red_flanders said:
I'm not convinced the discussion on concentration addressed the possibility I suggested. The got something wrong, not sure what is most or least likely.
Red, I don’t think transfusion is going to add much. The factor of 50-100 I suggested is probably an underestimate, and doesn’t take into account another important factor, the relatively rapid rate of clearance; as much as half of the salbutamol may be excreted in the urine within 3 – 4 hours. This means that unless Froome transfused right before the start of the stage, and didn’t relieve himself at any point along the way, he wouldn’t have peak urine concentration when tested at the end of the stage (Froome finished the stage in a time of about 4:20; I don’t know how long after he finished he would have been tested?). If he transfused the evening before, the concentration in his blood would be reduced by a further factor of ten or so. Even if he transfused the morning of the stage, say, shortly after he woke up, there would be a reduction of maybe five times or so. There are, to be sure, a lot of assumptions of linearity underlying these calculations, but when you're talking about several orders of magnitude, they shouldn't matter much. And since the case against Froome doesn't hinge on proving that he transfused, I wouldn't expect any scientific experts who are more familiar with the kinetics than I am to address this in more detail, anyway.
At this point, I’d say that in descending order of probability, the explanations are intentional oral dosing >> accidentally inhaled too much > blood transfusion.
Wrt Contador, since CB is a non-threshold substance, any detectable amount is an AAF. So while the same general math applies to calculating the original amount that would have to be present in the blood during withdrawal, this amount would not have to be very large to produce the very tiny amount detected. Another important difference is that CB is cleared much more slowly than salbutamol; it’s half-life is about ten times greater. This means, among other things, that whether he urinated or not during the stage really doesn’t matter, nor does the timing of the transfusion. One of the most critical aspects of this case, which I can't emphasize enough, is that whether and when Froome urinated makes a really big difference. See below for one important implication.
Comparing the two cases, there are relative advantages and disadvantages for each rider. I think the most important advantage that Froome has at this point is that while CB is well known to have performance enhancing effects, the view is more controversial with salbutamol. There are studies showing it does, and ones showing it doesn’t, and most of the former seem to be anaerobic effects. If this case gets as far as CAS (which I assume it probably would if Froome can’t establish a 2000 ng/ml level in the lab), where not only physical evidence but the motive or psychological state of the rider can also be considered, Froome will definitely point this out, and don’t think for a minute that he can’t find scientific experts who will back him up on this. In fact, that could be one of the benefits of the case, with each side laying out the evidence for and against salbutamol as a performance enhancer.
One other important point I want to mention. Even if Froome wins the case, it could be on a technicality. He has to show that he can get a 2000 ng/ml urine level by taking the drug within the allowed limit. The way to maximize this possibility is to take 800 ug, wait several hours, then provide the urine sample. While 1600 ug/24 hr is allowed, he would have to wait 12 hr after taking the 800 ug, by which time most of it would have been excreted from the urine. Some would be left, but not a great deal.
So suppose he does this, and manages just to get to the 2000 ng/ml level. Presumably, he’s cleared, and all the media will trumpet how he was innocent, didn’t dope, etc. But on the actual stage, is that how it would have happened? For the stage to be like that, he would have to take the entire 800 ug dose right before the start and not stop to relieve himself at any point along the way. But we already know this isn’t entirely true, because he said he took three puffs at the end. And probably when he furnishes the data he claims he has, it will turn out that that he took some of it during the stage. Maybe he urinated. We will find out.
But the bottom line is that the actual stage conditions will almost certainly be different, less conducive to maximum urine level, than the lab. So if he barely makes the 2000 ng/ml level in the lab, he not only has not shown that he could have done it on the stage, it will be strong evidence that he couldn’t have done it on the stage. If he got cleared under those circumstances, there would still be very good reason to doubt that he was within the rules on the stage.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram