All About Salbutamol

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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!)[/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??[/quote]

You're not making points. You're making assumptions about my interests, who i support and what i and other forum users should be talking about. So my reference to you having made all of these assumptions about me and my tactics of engagement in a short space of time is valid.

Of course Froome is the main talking point, the vast majority of my posts have been Froome related. But that doesn't mean i go around telling other people to stop talking about stuff that isn't directly about Froome.

If you're not interested in a particular discussion, i would say ignore it rather than tell people to stop talking about it. But then again, i dont assume a right to tell people what they can and cant talk about on a public forum.

 

[Alpe73]

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

I ... don't ... think .... so.

 

[Alpe73]

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)

This part is incorrect - Froome was offered a suspension deal by LADS, and he rejected it, so he got sent to Anti-Doping Tribunal about two weeks ago. It is beyond the stage of LADS, and a way worse situation than that

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.

Froome didn't take a lab test for salbutamol metabolism, either, because he knew that he would fail it. Like Ulissi failed. There's not much point in self-incrimination by failing a test - so he dodged that opportunity. And so in the absence of evidence, Froome now has to try to explain how his positive occurred.

Links would be greatly appreciated. Been fishin and missed a few links. Thanks

 

[veganrob]

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.

Precisely. I think the Dawg got very reckless in this instance

 

[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.

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.[/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??[/quote]

You're not making points. You're making assumptions about my interests, who i support and what i and other forum users should be talking about. So my reference to you having made all of these assumptions about me and my tactics of engagement in a short space of time is valid.

Of course Froome is the main talking point, the vast majority of my posts have been Froome related. But that doesn't mean i go around telling other people to stop talking about stuff that isn't directly about Froome.

If you're not interested in a particular discussion, i would say ignore it rather than tell people to stop talking about it. But then again, i dont assume a right to tell people what they can and cant talk about on a public forum.[/quote]

you just did! but thats cool, we are not all perfect

 

[samhocking]

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

I ... don't ... think .... so.

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

 

[53*11]

Re:

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

will do, TOS!

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.[/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??[/quote]

You're not making points. You're making assumptions about my interests, who i support and what i and other forum users should be talking about. So my reference to you having made all of these assumptions about me and my tactics of engagement in a short space of time is valid.

Of course Froome is the main talking point, the vast majority of my posts have been Froome related. But that doesn't mean i go around telling other people to stop talking about stuff that isn't directly about Froome.

If you're not interested in a particular discussion, i would say ignore it rather than tell people to stop talking about it. But then again, i dont assume a right to tell people what they can and cant talk about on a public forum.[/quote]

you just did! but thats cool, we are not all perfect[/quote]

Ah look man, a ĺittle bit of bickering is inevitable in forum debate, but personal bickering is not cool, and that's what we've descended to now. We could do this all night and end up where we started.

You said your bit, I said mine. So if it's ok with you (and even if it's not) I'm going to leave it there.

If you need to have the last word go for it. But I'm out. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[53*11]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-claims-salbutamol-case-has-been-hyped-up-by-media/

 

[yaco]

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Who's disappointed?
Other than Fan boys?

 

[gillan1969]

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

I ... don't ... think .... so.

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

as discusssed upthread...if it were all public then there would be no, sorry, should be no reputational damage as if it were 1201 or 1205 or 1210 then we would see it play out and we would see the process play out and the AAF would be no big deal. The reason it's a big deal is because a) we don't see the machinations/process and b) its 2000!!!!!!!!!!!

so more transparency please...just imagine...a more educated public

 

[Alpe73]

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

I ... don't ... think .... so.

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

Bad syntax ... my sincere apologies, Sam.

My meaning was ... "Hog (whom I like, btw) ... I don't think it's YOU et al ... who are educating Sam. Sam is spot on in his observations, synthesis and analysis."

Too funny. No more caffeine for me, today.

As you were. :lol:

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

Sky fans should praise that is public, because behind closed doors Froome could have been framed. Now WADA, UCI,... will have to play fair and right, isn'it?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

Sky fans should praise that is public, because behind closed doors Froome could have been framed. Now WADA, UCI,... will have to play fair and right, isn'it?

You could be right, Poupou ... you could .... be .... right.

Now that I have you ... maybe you could help me out with this .....

It's a recurring dream I'm having .....

A guitar (hmmmm .... looks like one of those cheap, acoustic jobbies) .... a clinic (sub terranean jobbie with less than adequaute ventilation) .... and John Belushi!

WTF does it mean!!!???!!! Feckin afraid to fall asleep I am.

FFS....just when I'm about to sign off for the day, think about getting some sleep. Now I've got the giggles :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

Sky fans should praise that is public, because behind closed doors Froome could have been framed. Now WADA, UCI,... will have to play fair and right, isn'it?

You could be right, Poupou ... you could .... be .... right.

Now that I have you ... maybe you could help me out with this .....

It's a recurring dream I'm having .....

A guitar (hmmmm .... looks like one of those cheap, acoustic jobbies) .... a clinic (sub terranean jobbie with less than adequaute ventilation) .... and John Belushi!

WTF does it mean!!!???!!! Feckin afraid to fall asleep I am.

FFS....just when I'm about to sign off for the day, think about getting some sleep. Now I've got the giggles :lol: :lol: :lol:

What was team sky saying when a few astana youngsters had too much honey?

They were basically ready to castrate the whole team.......

Hipocrisy much?

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Fundamental. I agree.

Sky fans should praise that is public, because behind closed doors Froome could have been framed. Now WADA, UCI,... will have to play fair and right, isn'it?

You could be right, Poupou ... you could .... be .... right.

Now that I have you ... maybe you could help me out with this .....

It's a recurring dream I'm having .....

A guitar (hmmmm .... looks like one of those cheap, acoustic jobbies) .... a clinic (sub terranean jobbie with less than adequaute ventilation) .... and John Belushi!

WTF does it mean!!!???!!! Feckin afraid to fall asleep I am.

FFS....just when I'm about to sign off for the day, think about getting some sleep. Now I've got the giggles :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gotta change that UTC, BB ... just sayin.

Just heading down to bar for family drinks, din dins, backslaps 'n banter.

Ate logo.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

I repeat: why have you not made the same argument for riders who have tested positive for non-specified substances? Do you believe that no positive should be made public until the case is resolved? Of course, that’s not possible if a rider is to be suspended, at least during the season, because then his lack of activity will point to a doping case. But then shouldn’t you be against suspensions for any positive, because it forces the positive to be made public?

Or is your argument only for non-specified substances where the rider doesn’t suspend himself? But why should a rider in that situation be allowed to have his case shielded from the public, whereas a rider testing positive for a non-specified substance should not? The only difference is that there is a greater chance that an AAF for a specified substance will not result in an ADRV, but the odds of that are still well below 50%. Should something as important to justice as the right to a fair trial really come down to percentages?

You seem to be implying that a rider who tests positive for a non-specified substance is prima facie guilty, which strikes me as a more prejudicial position to take than simply to argue that a rider with an AAF for a specified substance should have his case known to the public. As others have pointed out, civil and criminal charges are routinely made public, and generally the trials themselves, or portions of them, are public. Leaking of evidence? Ar you serious? Long before the trial, lots of details of the crime generally emerge (good grief, consider the Pistorius case; by comparison, details of Froome's case have been blacked out from the media). I don’t see by what logic a rider testing positive for some substance deserves more protection from public scrutiny than someone on trial for his or her life.

“There is a lot of misinformation out there,” Froome continued,” and there’s also a lot of opinions of people who don’t quite fully understand the process.

“I believe that when all the facts are out there people will see it from my point of view.”

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/chris-froome-theres-a-lot-of-misinformation-when-the-facts-are-out-people-will-see-things-from-my-point-of-view-369134#ZjXToUGpGMFTy8Ib.99

The obvious cure for this is to put the facts out. No rule that says he can't. He might begin by specifying what he means by "my point of view".

 

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

I ... don't ... think .... so.

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

Are you still going with this?

Nothing has been released other than what he has been charged with. Froome is at no disadvantage and has equal time as the UCI and all the time that is reasonable to present his defence against his psotive test. It’s really simple and straight forward and very fair. Froome is racing and in the sport until his case is heard. How can you be upset with the proceedings considering he’s tested positive?

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Some do themselves no favours in using 'labels' to describe a posters opinion - I've said it before and I'll say it again - It's extremely disappointing that the Froome news has been made public when this type of case should remain private until an athlete has been found guilty.

Fundamental. I agree.

Sky fans should praise that is public, because behind closed doors Froome could have been framed. Now WADA, UCI,... will have to play fair and right, isn'it?

Eh no, we should only know about it when he’s been issued with a doping charge, many riders have faced the same thing froome has and we don’t hear about it yet some are going bonkers because we have private information on froome and we don’t have it on these other athletes


Double standards indeed

 

[Random Direction]

Yes, many riders have hit 2000 on Salbutamol and had their case swept under the carpet.

False equivalency. The others were likely below 1000 and in the safe range. The difference here was the attempt to sweep things under the carpet.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Criminal or not, you are still releasing evidence that should not be released and the reasons for not, be it anti-doping or criminal justice is the same, because by doing so you are weakening the premise for the very reason anti-doping exists in the first place, and that is to protect innocent athletes from those cheating and allow them to still maintain their public reputation in the worst situation of them being incorrectly sanctioned either for real, or in the eyes of the public who cannot and will not be able to make rational judgement or at best doubtful they ever would understand the process enough anyway to form one or reverse it even when that athlete is found innocent after such a leak. Forget Froome, this is a wider anti-doping issue than Froome. Even if the leak exposes Froome as a cheat it still weakens the anti-doping process for innocent athletes.

I repeat: why have you not made the same argument for riders who have tested positive for non-specified substances? Do you believe that no positive should be made public until the case is resolved? Of course, that’s not possible if a rider is to be suspended, at least during the season, because then his lack of activity will point to a doping case. But then shouldn’t you be against suspensions for any positive, because it forces the positive to be made public?

Or is your argument only for non-specified substances where the rider doesn’t suspend himself? But why should a rider in that situation be allowed to have his case shielded from the public, whereas a rider testing positive for a non-specified substance should not? The only difference is that there is a greater chance that an AAF for a specified substance will not result in an ADRV, but the odds of that are still well below 50%. Should something as important to justice as the right to a fair trial really come down to percentages?

You seem to be implying that a rider who tests positive for a non-specified substance is prima facie guilty, which strikes me as a more prejudicial position to take than simply to argue that a rider with an AAF for a specified substance should have his case known to the public. As others have pointed out, civil and criminal charges are routinely made public, and generally the trials themselves, or portions of them, are public. Long before the trial, lots of details of the crime generally emerge (good grief, consider the Pistorius case; by comparison, details of Froome's case have been blacked out from the media). I don’t see by what logic a rider testing positive for some substance deserves more protection from public scrutiny than someone on trial for his or her life.

“There is a lot of misinformation out there,” Froome continued,” and there’s also a lot of opinions of people who don’t quite fully understand the process.

“I believe that when all the facts are out there people will see it from my point of view.”

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/chris-froome-theres-a-lot-of-misinformation-when-the-facts-are-out-people-will-see-things-from-my-point-of-view-369134#ZjXToUGpGMFTy8Ib.99

The obvious cure for this is to put the facts out. No rule that says he can't. He might begin by specifying what he means by "my point of view".

Cat's cradle, MI. Tranquilo.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

many riders have faced the same thing froome has and we don’t hear about it

Like Taxus, you're making a sweeping claim with no evidence to back it up. Here are some relevant facts:

According to the 2015 ADRV Report, there were 111 AAFs for road cycling, of which 61 resulted in ADRVs. However, 29 of the AAFs were dismissed for medical reasons (TUE) and another 9 had no case to answer. These actions occur at the results management stage, which means that the case would probably be dismissed before an announcement of a positive, certainly long before the time at which Froome's case was leaked. Another 8 cases were pending at the time, leaving a total of 65 AAFs which proceeded beyond the results management stage and for which the results were known. So 61/65 = 94% of all the AAFs in cases that had proceeded as far as Froome's' had by December resulted in a sanction. Only four cases did not.

What about the eight pending cases? Four of them can be identified as cases listed at the Tribunal’s website, in which the rider tested positive some time in 2015, but the case was not resolved with a sanction until the following year (or in one case, until 2017). That leaves four other riders we don’t know about. However, these could have been cases that resulted in a sanction without going to the Tribunal. The typical length of time between a positive and when the case goes to the Tribunal is at least five months, so one would expect any cases beginning relatively late in the season (say, August or September) would not be resolved until the following year, even in the absence of the Tribunal step. In fact, in four of those five Tribunal cases that were pending at the end of 2015, two of which began with a positive in July, LADS had not yet called for the case to go to the Tribunal. Another way to look at it is that 94% of AAFs resulted in a sanction, so the odds are that all four pending cases did, too.

So in 2015 there were likely, at most, four cyclists with AAFs about which we might never have heard. This is assuming none of the four was suspended by his team or by himself. Actually, it's also assuming they weren't suspended by the rules, because we don't know how many of those AAFs, if any, were for non-specified substances. Riders do occasionally get exonerated in cases involving those. But in any case, only 3% of all AAFs for all sports were for beta2-agonists, and only about 14% of these, or < 0.5% of all AAFs, were for salbutamol. Since pro cycling is an endurance sport, and is known to have a relatively high proportion of riders with asthma, it’s highly likely that the % of AAFs involving beta2-agonsts and salbutamol would be higher for this group. But even if it were, say, 50%, that would represent just two riders, and again, we don’t know if these riders were suspended or not.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2015_adrvs_report_web_release_0.pdf

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2015_wada_anti-doping_testing_figures_report_0.pdf