All About Salbutamol

[mrhender]

Yes agreed. If in 200'000 tests in 2016 they found 15 cases of level above 1200 then the alarmingly high chance seems like horse manure.

 

[pastronef]

from cyclingnews

Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

 

[hazaran]

Yes, no one can look at this

and suggest there is a variance problem at all :lol: And this is with the ridiculous axis scale choice squishing the data.

You can't be serious. Even correction for USG did nothing to account for the variance. It's obvious there are huge unknown principal components here. Instead of collecting more data, WADA took a quick swipe and set the limit for the suspiciously round number 1000. And guess what, they just admitted it wasn't good enough.

 

[CTQ]

Re:

Oh, what this smells funny -
Dateline - 7 September 2017 Froome gives sample at Vuelta with high Salbutamol level
15 November 2017 WADA writes technical document about "Measurement Uncertainty"
3 May 2018 Heuberger report "Futility of current urine salbutamol doping control" (who paid for this study?)
2 July 2018 UCI closes Froome's case

but he only knew it on the 20th of September, was it possible to study and decide on these changes in two months?

 

[Merckx index]

You can't be serious. Even correction for USG did nothing to account for the variance. It's obvious there are huge unknown principal components here. Instead of collecting more data, WADA took a quick swipe and set the limit for the suspiciously round number 1000. And guess what, they just admitted it wasn't good enough.

One sample above 1000 out of dozens of data points in that study, and that one sample was corrected for dilute urine. Do you understand that? That means the subject would have gotten off, because he would have been allowed to use the uncorrected value. If you look at the data, that sample's USG was clearly an outlier.

For the umpteenth time, there are nearly 200 relevant samples from the literature, only a few are > 1000, and none that would count--corrected for concentrated urine--is as high as 1400.

Notice also the 30-60 min samples, 15% of which Heuberger's model predicts would be > 1000. Nada. At the same with other studies. I've discussed this in detail before.

 

[hazaran]

You haven't read closely. I don't care for the point over the decision limit. That decision limit means nothing unless you want to suggest our kidneys are aware of it. I'm saying there is huge intra- and inter-individual variance that doesn't go away even when you take correction for USG into your regression.

Show me the study that has identified the parameters that can make the variance go away. This is a very basic regression problem - unless you don't have the data to do it. And if you don't, the only conclusion is "you are missing something".

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

You haven't read closely. I don't care for the point over the decision limit. That decision limit means nothing unless you want to suggest our kidneys are aware of it. I'm saying there is huge intra- and inter-individual variance that doesn't go away even when you take correction for USG into your regression.

Show me the study that has identified the parameters that can make the variance go away. This is a very basic regression problem - unless you don't have the data to do it. And if you don't, the only conclusion is "you are missing something".

Of course there is variance. The question is whether the variance is large enough to account for a value as high as Froome's with significant probability. And the answer is no. Of course there is some probability, but it's very low. A large scatter all below 1000 doesn't make that point. And this kind of study maximizes the amount of salbutamol in the urine, and hence the variation in the amount, by taking samples soon after inhalation.

Again, there are multiple studies, you can do a meta-analysis. Instead of a dozen or so points, there will be several dozen, all below 1000. You can calculate a SD from that, and from there estimate the probability of a much higher value. A little crude, but better than simply pointing to a graph and saying, look at all the variation.

FWIW, it appears that WADA and Froome agree with me. If they didn't, they wouldn't have gone to this alleged model involving inhaling every day in a three week stage race. If the variation in studies of the kind you refer to made the point, they would have rested their case on that. While Rabin conceded they are looking into whether the threshold is fair, he said he believes it is. The kind of variation you point out has been known for years, and it hasn't been considered a problem.

Finally, just to be clear, the USG correction is not made to reduce variance. It's made because it's considered a more accurate indicator of the amount inhaled. Not correcting for USG may result in more variance, but not necessarily so.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Salbutamol isn't suddenly an option for everyone, just those with money and legal resources. What a farce.

Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic?

My take on this is that now they won't be able to enforce the Salbutamol regulation against anyone until they have redrafted it with the benefit of the lessons of the Froome case. There seems to be an intention to attend to it. We don't know how that will turn out, of course.

I've moderated my view in the last 24 hours.

You'll still need money and legal resources but the precedent has made it far easier, so much so that for those with the resources getting off an AAF for salbutamol should be routine. But for the amateur or poorly paid "pro" (e.g. women), they'll still get done. The next AAF for salbutamol will be interesting.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Salbutamol isn't suddenly an option for everyone, just those with money and legal resources. What a farce.

My take on this is that now they won't be able to enforce the Salbutamol regulation against anyone until they have redrafted it with the benefit of the lessons of the Froome case. There seems to be an intention to attend to it. We don't know how that will turn out, of course.

Why would they redraft the scale? Froome already blew the scale to bits. You can't score higher than him.

 

[Merckx index]

More from Rabin:

"The very unique situation in this case is that there was an increase of the dose in the preceding couple of days before the sample was taken on September 7. It's well documented that he was not feeling very well, that he had infection and exacerbation of his asthma. There were some claims that some of his diet and dietary supplements, and some of the medicines he took to treat his infection, could have also interacted with salbutamol.

"In the end the controlled pharmacokinetic study would not have been practical, not to say impossible, that was obvious. You cannot reproduce a lung infection and also mimic all the physical efforts required from an athlete during the Vuelta.

I’ll leave to others to point out the irony of someone with a serious lung infection demolishing his rivals on the stage. This seems to me to be a catch-22. If you’re taking a lot of salbutamol, so much that you exceed the limit, then presumably you have serious symptoms, which you’re never going to be able to reproduce in a controlled study. So this is like a get-out-of-jail-free card. By definition, the scenario that enhances the probability of exceeding the limit is one that can’t and therefore doesn’t have to be reproduced in the lab.

In fact, Rabin implies that even if Froome had been healthy, it would not have been possible to reproduce the physiological effects of riding a Grand Tour. Which means again anything that might push a rider over the limit is not going to be required to be proven by a test. Unless you’re Ulissi, of course.

The handiwork of the lawyers is all over this. You can always argue that conditions on the road can’t be mimicked in the lab. So why have the lab test? Because there have been enough studies of salbutamol under conditions of exercise to show that riding hard probably does not affect the levels that much. Remember, we’re talking about reproducing a very high urinary level. If Froome or some other rider can’t even get close to that in the lab, then it’s quite unlikely that the huge difference would be accounted for by a lung infection (for which there is no evidence AFAIK that it affects salbutamol levels, anyway) or by riding hard for three weeks.

We considered the evidence to be scientifically good enough so that there was enough doubt that these could have affected the secretion of salbutamol."

What evidence? The Heuberger model? The alleged model that shows riding a GT increases the probability of exceeding the limit? What about empirical evidence? The empirical evidence doesn’t support the Heuberger model. There is no empirical evidence I’m aware of that supports the other, alleged model. I don’t see how there could be. Even if most AAFs resulted from GTs—and that doesn’t seem to be the case, some are, but many are not—there are other factors that might explain the correlation. The other stuff, like diet and supplements, is pure hand-waving, of the kind that has been routinely dismissed in previous cases. There could be a DDI, drug-drug interaction--as I've posted before, I would take that seriously--but if that were considered a significant factor, I would have expected Rabin to emphasize it.

I hope this isn’t the last we hear from Rabin or the UCI. When he says there is evidence good enough to suggest these factors affected salbutamol levels, I hope he doesn’t just mean, they might have, it’s plausible, can't be sure they didn't. I hope they have numbers to back up these claims. But I have serious doubts that they do, because in doping cases the athlete is supposed to show that he didn’t exceed some limit, not that he might not have, or that the evidence isn’t good enough to be sure that he did. The language Rabin is using, the way he’s describing the decision-making process, doesn’t seem consistent with this.

[Rabin] also dismissed calls for athletes with specific substances cases to be provisionally suspended until a verdict, revealing that WADA annually deals with between 10-20 salbutamol cases, with most linked to Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

This is consistent with what the Danish rsearcher claimed, but it also indicates that most of those salbutamol AAFs that aren’t publicized are dismissed via TUE, not by an explanation of the high level. So when Rabin says other cases have been like Froome’s, he’s not talking about very many, as I thought all along. Now if you consider the number of salbutamol ADRVs per year, it looks as though such cases are pretty rare. But again, Rabin ought to provide some numbers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-deny-giving-chris-froome-a-legal-loophole-by-avoiding-pharmacokinetic-study/

 

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

Salbutamol isn't suddenly an option for everyone, just those with money and legal resources. What a farce.

Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic?

I've moderated my view in the last 24 hours.

You'll still need money and legal resources but the precedent has made it far easier, so much so that for those with the resources getting off an AAF for salbutamol should be routine. But for the amateur or poorly paid "pro" (e.g. women), they'll still get done. The next AAF for salbutamol will be interesting.

Ah, yes, more on the serious side. It's a pretty smelly decision and it backs up the cliche that lawyers always win. I'm not entirely sure how "variation" was proven wrt Froome's samples throughout the Vuelta, as that would (I think) require a known amount of dosing each day, which would be pretty easy to BS. And waving the study because of the "unique" circumstances is entirely garbage, as racing itself, even in one day, is unique. So WADA has really opened itself up to legal attack on pretty much anything salbutamol. I guess if you blow 3000 or 4000 it might stick. Or, as you say, if you lack resources.

Really disappointed in the dance of this decision. Glad my kids are not pro athletes.

 

[aphronesis]

More from Rabin:

"The very unique situation in this case is that there was an increase of the dose in the preceding couple of days before the sample was taken on September 7. It's well documented that he was not feeling very well, that he had infection and exacerbation of his asthma. There were some claims that some of his diet and dietary supplements, and some of the medicines he took to treat his infection, could have also interacted with salbutamol.

"In the end the controlled pharmacokinetic study would not have been practical, not to say impossible, that was obvious. You cannot reproduce a lung infection and also mimic all the physical efforts required from an athlete during the Vuelta.

I’ll leave to others to point out the irony of someone with a serious lung infection demolishing his rivals on the stage. This seems to me to be a catch-22. If you’re taking a lot of salbutamol, so much that you exceed the limit, then presumably you have serious symptoms, which you’re never going to be able to reproduce in a controlled study. So this is like a get-out-of-jail-free card. By definition, the scenario that enhances the probability of exceeding the limit is one that can’t and therefore doesn’t have to be reproduced in the lab.

In fact, Rabin implies that even if Froome had been healthy, it would not have been possible to reproduce the physiological effects of riding a Grand Tour. Which means again anything that might push a rider over the limit is not going to be required to be proven by a test. Unless you’re Ulissi, of course.

The handiwork of the lawyers is all over this. You can always argue that conditions on the road can’t be mimicked in the lab. So why have the lab test? Because there have been enough studies of salbutamol under conditions of exercise to show that riding hard probably does not affect the levels that much. Remember, we’re talking about reproducing a very high urinary level. If Froome or some other rider can’t even get close to that in the lab, then it’s quite unlikely that the huge difference would be accounted for by a lung infection (for which there is no evidence AFAIK that it affects salbutamol levels, anyway) or by riding hard for three weeks.

We considered the evidence to be scientifically good enough so that there was enough doubt that these could have affected the secretion of salbutamol."

What evidence? The Heuberger model? The alleged model that shows riding a GT increases the probability of exceeding the limit? What about empirical evidence? The empirical evidence doesn’t support the Heuberger model. There is no empirical evidence I’m aware of that supports the other, alleged model. I don’t see how there could be. Even if most AAFs resulted from GTs—and that doesn’t seem to be the case, some are, but many are not—there are other factors that might explain the correlation. The other stuff, like diet and supplements, is pure hand-waving, of the kind that has been routinely dismissed in previous cases. There could be a DDI, drug-drug interaction--as I've posted before, I would take that seriously--but if that were considered a significant factor, I would have expected Rabin to emphasize it.

I hope this isn’t the last we hear from Rabin or the UCI. When he says there is evidence good enough to suggest these factors affected salbutamol levels, I hope he doesn’t just mean, they might have, it’s plausible, can't be sure they didn't. I hope they have numbers to back up these claims. But I have serious doubts that they do, because in doping cases the athlete is supposed to show that he didn’t exceed some limit, not that he might not have, or that the evidence isn’t good enough to be sure that he did. The language Rabin is using, the way he’s describing the decision-making process, doesn’t seem consistent with this.

[Rabin] also dismissed calls for athletes with specific substances cases to be provisionally suspended until a verdict, revealing that WADA annually deals with between 10-20 salbutamol cases, with most linked to Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

This is consistent with what the Danish rsearcher claimed, but it also indicates that most of those salbutamol AAFs that aren’t publicized are dismissed via TUE, not by an explanation of the high level. So when Rabin says other cases have been like Froome’s, he’s not talking about very many, as I thought all along. Now if you consider the number of salbutamol ADRVs per year, it looks as though such cases are pretty rare. But again, Rabin ought to provide some numbers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-deny-giving-chris-froome-a-legal-loophole-by-avoiding-pharmacokinetic-study/

I admire the persistence and knowledge you bring to situations like this, but similarly have little use for analogies.

Life and cycling aren’t coin flips (and I’ve played with those since 5-6 so I’m not being randomly argumentative.)You don’t know the full nature of the “flips”; how many there were; or how many were controlled (or controlled for.) You’re trying to outhink this with lab constraints and it’s not in a lab.

 

[Franklin]

Life and cycling aren’t coin flips (and I’ve played with those since 5-6 so I’m not being randomly argumentative.)You don’t know the full nature of the “flips”; how many there were; or how many were controlled (or controlled for.) You’re trying to outhink this with lab constraints and it’s not in a lab.

That does not fly.

Explaining a positive with a ton of maybe/perhaps/coin flips invalidates EVERY infraction, as the limits are indeed determined in the lab.

Landis? It could have been whiskey. Because who ever lab tested a pro athlete in a three week GT drinking a shot of whiskey?

Contador? Clenbuterol is being used in cattle and European regulations are far from watertight.

By dismissing the lab results and opening the door for outlandish explanations their will be huge trouble for stopping a serious attempt to discredit a positive. Because if you nullify the lab research the whole foundation is out of the window.

Also, in this case, the list of "coin flips"is quite worrisome. Lung infection (first time that claim surfaced...), sustained high dosaging with one outlier... how is this even remotely plausible with his performance?

I have Asthma and I certainly believe he could do very well (I was a beast when I was younger, Asthma wasn't an issue with cycling). There's Asthma and there's Asthma. But the situation that is being described is that of someone who not only really, really suffers from heavy Asthma attacks, now he also was suffering a lung infection?

What Coin Flip makes someone who suffers a lung infection combined with heavy Asthma attacks a contender? It's absurd.

 

[aphronesis]

You should calm down and repost brother. You’re not in the park. Waving flagged examples as statistical proof won’t get you far. No one nullified anything. Have a reread.

Take some deep breaths and get your irony to speed.

 

[Franklin]

The Wada just nullified their own testing protocol.

I love how you claim I'm hyperventilating and that it's all fine. Considering the time I have been following cycling I'm actually yawning about this.. and the ït's fine"attitude is funnily remniscent of the Lance days. It's not fine, but it's not surprising.

 

[samhocking]

They haven't nullified their own protocol. Rabin has publicly said nothing unique about Froome, only the circumstances of Froome are and mean his AAF is nullified. He's also said publicly no rules will be changed in light of Froome and the rules work. He also confirms other cases similar to Froome happen and WADA don't fear this opens the door to anything new from other athletes.
Again, if you want to keep your sweets at school, you don't tell everyone you have sweets, you keep them silently in your pocket, the same would be true for WADA & UCI's AAF for Froome if they wanted to protect Froome/themselves. Sometimes we have to accept the combined experience of probably 100's of years anti-doping science and at least 45 years within IOC/WADA's committees deciding Salbutomol cases each year, simply know much more than people on Social Media etc.

 

[The Hegelian]

Life and cycling aren’t coin flips (and I’ve played with those since 5-6 so I’m not being randomly argumentative.)You don’t know the full nature of the “flips”; how many there were; or how many were controlled (or controlled for.) You’re trying to outhink this with lab constraints and it’s not in a lab.

That does not fly.

Explaining a positive with a ton of maybe/perhaps/coin flips invalidates EVERY infraction, as the limits are indeed determined in the lab.

Landis? It could have been whiskey. Because who ever lab tested a pro athlete in a three week GT drinking a shot of whiskey?

Contador? Clenbuterol is being used in cattle and European regulations are far from watertight.

By dismissing the lab results and opening the door for outlandish explanations their will be huge trouble for stopping a serious attempt to discredit a positive. Because if you nullify the lab research the whole foundation is out of the window.

Also, in this case, the list of "coin flips"is quite worrisome. Lung infection (first time that claim surfaced...), sustained high dosaging with one outlier... how is this even remotely plausible with his performance?

I have Asthma and I certainly believe he could do very well (I was a beast when I was younger, Asthma wasn't an issue with cycling). There's Asthma and there's Asthma. But the situation that is being described is that of someone who not only really, really suffers from heavy Asthma attacks, now he also was suffering a lung infection?

What Coin Flip makes someone who suffers a lung infection combined with heavy Asthma attacks a contender? It's absurd.

The absurdity is that not only was he contending under those conditions, he actually won the Vuelta with that "lung infection." i.e. his performance clearly improved, not worsened at the precise time as his aaf. I'm not sure why this is not more discussed. The high number comes just at the time when he turns a loss into a gain (on Nibali).

 

[samhocking]

I think some are confusing the relationships going on in this case. The asthma Froome experienced was being caused by the chest infection. This is a problem not unique to Froome but all athletes with asthma in endurance sport. For the man on the street with asthma, the chest infection triggering his asthma isn't so much of an issue because he takes steroids to prevent his asthma getting out of medical control and doesn't need to depend on Salbutomol at high levels at all, because the steroids prevent the asthma attacks until the antibiotics remove the infection.
Athletes however, cannot medically control their asthma caused by chest infections legally in competition because they can't take steroids (unless they use a TUE), so their asthma is out of medical control unless they take the TUE route of steroid prevention. So, as we now know Froome is against TUE use now since he previously used steroids for this very situation in the past, all they can do is increase dependence on salbutomol to relieve asthma symptoms caused by the infection.
As long as the chest infection isn't interrupting oxygen getting into his blood vessels, which would have to be extremeely bad, I don't think having the chest infection and asthma is that much of an issue, other than it will be controlled with more salbutomol than if you used steroids as would be the medical advice in Froomes situation on the street.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I think some are confusing the relationships going on in this case. The asthma Froome experienced was being caused by the chest infection. This is a problem not unique to Froome but all athletes with asthma in endurance sport. For the man on the street with asthma, the chest infection triggering his asthma isn't so much of an issue because he takes steroids to prevent his asthma getting out of medical control and doesn't need to depend on Salbutomol at high levels at all, because the steroids prevent the asthma attacks until the antibiotics remove the infection.
Athletes however, cannot medically control their asthma caused by chest infections legally in competition because they can't take steroids (unless they use a TUE), so their asthma is out of medical control unless they take the TUE route of steroid prevention. So, as we now know Froome is against TUE use now since he previously used steroids for this very situation in the past, all they can do is increase dependence on salbutomol to relieve asthma symptoms caused by the infection.
As long as the chest infection isn't interrupting oxygen getting into his blood vessels, which would have to be extremeely bad, I don't think having the chest infection and asthma is that much of an issue, other than it will be controlled with more salbutomol than if you used steroids as would be the medical advice in Froomes situation on the street.

there's none so blind as those who will not see.................. :lol:

 

[gillan1969]

Life and cycling aren’t coin flips (and I’ve played with those since 5-6 so I’m not being randomly argumentative.)You don’t know the full nature of the “flips”; how many there were; or how many were controlled (or controlled for.) You’re trying to outhink this with lab constraints and it’s not in a lab.

That does not fly.

Explaining a positive with a ton of maybe/perhaps/coin flips invalidates EVERY infraction, as the limits are indeed determined in the lab.

Landis? It could have been whiskey. Because who ever lab tested a pro athlete in a three week GT drinking a shot of whiskey?

Contador? Clenbuterol is being used in cattle and European regulations are far from watertight.

By dismissing the lab results and opening the door for outlandish explanations their will be huge trouble for stopping a serious attempt to discredit a positive. Because if you nullify the lab research the whole foundation is out of the window.

Also, in this case, the list of "coin flips"is quite worrisome. Lung infection (first time that claim surfaced...), sustained high dosaging with one outlier... how is this even remotely plausible with his performance?

I have Asthma and I certainly believe he could do very well (I was a beast when I was younger, Asthma wasn't an issue with cycling). There's Asthma and there's Asthma. But the situation that is being described is that of someone who not only really, really suffers from heavy Asthma attacks, now he also was suffering a lung infection?

What Coin Flip makes someone who suffers a lung infection combined with heavy Asthma attacks a contender? It's absurd.

The absurdity is that not only was he contending under those conditions, he actually won the Vuelta with that "lung infection." i.e. his performance clearly improved, not worsened at the precise time as his aaf. I'm not sure why this is not more discussed. The high number comes just at the time when he turns a loss into a gain (on Nibali).

the sicker he gets...the faster he goes.....

 

[gillan1969]

Sam

what you're saying, in effect, is that at the very limits of human physiology i.e. the pointy end of a mountain stage in the third week of a GT, having chronic asthma and a chest infection actually helps......

exercise physiologists take note

 

[samhocking]

Not helps, no. But plenty of bike races have been won by ill riders.

Anyway if Ken Fitch, the guy that invented the rules on Salbutomol is all made up in Times this morning below, I will gladly remove myself from Social Media and you guys can continue the conspiracy lol!

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Not helps, no. But plenty of bike races have been won by ill riders.

Anyway if Ken Fitch, the guy that invented the rules on Salbutomol is all made up in Times this morning below, I will gladly remove myself from Social Media and you guys can continue the conspiracy lol!

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

it helped him...he improved...

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Not helps, no. But plenty of bike races have been won by ill riders.

Anyway if Ken Fitch, the guy that invented the rules on Salbutomol is all made up in Times this morning below, I will gladly remove myself from Social Media and you guys can continue the conspiracy lol!

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

interesting re the prof and his intervention.....and new to the table....

however...

if a guy goes through the speed cameras in a 30 zone at 50 and argues that the basis of the camera set up is wrong...he was still doing 50

he may walk and the camera set up may change...but 50 is 50...or 2000 is 2000

 

[gillan1969]

so do we know how dehydrated froome was?