Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[42x16ss]

Re:

Just realise people. The Tue's, the jiffy bag and now this were only exposed because of leaks. It's shocking.

Don’t forget the “mistaken” testosterone delivery...

 

[hfer07]

Re: Re:

Just realise people. The Tue's, the jiffy bag and now this were only exposed because of leaks. It's shocking.

Don’t forget the “mistaken” testosterone delivery...

& don't forget the Henao "mysterious blood values" either

 

[Random Direction]

Re: Re:

For the team's sake they need to have medical records that have already been turned over and stand up to forensic scrutiny.

To a layman, double concentration seems somewhat high even if he was puffing to the limit. Looking at the WADA code that's 8 puffs of a 100 mcg inhaler in a 12 hour period (and 16 puffs in a 24 hour period). If he was using a 200 mcg inhaler by accident, or didn't realise the 8-in-12 part then that could explain it. Other forms still seem to be banned. I wonder now if there's some trick with a spacer to get maximum uptake of salbutamol from 800 mcg.

If I needed that many puffs of an inhaler, I don't think medical advice would be to cycle up a hill.

A spacer stops leakage so you get the maximum benefit from the puff. 16 puffs in a 24 hour period is quite a lot, at that stage even gentle exercise would not be easy and the asthmatic would already be thinking that the Ventolin is not working very well so it's off to the doctor.

I do not believe a minute he got that amount puffing. The stage took good 5 hours and I bet he wasn't puffing during the stage. And half of the dose evaporates from system in 6 hours, so the value before the stage (if puffing) had to be more than double than what the test gives as result. He was on pills or Sky is secretely using nebulizers.

To me it sounds more like injections but over what amount of time ? And maybe some puffs during the stage. It couldn't be one injection before the stage because the amount is too high and could be dangerous especially for the heart. Pills probably take longer to work than puffers unless he takes one the night before followed by an injection before the stage and then some spray before the end of the stage. For a typical asthmatic it's a lot of Ventolin and someone with chronic asthma cannot do much sport apart from walking and gentle exercise. Froome may have had asthma since childhood, a condition that has to be controlled but he obviously isn't the type of asthmatic that is in and out of hospital. Bronchitis or a heavy cold while competing would make his asthma much worse. Exercise induced asthma where you can get by with a few puffs here and there is very different to the worst type of chronic asthma. It will be interesting to see what defense Froome uses for such a high reading. Based on what others have also done with Salbutamol it's hard to see him not getting banned because you know already what the reaction from other teams will be if he isn't and with Wiggins and now Froome many will assume that where there is smoke there is fire and if the highest profile riders are pushing the boundaries what are the others doing ?

Some rivals and fans will want to gloat of course but from any angle,this is bad for the sport, a sport that can't afford to keep leaking fans and sponsors where often it is the riders with the best results being found out and it probably goes beyond that with cities also losing interest in hosting stages or holding races and TV broadcasters with declining amounts of viewers, just pulling the plug. Bergen was a financial disaster hosting the Worlds even though it could pay off for them in tourist dollars. Pro cycling has been skirting the precipice for a while now and it won't take much more of this sort of thing to damage it for the foreseeable future. I still don't think it has recovered from the Armstrong debacle and when there is controversy, negative media, doping bans and world economic conditions changing you wonder what is in store for the sport. Already many races have disappeared including some famous traditional ones in countries where pro cycling is highly regarded. I wonder what a junior world champion is thinking at the moment or someone who has their mind set on a career in pro cycling ?

My guess is that the positive is a result of a double or triple failure on the part of Froome and Sky:
1. Blood bag used the night after stage 17 was extracted in the spring when froome was taking the meds for asthma
2. Sky were dropping Salbutamol pills into Froome's water bottles, and got the dose wrong
3. someone at sky or UCI got passed off over the rug under brushing and leaked to the media

 

[Merckx index]

So how would Froome’s defense work? Ideally, he would like to establish two points:

1) he stayed within WADA limits in the amount of salbutamol inhaled (800 ug every 12 hours, 1600 ug every 24 hours);
2) in the course of inhaling doses of salbutamol within those limits, his urine concentration sometimes exceeds the WADA standard (1000 ng/ml).

