samhocking said:
His AAF didn't get to the pharmo test though. They didn't even need to prove his dose from what WADA have admitted is wrong with the rules.
Seem like the people that need to be transparent are UCI & WADA. Froome saying what his inhalation record was, clearly wouldn't change their decision would it, if their rules are broken.
I thought he never had an AAF?
Of course they need to prove his dose. Do you understand how the simulation works? The urine values are useless if one doesn’t know how much he inhaled. The whole point of the exercise is to show that a maximally-allowed dose of 800 ug could result in a urinary level above the limit. You can’t simulate that without knowing the dose-level relationship at other values.
And by the way, running simulations based on drug levels is pharmacology.
You're missing the point that the management of an AAF result doesn't require the CPKS. That is only required, if WADA don't believe your initial explanation.
WADA wasn’t involved at that stage, or if they were, they were subordinate to UCI. UCI has responsibility for pursuing the case, not WADA. And UCI clearly did not accept the explanation, that’s why this went on for so many months, and why UCI proposed a sanction, and it went to the Tribunal. When a judge is appointed, it’s way beyond the explanation stage.
The only thing missing for you, is you don't believe WADA considered Froomes explanation and those experts being truthful, therefore YOU require WADA to explain why they were to reach their decision.
Scientific explanations are almost always challenged by other scientists, not because they think they’re not truthful, but because they think they’re wrong.
I'm talking about the 26 Salbutomol AAFs that exited WADA results management at the explanation stage out of the thousands of AAFs. Froomes AAF was leaked at the presumed stage, not the confirmed stage. The reason a rider is allowed to race with an AAF for Salburtomol, is because there is a high risk of False Positives for Salbutomol (26 in 5 years)
According to CN, who asked WADA, there were only eight salbutamol AAFs that were exonerated in that five year period. There were 57 AAFs, and thirty sanctions, but most of the non-sanctioned cases involved TUEs. WADA Code 7.2 spells it out. As soon as the A sample is found to be over the limit, an AAF is recorded. Before the athlete is notified and allowed to have a B sample test, though, a check for a TUE is run. If there is a TUE, the case is dropped then, without even notifying the athlete. It does not go on to the explanation stage.
S
o eight AAFs that were cleared, out of 38 AAFs not involving TUEs, which in turn resulted from the testing of about 50-75,000 samples of athletes with asthma. I wouldn’t call that a high risk of false positives. Less than 1 in 1000 samples was an AAF, and only 20% of AAFs not involving TUEs were cleared. And we don’t know why they were cleared. Maybe they were able to claim a lab error, or some other technicality.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram