All About Salbutamol

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

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.

I didn’t say the allowed amounts weren’t a rule. I said they were basically guidelines, because a rule that can’t be enforced is basically a guideline (which you confirm with “athletes know where they stand”), and the 800/1600 ug rule can’t be enforced. Most athletes can exceed those amounts without ever testing over the DL. Has any athlete ever been sanctioned with a urine level < 1200, or no urine test at all, because it was proven s/he took more than 800/1600 ug? I very much doubt it.

The passport test (and prior to that, the 50% HT rule and the off-score) is an analogous situation. The rule is that riders are not allowed to transfuse or take EPO, but that rule is frequently unenforceable, so the passport offers a way of enforcing it. If a rider triggers the passport, that is a positive, even though he may eventually be cleared.

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

Thanks for supporting my point that in principle there’s no difference in most respects between salbutamol and non-specified substances.

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

Neither am I, but Taxus is having problems with this. Can we cut to the chase here? The only reason Taxus is beating this dead horse is because “positive” seems to stain Froome; he doesn’t like the association. But it is a positive, just as Impey’s probenecid test was a positive. And btw, I’m waiting for Taxus and Sam to argue that Impey’s rights were violated? Shouldn’t his positive have remained a secret, so after he was cleared he wouldn’t be associated with doping? What exactly is the difference between Impey's situation and Froome's, except that it's a little less likely to explain a probenecid positive? (And maybe not even that, since those Brazilian swimmers got away with a diuretic positive, too).

 

[samhocking]

You can't challenge the AAF - that will never change unless the rules change.

As with Ulissi, you challenge the ADRV. The ADRV is inhaling more than the specified amounts. This is what Ulissi's lawyers tackled and it's clearly what Froomes lawyers are tackling.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

If we look at Ulissis case. His was:

Gave evidence he suffered asthma and only took a few puffs within the rules
Was asked to prove it in pharmo test, but failed the study.
Then claimed painkillers taken after his crash must have masked his salbutomol release
Evidence given at the beginning and that explanation of painkiller use at time of a bronchial spasm also caused by the crash reviewed.

Without enough evidence or records of how many puffs he took for the bronchial spasm, left him with a sanction of Negligence, but not the intention to enhance performance. Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

 

[Rollthedice]

Let’s get a few things straight.

Froome returned a positive test for a prohibited substance. Same as with CERA, HGH and whatever it’s on the WADA list of prohibited substances.

This prohibited substance, along with few others has a threshold which differentiates it from therapeutic use to doping.

The threshold is fixed at a very generous level and the guidelines are: inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours

If one follows those guidelines it’s 99.9 % sure the athlete will not return an AAF, that’s why those specific guidelines were decided.

If the athlete returns a positive test for Salbutamol, CERA, HGH and whatever it’s on the WADA list of prohibited substances he has the right to demonstrate how those substances entered his system, whether it’s a pharmacist with contaminated hands, mother’s medication accidentally falling in the soup or a kidney failure.

Brailsford’s spin on the matter in which he says that what’s important is how many puffs Froome took and not the concentration in his urine is preposterous and it doesn’t deserve anything more than a good laugh.

 

[samhocking]

You don't get the initial LADS opportunity with non-specified. With non-specified the AAF is essentially the ADRV immediately and the ADRV and rider name is published by UCI with a provisional suspension. With specified substances, the ADRV is how much you took decides if an ADRV has occurred or not, not the AAF itself and the AAF result and rider name should only published if there has been an ADRV. Nobody should know about AAFs until an ADRV has been decided. i.e. LADS have reviewed the evidence and rider banned like the process is for non-specified substances.

 

[samhocking]

If you read the UCI Anti-doping programme, Froome is at this point in the LADS with his AAF if it's a specified substance:

The rider may request the LADS to order the opening of the B sample. If this confirms the AAF of the A sample, or if the rider dispenses with this option, the LADS request the rider to explain why the sample has returned an AAF.

Once all that evidence is in ther hands of LADS, then they set the date to decide if an ADRV has occured. If they can't decide, the rider either accepts an ADRV has occured as he hasn't the evidnce to prove otherwise, or, they can take the pharmo test to show their evidence does explain the reason for the AAF and fill in the missing information LADS require to believe the initial evidence.

 

[brownbobby]

You can't challenge the AAF - that will never change unless the rules change.

As with Ulissi, you challenge the ADRV. The ADRV is inhaling more than the specified amounts. This is what Ulissi's lawyers tackled and it's clearly what Froomes lawyers are tackling.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

If we look at Ulissis case. His was:

Gave evidence he suffered asthma and only took a few puffs within the rules
Was asked to prove it in pharmo test, but failed the study.
Then claimed painkillers taken after his crash must have masked his salbutomol release
Evidence given at the beginning and that explanation of painkiller use at time of a bronchial spasm also caused by the crash reviewed.

Without enough evidence or records of how many puffs he took for the bronchial spasm, left him with a sanction of Negligence, but not the intention to enhance performance. Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

Considering your point above....

Can't seem to find it now and not sure wether it was this thread or another....but someone posted a comprehensive list of all the riders who've been sanctioned for excess Salbutamol in recent years.

Would be interesting to know if in the previous cases, the riders were always able to demonstrate 'legitimate' use of Salbutamol prior to the AAF, or if any of them had simply been caught using it without being able to demonstrate a history of asthma?

 

[samhocking]

How can you make a deal to suspend a rider? What part of the LADS process or even the anti-doping process works using 'deals' with UCI Anti-doping Tribunal? If you are at Anti-doping Tribunal, there has already been a violation of the rules by definition from LADS, so how is Froome still racing? Surely the point is, he is submitting/now submitted his evidence to LADS still at this moment? I really don't see anything in the LADS process that a pharmo test comes first or deals can be made with UCI Anti-doping Tribunal? It reads that your initial evidence comes first and then the pharmo can be requested if required. If neither Froomes evidence was satisfactory to LADS and he refused the pharmo test also, an ADRV has then occured and goes to UCI Anti-doping Tribunal. According to the LADS process below and he should now be provisionally suspended?

When there is an apparent breach of the anti-doping rules, a new phase commences: a phase that will result in the sanction – or not – of the individual in question. The central actor of this stage of the process is the LADS which take over from the CADF. The LADS must refer to the external legal counsel which issues a second opinion at every key stage of the procedure as set forth in the Internal Regulations.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

What's the betting the CF scores a well above threshold Salbutamol concentration during this current stage race?
Just to show us all it's possible.

 

[53*11]

You can't challenge the AAF - that will never change unless the rules change.

As with Ulissi, you challenge the ADRV. The ADRV is inhaling more than the specified amounts. This is what Ulissi's lawyers tackled and it's clearly what Froomes lawyers are tackling.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

If we look at Ulissis case. His was:

Gave evidence he suffered asthma and only took a few puffs within the rules
Was asked to prove it in pharmo test, but failed the study.
Then claimed painkillers taken after his crash must have masked his salbutomol release
Evidence given at the beginning and that explanation of painkiller use at time of a bronchial spasm also caused by the crash reviewed.

Without enough evidence or records of how many puffs he took for the bronchial spasm, left him with a sanction of Negligence, but not the intention to enhance performance. Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

as posted by a previous poster, the athlete must try to explain the non therapeutic dose found inth e samples by way of the Pharmacokinetic study - this apparently was investigated by sky from sept - december but presumably they researched it and found they could not reach such a concentration of salb in his urine by adhering to the permitted number of puffs of his inhaler. in short, he says he did nothing wrong, eg didnt exceed the permitted dose and seemingly has no alternative, credible explanation for the huge level of salb so he is getting a ban

 

[samhocking]

I've not seen anything official that Froome has already taken a Pharmo test and not reproduced either with Sky or LADS. The first part of LADS is them requesting your evidence, not them requesting a pharmo test. That's how it workd for Ulissi anyway.

 

[Blanco]

You can't challenge the AAF - that will never change unless the rules change.

As with Ulissi, you challenge the ADRV. The ADRV is inhaling more than the specified amounts. This is what Ulissi's lawyers tackled and it's clearly what Froomes lawyers are tackling.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

If we look at Ulissis case. His was:

Gave evidence he suffered asthma and only took a few puffs within the rules
Was asked to prove it in pharmo test, but failed the study.
Then claimed painkillers taken after his crash must have masked his salbutomol release
Evidence given at the beginning and that explanation of painkiller use at time of a bronchial spasm also caused by the crash reviewed.

Without enough evidence or records of how many puffs he took for the bronchial spasm, left him with a sanction of Negligence, but not the intention to enhance performance. Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

Considering your point above....

Can't seem to find it now and not sure wether it was this thread or another....but someone posted a comprehensive list of all the riders who've been sanctioned for excess Salbutamol in recent years.

Would be interesting to know if in the previous cases, the riders were always able to demonstrate 'legitimate' use of Salbutamol prior to the AAF, or if any of them had simply been caught using it without being able to demonstrate a history of asthma?

Legitimate use of Salbutamol? I'm not sure I'm following you on that one Everyone is allowed to use it, and you have a recommended dose, which is more than enough for asthma sufferers. Even in the cases of asthma attack, this dose is enough on a day basis. If attacks are repeated, well you're not in condition to race then... History of asthma is not much relevant in this case, and why would it be? Maybe it would be required if a rider's urine level is constantly at 600-800, and then pops at 1100-1300. But in this case, where Froome level is around 200 and pops to 2000 (x10 ), I don't think so...

 

[samhocking]

As I said, everyone can take salbutomol to the limit, but when you AAF, you are then asked for evidence. Part of that evidence is clearly going to be the fact you need to prove it is theraputic. If you don't have diagnosed asthma, with any of the history expected, you can't claim to be using it theraputically can you. It would be for other reasons. i.e. you wouldn't swallow antibiotic everyday if you were not infected with bacteria, just like you would not take puffs on a reliver like Ventolin if you were not suffering from an asthmatic episode. You could of course, but it wouldn't convince someone you have asthma if you neither have results of lung function tests proving asthma and none of your urine samples on ADAMS shows any Salbutomol in them, yet here you are with an AAF, claiming to have asthma all of a sudden.

Following on from the UCI Anti-doping Tribunal discussion. Reading more about it, I wasn't aware they also deal with clearing riders too. I thought LADS was set-up to essentially clear riders to remove the possibility of NGBs clearing riders favourably, but the length of a sanction, once LADS have decided there has been an actual ADRV gets decided by the Tribunal by comparing LADS report and riders evidence together at the end. It seems the Tribunal both clears and decides length of sanction though. I wasn't aware of that, but makes sense. LADS just removes all the legal stuff from the NGBs and the Tribunal removes the final decision from the NGBs/NADOs for elite riders which is a good thing set-up by Cookson at least : )

 

[brownbobby]

You can't challenge the AAF - that will never change unless the rules change.

As with Ulissi, you challenge the ADRV. The ADRV is inhaling more than the specified amounts. This is what Ulissi's lawyers tackled and it's clearly what Froomes lawyers are tackling.

The process is:
AAF
Rider asked to submit evidence to LADS explaining how and why the AAF happened without inhaling more than specified amount allowed in the ADRV. (This is where Froome's case is today)
LADS panel accept that evidence as a satisfactory explanation and there is no ADRV

OR

LADS panel, doesn't accept the evidence explains the AAF satisfactorily and the rider is then subjected to a pharmacokinetic study to fill in the gaps and/or support his evidence.

If we look at Ulissis case. His was:

Gave evidence he suffered asthma and only took a few puffs within the rules
Was asked to prove it in pharmo test, but failed the study.
Then claimed painkillers taken after his crash must have masked his salbutomol release
Evidence given at the beginning and that explanation of painkiller use at time of a bronchial spasm also caused by the crash reviewed.

Without enough evidence or records of how many puffs he took for the bronchial spasm, left him with a sanction of Negligence, but not the intention to enhance performance. Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

Considering your point above....

Can't seem to find it now and not sure wether it was this thread or another....but someone posted a comprehensive list of all the riders who've been sanctioned for excess Salbutamol in recent years.

Would be interesting to know if in the previous cases, the riders were always able to demonstrate 'legitimate' use of Salbutamol prior to the AAF, or if any of them had simply been caught using it without being able to demonstrate a history of asthma?

Legitimate use of Salbutamol? I'm not sure I'm following you on that one Everyone is allowed to use it, and you have a recommended dose, which is more than enough for asthma sufferers. Even in the cases of asthma attack, this dose is enough on a day basis. If attacks are repeated, well you're not in condition to race then... History of asthma is not much relevant in this case, and why would it be? Maybe it would be required if a rider's urine level is constantly at 600-800, and then pops at 1100-1300. But in this case, where Froome level is around 200 and pops to 2000 (x10 ), I don't think so...

Legitimate use of salbutamol = treatment of asthma symptoms.

It's very relevant.

 

[samhocking]

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

 

[53*11]

Re:

I've not seen anything official that Froome has already taken a Pharmo test and not reproduced either with Sky or LADS. The first part of LADS is them requesting your evidence, not them requesting a pharmo test. That's how it workd for Ulissi anyway.

i didnt say that he took ia test, certainly noot in a UCI lab at any rate, it has been suggested that sky had investigated such a PK study to supporet their contentions and concluded that this was not going to help their athletes case (there are ample research link s on this very discussion which demonstrates how unlikely/impossible it is to breach the urine limit for salbutamol through the correct therapeutic and legal use of inhalers.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

Thanks, exactly my point and why asked.

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.

 

[53*11]

Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

i think we can go further than that!!; all of the the teams medics, riders, swannys, DS's, chefs, helpers and even the bus drivers would know that any substance prescribed or not, has to be managed very carefully; especially in the case of a professional, highly resourced team that has had recent difficulties in terms of medical records, has employed a full time compliance officer, has self proclaimed excellent management systems and attention to detail bordering on OCD,

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

Thanks, exactly my point and why asked.

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.

could we possibly return to froomes case maybe? and not waste time discussing theoretical cases and issues involving riders that dont have asthma and should not be prescribed salbutamol (a minority in the peloton by all accounts!)

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

Thanks, exactly my point and why asked.

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.

could we possibly return to froomes case maybe? and not waste time discussing theoretical cases and issues involving riders that dont have asthma and should not be prescribed salbutamol (a minority in the peloton by all accounts!)

No, not until we're ready. Go fetch a mod if you think the content of a particular thread is misplaced

I think you're forgetting this is the 'all about Salbutamol' thread.

There's a thread for you if you're only interested in Chris Froome.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

Thanks, exactly my point and why asked.

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.

could we possibly return to froomes case maybe? and not waste time discussing theoretical cases and issues involving riders that dont have asthma and should not be prescribed salbutamol (a minority in the peloton by all accounts!)

No, not until we're ready. Go fetch a mod if you think the content of a particular thread is misplaced

I think you're forgetting this is the 'all about Salbutamol' thread.

There's a thread for you if you're only interested in Chris Froome.

lol, i realise you and other sky fans would rather deny, deflect and chat/debate just about any other unnamed riders but this thread was started because of froomes salbutamol AAF 'difficulty' made public in december. his is the case of interest to cycling fans, as he is a 4 time tour winner so his scandal is newsworthy and of interest.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I agree. If you don't have any medical history and proof you have asthma, I can't see how you can submit any meanignful evidence in youirt defence to LADS and attempt to justify why it's in your urine? Clearly it's easy to puff on a ventolin, but I would imagine most of the teams medics are aware that Salbutomol under the rules can only be used for Asthma legitmiately. Anything else clearly is not going to be considered theraputic or legitimate use. At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

Thanks, exactly my point and why asked.

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.

could we possibly return to froomes case maybe? and not waste time discussing theoretical cases and issues involving riders that dont have asthma and should not be prescribed salbutamol (a minority in the peloton by all accounts!)

No, not until we're ready. Go fetch a mod if you think the content of a particular thread is misplaced

I think you're forgetting this is the 'all about Salbutamol' thread.

There's a thread for you if you're only interested in Chris Froome.

lol, i realise you and other sky fans would rather deny, deflect and chat/debate just about any other unnamed riders but this thread was started because of froomes salbutamol AAF 'difficulty' made public in december. his is the case of interest to cycling fans, as he is a 4 time tour winner so his scandal is newsworthy and of interest.

Thank you for teĺling me my position in the pecking order of 'cycling fans', what should and shouldnt be dicussed in threads and where my points of interests need to lie should I aspire to the lofty statùs of proper 'cycling fan'.

You've come such a long way in a short space of time.

LOL indeed

 

[Merckx index]

Brownbobby, the list of cases you’re looking for can be found at Dopeology. Not just salbutamol AAFs, but all other prohibited substances.

Basically Ulissi simply didn't have the records of his Salbutomol intake leading up to his AAF and so couldn't satisfy he inhaled within the rules of the ADRV, because he simply couldn't demonstrate or claim to know how much he was taking. Had he been able to do that, I think he probably would have escaped being sanctioned as the verdict was that he wasn't trying to enhance his performance, so there was clearly enough evidence there from his medical team notes I would imagine after the crash for that to be believed. iirc he originally claimed he only took 2 puffs per day in his initial evidence before claiming painkillers released it.

I don’t see how any rider could prove how much salbutamol he had been taking. Even if he wrote it down every day, one could argue he might have made a mistake. After all, if you’re puffing during a critical portion of the race, it would be very easy not to be paying attention to the exact number of puffs. And the bottom line is that records like these could easily be falsified (in the case of someone who does have asthma, and inhales regularly; I’m not talking about someone who fakes asthma, as you suggest below). The amount of salbutamol in the urine following a certain dose can vary considerably, depending on the temperature, if/when the rider stops to pee, when the substance is taken, maybe his exertion level, his health, other factors we don’t even appreciate, and just randomly. So if a rider has records claiming that he always took an amount within the limits, his urine records—even assuming he can’t access them before making any claims about how much he took—probably aren’t going to offer much evidence against him.

The LADS AAF review process is actually very effective to find cheaters. If you don't actually have asthma, much of that initial evidence you need to support your case is missing. i.e. you won't have lung function tests and long-term asthma diagnosis as your foundation to your argument. You urine history and salbutomol levels on ADAMS won't be consistent with that of an asthma sufferer, you won't keep records of your inhaler use if you just popped a pill and if any of the above is fake, then you still run the risk of committing even more ADRVs and clearly will involve your team medics too. If your fake salbutomol use doesn't match your urine readings in the sampels on the right dates you won't be able to use them as evidence either and/or LADs can clearly see you claim to have had 4 puffs on this day, but your urine shows no Salbutomol etc etc. You would be crazy to fake asthma because the test to prove you have it so clear-cut.

I think this is basically correct, as far as catching riders who are just taking orally and not inhaling, or inhaling regularly. But to repeat what I said above, a rider can be inhaling regularly, maybe really does have asthma, and still be using orally, and this would be very difficult to catch. I’m not sure anyone ever has been caught, as the penalty for this should be four years, and I don’t think anyone has been given that long a ban for salbutamol?

Petacchi failed the enantiomers test, i.e., his S/R ratio was apparently very high. But in the end CAS accepted that he simply made a mistake. Why? Did they really believe that? I think more likely it’s just too difficult to prove oral dosing, and since Petacchi clearly had been inhaling regularly—he had the previous records to back that up—the easiest, least controversial decision was simply to conclude he inhaled too much. My guess is that if a rider can demonstrate he really has asthma—from a doctor’s test and from regular levels of salbutamol in his urine—then he will never be given more than two years ban, and probably that much only in exceptional circumstances. As long as he’s taking the drug regularly, it’s considered more probable he inhaled too much.

At best it might be considered wreckless to be taking Salbutomol without medical diagnosis.

If salbutamol were a drug that promoted wrecklessness, that would be hugely beneficial to riders (particularly ones like Porte), and I would think everyone would be taking it. ☺

Following on from the UCI Anti-doping Tribunal discussion. Reading more about it, I wasn't aware they also deal with clearing riders too. I thought LADS was set-up to essentially clear riders to remove the possibility of NGBs clearing riders favourably, but the length of a sanction, once LADS have decided there has been an actual ADRV gets decided by the Tribunal by comparing LADS report and riders evidence together at the end. It seems the Tribunal both clears and decides length of sanction though. I wasn't aware of that, but makes sense. LADS just removes all the legal stuff from the NGBs and the Tribunal removes the final decision from the NGBs/NADOs for elite riders which is a good thing set-up by Cookson at least : )

Yes, what Luigi said. I’d just add that from the history of other CADF cases—linked at their website—you can see that Froome’s case is just about where other cases have been after five months, give or take. In the preceding time, he had the chance to take a lab test, and/or provide other information to account for his AAF to LADS. They didn’t accept his evidence, and while I’m not aware of any direct confirmation of this, it seems likely that Froome was given an Acceptance of Consequences letter, which he declined. I’m also not certain, but I don’t think the case would move to CADF if there had not been the offer of a certain decision, and its refusal by Froome. Because he declined, he’s still free to ride, until CADF issues a decision.

This quote from the VN article on the peloton's reaction to Froome intrigued me:

After speaking with VeloNews on Tuesday, Fuglsang was spotted chatting to Froome as the came into the finish line together. He later told a Danish journalist that he softened his opinion about Froome, adding, “He told me some things I did not know about his case.”

 

[samhocking]

Re: 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?

The AAF is not the charge. The ADRV is you inhaled more than the specified amount. The AAF is ultimately WADA's 'evidence' if it goes all the way, the athletes defence is his own evidence to explain the AAF within the boundary of not being an ADRV. That is why the substance is labled to be 'specified'. If the charge was the AAF, it would be labled 'non-specified' like Clenbutortol wouldnt it. And, the AAF would be essentially the ADRV with anything above the 1000 urine threshold immediatly sanctionable like Clenbutorol. It isn't and so the charge is based on the input of the prohibted substance, not the output like Clenbutorol is.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

I agree it would be reckless for anyone to be using Salbutamol without verified diagnosis, but history is littered with reckless folk.[/quote]

could we possibly return to froomes case maybe? and not waste time discussing theoretical cases and issues involving riders that dont have asthma and should not be prescribed salbutamol (a minority in the peloton by all accounts!)[/quote]

No, not until we're ready. Go fetch a mod if you think the content of a particular thread is misplaced

I think you're forgetting this is the 'all about Salbutamol' thread.

There's a thread for you if you're only interested in Chris Froome.[/quote]


lol, i realise you and other sky fans would rather deny, deflect and chat/debate just about any other unnamed riders but this thread was started because of froomes salbutamol AAF 'difficulty' made public in december. his is the case of interest to cycling fans, as he is a 4 time tour winner so his scandal is newsworthy and of interest.[/quote]

Thank you for teĺling me my position in the pecking order of 'cycling fans', what should and shouldnt be dicussed in threads and where my points of interests need to lie should I aspire to the lofty statùs of proper 'cycling fan'.

You've come such a long way in a short space of time.

LOL indeed[/quote]

wow , very thin skinned, feelings hurt again? maybe you just like chatting online in generalities and waffle, but even you surely cant deny froome is THE doping talking point right now and has been since december?
and pray tell, what has my joining date (on this forum!) got to do with the points im making??

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Dear 53*11 New Member
can you try to less (w)recklessly wreck the nesting of quotes when you post.
It make the forum a complete wreck