-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
After Froome's AAF exoneration, WADA stated:
From 2013-17, from the data available to WADA in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), of the 41 completed cases that involved salbutamol as the only substance:
20% (eight out of 41 Salbutomol cases) resulted in acquittal.
More generally across all substances, WADA's ADRV Report is the simplest way to find out each year. 2017 reports for 2016.
So from the 229,514 samples colected by ADOs, 3,032s samples AAFd.
561 of them, the athlete was exonerated like Froome
339 were dismissed (TUE due to medical reasons etc)
140 had no case to answer.
You can download the dynamic xls report to filter out the meldonium exonerations. iirc around 10% were exonerated due to meldonium. e.g. typically only 4-8% of AAFs result in exoneration.
1. A total of 229,514 samples were collected by ADOs in 2016, analyzed by WADAaccredited
Laboratories and reported in ADAMS1. 3,032 samples were reported
as AAFs. Based on a compilation of the information received by WADA by 31
December 2017, of the 3032 AAFs:
- 1,326 (44%) samples were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 339 (11%) samples were dismissed because of a valid medical reason;
- 140 (5%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other
than medical reasons);
- 561 (19%) samples resulted in “no sanction” because the athlete was exonerated (including
but not limited to meldonium cases in light of the Notice on meldonium published by WADA on
30 June 2016);
- 666 (22%) samples were still pending.
Edit: Looking at Road Cycling AAFs for 2016
116 AAFs in Total
22 Were due to medical reasons (TUE, Illness etc)
7 No Case
13 Exonerated
23 Pending
So within Road, ~8% of AAFs resulted in no sanction (exonerated) which is in line with the running average from all sports combined.
From 2013-17, from the data available to WADA in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), of the 41 completed cases that involved salbutamol as the only substance:
20% (eight out of 41 Salbutomol cases) resulted in acquittal.
More generally across all substances, WADA's ADRV Report is the simplest way to find out each year. 2017 reports for 2016.
So from the 229,514 samples colected by ADOs, 3,032s samples AAFd.
561 of them, the athlete was exonerated like Froome
339 were dismissed (TUE due to medical reasons etc)
140 had no case to answer.
You can download the dynamic xls report to filter out the meldonium exonerations. iirc around 10% were exonerated due to meldonium. e.g. typically only 4-8% of AAFs result in exoneration.
1. A total of 229,514 samples were collected by ADOs in 2016, analyzed by WADAaccredited
Laboratories and reported in ADAMS1. 3,032 samples were reported
as AAFs. Based on a compilation of the information received by WADA by 31
December 2017, of the 3032 AAFs:
- 1,326 (44%) samples were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 339 (11%) samples were dismissed because of a valid medical reason;
- 140 (5%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other
than medical reasons);
- 561 (19%) samples resulted in “no sanction” because the athlete was exonerated (including
but not limited to meldonium cases in light of the Notice on meldonium published by WADA on
30 June 2016);
- 666 (22%) samples were still pending.
Edit: Looking at Road Cycling AAFs for 2016
116 AAFs in Total
22 Were due to medical reasons (TUE, Illness etc)
7 No Case
13 Exonerated
23 Pending
So within Road, ~8% of AAFs resulted in no sanction (exonerated) which is in line with the running average from all sports combined.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/
https://www.lawinsport.com/sports-l...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome
Seems to me, Sky used WADA to stop the UCI doing a CPKS if this account is correct. And Sky could still release their info they gave to WADA as Froome suggested.
https://www.lawinsport.com/sports-l...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome
Seems to me, Sky used WADA to stop the UCI doing a CPKS if this account is correct. And Sky could still release their info they gave to WADA as Froome suggested.
Re: Re:
assuming the lenghty response was in part answering the above question...you make my point...you can't name the athlete's....so how can I be biased agiant an individual when I don't know the other individuals....and.....as you say yourself...any info about other athletes (which is numbers not details) came out "after" froome...so...well...by defintion........
gillan1969 said:
assuming the lenghty response was in part answering the above question...you make my point...you can't name the athlete's....so how can I be biased agiant an individual when I don't know the other individuals....and.....as you say yourself...any info about other athletes (which is numbers not details) came out "after" froome...so...well...by defintion........
Re: Re:
OK. So you're not biased against Froome. We can't prove you are ... but we can have our suspicions ... just like you have yours.
You are, however, clearly biased against WADA/UCI. They are the governing bodies mandated to deliver a ruling on Froome's salbutomol case. They have done so. However, although you have no expertise in sports doping science or arbitration, you favor your own reasoning.
Thanks for keeping the pilot light burning on this thread. It'll be a slow winter, but I'm sure you'll fire it up again once the Dawg comes out of hibernation next spring.
gillan1969 said:
OK. So you're not biased against Froome. We can't prove you are ... but we can have our suspicions ... just like you have yours.
You are, however, clearly biased against WADA/UCI. They are the governing bodies mandated to deliver a ruling on Froome's salbutomol case. They have done so. However, although you have no expertise in sports doping science or arbitration, you favor your own reasoning.
Thanks for keeping the pilot light burning on this thread. It'll be a slow winter, but I'm sure you'll fire it up again once the Dawg comes out of hibernation next spring.
Re: Re:
You won't know the names of exonerated athletes, I thought that was obvious? I though you were suggesting Froome being exonerated was unique. Clearly it wasn't, actually business as usual.
gillan1969 said:
You won't know the names of exonerated athletes, I thought that was obvious? I though you were suggesting Froome being exonerated was unique. Clearly it wasn't, actually business as usual.
Re: Re:
I already pointed out that most people weren't aware of this before the Froome case. And in fact, there was only one cyclist other than Froome in 2013-17 exonerated for salbutamol. So again, criticizing the Froome case is not evidence of bias, which was your original point before you started moving the goalposts. It's evidence of discovering for the first time that riders can test positive and get off without anyone knowing about it.
Yes, it was unique. The arguments that he used to get off had never been used before. He may have been the first athlete ever to get off without taking the CPKS. In any case, though, WADA was not even aware that such arguments were possible. Austin himself has constantly emphasized this.
samhocking said:
I already pointed out that most people weren't aware of this before the Froome case. And in fact, there was only one cyclist other than Froome in 2013-17 exonerated for salbutamol. So again, criticizing the Froome case is not evidence of bias, which was your original point before you started moving the goalposts. It's evidence of discovering for the first time that riders can test positive and get off without anyone knowing about it.
Yes, it was unique. The arguments that he used to get off had never been used before. He may have been the first athlete ever to get off without taking the CPKS. In any case, though, WADA was not even aware that such arguments were possible. Austin himself has constantly emphasized this.
Re: Re:
Let's concede that it was unique.
It's often the uniqueness of cases, including those (legal cases) that go to superior/supreme courts, that change procedure/practice/law ... hence the ruling that the PKS was deemed to be of no force or effect.
How strong is your suspicion that the decision was corrupt? How strong is your evidence for such a suspicion?
Merckx index said:
Let's concede that it was unique.
It's often the uniqueness of cases, including those (legal cases) that go to superior/supreme courts, that change procedure/practice/law ... hence the ruling that the PKS was deemed to be of no force or effect.
How strong is your suspicion that the decision was corrupt? How strong is your evidence for such a suspicion?
Re: Re:
From what has been made public about the decision, I see no justification for not having that study. The main argument relevant to that was the effect of hdehydration, and since the alleged evidence that this is a significant factor in fact comes from lab studies, there's no reason why a controlled study of Froome couldn't have duplicated those conditions. The most important argument seems to have been the degree of variability, and a controlled study could have addressed this directly, rather than take Froome's word on the doses he used.
I don't think the decision was corrupt, if by that you mean WADA/UCI declared Froome exonerated while strongly believing he wasn't. I think they were probably convinced, though given that the decision came right before the Tour, there are certainly some grounds for thinking that the timing might have been a factor. Perhaps it was a sort of tie-breaker in a case that could have gone either way.
My main objection to the decision is that it wasn't transparent. We don't know the details. I understand the position that many people may not appreciate the science, and therefore, if the decision were published, it would be attacked, regardless. It probably would not convince a lot of Froome's critics. But when you are in the entertainment business--and all pro sports are about entertainment--you are supported by the public, which means IMO you have an obligation to be forthright with the public, regardless of the consequences. It's hypocritical to say, on the one hand, please continue to follow our sport, while on the other, trust us, we know what we're doing but we can't provide the proof of that. This isn't like classified information, where a government has a legitimate reason for not telling the public everything that is going on. And even in that situation, the public has representatives who can see those details.
There's another point that has gotten lost in all this. Even if Froome was fairly exonerated, if the arguments supporting the decision were sound, it doesn't mean he was innocent. In other doping cases, particularly involving blood manipulation, many guilty riders get off because they satisfy a minimum criterion that is set in a way that will knowingly result in many false negatives. That may have been the case with Froome, but because of the secrecy, we can't even make a judgment on that. From what I have learned from Austin, I tend to think that was the case--that the odds of his reaching that level were quite low, but high enough to justify exoneration on the grounds of avoiding a possible false positive--but I haven't seen enough to be sure of that.
Alpe73 said:
From what has been made public about the decision, I see no justification for not having that study. The main argument relevant to that was the effect of hdehydration, and since the alleged evidence that this is a significant factor in fact comes from lab studies, there's no reason why a controlled study of Froome couldn't have duplicated those conditions. The most important argument seems to have been the degree of variability, and a controlled study could have addressed this directly, rather than take Froome's word on the doses he used.
I don't think the decision was corrupt, if by that you mean WADA/UCI declared Froome exonerated while strongly believing he wasn't. I think they were probably convinced, though given that the decision came right before the Tour, there are certainly some grounds for thinking that the timing might have been a factor. Perhaps it was a sort of tie-breaker in a case that could have gone either way.
My main objection to the decision is that it wasn't transparent. We don't know the details. I understand the position that many people may not appreciate the science, and therefore, if the decision were published, it would be attacked, regardless. It probably would not convince a lot of Froome's critics. But when you are in the entertainment business--and all pro sports are about entertainment--you are supported by the public, which means IMO you have an obligation to be forthright with the public, regardless of the consequences. It's hypocritical to say, on the one hand, please continue to follow our sport, while on the other, trust us, we know what we're doing but we can't provide the proof of that. This isn't like classified information, where a government has a legitimate reason for not telling the public everything that is going on. And even in that situation, the public has representatives who can see those details.
There's another point that has gotten lost in all this. Even if Froome was fairly exonerated, if the arguments supporting the decision were sound, it doesn't mean he was innocent. In other doping cases, particularly involving blood manipulation, many guilty riders get off because they satisfy a minimum criterion that is set in a way that will knowingly result in many false negatives. That may have been the case with Froome, but because of the secrecy, we can't even make a judgment on that. From what I have learned from Austin, I tend to think that was the case--that the odds of his reaching that level were quite low, but high enough to justify exoneration on the grounds of avoiding a possible false positive--but I haven't seen enough to be sure of that.
Re: Re:
All fair enough.
(Again, I'm not a Froome fan, so to speak.)
Froome has been exonerated. Was he truly innocent (of an ADRV)? Don't know.
Without a finding of bona fide corruption in the arbitration and adjudication of the case, yet without a perceived deservedness of public, full transparency of case details ... is the sport left with a significant, measurable degree of disrepute, directly linked to the ruling in this case?
We'll have to check on audience numbers next year. But for now ... Tigers 'n Tide.
Merckx index said:
All fair enough.
(Again, I'm not a Froome fan, so to speak.)
Froome has been exonerated. Was he truly innocent (of an ADRV)? Don't know.
Without a finding of bona fide corruption in the arbitration and adjudication of the case, yet without a perceived deservedness of public, full transparency of case details ... is the sport left with a significant, measurable degree of disrepute, directly linked to the ruling in this case?
We'll have to check on audience numbers next year. But for now ... Tigers 'n Tide.
8 Salbutomol cases exonerated in 5 years that you don't know the names of the athlete or why they were exonerated yet you claim to know Froome being exonerated was unique to WADA and not equivalent to the previous 8. That isn't logical reasoning to me.
Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated. It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.
Each AAF will contain different circumstances and athlete explanation and reasons for exoneration. The circumstances and explanation are unique, not that Froome was exonerated. It shows athletes have a 20% chance of being exonerated for Salbutomol AAFs, Froome is the 9th, now in 6 years.
Average across all substances is 4-8% exoneration rate for AAFs suggesting the science of salbutomol threshold is less watertight and exacting than other substances and probably correctly exonerated those athletes anyway.
samhocking said:
I said the arguments he used were unique. Austin's approach had never been used before. A few months ago, you yourself were pointing this out, with "pharmo is the end of the road", "don't need urine samples", etc. You misinterpreted what Austin did, but you were right that this approach had never been used before.
Which is what I said. I also pointed out, several times, and you continue to ignore it, that until the Froome case, no one knew that athletes could test positive for salbutamol without its ever being made public. That is why the focus on Froome's case, not because of some bias. Of course, being one of the best GT riders of all time, who has steadfastly refused to provide a coherent explanation for his overnight transformation, also makes a big difference, but the notion that the criticism results solely because of "bias" against Froome, independent of any context, is nonsense.
We have no idea whether those athletes were correctly exonerated. EPO test data indicate that riders with ambiguous gel profiles usually get off. That doesn't mean they were correctly exonerated. It just means that WADA bends over backwards to avoid false positives.
By the way, remember this?
Merckx index said:
Unique, not unique, biased, unbiased, etc ... these are all banter snippets ... and fair enough ... where would the Clinic fun be without them? :razz:
Can professional cycling afford (via teams, WADA, UCI) ... the real dollars to fund a gold standard anti doping scrutiny ... while remaining viable as sports entertainment?
And related to that, in 2018, how elastic is demand to the odd rider getting popped?
Alpe73 said:
they're not really banter snippets...they're demonstrable
the issue (for WADA/UCI) is that the charade needs to be seen to work...and that means if you are stupid/unlucky enought to fail a test you need to be punished.....it's in everyone's interest and a safegaurd for the dopers and the stupid/unlucky as much as those who don't dope
there's not point having a pretence if you then don't even have an......er.......pretence
the impacts of the erosion may not play out out in 2018/or 2019 but it will play out..........
gillan1969 said:Alpe73 said:
they're not really banter snippets...they're demonstrable
the issue (for WADA/UCI) is that the charade needs to be seen to work...and that means if you are stupid/unlucky enought to fail a test you need to be punished.....it's in everyone's interest and a safegaurd for the dopers and the stupid/unlucky as much as those who don't dope
there's not point having a pretence if you then don't even have an......er.......pretence
the impacts of the erosion may not play out out in 2018/or 2019 but it will play out..........
Did you miss a day following the Giro and the Tour?
C'mon now, lad. Nowt but the truth.
As an aside, how'd you go with A.W's. mosquito byte story?
Asthma drug (beta2-agonists) can boost sprint and strength performance in athletes
A type of asthma drug, known as ß2-agonists, can boost sprint and strength performance in athletes who don't have the respiratory condition, finds a review and pooled data analysis of the available evidence, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
New study published about performance enhancing effects of beta2 agonists.
Caveat:
It's probably more effective in Froome dosis than in Petacchi or any other dude who previously got banned for it
Wasn't much difference in the end between Pettachi and Froome though was there? Froome's adjusted was 1429ng/mL Pettachi's adjusted was 1352 ng/ml and this study is anaerobic 60 seconds and less studies.
No, 1352 was Petacchi's raw value. His adjusted value was 819.
i really don't see that this study concludes anything new. When we were discussing the Froome case upthread, many links were posted of studies showing that salbutamol could improve sprint and strength.
Yes, and as I noted, the kind of studies it based its conclusion on were already discussed in this thread. What are the imolications of this study? Should salbutamol be banned? No support for that, and that's not going to happen, anyway. Should the permissible amount be raised? More studies would be needed to decide that, and not just studies of its effect, but more importantly, studies correlating dose with urine levels under various conditions.
A major outcome of the Froome case is that WADA emphasized that salbutamol positives have to be decided on a case by case basis, which in effect means they're abandoning any fixed standard urine level. The level will still be there, and a rider exceeding it may have to defend himself, but now the road is more open to doing that. A second implication is the belief--allegedly supported by Froome's samples, but because these data have not been made available, we can't judge that--that outliers can be relatively common.
It seems to me that what's needed much more than evidence of salbutamol's PE effects is better evidence of dose-urine level relationships. That's far more relevant to controlling its use.
Last edited:
Yes, but the panel was satisfied no adjustment needed to be made for specific gravity. Their reason was specific gravity of the urine is irrelevant to the enantiomer analysis and the analysis was not compatible with an inhaled therapeutic dose of salbutamol. We can only go by the lab procedures and rules applicable at the time. I agree with Fitch though, in retrospect Pettachi should be cleared the same as Froome because of this and Pettachi's was perhaps an inhaled therapeutic dose of salbutamol too.
Last edited:
If you're talking about the CAS decision for Petacchi, yes, but what relevance does this have to your previous incorrect comment that Petacchi's level was about the same as Froome's? Petacchi would not even have had a case that anyone knew about if the current rule about SG had been in force at that time. Whereas that same rule did not help Froome.
I already discussed upthread that there is not a reliable way to distinguish inhaled from oral, and that even if there were, taking an inhaled dose larger than permitted is still doping. The panel wanted to believe Petacchi was not cheating, that's blatantly obvious from reading the decision.
Obviously, Froome's case was an exception to that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 273
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Latest: velaso montador
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram