All About Salbutamol

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)
There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.

Tell us more about those 10 names.

Froome
Dawg
Froomes
Chris Froome
Froomedawg
Chris Cound
Chris Walsh
Christopher Froome
Sandshoe Froome

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)

Yes, it is a positive and a doping case. To say that an explanation is required doesn't distinguish it from any other doping case, e.g., clenbuterol. In any doping case, the defendant is given the opportunity to try to explain the positive, and if s/he can't, a sanction is imposed. No difference with Froome.

There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.

In 2015, there was a total of 115 AAFs for beta2-agonists in the ADAMS system, 16 of which were for salbutamol. In road cycling there were 11 AAFs for beta2-agonists, about 10% of the total. So on this basis, one would expect 1-2 AAFs for salbutamol in the peloton per year. The ratio may be different for cyclists, but it's highly unlikely that there are 10-12 salbutamol AAFs per year.

Most AAFs for beta2-agonists are for terbutaline, which is not a specified substance, hence an AAF is reported and requires a suspension (unless the rider has a TUE).

If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

Of all the riders known to test > 1000 ng/ml, Froome has the highest level.

The level of salbutamol is not a positive, just the amount you use. Sometimes both things are in relation, something no. Maybe is difficult to understand for you, I dont know. There is a limit above you habe to explain, But 1100 is not positibve, 2000 is not positive, and 3000 is not positive, and it was a proven experiment of a cyclist with the permited dosage who give 3000-

All the years there are a lot of riders tested the same way than Froome, it is not public, so it looks for you only exist those public and finally santioned.

It would be better if someone give those names and if the give 1500, 2500,...No, they are not positives and even if Froome knows those names and data, he should keep in secret, even if for people like you, could help a little to understand this is not a positive, there is no doping, he can compete as any other rider with no doping, as the other 10-12 riders in his exactly same situation

 

[slosada]

I hope we can keep this thread for the "technical data" about Salbutamol, that is papers, effects, advantages, drug interference, other legal cases, etc... regardless of the Doped Dwag or any other dirty rider.

To discuss the resurrection of "Lance" Froome, there is another thread

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)

Yes, it is a positive and a doping case. To say that an explanation is required doesn't distinguish it from any other doping case, e.g., clenbuterol. In any doping case, the defendant is given the opportunity to try to explain the positive, and if s/he can't, a sanction is imposed. No difference with Froome.

There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.

In 2015, there was a total of 115 AAFs for beta2-agonists in the ADAMS system, 16 of which were for salbutamol. In road cycling there were 11 AAFs for beta2-agonists, about 10% of the total. So on this basis, one would expect 1-2 AAFs for salbutamol in the peloton per year. The ratio may be different for cyclists, but it's highly unlikely that there are 10-12 salbutamol AAFs per year.

Most AAFs for beta2-agonists are for terbutaline, which is not a specified substance, hence an AAF is reported and requires a suspension (unless the rider has a TUE).

If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

Of all the riders known to test > 1000 ng/ml, Froome has the highest level.

The level of salbutamol is not a positive, just the amount you use. Sometimes both things are in relation, something no. Maybe is difficult to understand for you, I dont know. There is a limit above you habe to explain, But 1100 is not positibve, 2000 is not positive, and 3000 is not positive, and it was a proven experiment of a cyclist with the permited dosage who give 3000-

All the years there are a lot of riders tested the same way than Froome, it is not public, so it looks for you only exist those public and finally santioned.

It would be better if someone give those names and if the give 1500, 2500,...No, they are not positives and even if Froome knows those names and data, he should keep in secret, even if for people like you, could help a little to understand this is not a positive, there is no doping, he can compete as any other rider with no doping, as the other 10-12 riders in his exactly same situation

to the bold above.....details would be appreciated?

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)

Yes, it is a positive and a doping case. To say that an explanation is required doesn't distinguish it from any other doping case, e.g., clenbuterol. In any doping case, the defendant is given the opportunity to try to explain the positive, and if s/he can't, a sanction is imposed. No difference with Froome.

There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.

In 2015, there was a total of 115 AAFs for beta2-agonists in the ADAMS system, 16 of which were for salbutamol. In road cycling there were 11 AAFs for beta2-agonists, about 10% of the total. So on this basis, one would expect 1-2 AAFs for salbutamol in the peloton per year. The ratio may be different for cyclists, but it's highly unlikely that there are 10-12 salbutamol AAFs per year.

Most AAFs for beta2-agonists are for terbutaline, which is not a specified substance, hence an AAF is reported and requires a suspension (unless the rider has a TUE).

If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

Of all the riders known to test > 1000 ng/ml, Froome has the highest level.

The level of salbutamol is not a positive, just the amount you use. Sometimes both things are in relation, something no. Maybe is difficult to understand for you, I dont know. There is a limit above you habe to explain, But 1100 is not positibve, 2000 is not positive, and 3000 is not positive, and it was a proven experiment of a cyclist with the permited dosage who give 3000-

All the years there are a lot of riders tested the same way than Froome, it is not public, so it looks for you only exist those public and finally santioned.

It would be better if someone give those names and if the give 1500, 2500,...No, they are not positives and even if Froome knows those names and data, he should keep in secret, even if for people like you, could help a little to understand this is not a positive, there is no doping, he can compete as any other rider with no doping, as the other 10-12 riders in his exactly same situation

to the bold above.....details would be appreciated?

http://www.marca.com/ciclismo/2017/12/13/5a318c2522601d8e498b45ec.html

I will look for something in english. That is a link to the most popular sportive newspaper in Spain.

 

[samhocking]

I think what Taxus is getting at, is our perception of AAFs comes from the fact we really only know those athletes by name who were found guilty, not those innocent. Not only that, but most anti-doping cases are not public after the verdict either. Ulissie's isn't. Nowhere can you follow his case, it's private with Swiss Anti-doping and himself.
Even if totally guilty, Froome's process has not been fair one, because of the leak. I don't quote Brailsford much as he's not the best at quotes, but he does get it spot on, that the system performing at its very worst, should not be able to falsely accuse anyone of something they haven't done publically. While many have their minds made up, remove Froome from all of this and he is correct. You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again, but only legally, not publically. By then the process is no longer fair, the jury's opinion of you is distorted as is the publics etc etc. I think it's a pretty simply case of innocent or guilty. It's easily possible for Froome to be either given the lack of information we correctly don't have as it is easily possible that he is not for the information we don't have too, and for that reason it should be a fair process carried out in private between those that have all the information and is meant to happen like this, lets not forget.

 

[gillan1969]

I think what Taxus is getting at, is our perception of AAFs comes from the fact we really only know those athletes by name who were found guilty. Not only that, but most anti-doping cases are not public after the verdict either. Ulissie's isn't. Nowhere can you follow his case, it's private with Swiss Anti-doping and himself.
ven if totally guilty, Froome's process has not been fair one, because of the leak. I don't quote Brailsford much as he's not the best at quotes, but he does get it spot on, that the system performing at its very worst, should not be able to falsely accuse anyone of something they haven't done. While many have their minds made up, remove Froome from all of this and he is correct. You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again. By then the process is no longer fair, the jury's opinion of you is distorted etc etc. I think it's a pretty simply case of innocent or guilty. It's easily possible for Froome to be either given the lack of information we correctly don't have as it is easily possible that he is not for the information we don't have too, and for that reason it should be a fair process carried out in private between those that have all the information and is meant to happen like this, lets not forget.

the process is scientific...it's not a jury...he can either prove it or not scientifically

as far as i know nobody, or none of the main stakeholders, has falsely accused him...all that's happened is we know that its 2000...and objectively, 2000 is looking very very difficult to explain via 'puffs'...

the rape analogy is poor, both because of the non-jury aspect of Froome's case and also Froome could make the facts known tomorrow and clear this all up, were he actually innocent.......

just because the process should be secret doesn't mean to say it must be....I'm not sure how the public aspect of it compromises anything...give us the facts

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)

Yes, it is a positive and a doping case. To say that an explanation is required doesn't distinguish it from any other doping case, e.g., clenbuterol. In any doping case, the defendant is given the opportunity to try to explain the positive, and if s/he can't, a sanction is imposed. No difference with Froome.

There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.

In 2015, there was a total of 115 AAFs for beta2-agonists in the ADAMS system, 16 of which were for salbutamol. In road cycling there were 11 AAFs for beta2-agonists, about 10% of the total. So on this basis, one would expect 1-2 AAFs for salbutamol in the peloton per year. The ratio may be different for cyclists, but it's highly unlikely that there are 10-12 salbutamol AAFs per year.

Most AAFs for beta2-agonists are for terbutaline, which is not a specified substance, hence an AAF is reported and requires a suspension (unless the rider has a TUE).

If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

Of all the riders known to test > 1000 ng/ml, Froome has the highest level.

The level of salbutamol is not a positive, just the amount you use. Sometimes both things are in relation, something no. Maybe is difficult to understand for you, I dont know. There is a limit above you habe to explain, But 1100 is not positibve, 2000 is not positive, and 3000 is not positive, and it was a proven experiment of a cyclist with the permited dosage who give 3000-

All the years there are a lot of riders tested the same way than Froome, it is not public, so it looks for you only exist those public and finally santioned.

It would be better if someone give those names and if the give 1500, 2500,...No, they are not positives and even if Froome knows those names and data, he should keep in secret, even if for people like you, could help a little to understand this is not a positive, there is no doping, he can compete as any other rider with no doping, as the other 10-12 riders in his exactly same situation

to the bold above.....details would be appreciated?

http://www.marca.com/ciclismo/2017/12/13/5a318c2522601d8e498b45ec.html

I will look for something in english. That is a link to the most popular sportive newspaper in Spain.

I'll await the MI analysis......

 

[samhocking]

I think what Taxus is getting at, is our perception of AAFs comes from the fact we really only know those athletes by name who were found guilty. Not only that, but most anti-doping cases are not public after the verdict either. Ulissie's isn't. Nowhere can you follow his case, it's private with Swiss Anti-doping and himself.
ven if totally guilty, Froome's process has not been fair one, because of the leak. I don't quote Brailsford much as he's not the best at quotes, but he does get it spot on, that the system performing at its very worst, should not be able to falsely accuse anyone of something they haven't done. While many have their minds made up, remove Froome from all of this and he is correct. You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again. By then the process is no longer fair, the jury's opinion of you is distorted etc etc. I think it's a pretty simply case of innocent or guilty. It's easily possible for Froome to be either given the lack of information we correctly don't have as it is easily possible that he is not for the information we don't have too, and for that reason it should be a fair process carried out in private between those that have all the information and is meant to happen like this, lets not forget.

the process is scientific...it's not a jury...he can either prove it or not scientifically

as far as i know nobody, or none of the main stakeholders, has falsely accused him...all that's happened is we know that its 2000...and objectively, 2000 is looking very very difficult to explain via 'puffs'...

the rape analogy is poor, both because of the non-jury aspect of Froome's case and also Froome could make the facts known tomorrow and clear this all up, were he actually innocent.......

just because the process should be secret doesn't mean to say it must be....I'm not sure how the public aspect of it compromises anything...give us the facts

The point is the leaked AAF without all of the corresponding information is not a fair process to the athlete, Jury, Panel, whoever is involved under what whatever anti-doping process. In terms of the public opinion, that will not and can not be undone by any innocent verdict, so the anti-doping process is partially broken already due to the leak before Froomes panel meets. That is not a fair process guilty or innocent. You could release a live commentary of all the scientific information, but and again, that would not be a fair process because 99.9% of the public cannot form the correct answer of guilty or innocent looking at that information anyway because as you say, it is a medical scientific process and most people are not anti-doping and medical science experts. It should not be public - any of it, when the substance is specified. There's too much scope for innocence when WADA's figures suggest well over 20% of AAFs are not ADRVs. Those 20% need to be protected with anonymity and only a process that isn't public can achieve that.

 

[thehog]

I think what Taxus is getting at, is our perception of AAFs comes from the fact we really only know those athletes by name who were found guilty. Not only that, but most anti-doping cases are not public after the verdict either. Ulissie's isn't. Nowhere can you follow his case, it's private with Swiss Anti-doping and himself.
ven if totally guilty, Froome's process has not been fair one, because of the leak. I don't quote Brailsford much as he's not the best at quotes, but he does get it spot on, that the system performing at its very worst, should not be able to falsely accuse anyone of something they haven't done. While many have their minds made up, remove Froome from all of this and he is correct. You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again. By then the process is no longer fair, the jury's opinion of you is distorted etc etc. I think it's a pretty simply case of innocent or guilty. It's easily possible for Froome to be either given the lack of information we correctly don't have as it is easily possible that he is not for the information we don't have too, and for that reason it should be a fair process carried out in private between those that have all the information and is meant to happen like this, lets not forget.

the process is scientific...it's not a jury...he can either prove it or not scientifically

as far as i know nobody, or none of the main stakeholders, has falsely accused him...all that's happened is we know that its 2000...and objectively, 2000 is looking very very difficult to explain via 'puffs'...

the rape analogy is poor, both because of the non-jury aspect of Froome's case and also Froome could make the facts known tomorrow and clear this all up, were he actually innocent.......

just because the process should be secret doesn't mean to say it must be....I'm not sure how the public aspect of it compromises anything...give us the facts

The point is the leaked AAF without all of the corresponding information is not a fair process to the athlete, Jury, Panel, whoever is involved under what whatever anti-doping process. In terms of the public opinion, that will not and can not be undone by any innocent verdict, so the system is partially broken already due to the leak. That is not a fair process guilty or innocent. You could release a live commentary of all the scientific information, but and again, that would not be a fair process because 99.9% of the public cannot form an opinion looking at that information anyway because as you say it is a medical scientific process and most people are not anti-doping and medical experts. It should not be public - any of it when the substance is specified. There's too much scope for innocence when WADA's figures suggest well over 20% of AAFs are not ADRVs. Those 20% need to be protected with anonymity and a process that isn't public.

And yet the court and arbitration systems within the Westminster system and modern democracies are open to the public, whether complex or not.

What planet are you on to suggest it’s not a fair process if the public is aware of the AAF

 

[gillan1969]

I think what Taxus is getting at, is our perception of AAFs comes from the fact we really only know those athletes by name who were found guilty. Not only that, but most anti-doping cases are not public after the verdict either. Ulissie's isn't. Nowhere can you follow his case, it's private with Swiss Anti-doping and himself.
ven if totally guilty, Froome's process has not been fair one, because of the leak. I don't quote Brailsford much as he's not the best at quotes, but he does get it spot on, that the system performing at its very worst, should not be able to falsely accuse anyone of something they haven't done. While many have their minds made up, remove Froome from all of this and he is correct. You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again. By then the process is no longer fair, the jury's opinion of you is distorted etc etc. I think it's a pretty simply case of innocent or guilty. It's easily possible for Froome to be either given the lack of information we correctly don't have as it is easily possible that he is not for the information we don't have too, and for that reason it should be a fair process carried out in private between those that have all the information and is meant to happen like this, lets not forget.

the process is scientific...it's not a jury...he can either prove it or not scientifically

as far as i know nobody, or none of the main stakeholders, has falsely accused him...all that's happened is we know that its 2000...and objectively, 2000 is looking very very difficult to explain via 'puffs'...

the rape analogy is poor, both because of the non-jury aspect of Froome's case and also Froome could make the facts known tomorrow and clear this all up, were he actually innocent.......

just because the process should be secret doesn't mean to say it must be....I'm not sure how the public aspect of it compromises anything...give us the facts

The point is the leaked AAF without all of the corresponding information is not a fair process to the athlete, Jury, Panel, whoever is involved under what whatever anti-doping process. In terms of the public opinion, that will not and can not be undone by any innocent verdict, so the anti-doping process is partially broken already due to the leak before Froomes panel meets. That is not a fair process guilty or innocent. You could release a live commentary of all the scientific information, but and again, that would not be a fair process because 99.9% of the public cannot form an opinion looking at that information anyway because as you say it is a medical scientific process and most people are not anti-doping and medical experts. It should not be public - any of it when the substance is specified. There's too much scope for innocence when WADA's figures suggest well over 20% of AAFs are not ADRVs. Those 20% need to be protected with anonymity and a process that isn't public.

I don't disagree regarding process...it should be either one or t'other. However i disagree regarding transparency...the 'public' are only as good as the society in which they live...give them the info, it may make for better public debate...i presume you think the Brexit impact papers also shouldn't be released on the same basis?

in this case however, the fact is it's 2000........transparency or no transparency...the outcome is only heading in one direction

 

[samhocking]

Cases under Civil jurisdiction are generally open to the public, true Hog. Cases under Criminal jurisdiction are definitely not, that process is private between Jury and Court.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Cases under Civil jurisdiction are generally open to the public, true Hog. Cases under Criminal jurisdiction are definitely not, that process is private between Jury and Court.

So if CF is a criminal that ok?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Cases under Civil jurisdiction are generally open to the public, true Hog. Cases under Criminal jurisdiction are definitely not, that process is private between Jury and Court.

Clearly you have no idea about modern democracy. Criminal proceedings are open to the public just as much as civil. Judges can choose to seal certain parts of evidence but only with good cause. Jury deliberation is not public with the US allowing for jurors to speak publicly after trial.

The Magna Carta stated the ‘openness’ of the British Court system should always be maintained and in the US it’s a 1st Amendment right of the constitution.

King Froome of Monaco shall keep all his AAFs private though

 

[samhocking]

Sorry we are talking about the court case, or simply public observation in a court? In terms of the case, the public do not get access to the case before it begins, only observation of the proceedings in a courtroom after it starts. i.e. they don't have access to any evidence itself beforehand and the jury also sign a disclaimer that nothing relating to the case exits the court to the public either in terms of documents, your notes or your jury discussions and decision which are also not held in public either.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Sorry we are talking about the court case, or simply public observation in a court? In terms of the case, the public do not get access to the case before it begins, only observation of the proceedings in a courtroom after it starts. i.e. they don't have access to any evidence itself beforehand and the jury also sign a disclaimer that nothing relating to the case exits the court to the public either in terms of documents, your notes or your jury discussions and decision which are also not held in public either.

What are you talking about?

Your first statement was;

Cases under Civil jurisdiction are generally open to the public, true Hog. Cases under Criminal jurisdiction are definitely not, that process is private between Jury and Court.

The public does know who has been charged in a criminal hearing as its relased by the CPS and the crime the defendant has been charged with. Police are at liberty to release evidence prior to the hearing which they may see is in the public interest or to assist in gathering more evidence or witnesses. Evidence discovery is between counsel but it’s not unusual that some of the evidence to be made public pretrial. Jury selection allows for those who might have been overly influenced prior to hearing to be excused.

So a correlation with the Froome case we know what Froome has been charged with, the amounts of salbutamol in his system which would be no different from a criminal proceeding.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about which is not surprising.

 

[samhocking]

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence from one side only. In Froomes case an AAF result before its ADRV decision, but the AAF result is not the ADRV itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

the AAF isnt evidence...it's the charge

and you've been listening to SDB too much...the 'crime' is not the amount inhaled....unless taking oral salbutomol not a 'crime'? As that could be an explanation could it not?

 

[thehog]

Re:

We are talking about the leaking of a piece of evidence. In Froomes case an AAF result before a decision, but the AAF result is not the crime itself is it. The crime itself is did he inhale more than the allowed specified amount. You wouldn't walk into a courtroom several months before a case has begun proceedings and be able to view the prosecutions evidence would you? That is my point, the case is not open to the public, only the proceedings. I've no problem with Froomes hearing being public whatsoever.

The only element that has been leaked is the positive A and B sample for Salbutamol, which is the ‘criminal charge’ and what Froome needs to defend himself against. Which is exactly the same as a criminal trial. Froome has not lost any of his rights. He is free to defend himself in any manner he likes, the public has not seen his defense nor what the UCI might put forward. The public and the media just like in criminal proceedings are free to debate the nuances of the case however they may see fit.

So what’s your problem with how this case has been handled? You’re clearly clueless on the justice system.

 

[hazaran]

There is no criminal case, there is no civil case. The closest would be "arbitration", but even that doesn't really fit. The rules are what WADA UCI and other stakeholders determine to be the rules, and riders willingly submit to them prior to being allowed to race.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

There is no criminal case, there is no civil case. The closest would be "arbitration", but even that doesn't really fit. The rules are what WADA UCI and other stakeholders determine to be the rules, and riders willingly submit to them prior to being allowed to race.

that's right it's much more like common law where justice
is mostly based on previous cases (e.g. Ulisse, AleJet) and
community established tradition (e.g not racing while under suspicion).
There's not much new in this case - except the behaviour of those
under suspicion.

 

[thehog]

Re:

There is no criminal case, there is no civil case. The closest would be "arbitration", but even that doesn't really fit. The rules are what WADA UCI and other stakeholders determine to be the rules, and riders willingly submit to them prior to being allowed to race.

That we all know, we were educating Sam that Froome hasn’t had his rights violated.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There is no criminal case, there is no civil case. The closest would be "arbitration", but even that doesn't really fit. The rules are what WADA UCI and other stakeholders determine to be the rules, and riders willingly submit to them prior to being allowed to race.

that's right it's much more like common law where justice
is mostly based on previous cases (e.g. Ulisse, AleJet) and
community established tradition (e.g not racing while under suspicion).
There's not much new in this case - except the behaviour of those
under suspicion.

There is no doctrine of precedence in arbitration. A judge or panel can make a decision however they see fit regardless of how previous cases might have been adjudicated. Common law doesn’t really apply here either apart from civil liberties.

What does apply is ethics and acting in the spirit of the sport. Considering Brailsford was railing against the UCI to be tough on Astana his current stance is now very strange.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

The level of salbutamol is not a positive, just the amount you use. Sometimes both things are in relation, something no. Maybe is difficult to understand for you, I dont know. There is a limit above you habe to explain.

Repeating, incorrectly, Brailsford’s spin doesn’t make it correct. Yes, the level is a positive. Positives are never defined by how much of a substance an athlete takes, they’re defined by how much is detected in his or her system. It has to be this way, since no athlete can ever prove how much of a substance he took. If someone claims he took no EPO at all, that is not a defense against an EPO positive, which is defined as EPO in the body, not how much was allegedly taken.

The 800 ug/ 1600 ug limit is basically a guideline. Riders can take more than that, and almost certainly do, much of the time, as long as they don't exceed the DL. Again, since there is no way to prove how much someone took, there's no way to prevent that.

But 1100 is not positibve, 2000 is not positive, and 3000 is not positive, and it was a proven experiment of a cyclist with the permited dosage who give 3000-

This was discussed upthread, something you would know if you had been following the discussion, instead of just jumping in with an incomplete understanding of the facts. In the first place, it wasn’t a cyclist, it was a runner. In the second place, the study was never replicated. Either the athlete was an outlier, or his readings were, but apparently nothing more has been published on it. There are always outliers in doping cases, the fact that one in a thousand or ten thousand or one hundred thousand can achieve a positive without taking more than the allowed amount is not a defense for anyone else who tests positive. The studies of testosterone isomers indicate that on very rare occasions, someone will test positive without having taken synthetic testosterone. That was not a defense for Floyd.

In the third place, the initial reading of 8000 ng/ml is next to impossible. The minimum volume of urine sample allowed by WADA is 90 ml. If he had only the minimum volume at 8000 ng/ml, he had a minimum of 720 ug, in his urine, 80% of the 900 ug he claimed to take. It would be unprecedented in pharmacology for someone to excrete 80% of a drug with a half life of several hours in the time frame in which he did. He said he took three puffs an hour before the race, three puffs 30 m before the race, and three puffs after the race. The urine sample was taken less than two hours after the race, and since it was 400 m, there was no sustained effort that possibly could have increased excretion. The most likely explanation was that the runner was lying.

In support of that, when he repeated the conditions in the lab, his levels were much lower. The initial lab test did show about 3500 ng/ml, and the second test about half that. But as I noted before, there was no follow-up, and according to Ken Fitch, a researcher who is very sympathetic to athletes who test over the limit, the results could not be repeated.

All the years there are a lot of riders tested the same way than Froome, it is not public, so it looks for you only exist those public and finally sanctioned.

Unlike you, I quoted WADA statistics on salbutamol. Just waving your hands and claiming there are all these riders who tested over the threshold for salbutamol and aren’t known is not a valid argument. I repeat, there were 16 salbutamol AAFs in 2015, and while we don't know how many were for cyclists, we do know that cyclists accounted for just 10% of all beta2-agonist AAFs in that year. So the burden of proof is on someone who claims that 10-12 riders per year have salbutamol AAFs. We know that less one per year is sanctioned for this, so this would imply that > 90% of the cases are not sanctioned. This is highly inconsistent with other WADA stats that indicate about two-thirds of all AAFs end up with a sanction.

It would be better if someone give those names and if the give 1500, 2500,...No, they are not positives and even if Froome knows those names and data, he should keep in secret, even if for people like you, could help a little to understand this is not a positive, there is no doping, he can compete as any other rider with no doping, as the other 10-12 riders in his exactly same situation

It’s very unlikely that anyone other than the Swiss runner tested at 2500, let alone got off. Ken Fitch discussed two other athletes who had above threshold levels and eventually were exonerated, and both had levels well below what Froome has. This was basically all he had. He has referred to other, older studies where subjects had high salbutamol levels, but the ones actually available just confirm how rare this is. All the recent studies show that subjects who take no more than the allowed amount of 800 ug rarely test above 1000 ng/ml, and other than the Swiss athlete (who technically took more than 800 ug) never as high as 2000 ng/ml.

http://sci-hub.la/10.1385/CRIAI:31:2:259

You wouldn't agree to a story about you raping someone, being made public simply with what looks like evidence of you raping, knowing it wasn't you and once the trial is over you will then be innocent again, but only legally, not publically.

If you made an extremely lucrative living by claiming you had a high moral standard, then yes, the people who are in effect supporting you would have a right to know if you had been accused of rape. This is partly what the metoo movement is about.

Beyond this, you’re blurring the line between quantitative and qualitative differences. The difference between a salbutamol positive, which you think should remain secret, and a positive for a non-specified substance, which I take it you are fine with being made public, is not qualitative, it’s quantitative. A higher % of salbutamol positives do not lead to sanction than positives for other substances. But based on the available stats, the odds are still well above 50% that a salbutamol positive will lead to a sanction. And as we all know, a substantial portion of cases that don’t result in a sanction don’t come about because the athlete is innocent, but because it’s too difficult to prove that he’s guilty. Even in cases where riders have been sanctioned, like Petacchi and Ulissi, the system has bent over backwards to allow their claims that they made a mistake, when the more likely explanation is intentional doping.

You want to protect the minority of cases that don’t lead to a sanction, but you seem to have no sympathy for the smaller minority of cases for other substances that don’t lead to a sanction.

Finally, of course, if a case is not made public, there's a much greater chance of corruption occurring in the process. Transparency is the ultimate protection the public has that the case will be decided according to the scientific merit, not according to the interests of those who run the sport.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Repeating, incorrectly, Brailsford’s spin doesn’t make it correct. Yes, the level is a positive. Positives are never defined by how much of a substance an athlete takes, they’re defined by how much is detected in his or her system. It has to be this way, since no athlete can ever prove how much of a substance he took. If someone claims he took no EPO at all, that is not a defense against an EPO positive, which is defined as EPO in the body, not how much was allegedly taken.

The 800 ug/ 1600 ug limit is basically a guideline. Riders can take more than that, and almost certainly do, much of the time, as long as they don't exceed the DL. Again, since there is no way to prove how much someone took, there's no way to prevent that.

I think you got this wrong I'm afraid. I've put an screenshot the rules below. It clearly states it's the allowable amounts that are the rule and the urine sample is the evidence of the offence but can be disproved.

It's set up this way not so the testers can catch athletes, but athletes know where they stand. They can't know what levels they are producing, so how can they measure their intake? Their intake they can be in control of. The WADA rules are set up first and foremost to protect clean athletes.

Sure an athlete could take 2500ug and not breach the limit, but that's no different than any other drug test is it?

(You may want to argue the toss over what exactly 'positive' means. But I'm not interested in a squabble over semantics)