Ulissi pulled

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
King Boonen said:
No, prednisolone is a tablet.
No, prednisolone is a drug which has many delivery methods. Oral is one of them, syrup, injection, suspension and eye drops are other methods of delivery based on the needs and condition being treated.

You're welcome.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Did a little research. There's not too much definitive about sabultamol, it seems it may help weight loss and muscle growth but it that seems to be about it. It still seems a very soft drug to get pinged for. It certainly isn't rocket fuel
Either is synthetic testosterone at the normal levels found in the human male body when functioning normally.

Yet, the stupidity and stigma associated with "roids" make it a substance that apparently can make you the best cyclist ever!!!!

Of course, that has never been proven at any time. But we will continue to propagate the myth. Makes for good conversation and debate.
 
hrotha said:
Correction: he claims he was suffering from bronchiospasms

How does it enhance performance? I don't know. There's lots of stuff about PED interaction we know very little about, since it's not typically the kind of thing people conduct serious studies about. What we do know is that salbutamol is used by dopers. They probably know more than both of us about what works and what doesn't.

We've had this conversation many times regarding the definition of PEDs.

I say, performance is relative. It is relative to the baseline measured.

You bet your **** that taking an inhaled drug like salbuterol, that then allows you to breathe, takes your performance from ZERO (oh my god I can barely breathe) to, "hey, look at me!!! I'm winning stages because I no longer have asthma!!"

So yes, it is a PED. But, it is a socially acceptable condition where the WADA/USADA and public at large, will continue to make claim that other drugs like testosterone are "roids" and bad and make you a super hero. But, you can inhale meds, take cortocosteroids etc...with a TUE, out of competition, and that doesn't enhance performance?!?!

The hypocrisy and stupidity of the entire what is a PED is boggling to my mind.
 
hfer07 said:
The greatest Irony here with the Ullise's positive is how "ridiculous" looks the "Froome's TUE......

can Lampre use & leverage on The Sky situation to come up with a "solution" for Ullise's case?
Michael Rogers might anwser that question... :rolleyes:
 
hfer07 said:
The greatest Irony here with the Ullise's positive is how "ridiculous" looks the "Froome's TUE......

can Lampre use & leverage on The Sky situation to come up with a "solution" for Ullise's case?
Withdraw from the sham MPCC that permits former dopers to ride without much contrition?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I doubt riders are taking just 1 or 2 PEDs like Salbutamol or Prednisolone and these are only 1 part of the cocktail of the 'program'.
 
Jul 28, 2011
133
0
0
Hakkapelit said:
Micro and nanograms are quite different in scale, your comparisson is invalid.
You're right it's not a direct comparison but it's closer than you think to the truth. The units reported are ng/ml. If you take an inhaler before a road stage, assume it gets more or less dissolved and fully excreted in 1L of urine (the half life is short and 1L of urine produced over a full stage is a valid assumption). That's 1900 ug/L <==> 1900 ng/ml.
 
More Strides than Rides said:
Its crazy how effective these low octane drugs are. Froome goes from sick to sickk!!. Ullisi wasn't a chump before, but he definitely turned into a champ. He may be on other drugs that went undetected, but still baffling what they can do.

It may be possible for a clean rider to win a race, but it is equally as possible for a low-octane drug to be the difference maker.
I don't think the data supports such a conclusion. We simply don't know what they're doing, and of course blood transfusions are undetectable within certain limits.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
red_flanders said:
I don't think the data supports such a conclusion. We simply don't know what they're doing, and of course blood transfusions are undetectable within certain limits.
Even a really small transfusion would still make a fair amount of difference if your rival(s) are clean.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I realise they probably do not even have to release the info publicly, but any idea why it takes 5 weeks for this info to be released?
So, the International Standards for testing is ambiguous, and The code is not specific. I found more specific guidelines from a documentof proposed ammendments and questions from NADOs. UKAD. NADOs can have their own guidelines for notification of athletes USADA has nothing clear on their website except cute yellow and red buttons for info about urine and blood tests blood. UKADrules were a little more specific.

"Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Sample."

The “B” Sample analysis should occur as soon as possible and should take place no later than seven (7) working days starting the first working day following request of the Testing Authority
, unless ..."


National ADAs have to report adverse results within 20 days of the hearing determining the positive result. (paraphrased from IST)

Heres a timeline for an athlete taking every available day to delay:

Day 1: Sample Collection
(__ days for travel)
Day 2/3?: Receipt of A sample
Day 12: Test results occur
Day __(15)__: Athlete notified of Adverse finding

UKAD says notification is in writing ASAP. 2-3 days for snail mail?.*

Athlete has 10 days from the receipt of charge to request a hearing

Notice of Charge defines a date and time within 7 days of athlete's (anticipated) receipt of charge for B sample analysis.
Athlete responds y/n to request to be present in the B sample analysis.

Day 22: B sample Analysis, athlete/rep amy or may not be present

If B sample confirms A, then a provisional suspension is handed out confidentially to the related parties.
Day 25: Athlete requests hearing:

-expedited hearings occur within 14 days of the provisional suspension
- regular hearings' timeline is unclear, but presumably at least 14 days

Day 39 (at least): expedited (if opted) hearing occurs. regular hearing occurs later

Day 59: latest edge of the window to report results: it sounds like the NADO stays confidential up to this point unless the related parties release info, but could release its own info outside of this window.



So, 59 working days, and probably longer if the athlete really wanted to stretch it out. I'm guessing JTL is in a purgatory between the request for hearing, a (confidential?) provisional suspension, and a confidential appeal. Ullissi fastracked by not asking for a hearing, but probably opted for and waited for B sample analysis.
 
May 3, 2010
603
0
0
I would think this is just used to mask something else.

I see the comparison to Froome, but on the other hand, if I am interpreting this correctly Ulissi's blood value showed twice what the TUE exception would have allowed.
 
More Strides than Rides said:
So, 59 working days, and probably longer if the athlete really wanted to stretch it out. I'm guessing JTL is in a purgatory between the request for hearing, a (confidential?) provisional suspension, and a confidential appeal. Ullissi fastracked by not asking for a hearing, but probably opted for and waited for B sample analysis.

Good guideline for why the process can take so long.

Minor point.
JTL was openly provisionally suspended once UKAD opened the case.
The time off will count against his ban should one be forthcoming, or is simply time lost if cleared.
 
Just getting caught up on this.

He was tested several times during the race.

If the levels were low prior, you have evidence of a major slug of salbutamol being taken.

If the prior levels are increasing, maybe there is grounds for him "over puffing" his clearance rate. (which may or may not be evidence for him taking more than 16 puffs, some people do not clear the drug well in their urine and it can build-up).

No matter what it does sound like he was targeted for testing during this race.
 
offbyone said:
I would think this is just used to mask something else.
Any evidence for that?

offbyone said:
I see the comparison to Froome, but on the other hand, if I am interpreting this correctly Ulissi's blood value showed twice what the TUE exception would have allowed.
It was urine, not blood.

Catwhoorg said:
No matter what it does sound like he was targeted for testing during this race.
Winning two stages and coming 2nd in the time trial would mean he was tested 3 times.
 
zigmeister said:
No, prednisolone is a drug which has many delivery methods. Oral is one of them, syrup, injection, suspension and eye drops are other methods of delivery based on the needs and condition being treated.

You're welcome.
We're talking in the context of Froome, take the pedantry elsewhere. I am fully aware of the delivery methods for prednisolone.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY