-
Giro d'Italia 2025 - Follow the race via our live blog for all the latest news!
red_flanders
Moderator
- Apr 3, 2009
- 11,821
- 6,897
- 28,180
Re: Re:
Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
TheSpud said:
Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
Re: Re:
I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with 7l of normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge. Also likely if it was a bag, then more likely nowadays to be a frozen spun mixture, etc. Its on the 'Salbutamol' post he started - a great thread.
IF Sky were doing that then I'd be hugely surprised that they would *** that up, indeed its such a well known issue that I'd be surprised if any team got that wrong.
red_flanders said:
I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with 7l of normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge. Also likely if it was a bag, then more likely nowadays to be a frozen spun mixture, etc. Its on the 'Salbutamol' post he started - a great thread.
IF Sky were doing that then I'd be hugely surprised that they would *** that up, indeed its such a well known issue that I'd be surprised if any team got that wrong.
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,203
- 49
- 5,530
MartinGT said:
Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?
I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning
brownbobby said:MartinGT said:
Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?
I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning
He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,203
- 49
- 5,530
TheSpud said:brownbobby said:MartinGT said:
Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?
I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning
He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.
I was kidding, wouldn't vote for no dopers. Mo Farah gets my vote
brownbobby said:TheSpud said:brownbobby said:MartinGT said:
Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?
I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning
He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.
I was kidding, wouldn't vote for no dopers. Mo Farah gets my vote
Re: Re:
(a) - yes 4.5l rather than 7l is much more likely (I was thinking in terms of pints)
(b) - In terms of Berty he was under the legal limit for clen wasn't he (or it wasn't established at the time, or something)? Were the plasticizers ever confirmed officially?
If they do test and find plasticizers for Froome then its game over. Do / can they regularly test for those?
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
(a) - yes 4.5l rather than 7l is much more likely (I was thinking in terms of pints)
(b) - In terms of Berty he was under the legal limit for clen wasn't he (or it wasn't established at the time, or something)? Were the plasticizers ever confirmed officially?
If they do test and find plasticizers for Froome then its game over. Do / can they regularly test for those?
- Feb 14, 2014
- 1,680
- 336
- 11,180
There is no legal limit for clenbuterol. Any amount of it is a doping offence. If I recall correctly, the story at the time was that there was so little of it in his blood that only one lab in the world was able to actually detect it in his sample, but since it was there and the contaminated beef cover story wasn't believed, he got slapped with a ban.
Re: Re:
I thought that was the 'usual' dose.
I wonder how it would work if you put in 100ml every / every other night? Enough of a boost? Low enough not to trigger the blood passport? I cant see how that would trigger a salbutamol test (as per Merkcx Index).
glassmoon said:
I thought that was the 'usual' dose.
I wonder how it would work if you put in 100ml every / every other night? Enough of a boost? Low enough not to trigger the blood passport? I cant see how that would trigger a salbutamol test (as per Merkcx Index).
- Jul 11, 2013
- 3,340
- 0
- 0
A marginal gains approach to pills would probably be a huge amount of different pills for what not.
Some non banned, some with a limit for testing.
Perhaps a sleepy moment in packaging and adminestering gave two of one instead of one of each in this case.
An innocent human error. But the risk of a marginal "little bit of everything" regime.
Some non banned, some with a limit for testing.
Perhaps a sleepy moment in packaging and adminestering gave two of one instead of one of each in this case.
An innocent human error. But the risk of a marginal "little bit of everything" regime.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 421
- 5
- 9,285
Re:
That's what I'm leaning towards. It fits Ochams Razor better than anything else to my eye, & explains a lot of the subsequent reaction.
Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.
Then he was left coming up with BS excuses like the Doctor telling him to take 3 or 4 huffs right before the drug control so, he wouldn't be coughing during interviews
As we've seen before, Sky have no problem throwing MDs in front of the Bus to save their stars !
mrhender said:
That's what I'm leaning towards. It fits Ochams Razor better than anything else to my eye, & explains a lot of the subsequent reaction.
Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.
Then he was left coming up with BS excuses like the Doctor telling him to take 3 or 4 huffs right before the drug control so, he wouldn't be coughing during interviews
As we've seen before, Sky have no problem throwing MDs in front of the Bus to save their stars !
Re: Re:
To repeat what's been said before they can test for oral vs inhalation.
keeponrollin said:
To repeat what's been said before they can test for oral vs inhalation.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 421
- 5
- 9,285
Re: Re:
But this is the UCI & Sky we're taking about here; isn't it ??
You know; the ones who only released the fact that there was an AAF, when they knew it was going to be on the front pages the next day ?
deValtos said:
But this is the UCI & Sky we're taking about here; isn't it ??
You know; the ones who only released the fact that there was an AAF, when they knew it was going to be on the front pages the next day ?
red_flanders
Moderator
- Apr 3, 2009
- 11,821
- 6,897
- 28,180
Re: Re:
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.
TheSpud 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.
Re: Re:
It's also been pointed out in more than one post that even when the salbutamol is inhaled, some of it ends up being swallowed, which I can say makes sense to me as someone who has been using a variety of asthma medication for twenty years now.
deValtos said:
It's also been pointed out in more than one post that even when the salbutamol is inhaled, some of it ends up being swallowed, which I can say makes sense to me as someone who has been using a variety of asthma medication for twenty years now.
Hey guys,
I am new here. I have been waiting for that moment for a quite while but still a bit disappointed that it's "only" Salbutamol. Excess of Salbutamol doesn't explain crazy past performances (Ventoux, ST Martin, etc..) What really puzzles me is that there is not any journalist doing some real digging for Froome like they did for Lance. For example, talk to former Barloword teams mates to check if Froome had potential, was doping at the time, had asthma, Bilarzia, etc.. Also, check with hotel manager in Tenerife if they really were "zealous" about that missed test. The journalist could also investigate his blood values from bio passport by talking to former panelists. Are they too "clean"? Basically, he won't probably gather real proof but a lot of small hints that would increase pressure and help us to find out the truth.
I think they are plenty of ways to find out if he is fraud or not. What we have now is just the tip of the iceberg. What I want to know and probably other clean riders is that what is he really on (BB, microdosing, new drugs, motor, etc..)?
I am new here. I have been waiting for that moment for a quite while but still a bit disappointed that it's "only" Salbutamol. Excess of Salbutamol doesn't explain crazy past performances (Ventoux, ST Martin, etc..) What really puzzles me is that there is not any journalist doing some real digging for Froome like they did for Lance. For example, talk to former Barloword teams mates to check if Froome had potential, was doping at the time, had asthma, Bilarzia, etc.. Also, check with hotel manager in Tenerife if they really were "zealous" about that missed test. The journalist could also investigate his blood values from bio passport by talking to former panelists. Are they too "clean"? Basically, he won't probably gather real proof but a lot of small hints that would increase pressure and help us to find out the truth.
I think they are plenty of ways to find out if he is fraud or not. What we have now is just the tip of the iceberg. What I want to know and probably other clean riders is that what is he really on (BB, microdosing, new drugs, motor, etc..)?
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Re: Re:
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.
red_flanders said:
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 30K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 1: Durrës - Tirana (160.0k)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 81
-
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 821
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram