samhocking said:From what I gather, his typical inhaler use is actually relatively low most of the time, but during the last week of Vuelta it was significantly higher than in the past with a combination of chest infection triggering asthma, anti-biotics and the last week which hadn't really occurred in that combination before in his career and the last time it happened so badly he had a TUE obviously, so his asthma was medically under control then so not leaning so heavy on Salbutomol to deal with the asthma from the chest infection.
He had a TUE in both 2013 and 2014, so it sounds as though this severe bout of symptoms has not been that uncommon. The explanation has to be that after 2014 there was never a problem again until four years later, though he was riding two GTs a year throughout that period (crashed out of the Vuelta once). And even if that’s true, then his levels throughout the last week should have been very high. Yet it was reported that they were not > 600 except that one day. So did he just have severe symptoms that one day?
And if they were so severe, wouldn't he have had to use the inhaler earlier in the race, maybe before the race began? I understand Froome said before he only needs to inhale during great efforts, but if that was the case during this stage, it doesn't sound as though the symptoms were that severe. Froome has to argue he was fine until the last hour or two of the race, then needed all of the salbutamol. He even said he puffed after the stage was over, though he wasn't making great efforts at that time. It really doesn't add up to me.
But even if one accepts all this, the fact remains, as I’ve pointed out several times, that several studies have failed to replicate the prediction of Heuberger’s model. They haven’t found such high levels when samples are provided right after 800 ug. Even the model itself, dog data and all, predicts Froome’s levels would be quite uncommon. You could have a very good argument that even if you swallowed Heuberger hook-line-and-sinker, and completely ignored all the other literature, the case for exoneration still isn't strong enough.
Bottom line, there are several obstacles that have to be overcome for Froome’s defense to be plausible, and arguing that it might be possible to get by the first doesn’t begin to provide an answer.
bigcog said:The case was dropped because he didn't have a case to answer. If that isn't proving yourself 'clean' in this context I don't know what is.
Nope. NCA has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t apply to Froome’s case.
brownbobby said:Genuine question MI......do you really think or have any information that suggests the Heuberger report was key?
If so, that is something I would find very surprising given the flaws in the study previously discussed
It was very strongly implied in the statement quoted in VN, which I mentioned in the salbutamol thread:
a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol,”
Two key phrases here: 1) short period prior to the doping control; and 2) demonstrated within-subject variability.
Only Heuberger, AFAIK, has emphasized the importance of taking samples very soon after inhalation. That is one of the key points of the paper. They also emphasize the great variability. Others have commented on this, too, and have provided empirical support for it, but none I'm aware of has shown that the variability accounts for Froome's level assuming 800 ug.
The latter is one of the immediate criticisms I expect to hear if/when the details are released. Frankly, the decision seems like a gigantic raised middle finger to a lot of salbutamol researchers. I know there are some researchers who have been arguing for years that the variability is so great that the threshold level is unfair, but the actual data that are available don't support Froome's case.
The truth is rarely immediately accompanied by clarity
But announcements of decisions are usually accompanied by details.
armchairclimber said:Froome has not failed a test. There was no AAF. I know you don't like that, but it is fact. No failed test. And Jeez, don't pretend Valverde is or ever was clean. Iam. as you know, a Valverde fan (now). But he is no cleaner than Froome.
Yes, there was an AAF. Hard to believe that after all this time, there are posters who don’t even understand what an AAF is.