I’m not entirely clear, but I think it may be sufficient for him to prove only one of those two points, particularly 2). In fact, I don’t see how he could prove 1). He could furnish his inhaler, confirm how much it holds, how much he obtains from a puff, testify how many puffs he took, but AFAIK he has no way of proving all those claims after the fact. And as ScienceisCool has pointed out, he hasn’t to date even specified how many puffs he took on the day he tested positive, so it certainly looks to me that he can’t offer a very satisfactory defense of 1). But if I'm missing something, let me know.

So I think proving 2) will be the key. Froome will have to submit himself to laboratory tests, in which he takes the maximum allowable amount of salbutamol, and urine tests confirm levels exceeding the WADA standard. We do know that this is possible. Studies have shown that some riders, under some conditions, do exceed these limits, when exercising under conditions that promote dehydration, which of course will increase the concentration of a given amount of the drug in the urine.

Beyond this, I don’t know if there are any rules governing such tests. I imagine that if Froome doesn’t get a favorable result the first time, he can keep trying. As others have pointed out, though, the fact that he apparently hasn’t triggered the level previously suggests that probably this isn’t a common occurrence for him, unless previously he almost always took a much lower dose of the drug.

As far as potential PE effects of salbutamol, what studies have been done suggest it has none, or very little. But though no expert in this area, I’m a little curious about this conclusion. We know that the drug acts by relaxing smooth muscle, thus dilating the bronchial passages that take in oxygen. It seems to me that it would thus increase oxygen intake in normal subjects as well as asthmatics. I would think that any drug that relaxes the cells lining the airways would improve performance in an endurance sport. But this is speculation, and so far apparently has not been backed up by studies.

Several posters upthread (including the post immediately preceding this one) have speculated that maybe the salbutamol positive resulted from residual amounts in Froome’s system when he withdrew blood that he transfused shortly before the positive test. This seems to be a strong possibility for Contador’s CB positive. However, CB is a non-threshold drug, meaning it’s very easy to get an amount in your system many times higher than needed to trigger a positive test, which would have to be the case if a single unit or two of blood could contain enough of that drug. This scenario, I think, would be very unlikely with Froome, since even if he took considerably more salbutamol than allowed, it would probably not be close to enough for a blood transfusion to trigger a positive. But I haven't actually worked through the pharmacokinetics. I'm assuming the limit to amount inhaled and the limit in the urine are correlated, i.e., that if you take close to the maximum allowed to inhale, your maximum urine concentration will be close to its limit. If that isn't the case, then possibly a blood contamination scenario is barely plausible.

 

[skippo12]

A lot of people suffer from asthmatic symptoms after a hard endurance exercise. Cyclist aren`t any different in this department but they abuse those symptomps and take advantage of a bad system.
I still don`t understand why it isn`t possible to implement a neutral medical department for these decisions.
Make the cyclists that ask for medical treatment for asthma take an endurance test during the offseason or at any given time and take the results. Filter the really suffering from the cheating ones.

All honestly in my opinion a person that suffers from real asthma attacks isn`t suited for pro cycling or any other extrem endurance sport.

 

[thehog]

So how would Froome’s defense work? Ideally, he would like to establish two points:

1) he stayed within WADA limits in the amount of salbutamol inhaled (800 ug every 12 hours, 1600 ug every 24 hours);
2) in the course of inhaling doses of salbutamol within those limits, his urine concentration sometimes exceeds the WADA standard (1000 ng/ml).

I’m not entirely clear, but I think it may be sufficient for him to prove only one of those two points, particularly 2). In fact, I don’t see how he could prove 1). He could furnish his inhaler, confirm how much it holds, how much he obtains from a puff, testify how many puffs he took, but AFAIK he has no way of proving all those claims after the fact. And as ScienceisCool has pointed out, he hasn’t to date even specified how many puffs he took on the day he tested positive, so it certainly looks to me that he can’t offer a very satisfactory defense of 1). But if I'm missing something, let me know.

So I think proving 2) will be the key. Froome will have to submit himself to laboratory tests, in which he takes the maximum allowable amount of salbutamol, and urine tests confirm levels exceeding the WADA standard. We do know that this is possible. Studies have shown that some riders, under some conditions, do exceed these limits, when exercising under conditions that promote dehydration, which of course will increase the concentration of a given amount of the drug in the urine.

Beyond this, I don’t know if there are any rules governing such tests. I imagine that if Froome doesn’t get a favorable result the first time, he can keep trying. As others have pointed out, though, the fact that he apparently hasn’t triggered the level previously suggests that probably this isn’t a common occurrence for him, unless previously he almost always took a much lower dose of the drug.

As far as potential PE effects of salbutamol, what studies have been done suggest it has none, or very little. But though no expert in this area, I’m a little curious about this conclusion. We know that the drug acts by relaxing smooth muscle, thus dilating the bronchial passages that take in oxygen. It seems to me that it would thus increase oxygen intake in normal subjects as well as asthmatics. I would think that any drug that relaxes the cells lining the airways would improve performance in an endurance sport. But this is speculation, and so far apparently has not been backed up by studies.

Several posters upthread (including the post immediately preceding this one) have speculated that maybe the salbutamol positive resulted from residual amounts in Froome’s system when he withdrew blood that he transfused shortly before the positive test. This seems to be a strong possibility for Contador’s CB positive. However, CB is a non-threshold drug, meaning it’s very easy to get an amount in your system many times higher than needed to trigger a positive test, which would have to be the case if a single unit or two of blood could contain enough of that drug. This scenario, I think, would be very unlikely with Froome, since even if he took considerably more salbutamol than allowed, it would probably not be close to enough for a blood transfusion to trigger a positive. But I haven't actually worked through the pharmacokinetics. I'm assuming the limit to amount inhaled and the limit in the urine are correlated, i.e., that if you take close to the maximum allowed to inhale, your maximum urine concentration will be close to its limit. If that isn't the case, then possibly a blood contamination scenario is barely plausible.

Re: blood transfusions, it’s more possible that he was taking salbutamol orallly prior to withdrawal, which has many more performance enhancing effects than via inhaler and much stronger doses. When he re-infused he kicked over the threshold.

I would also add, he may have tripped the tripwire in the past and the UCI have in confidence accepted his explanation. He certainly appeared very casual about this situation since September until it leaked.

 

[Robert5091]

The Kellyanne Conway defence?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-i-havent-broken-any-rules/

Chris Froome: I haven't broken any rules

Tour de France and Vuelta a Espana winner says 'this is not a positive test'

 

[bambino]

So I think proving 2) will be the key. Froome will have to submit himself to laboratory tests, in which he takes the maximum allowable amount of salbutamol, and urine tests confirm levels exceeding the WADA standard. We do know that this is possible. Studies have shown that some riders, under some conditions, do exceed these limits, when exercising under conditions that promote dehydration, which of course will increase the concentration of a given amount of the drug in the urine.

Beyond this, I don’t know if there are any rules governing such tests. I imagine that if Froome doesn’t get a favorable result the first time, he can keep trying. As others have pointed out, though, the fact that he apparently hasn’t triggered the level previously suggests that probably this isn’t a common occurrence for him, unless previously he almost always took a much lower dose of the drug.

Isn't the timing a very important aspect here as well?

Did he take the extra puffs before the stage, during the stage or after the stage just before the test?

His explanation would probably be after the stage just before the test, but how convincing story would that be as he just dropped all his main rivals in the last climb of the stage - while having upcoming asthma attack and potential de-hydration to explain the need and high Salbutamol values in urine?

If he took the extra dose during the stage (i.e. just before the last climb), that ought to be somewhat plausibel to be checked from TV coverage.

If he took the extra dose before the stage and did not puff the extras during/after the stage, there will be the issue of explaining why his urine values didn't start to reduce as it normally would. And how much were the values actually in the beginning of the stage when those were double the amount after the stage?

The de-hydration is a possible reason for high values and it has been tested in lab, but again it is very controversial given he just destroyed his opponents on the stage. Can you really do that in de-hydration situation covered here.

And of course - why was he positive just on this day? Yes the 3 extra puffs, but are 3 extra puffs really enough to raise your urine values from less than <1000 to 2000? I assume he wasn't much more de-hydrated than in any other stage of the race/career - as his performance was very strong.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: blood transfusions, it’s more possible that he was taking salbutamol orallly prior to withdrawal, which has many more performance enhancing effects than via inhaler and much stronger doses. When he re-infused he kicked over the threshold.

Yes, but he'd still have to take a boatload to get a urine concentration that high from a blood transfusion. And why would he be taking any at all, except possibly to counteract genuine ashthma, during the offseason, when he most likely would be withdrawing?

With regard to the PE effects of oral doses, here's a study that reported a significant increase in peak power in an anaerobic bike ergometer test:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077918

As the authors note, this would help sprinters, not GT men, but hey, Froome has won some crucial time on some sprints recently.

I would also add, he may have tripped the tripwire in the past and the UCI have in confidence accepted his explanation. He certainly appeared very casual about this situation since September until it leaked.

Yes, can't rule this out. But I don't think even a protected rider could get away with this very often.

Here's some more relevant literature:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22388343
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927035

These two studies by the same group measured urinary levels of salbutamol four hours after inhaling 800 ug (which is the 12 hour limit set by WADA). In the first study, only 1/18 subjects exceeded the 1000 ng/ml. urinary limit, and not by much (1057). Eight of the subjects were described as elite athletes with ashthma, and had a mean urinary level of about 335 ng/ml. Moreover, if the urine concentration in that one high sample was corrected for specific gravity—i.e., dehydration makes the urine solutes more concentrated than normal—the salbutamol concentration dropped to 661. I don’t know whether in the WADA testing procedure, this correction is carried out or not, but regardless, I assume the 1000 ng/ml was found to be appropriate to however the urine is treated. I also need to point out I saw another study reporting that making the SG correction actually increased the effective concentration, so sometimes subjects being tested apparently have very dilute urine.

In the second study, the mean value of ten subjects was just 261 ng/ml. So clearly, at the maximum permitted doses, going over the urinary limit is not common. In contrast, in both these studies, subjects also took 8 mg (ten times the inhalation dose) orally. The mean urinary values were 2000-3000, though there was enormous individual variation, as indeed, is the case regardless of route of administration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16541373

In this study, the authors administered 100 ug doses of salbutamol twice daily to ten subjects, and on the basis of the urinary levels, concluded that the WADA limit could be lowered to just 250 ng/ml. Someone here who takes salbumatol can comment on whether 200 ug/day is a reasonable dose, or whether the 800 – 1600 ug dose is really necessary.

Another study reported a false positive rate of 4% using 500 ng/ml as the limit, but the amount inhaled was not given in the abstract. Also, the amounts will vary depending on whether the free or conjugated forms of the drug are measured. I'm not clear yet on whether the WADA urinary limit refers to free salbutamol or total, which makes a substantial difference, and also whether, as I mentioned above, the urine is corrected to a typical value of specific gravity. But overall, I think we can conclude that a value of 2000 ng/ml, as reported for Froome, is far more likely to result from an oral dose than an inhaled one. From what I've seen so far, I'd be a little surprised if he could get a urinary level that high by inhaling within the WADA limit.

Another interesting aspect of this is that in theory, one can distinguish inhaled from oral salbutamol from the ratio of free to sulfated, but this is difficult, apparently because when one inhales, one may actually swallow some of the substance? Maybe an asthmatic can comment on this?

 

[MartinGT]

Tony Martin sums it up very well;

He's not making many pals is he old Foomey

 

[brownbobby]

Tony Martin sums it up very well;

+10000000000

about damn time someone finally stood up & spoke properly on the real matter!! Hope many follow his example, otherwise is Omerta 2.0

WTF?? This has got to be a spoof account right??

At first i was struggling to believe that a senior pro like Martin would get so confused about the difference between an AAF and a doping violation, and therefore the procedures/routes to suspension seperately applicable to each.

Then i saw his reference to Marcel Kittel as a leader in the fight for clean sport and knew this had to be a spoof. Right??

But eh, don't let the facts get in the way of your resentment for all things Sky/Froome.

 

[Teddy Boom]

Re: blood transfusions, it’s more possible that he was taking salbutamol orallly prior to withdrawal, which has many more performance enhancing effects than via inhaler and much stronger doses. When he re-infused he kicked over the threshold.

Yes, but he'd still have to take a boatload to get a urine concentration that high from a blood transfusion. And why would he be taking any at all, except possibly to counteract genuine ashthma, during the offseason, when he most likely would be withdrawing?

I'm not sure what to think about the blood bag theory in general.. waiting for experts to run some numbers, I guess.

Still, the similarities between this and Contador's Clenbuterol thing are just hilarious. I mean, it is right here on How Stuff Works:

All bets are off, however, when an athlete takes albuterol orally or by injection. When administered in this fashion, albuterol has been found to have anabolic properties, which means it can help build muscle like steroids.

Another orally ingested beta2-agonist known as clenbuterol, or clen, packs an even bigger punch than albuterol.

It seems on the face of it to be quite straight forward:
1) Take Salbutamol/Albuterol orally all through training
2) Puff a couple of times in competition (training too) to provide cover
3) WIN

Might be why so many elite athletes are asthmatic? maybe?

 

[Red Rick]

Re: blood transfusions, it’s more possible that he was taking salbutamol orallly prior to withdrawal, which has many more performance enhancing effects than via inhaler and much stronger doses. When he re-infused he kicked over the threshold.

Yes, but he'd still have to take a boatload to get a urine concentration that high from a blood transfusion. And why would he be taking any at all, except possibly to counteract genuine ashthma, during the offseason, when he most likely would be withdrawing?

With regard to the PE effects of oral doses, here's a study that reported a significant increase in peak power in an anaerobic bike ergometer test:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077918

As the authors note, this would help sprinters, not GT men, but hey, Froome has won some crucial time on some sprints recently.

I would also add, he may have tripped the tripwire in the past and the UCI have in confidence accepted his explanation. He certainly appeared very casual about this situation since September until it leaked.

Yes, can't rule this out. But I don't think even a protected rider could get away with this very often.

Here's some more relevant literature:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22388343
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927035

These two studies by the same group measured urinary levels of salbutamol four hours after inhaling 800 ug (which is the 12 hour limit set by WADA). In the first study, only 1/18 subjects exceeded the 1000 ng/ml. urinary limit, and not by much (1057). Eight of the subjects were described as elite athletes with ashthma, and had a mean urinary level of about 335 ng/ml. Moreover, if the urine concentration in that one high sample was corrected for specific gravity—i.e., dehydration makes the urine solutes more concentrated than normal—the salbutamol concentration dropped to 661. I don’t know whether in the WADA testing procedure, this correction is carried out or not, but regardless, I assume the 1000 ng/ml was found to be appropriate to however the urine is treated. I also need to point out I saw another study reporting that making the SG correction actually increased the effective concentration, so sometimes subjects being tested apparently have very dilute urine.

In the second study, the mean value of ten subjects was just 261 ng/ml. So clearly, at the maximum permitted doses, going over the urinary limit is not common. In contrast, in both these studies, subjects also took 8 mg (ten times the inhalation dose) orally. The mean urinary values were 2000-3000, though there was enormous individual variation, as indeed, is the case regardless of route of administration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16541373

In this study, the authors administered 100 ug doses of salbutamol twice daily to ten subjects, and on the basis of the urinary levels, concluded that the WADA limit could be lowered to just 250 ng/ml. Someone here who takes salbumatol can comment on whether 200 ug/day is a reasonable dose, or whether the 800 – 1600 ug dose is really necessary.

Another study reported a false positive rate of 4% using 500 ng/ml as the limit, but the amount inhaled was not given in the abstract. Also, the amounts will vary depending on whether the free or conjugated forms of the drug are measured. I'm not clear yet on whether the WADA urinary limit refers to free salbutamol or total, which makes a substantial difference, and also whether, as I mentioned above, the urine is corrected to a typical value of specific gravity. But overall, I think we can conclude that a value of 2000 ng/ml, as reported for Froome, is far more likely to result from an oral dose than an inhaled one. From what I've seen so far, I'd be a little surprised if he could get a urinary level that high by inhaling within the WADA limit.

Another interesting aspect of this is that in theory, one can distinguish inhaled from oral salbutamol from the ratio of free to sulfated, but this is difficult, apparently because when one inhales, one may actually swallow some of the substance? Maybe an asthmatic can comment on this?

Good read.

Would Froome have to prove he'd get over 1000 nanogram, or would he need to prove 2000 nanogram?

In any case, I doubt they're gonna force him to do lab tests and think he'll get off with some bs explanation.

 

[Robert5091]

2014
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/06/12/didnt-know-froomes-asthma-now/

What is very curious is that while Froome has been very open about his previous struggles with the parasitic disease bilharzia – which hampered his progress for years – he never thought to mention his even longer struggles with asthma. Indeed, he has previously cited bilharzia as the reason behind his frequent “colds and coughs”.

Yet not once have we spotted Froome using the inhaler we have now been told he travels around with pretty much everywhere he goes. In fact, when Froome gave a rather chesty interview following his Tour de Romandie win in 2013, Michelle Cound assured her followers that her man was fit and healthy, claiming that “hard effort and cold air always makes him cough a bit.”

Cound never mentioned the asthma that, duh, might have been a better explanation.

 

[Lyon]

Why are people talking about 'research shows this' and 'research shows that' when the real research is done daily by countless athletes all over the world? And that research shows without a shadow of doubt that asthma inhalers/whathaveyous is indeed performance enhancing even before you reach the established limits.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

If he was innocent this would have been so super easy to get in front of with the facts. Especially given a 3 month head start.

John Swanson

Here you go John, quote from BBC website reposted again seeing as you seem to have missed it the first time round when i posted in response to the same comment you made yesterday....

"Froome has already sent the UCI his first submission of evidence but that was done within two weeks of the initial notification on September 20, the day of the World Championships time trial"

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

If he was innocent this would have been so super easy to get in front of with the facts. Especially given a 3 month head start.

John Swanson

Here you go John, quote from BBC website reposted again seeing as you seem to have missed it the first time round when i posted in response to the same comment you made yesterday....

"Froome has already sent the UCI his first submission of evidence but that was done within two weeks of the initial notification on September 20, the day of the World Championships time trial"

I think the answer simply is... Froome thought his submission of "evidence" in the first two weeks would be sufficient for the investigation and that any discussion will happen outside publicity. Now of course we know that the matter has leaked to media, which is very welcome - these things should not be investigated outside publicity because it is raising exactly the questions people are raising now and looks very dodgy, not only for Froome, but also for UCI.

Now when it is in public, it is only natural that Froome hires layer, he might've felt it wasn't necessary before when the topic was "secret". It does show arrogance from Froome, but hey we know that ability is in the DNA of team Sky.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: blood transfusions, it’s more possible that he was taking salbutamol orallly prior to withdrawal, which has many more performance enhancing effects than via inhaler and much stronger doses. When he re-infused he kicked over the threshold.

Yes, but he'd still have to take a boatload to get a urine concentration that high from a blood transfusion. And why would he be taking any at all, except possibly to counteract genuine ashthma, during the offseason, when he most likely would be withdrawing?

With regard to the PE effects of oral doses, here's a study that reported a significant increase in peak power in an anaerobic bike ergometer test:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077918

As the authors note, this would help sprinters, not GT men, but hey, Froome has won some crucial time on some sprints recently.

I would also add, he may have tripped the tripwire in the past and the UCI have in confidence accepted his explanation. He certainly appeared very casual about this situation since September until it leaked.

Yes, can't rule this out. But I don't think even a protected rider could get away with this very often.

Here's some more relevant literature:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22388343
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927035

These two studies by the same group measured urinary levels of salbutamol four hours after inhaling 800 ug (which is the 12 hour limit set by WADA). In the first study, only 1/18 subjects exceeded the 1000 ng/ml. urinary limit, and not by much (1057). Eight of the subjects were described as elite athletes with ashthma, and had a mean urinary level of about 335 ng/ml. Moreover, if the urine concentration in that one high sample was corrected for specific gravity—i.e., dehydration makes the urine solutes more concentrated than normal—the salbutamol concentration dropped to 661. I don’t know whether in the WADA testing procedure, this correction is carried out or not, but regardless, I assume the 1000 ng/ml was found to be appropriate to however the urine is treated. I also need to point out I saw another study reporting that making the SG correction actually increased the effective concentration, so sometimes subjects being tested apparently have very dilute urine.

In the second study, the mean value of ten subjects was just 261 ng/ml. So clearly, at the maximum permitted doses, going over the urinary limit is not common. In contrast, in both these studies, subjects also took 8 mg (ten times the inhalation dose) orally. The mean urinary values were 2000-3000, though there was enormous individual variation, as indeed, is the case regardless of route of administration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16541373

In this study, the authors administered 100 ug doses of salbutamol twice daily to ten subjects, and on the basis of the urinary levels, concluded that the WADA limit could be lowered to just 250 ng/ml. Someone here who takes salbumatol can comment on whether 200 ug/day is a reasonable dose, or whether the 800 – 1600 ug dose is really necessary.

Another study reported a false positive rate of 4% using 500 ng/ml as the limit, but the amount inhaled was not given in the abstract. Also, the amounts will vary depending on whether the free or conjugated forms of the drug are measured. I'm not clear yet on whether the WADA urinary limit refers to free salbutamol or total, which makes a substantial difference, and also whether, as I mentioned above, the urine is corrected to a typical value of specific gravity. But overall, I think we can conclude that a value of 2000 ng/ml, as reported for Froome, is far more likely to result from an oral dose than an inhaled one. From what I've seen so far, I'd be a little surprised if he could get a urinary level that high by inhaling within the WADA limit.

Another interesting aspect of this is that in theory, one can distinguish inhaled from oral salbutamol from the ratio of free to sulfated, but this is difficult, apparently because when one inhales, one may actually swallow some of the substance? Maybe an asthmatic can comment on this?

Good read.

Would Froome have to prove he'd get over 1000 nanogram, or would he need to prove 2000 nanogram?

In any case, I doubt they're gonna force him to do lab tests and think he'll get off with some bs explanation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24518370

Couldn't access the full text of this, and probably wouldn't be able to understand it if i could.....but the headline conclusion from the study reads that out of 32 athletes given salbutamol within the permissible UCI doseage, then asked to exercise in hot/humid conditions (ie. to induce dehydration), 20 of those athletes then returned readings above the 1000 ng limit.

Interesting. But i guess the only study that really matters now will be the one conducted specifically on Chris Froome.

 

[Brian Butterfield]

...via Mike Morgan....I guess.

 

[The Hitch]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

Great find

 

[MartinGT]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

*applause* Spot on Hitch

 

[Brian Butterfield]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

The cloak of convenience: obfuscation and faux moderation.

 

[Salvarani]

Take away his Vuelta win and ban him for 9 months.

Let justice be served.

 

[The Hitch]

Don't confuse romance (legacies, heroes, villains, beloved sport) with business and competition.

lol.
Don't steal from us. We are the ones who for years argued that humans are humans, and that there are no fairytales

You guys (yes I count you as amongst them even if you may protest that you are someone different) are the ones that either believed or willingly accepted romantic fairytales about how wiggo and brailsford and froome loved cycling so much they trained way past realistic phsycial limits and magically overcame the boosts of doping through training and unexplained mystic "science".

So nice try to lecture us about it but the argument of "cold reality of human nature>>>>>> magic of sport" is one that we OWN.