wrinklyvet said:
The regulations in the WADA code include the oft-quoted one about Salbutamol and other Beta-2 agonists and include the following:-
The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above."
Now I find the word "unless" significant. "Unless" is a condition but it is implied that it has to be satisfied after the measurement has been taken. The measurement itself therefore cannot constitute an AAF unless the athlete fails to satisfy the condition. On the normal meaning of the words there ought not even be deemed to be an AAF until the athlete has given up on trying to prove what he must prove to avoid it. He must have have that opportunity if he wishes to take that line.
In the first place, “unless” implies “until”. If it’s an AAF unless he proves otherwise, it’s also an AAF until he proves otherwise.
In the second place, salbutamol levels above the DL are automatically recorded as AAFs. By definition.
In the third place, Froome by all indications has already given up on trying to prove otherwise through a controlled pharmacokinetic study. At this point, he’s reduced to trying some other explanation, based on theory, not on lab results.
There is a rationalization in the rules for Froome’s being allowed to ride, but it is not because he doesn’t have an AAF.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram