All About Salbutamol

[samhocking]

In the 90's was when Fitch brought in the threshold rules for IOC used today by WADA. In swimming the chlorine is what exacerbates asthma just like dry cold air does in Grand tours over mountains. Depends if cross-country skiing was IOC in 90s I guess, they might not have been.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Overall he still won despite being ill. A GT is 3 weeks. Are you saying Doumilin never loses time when he's well? This is a bike race, not 1+1=2.

Futile deflection. Nobody claimed that, but deflect is the only resort you have as you realize that your examples fail as those people actually started loosing time even when hanging by a hair, which is different from taking back time. Facts suck don't they Sam? Hard arguing when everyone can read the articles of Dumoulin being crushed by Nibles on the queen stage.

So again, why is Froome the only example of someone gaining time when ill? You had MANY examples remember?

 

[gillan1969]

@brownbobby...we agree

however...if he's an idiot going though my village at that speed with kids and cats about then I can still call him out.....

now...about our hapless hero.....

 

[samhocking]

Salbutomol Rules

1972 - IOC - Prohibited
1975 - IOC - Prohibited without prior notification
1986 - IOC - Permitted without restriction
1993 - IOC - Permitted with notification introduced
1997 - IOC - 1600 μg inhaled in 24 hours limit established (This is what Ken Fitch is talking about)
2000 - IOC - Maximum urinary concentration(threshold) of 1000 ng/mL established
2001 - IOC - TUE Required established
2004 - IOC - Prior abbreviated therapeutic use exemption (ATUE) had to be submitted. No stated maximum dose; if urinary concentration > 1000 ng/mL athlete must demonstrate was due to necessary therapy
2009 - WADA - Prohibited without TUE. Pharmokenetic study replaced need for athletye to demonstrate therapy use
2010 - WADA - Now permitted with declaration of use on doping control form. Maximum dose of 1600 μg in 24 hours reintroduced and added as a guide for the pharmacokinetic study
2011 - WADA - Unchanged except that declaration of use was now omitted
2017 - WADA - Inhale d salbutamol: maximum 1600 μg over 24 hours; not to exceed 800 μg every 12 hours

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Overall he still won despite being ill. A GT is 3 weeks. Are you saying Doumilin never loses time when he's well? This is a bike race, not 1+1=2.

Futile deflection. Nobody claimed that, but deflect is the only resort you have as you realize that your examples fail as those people actually started loosing time even when hanging by a hair, which is different from taking back time. Facts suck don't they Sam? Hard arguing when everyone can read the articles of Dumoulin being crushed by Nibles on the queen stage.

So again, why is Froome the only example of someone gaining time when ill? You had MANY examples remember?

You're the one now breaking this down into 1 day. I was talking bike races. I should have said Grand Tours and overall riders who are ill, becoming ill, already ill have won Grand Tours. Doumilin last year in Giro was simply most recent GT winner I can think of who was ill. If it makes you feel better I can name Froome & Wiggins who both quit a Giro & Tour ill if that helps?

 

[samhocking]

Nibali reveals illness before mountain time trial at Giro d'Italia

2016 Final General Classification
ITA 1 NIBALI, Vincenzo (ASTANA) 86:32:49
COL 2 CHAVES RUBIO, Johan Esteban (ORICA GreenEDGE) + 52
ESP 3 VALVERDE BELMONTE, Alejandro (MOVISTAR) + 1:17

 

[brownbobby]

@brownbobby...we agree

however...if he's an idiot going though my village at that speed with kids and cats about then I can still call him out.....

now...about our hapless hero.....

You're on an analogy roll now...you've got no argument from me on that one

 

[Merckx index]

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.

You miss the point. Froome’s defense, according to what’s come out so far, is based on simulation models, not empirical data. Until/unless UCI releases more details, these models are mostly what we have to go one. These are very definitely like coin flips, the main difference being that probabilities are not 50-50, but some other %. So Froome's defense are the ones introducing coin flips into the discussion. I’m just following their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Beyond that, though, a coin flip is not a bad way to look at most of the empirical data. There is a spread of values for urinary concentrations for different subjects or for one subject over time (though the latter hasn't been studied much), given a fixed dose a fixed time before sample. This spread appears to be random; certainly there is no evidence for anything else. So standard statistics for random samples can be used to predict how likely a value above a certain level is. Anyone who wants to challenge that notion has to produce empirical data refuting it.

Wrt Fitch, I've discussed his work many times on this thread. I’ve read his stuff. Yes, he campaigned for the USG correction many years ago, it's all in one of his papers that was discussed early in his thread, and I have no problem with that, his arguments were good. But when he talks about variation such that riders can exceed the threshold/limit while taking no more than the allowed amount, he can’t back it up. I’ve looked at the work he cites. It doesn’t support his claims--not for 800 ug, and not for Froome's level. Again, it's all been discussed upthread.

What might be conceded from this work, and from Heuberger's model is that if one takes the full 800 ug an hour or two before providing a urine sample, there could be a problem with occasional levels above 1200 ng/ml. Yet as has been discussed above, vary rarely do we see such levels. Why? Because riders would almost never take that much salbutamol in a short period of time right before providing a sample. It's possible but not realistic. Froome's defense is clearly based on his claim that he did, and even then he still needs other arguments to get up to 1400.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

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.

You miss the point. Froome’s defense, according to what’s come out so far, is based on simulation models, not empirical data. Until/unless UCI releases more details, these models are mostly what we have to go one. These are very definitely like coin flips, the main difference being that probabilities are not 50-50, but some other %. So Froome's defense are the ones introducing coin flips into the discussion. I’m just following their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Beyond that, though, a coin flip is not a bad way to look at most of the empirical data. There is a spread of values for urinary concentrations for different subjects or for one subject over time (though the latter hasn't been studied much), given a fixed dose a fixed time before sample. This spread appears to be random; certainly there is no evidence for anything else. So standard statistics for random samples can be used to predict how likely a value above a certain level is. Anyone who wants to challenge that notion has to produce empirical data refuting it.

Wrt Fitch, I've discussed his work many times on this thread. I’ve read his stuff. Yes, he campaigned for the USG correction many years ago, it's all in one of his papers that was discussed early in his thread, and I have no problem with that, his arguments were good. But when he talks about variation such that riders can exceed the threshold/limit while taking more than the allowed amount, he can’t back it up. I’ve looked at the work he cites. It doesn’t support his claims. Again, it's all been discussed upthread.

Is it not that WADA see these athletes with variations and are not found guilty of AAF suggesting internally WADA at least know there are variation issues?
My opinion is you have a threshold based on what an illegal amount of salbutomol looks like, when you really need to base it on what all levels of salbutomol might look like over a 3 week period at various dehydration and then decide what the inhalation and threshold limit needs to be set at based on that data of known inhalation amount. From what I can tell the way it works at the moment, is it will reliably only find non-theraputic use of Salbutomol but theraputic use is possible to false positive given certain circumstances and I assume the reason for the AAF not resulting in immediate suspension?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

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.

You miss the point. Froome’s defense, according to what’s come out so far, is based on simulation models, not empirical data. Until/unless UCI releases more details, these models are mostly what we have to go one. These are very definitely like coin flips, the main difference being that probabilities are not 50-50, but some other %. So Froome's defense are the ones introducing coin flips into the discussion. I’m just following their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Beyond that, though, a coin flip is not a bad way to look at most of the empirical data. There is a spread of values for urinary concentrations for different subjects or for one subject over time (though the latter hasn't been studied much), given a fixed dose a fixed time before sample. This spread appears to be random; certainly there is no evidence for anything else. So standard statistics for random samples can be used to predict how likely a value above a certain level is. Anyone who wants to challenge that notion has to produce empirical data refuting it.

Wrt Fitch, I've discussed his work many times on this thread. I’ve read his stuff. Yes, he campaigned for the USG correction many years ago, it's all in one of his papers that was discussed early in his thread, and I have no problem with that, his arguments were good. But when he talks about variation such that riders can exceed the threshold/limit while taking no more than the allowed amount, he can’t back it up. I’ve looked at the work he cites. It doesn’t support his claims--not for 800 ug, and not for Froome's level. Again, it's all been discussed upthread.

MI...apologies for using your analytical strengths...

do we know froome's dehydration level? and is it fed into the model based on the actual concentration of urine collected...or estimated from the model?

if estimated, what do we know about dehydration at those levels and performance? and if measured should we rewrite the perceived notion of dehydration reducing performance levels?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.

You miss the point. Froome’s defense, according to what’s come out so far, is based on simulation models, not empirical data. Until/unless UCI releases more details, these models are mostly what we have to go one. These are very definitely like coin flips, the main difference being that probabilities are not 50-50, but some other %. So Froome's defense are the ones introducing coin flips into the discussion. I’m just following their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Beyond that, though, a coin flip is not a bad way to look at most of the empirical data. There is a spread of values for urinary concentrations for different subjects or for one subject over time (though the latter hasn't been studied much), given a fixed dose a fixed time before sample. This spread appears to be random; certainly there is no evidence for anything else. So standard statistics for random samples can be used to predict how likely a value above a certain level is. Anyone who wants to challenge that notion has to produce empirical data refuting it.

Wrt Fitch, I've discussed his work many times on this thread. I’ve read his stuff. Yes, he campaigned for the USG correction many years ago, it's all in one of his papers that was discussed early in his thread, and I have no problem with that, his arguments were good. But when he talks about variation such that riders can exceed the threshold/limit while taking no more than the allowed amount, he can’t back it up. I’ve looked at the work he cites. It doesn’t support his claims--not for 800 ug, and not for Froome's level. Again, it's all been discussed upthread.

MI...apologies for using your analytical strengths...

do we know froome's dehydration level? and is it fed into the model based on the actual concentration of urine collected...or estimated from the model?

if estimated, what do we know about dehydration at those levels and performance? and if measured should we rewrite the perceived notion of dehydration reducing performance levels?

Have you forgotten about the functional dehydration theory

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Is it not that WADA see these athletes with variations and are not guilty of AAF suggesting internally WADA at least know there are variation issues?

I raised that point yesterday, in the wake of a poster's citing a Danish researcher's claim that about 15 salbutamol AAFs occur every year without being public. But then I saw Rabin's statement that most of these are TUEs, which means the riders were allowed to take more than the otherwise allowed amount. So it's still an open question, for those of us who don't have access to the data, how many riders exceed the threshold while claiming to take no more than the allowed amount. Right now, it's looking like no more than 1-2 per year, and as always, the fact that some of them might get off doesn't mean they weren't exceeding the limit. It just means WADA couldn't prove it to the degree felt necessary. Everyone understands that EPO tests, e.g., catch only a small proportion of those actually taking the substance. Why would it be any different with salbutamol?

My opinion is you have a threshold based on what an illegal amount of salbutomol looks like when you really need to base it on what all levels of salbutomol might look like over a 3 week period at various dehydration and then decide what the inhalation and threshold limit needs to be set at based on that data.

Dehydration is already factored in via the USG correction. The effect of three weeks hard riding is all speculative, given there are no data, and only an alleged model. But what we do know is that pretty much all season riders go hard every day during training. If you want to argue that training does not replicate a GT, I'll come back with the fact that most of those three weeks contenders are not riding hard. They're taking it easy during most of the flat or hilly stages, and even in the critical MTF stages, there may be long stretched where they're not being pushed. So while a GT certainly poses unique challenges,I'd say the difference between that and usual training is less than between training and no riding at all.

MI...apologies for using your analytical strengths...

do we know froome's dehydration level? and is it fed into the model based on the actual concentration of urine collected...or estimated from the model?

if estimated, what do we know about dehydration at those levels and performance? and if measured should we rewrite the perceived notion of dehydration reducing performance levels?

His USG was reported as 1.028. We can determine that from the corrected salbutamol level. That is rather high, though not pathologically so. We did have a discussion upthread about dehydration and performance, which as I recall concluded that > 2% dehydration was correlated with performance deficits, while the effect of lesser levels was controversial, with many researchers saying there was an effect, some arguing there wasn’t. But we have no measurement of that for Froome or any other rider.

 

[aphronesis]

@MI, not to belabor it, but I’m not missing the point. Key phrases in your post being “so far” and “empirical dat”, all of which will likely be subject to change, unreliable and largely unknown. Which is why I’m bucking a statistical model.

I’ve followed most (not all) of what you’ve contributed to this and do agree with the last conclusions in your post.

 

[Merckx index]

Lappartient says nothing about releasing the details of the decision, but he does assure everyone that the timing of the announcement was pure coincidence:

“I know that this can be the feeling of many fans and stakeholders of cycling because we had a statement and the day after we have another statement. But, in fact, there is no link between these two facts,” Lappartient said in a video posted on the UCI’s YouTube channel. “We were informed at the UCI by ASO that they have decided to apply article 29 of their regulation and refuse Mr Christopher Froome from their race, but due to the fact that we received a statement from WADA on the 28th we were able to make a decision before the Tour de France but there is no link between the two facts.”

1. If they knew on June 28 that WADA was backing down, why did they have to wait until July 2 to announce their own decision?

2. If, as Rabin says, UCI was sharing the data with WADA the whole month of June, is it really possible that June 28 was the first time UCI had any idea WADA wouldn’t support them? WADA looked at all the data, never said anything till the end of the month, didn’t raise questions or problems, didn’t suggest that maybe the case was strong enough, didn’t say a peep until June 28, then suddenly, with no advance warning and no interest in dialogue or give-and-take, said they were not going to support the case?

We received the documents, the final explanation from Mr Froome on June 4 and in line with this we received the statement from WADA on the June 28. So, we had all the elements to close the case and in between June 28 and July 3, it was a short period of time for the UCI to conclude and follow the statement from WADA. It also showed that the UCI wanted to close the case as soon as possible after the decision from the stakeholders and WADA.

Stakeholders? Who are they? Why would they make this decision?

An international federation such as the UCI has to follow the World Anti-Doping Agency. They are the experts on this and their experts finally decided that this case was not an anti-doping rule violation so we had to follow the decision from the WADA.”

But you didn’t follow WADA when you charged Froome initially and sent a Letter of Consequences, right? You were quite sure you had a solid case against him, right? And you don’t depend on WADA to pursue cases, do you? For example, when the Spanish fed cleared Contador, you didn’t consult with WADA about appealing the decision. You appealed on your own, and only later did WADA join. So it isn’t essential to have WADA support, is it?

So did you, UCI, look at the data and agree with WADA, or did you just follow WADA without making your own decision? WADA are the experts only to the extent that they listen to scientists familiar with the issues. These scientists are as available to UCI as they are to WADA, and in fact, in your own statement on July 2, you referred to having your own experts. Yet you said that you decided to "follow" WADA's position? Did you consult your own experts who advised you that your case wasn’t strong enough? Will any of these experts, or the ones who advised WADA, identify themselves and explain their reasoning?

And what about this alleged model of a three week race? Care to comment on that?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-says-uci-were-not-pressured-by-aso-attempt-to-block-chris-froome-from-tour-de-france/

 

[roundabout]

Re point 1, I think < 2 (probably closer to a bit over 1, actually) business days is a reasonably quick reaction time

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

Lappartient says nothing about releasing the details of the decision, but he does assure everyone that the timing of the announcement was pure coincidence:

“I know that this can be the feeling of many fans and stakeholders of cycling because we had a statement and the day after we have another statement. But, in fact, there is no link between these two facts,” Lappartient said in a video posted on the UCI’s YouTube channel. “We were informed at the UCI by ASO that they have decided to apply article 29 of their regulation and refuse Mr Christopher Froome from their race, but due to the fact that we received a statement from WADA on the 28th we were able to make a decision before the Tour de France but there is no link between the two facts.”

1. If they knew on June 28 that WADA was backing down, why did they have to wait until July 2 to announce their own decision?

2. If, as Rabin says, UCI was sharing the data with WADA the whole month of June, is it really possible that June 28 was the first time UCI had any idea WADA wouldn’t support them? WADA looked at all the data, never said anything till the end of the month, didn’t raise questions or problems, didn’t suggest that maybe the case was strong enough, didn’t say a peep until June 28, then suddenly, with no advance warning and no interest in dialogue or give-and-take, said they were not going to support the case?

We received the documents, the final explanation from Mr Froome on June 4 and in line with this we received the statement from WADA on the June 28. So, we had all the elements to close the case and in between June 28 and July 3, it was a short period of time for the UCI to conclude and follow the statement from WADA. It also showed that the UCI wanted to close the case as soon as possible after the decision from the stakeholders and WADA.

Stakeholders? Who are they? Why would they make this decision?

An international federation such as the UCI has to follow the World Anti-Doping Agency. They are the experts on this and their experts finally decided that this case was not an anti-doping rule violation so we had to follow the decision from the WADA.”

But you didn’t follow WADA when you charged Froome initially and sent a Letter of Consequences, right? You were quite sure you had a solid case against him, right? And you don’t depend on WADA to pursue cases, do you? For example, when the Spanish fed cleared Contador, you didn’t consult with WADA about appealing the decision. You appealed on your own, and only later did WADA join. So it isn’t essential to have WADA support, is it?

So did you, UCI, look at the data and agree with WADA, or did you just follow WADA without making your own decision? WADA are the experts only to the extent that they listen to scientists familiar with the issues. These scientists are as available to UCI as they are to WADA, and in fact, in your own statement on July 2, you referred to having your own experts. Yet you said that you decided to "follow" WADA's position? Did you consult your own experts who advised you that your case wasn’t strong enough? Will any of these experts, or the ones who advised WADA, identify themselves and explain their reasoning?

And what about this alleged model of a three week race? Care to comment on that?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-says-uci-were-not-pressured-by-aso-attempt-to-block-chris-froome-from-tour-de-france/

Problematic for the UCI:

De l’aveu d’un expert de la communauté antidopage : « C’était de la folie, ils n’avaient jamais vu ça à l’UCI, un dossier aussi épais, avec autant d’avis d’experts. » Une dizaine de scientifiques sont cités dans ces pages, sans compter ceux ayant collaboré de manière anonyme. Au printemps, une source proche de la procédure confiait que tous les spécialistes du métabolisme du salbutamol étaient contactés par Mike Morgan, pour aider Christopher Froome mais surtout pour ne pas aider l’UCI.

According to an expert from the anti-doping community: "It was crazy, they had never seen that at the UCI, a file so thick, with so many expert opinions." A dozen scientists are quoted in these pages, not counting those who have worked anonymously. In spring, a source close to the procedure confided that all specialists in the metabolism of salbutamol were contacted by Mike Morgan, for help Christopher Froome but especially not to help the UCI.

https://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/article/2018/07/03/la-couteuse-victoire-de-christopher-froome_5324955_1616918.html

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks for the link. Further from that:

The experts of the UCI had however rejected one by one the explanations advanced by the Councils of Froome: The heat on the day of the control, dehydration, its special diet, the interaction with other medicines...

Just as with Petacchi and all the others. These are routinely raised and rejected in salbutamol cases.

"At the moment, there is no questioning of regulation," assures the world Olivier Rabin, scientific director of the agency. Three months ago he was absolutely certain that the concentration limit of salbutamol was of absolute scientific strength, attested by numerous studies, and recalled that it had already been successfully defended before the arbitral Tribunal of Sport.

He now says there have been other cases like Froome’s, but of course he uses the confidentiality excuse to avoid furnishing any further details.

Other experts from the anti-doping community are formal: Wada was afraid of an expensive trial and the decision to classify the case did not come from the scientific director, but from the management of the Agency, whose budget is lower than that of the Sky team alone.

The stakeholders, I take it.

More on Ulissi:

It’s hard to imagine any other pro cyclist getting this kind of free pass. In fact, we don’t have to imagine it. During the 2014 Giro d’Italia, racer Diego Ulissi returned a salbutamol test that was remarkably similar to Froome’s. He was battling a respiratory infection, as Froome claimed he was during the Vuelta. Ulissi used a salbutamol inhaler and, as a two-time stage winner, had been tested at least twice prior to Stage 11. (As overall leader from Stage 3 on, Froome was tested 19 times at the Vuelta). Ulissi’s third test showed almost the same amount (1,900ng/mL) as Froome’s Vuelta test (2,000ng/mL).

Although he was in nearly the exact same circumstances as Froome, Ulissi was forced to do the study. Quelle surprise: It didn’t replicate his test-day results, and Ulissi was handed a nine-month ban.

But at least it shows that other riders can win stages with a lung infection.

The only difference appears to be that his name is Diego Ulissi, not Chris Froome. Ulissi is not pack fodder. He has 30 pro wins in his career over nine seasons and counting, including six Giro stages. But he’s not Froome, a multimillionaire and four-time Tour de France winner on the wealthiest team in the sport, and arguably the most recognizable active name in cycling.

So here’s the uncomfortable point where we’ve arrived: Either the salbutamol test as a whole has scientific problems and needs to be rethought, or the test is generally solid unless a wealthy, powerful athlete threatens to impoverish the anti-doping authorities with legal fees.

Well, Rabin himself has said it isn’t the first possibility.

https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a22038157/uci-chris-froome-doping/

I have only problem with this “rich athletes get off” view. It’s being used by Froome supporters (e.g., Sam and some twitterati linked by Pastronef in the Froome thread) to argue that the problem isn’t that Froome got off, but that other riders who might likewise have been innocent didn’t. They’re not going to entertain the possibility that Froome got off not because he needed millions of dollars and thousands of pages and dozens of lawyers to prove that his salbutamol level was a false positive, but because it was a true positive that could only be dismissed by threat of bankrupting WADA and its “stakeholders”.

Which is more likely? Salbutamol has been researched for decades, and we have a very good idea of how often a level like Froome’s would result from the allowed amounts. There is enough literature to build a case of not guilty if one isn’t guilty without resorting to months of raising the same tired old arguments, with or without speculative models with no empirical support. Athletes like Petacchi and Ulissi and no doubt many others have raised all the usual objections, diet and kidney malfunction and effort and on and on and on, and have always been refuted, because they have no evidence to back up their claims. There is nothing that has been released in the Froome case to indicate he has done anything different, except for the sheer volume. If there really is evidence, a breakthrough in our understanding of salbutamol metabolism, UCI should be proclaiming that from the rooftops.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you don’t need thousands of pages of documents to get at the facts in a case like this. If I’d been Haas, I would have demanded they provide a summary of a few dozen pages. Any scientist in the world could do that. The purpose of material in that quantity is not evidence, it’s obfuscation.

 

[Robert5091]

So a likely scenario - Sept 2017 - Froome gives sample then is informed of AAF. Sky/Froome "lawyer up", Morgan gets every scrap of info on Salbutamol plus maybe puts experts on retainers(?)
Nov 2017 WADA's new ruling on USG etc give Sky/Froome such wiggle room that they can throw all available data from the Vuelta of the wide range of Froome's Salbutamols levels/samples

UCI, ASO, RCS & WADA all wanting to drop this hot potato as quick as possible - and not wishing to bankrupt themselves with lawyers fees or appeals to CAS etc are happy to wash their hands of the matter before TdF.

Wonnder if LADS will make a statement -
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/

Legal Anti-Doping Services (LADS)

The LADS were established in October 2013. Essentially composed of legal experts, this body intervenes when a case of an apparent breach of the anti-doping rules is reported to it, in particular by the CADF, and takes responsibility for the procedure that will result in the sanction – or not – of the rider (or other licence holder) in question.

Until October 2013, the legal management of potential doping cases was conducted by the UCI Legal Service. Nowadays, the LADS is set up as a unit separate from the rest of the UCI in order to afford this function greater independence. The working relationships between the members of the LADS and other UCI employees is subject to strict guidelines. In particular, the LADS do not receive any instructions from the UCI Management.

Instead, all key decisions throughout the case management are systematically made in consultation with an external and independent legal counsel. This process is detailed the “Internal Regulations for Anti-Doping Procedures”, a document approved by the UCI Executive Board in November 2013. Another key element governing LADS’ activities are that all consultations with the external legal counsel and decisions must be in writing. This methodology ensures accountability and clear audit trail.

The UCI external legal counsel

The UCI uses the services of an external and independent legal counsel. This is the Lévy-Kaufmann-Kohler practice in Geneva. The role of the external legal counsel is generally to offer a second opinion (in addition to that of the LADS). It is consulted by the Service at each stage of a procedure. The external legal counsel is also involved with appeals lodged before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
...
Adverse analytical finding
...
In all cases, the LADS then consult the external legal counsel without revealing the rider's identity. Two situations are then possible:

• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that there is cause to open disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the rider is informed of the applicable sanction. If the rider accepts the sanction, the LADS informs the UCI Management as well as the external legal counsel (which is then informed of the rider’s name). If the rider rejects the sanction communicated by the LADS, the case is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.

• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that the case should not be pursued. In this case, no disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. The UCI, NADO, National Federation and WADA are informed accordingly.

 

[hazaran]

We established a long time ago how Petacchi was screwed over by WADA. Now you're just .. wrong, factually, plain wrong.

You can't seem to see it, but the same people that clamor for automatic provisional suspensions, strict liability and tilting the procedures even more in favor of WADA and the ADA are exactly to blame for the outcome here. They ensured that guys like Petacchi had to take the plea deal even when presenting valid, true concerns with the Salbutamol testing - and the only one that could challenge an AAF in the first place was someone with the funds to see it through.

 

[Mamil]

Re:

Nibali reveals illness before mountain time trial at Giro d'Italia

2016 Final General Classification
ITA 1 NIBALI, Vincenzo (ASTANA) 86:32:49
COL 2 CHAVES RUBIO, Johan Esteban (ORICA GreenEDGE) + 52
ESP 3 VALVERDE BELMONTE, Alejandro (MOVISTAR) + 1:17

In the second week of the Giro Nibali claimed illness, which is when he struggled and lost time. But then by later in the third week he was feeling BETTER, and with that plus a nice fresh blood bag he smashed his opposition in the last 2 mountain stages.

See sick = lose time, or just hang on at best, healthy = gain time. Only for Froome does this sometimes seemingly not apply. Seriously Sam, you're making this too easy. Got any more 'supportive' examples up your sleeve?

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Race a Grand Tour, half the peloton are falling apart in last week. See Pinot, Doumilin & Yates. All with chest problems in last week of Tour and after finishing and that's just the good riders!

And what happened to Pinot, Yates and even to some extent Dumoulin when they got sick? Compare that to supposedly sick/increased asthma Froome.

Thanks for proving my point yourself. Talk about an own goal

That's about as own goal as it gets.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Race a Grand Tour, half the peloton are falling apart in last week. See Pinot, Doumilin & Yates. All with chest problems in last week of Tour and after finishing and that's just the good riders!

And what happened to Pinot, Yates and even to some extent Dumoulin when they got sick? Compare that to supposedly sick/increased asthma Froome.

Thanks for proving my point yourself. Talk about an own goal

Pinot almost completed last week with illness. Doumilin came second and he was coming down ill in last week and day after Giro ended said he was very ill for a week after.
I'm just saying, being high up on GC and winning races with chest issues is part of cycling, it always has been, Froome is no different. Clearly it's bronchial stuff, it's not going to be an issue unless you don't medically keep it under control like we know all team doctors in all teams are they to do. That is their primary role. Racing a bike for 3 weeks is unhealthy, all team doctors say that.

The infection being referred to was Froome's at the Vuelta, not the Giro. It's Sky that are telling us he had a chest infection at the time of the salbutamol AAF. A chest infection on the mountain stage at which he beat all his GC rivals.

The ill riders at the Giro lost time. The "ill" rider at the Vuelta gained time on his opponents.

That's a special kind of illness. The sort that others would like to catch.

Say you have a choice before a decisive mountain stage:
i. be healthy, or
ii. have a chest infection
Apparently choosing the latter is the new marginal gain.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Race a Grand Tour, half the peloton are falling apart in last week. See Pinot, Doumilin & Yates. All with chest problems in last week of Tour and after finishing and that's just the good riders!

And what happened to Pinot, Yates and even to some extent Dumoulin when they got sick? Compare that to supposedly sick/increased asthma Froome.

Thanks for proving my point yourself. Talk about an own goal

That's about as own goal as it gets.

Sam in his rush to be Skys PR man in the forum forgets his common sense at times

 

[Merckx index]

Let’s do a little math. It was reported that there were 1500 pages of documents—at least, there was one report it was a lot more. A typical scientific paper—as submitted, before type-setting—might be around 50 pages. So this is the equivalent of about 30 scientific papers, informationally.

I’ve refereed many scientific papers, and based on my experience, I would say one should allow for at least three days for a complete evaluation. If one is under severe time constraints it might be faster, but one really needs ample time not just for reading and processing everything in the paper, but for thinking about it for a while.

So if we allow 3 days per person for 50 pages, that is 90 man-days to go through 1500 pages. Since WADA made its decision in 24 days (June 4-28), they would need four scientific experts. But this is a minimum estimate, because a) different experts would evaluate different portions of the documents, and some might be assigned far more than others; 2) while one might evaluate each 50 page section on its own, having done so, one has to spend further time integrating the information from one section with that from another section; the further along one progresses, the more time is spent in this integration process; and 3) after all the scientific experts have read and evaluated their material, they have to get together and reach a consensus about an overall evaluation.

Considering all this, I think it’s reasonable to assume that at least 6-10 scientific experts had to be employed full-time for this three and a half week period. How much would that cost? How much would one cost? Something in the range of $50-$100,000? So we’re talking about very roughly half a million to a million dollars? These are extremely rough estimates, and if someone has a better guess, please chime in.

And all this money is just to come to the point where they can drop the case and be done with it. Suppose their experts come to the conclusion that Froome’s case isn’t good enough. They now have to spend considerable time and of course money refuting it. How long will that take? If you think reading 1500 pages is time-consuming, how much more time is spent refuting each major point in precise language? If it might cost as much as $1 million just to drop the case, it will surely cost more than an additional $1 million to refute it.

So if they drop the case, they save a lot of money. They might have to spend a little effort to explain their decision, but they aren’t actually bound by any rules to do so. Of course, many of us expect reasons, and it’s horrible PR not to provide them, but there is nothing in the legal process that requires them to. Certainly there is no motive for them to provide a level of detail remotely approaching what would be found in a typical reasoned decision.

WADA is in fairly dire straits financially (yet another way in which this was the perfect storm for Froome: the USG correction just in time for his case; the leak and the Heuberger paper; and at a time when WADA is stretched for cash). Their research budget has been reduced by almost 80% in the last ten years:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1062934/wada-seeking-to-reverse-80-per-cent-fall-in-scientific-research-budget

The Russian investigation was extremely expensive, and don’t think the cost didn’t have anything to do with their reluctance to pursue it. Now on top of that, they are faced with huge costs for Froome. To pursue the case, it seems to me, would have cost several million dollars—again, if someone wants to challenge this, go ahead.

Their current budget includes about $10 million in salaries for staff and personnel, and I assume the money to pay scientific experts comes out of this:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1062934/wada-seeking-to-reverse-80-per-cent-fall-in-scientific-research-budget

I don’t think it’s hard to see that WADA could have come to the conclusion that pursuing the case wasn’t cost effective. What do they gain if they win? A little more respectability, in that a very big fish was caught. But since the decision almost certainly would have been that Froome hadn’t intentionally doped, but just took too many doses, it wouldn’t be that big a deal in terms of WADA’s reputation for catching dopers. And even if they did win, the decision apparently would have come after the Tour, and probably allowed Froome to keep any results for that and the Giro. This would have resulted in considerable negative publicity.

What do they gain by dropping the case? First, they save a lot of money. Second, Froome gets to ride the Tour without any ambiguity. Whether correct or not, I’m sure WADA felt their decision would reduce the tensions at the Tour (note UCI’s “enjoy bike racing” at the end of their statement). And third, since salbutamol is allowed up to a limit, they can rationalize that no sanction is not a big deal anyway, that this wasn’t a case of a doper getting away with taking a banned substance.

 

[hazaran]

They obviously didn't produce 1500 pages of original material. That's probably the figure you get when you print out all the references. And yeah, if I print out every reference along with my thesis, that gets into the thousands no problem. Most of that would have been known to WADA; hell, most of it would have been *WADA funded*.