samhocking said:
Dunno. I tried Robert's link, I found the presentation listed, but it doesn't seem to be available at that site (i.e., I clicked on it, nothing happened). I have been checking Pub Med periodically since I communicated with Austin more than two months ago, and still nothing turns up. Something may be out there, but I don't know where.
By this definition, every salbutamol concentration that is above the DL is presumed, and should get the same treatment Froome’s did. But in fact, there is no way to verify the route of administration other than the enantiomers test, which as far as we know Froome did not submit to, and which in any case can't actually prove oral use, anyway. Petacchi apparently had a high value in that test, which was taken as evidence that he was over the limit, but the CAS panel did not conclude that he had taken salbutamol orally. In fact, I’m not aware of any case where oral use has been proven, and the rider given a greater penalty. It may have happened, but it’s quite rare, at least.
The only difference between Froome and any other athlete with a salbutamol concentration above the DL is that he was able to hire some very good scientific advisors, who managed to convince WADA that there were on-the-road factors like dehydration and effects of previous stages that aren’t taken into account by the laboratory studies. Armed with this argument, Froome was able to avoid the pharmacokinetic study. Any other rider in the world could have done the same thing, given that scientific testimony. But there is nothing in the WADA rules that says that such scientific testimony can override the need for a controlled study. Froome did get special treatment, and so could have anyone else with the resources needed to circumvent the rules.
We have no idea why those athletes were exonerated, though. Perhaps they passed the controlled study? Or their urinary levels would have been under the limit if the USG correction were allowed? What we do know is that their cases were not resolved in the way Froome's was, because the arguments he used had never been used before. WADA was not aware of lognormal distributions before. They did not take into account dehydration. They did not appreciate the difference between MDI and dry powder inhalers. They did not use (did not have) a large number of negative tests to establish the range of variability.
That last factor is probably the most important one. Froome's 2017 Vuelta was nearly unique in that he was tested almost every stage, and therefore had a large number of samples that could be used to derive the relationship between amount inhaled (having to trust Froome's memory as well as his honesty, of course) and urinary level. Petacchi, e.g., only had four samples other than the one that exceeded the limit. We don't know who those exonerated athletes were, but it's highly unlikely that they tested positive in a GT in which they were wearing the leader's jersey almost from start to finish.
Now that I think of it, though, this is a little project that someone in the Clinic--or really, anyone who follows pro racing a little more closely tnan I do--might be able to help with. Have there been any riders who have been tested as often as, say, ten times in a recent GT? This would include stages ridden as the leader as well as stages won. If there are any riders satisfying those criteria--including Froome, in other GTs--then the next question would be, do we know if any of them take salbutamol? If any of them do, then the kind of analysis Austin did with Froome could be done with them. I would be interested in any data like these, because it would provide an empirical test of Austin's model. I.e., did any other riders show variability in urinary levels consistent with the degree implied by the exoneration of Froome?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram