassure them in confidence? Or maybe he did, and they're just playing along? I don't see a situation where the hearing has been held and everyone is waiting for a decision that does not entail someone in power deceiving someone else.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram