Ulissi - Provisionally Suspended - Salbutamol

tailwindhome

VeloNews ‏@velonews · 2m
Lampre announces that Diego Ulissi has been provisionally suspended for adverse analytical finding of salbutamol over allowed limit at Giro

ddraver

tailwindhome

http://www.teamlampremerida.com/en/2014 ... ficiale-4/

ddraver

Mwa ha!

tailwindhome

Positive on Stage 11
2nd on TT on Stage 12

TMR

Just in case anyone looks at this and thinks "What?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol

Is that the same substance Froome had to get a TUE for?

tailwindhome

TMR wrote:

Just in case anyone looks at this and thinks "What?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol

Is that the same substance Froome had to get a TUE for?

No. AFAIK It the substance which doesn't require a TUE under certain limits.

#inhalergate rather than #TUEgate

jimmythecuckoo

Cyclingnews saying he had exemption but had too much in his system.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/diego-u ... ro-ditalia

mm1

Like Pettachi, a bit over enthusiastic with the puffs (or maybe can't count)? Surely the excretion test (and B sample) should be done before the adverse test result is made public?

type:epyt

Did Petacchi not fall foul of this?

edit: that's twice that's happened today

calvjones

Cripes. Even I didn't think he'd get (semi) pinged this quickly... and I got a good kicking on here during the race for suggesting he might.

No idea whether it actually affects performance at all but I guess that's irrelevant.

RichN95.

I'm confused. How is this possible? Lampre are an MPCC team and they have rules which mean they are not allowed to dope.

ddraver

The way i remember it from the Froome/Twaliban Hissy Fit was that below the limit it will only return an asthmatic to that of a healthy accent. But if you go far over the limit then it can become performance enhancing. Basically a "standard" amount will have no effect but if you chug it like a 50 a day smoker chugs fags then it will...

calvjones

ddraver wrote:

The way i remember it from the Froome/Twaliban Hissy Fit was that below the limit it will only return an asthmatic to that of a healthy accent. But if you go far over the limit then it can become performance enhancing. Basically a "standard" amount will have no effect but if you chug it like a 50 a day smoker chugs fags then it will...

Anyone know what %age of the Peloton are asthmatic these days? It was always pretty high. I always found this interesting; I remember a couple of years ago watching sadly as my mate's little girl cycled effortlessly away from my (asthmatic) son up a hill.

Ventolin will open an asthma-blocked airway but no idea if it can 'widen' an already healthy one. Anyone?

ddraver

as above...

Give me more

Tame thing to get popped for.

Crampeur

mm1 wrote:

Like Pettachi, a bit over enthusiastic with the puffs (or maybe can't count)?

Well it would be equivalent to 32 puffs of a standard Ventolin inhaler. So very over enthusiastic.

mulletmaster

Well they had to have some sort of doping controversy the week before the tour.
Lame thing to get done for as above. Can't see how double to "legal" limit would have much effect on performance.

ozzzyosborn206

mm1 wrote:

Like Pettachi, a bit over enthusiastic with the puffs (or maybe can't count)? Surely the excretion test (and B sample) should be done before the adverse test result is made public?

It is him team that have pulled him from racing under their own accord and not a ban handed from WADA, UCI hence why it is public(i think?)

mm1

calvjones wrote:

Anyone know what %age of the Peloton are asthmatic these days? It was always pretty high. I always found this interesting; I remember a couple of years ago watching sadly as my mate's little girl cycled effortlessly away from my (asthmatic) son up a hill.

Ventolin will open an asthma-blocked airway but no idea if it can 'widen' an already healthy one. Anyone?

No performance enhancing effect on someone without asthma as far as I know. Phil Gaimon talks about it being a matter of course to "fix" spirometer tests and widespread inhaler use on at least one US team in his book (I'd have to read it again to remember the anecdote, book thoroughly recommended btw). A distant memory from the late 70s early 80s is that Seb Coe suffered from exercise induced asthma, but I don't recall him using an inhaler (which may well have been banned at the time), perhaps someone should ask him?

Mad_Malx

no TUE required for ordinary inhaled use, and therapeutic doses VERY unlikely to be of any benefit to non-asthmatic in or out competition. Non-asthmatic airways are pretty much fully dilated, so no benefit there.

Standard inhaled dose is 100micrograms (ie 1000x higher than the press release says), but up to 4x400 micrograms per day allowed. Only a fraction of this reaches the circulation and hence urine, so the urine concentration would still be below the correctly stated limit even after such a high (but legal) load (total 1600microgram). There is no way he could get up to 1900ng/ml through inhalation of standard doses - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563035.

Edit - lack of ergogenic effects of therapeutic doses -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241101

Turfle

Mad_Malx wrote:

no TUE required for ordinary inhaled use, and therapeutic doses VERY unlikely to be of any benefit to non-asthmatic in or out competition. Non-asthmatic airways are pretty much fully dilated, so no benefit there.

Standard inhaled dose is 100micrograms (ie 1000x higher than the press release says), but up to 4x400 micrograms per day allowed. Only a fraction of this reaches the circulation and hence urine, so the urine concentration would still be below the correctly stated limit even after such a high (but legal) load (total 1600microgram). There is no way he could get up to 1900ng/ml through inhalation of standard doses - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563035.

Edit - lack of ergogenic effects of therapeutic doses -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241101

Thanks for that, Malx.

What, if anything, does it suggest to you?

frenchfighter

Mad_Malx wrote:

no TUE required for ordinary inhaled use, and therapeutic doses VERY unlikely to be of any benefit to non-asthmatic in or out competition. Non-asthmatic airways are pretty much fully dilated, so no benefit there.

Standard inhaled dose is 100micrograms (ie 1000x higher than the press release says), but up to 4x400 micrograms per day allowed. Only a fraction of this reaches the circulation and hence urine, so the urine concentration would still be below the correctly stated limit even after such a high (but legal) load (total 1600microgram). There is no way he could get up to 1900ng/ml through inhalation of standard doses - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563035.

Edit - lack of ergogenic effects of therapeutic doses -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241101

From cyclingnews: The Italian was allowed two puff of the inhaler, which would equate to 100 ng/ml

ng = nanogram not microgram. 100 micrograms = 100,000 nanograms.

Are cyclingnews incorrect?

Unless ng/ml = ng/1000?

Mad_Malx

frenchfighter wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

no TUE required for ordinary inhaled use, and therapeutic doses VERY unlikely to be of any benefit to non-asthmatic in or out competition. Non-asthmatic airways are pretty much fully dilated, so no benefit there.

Standard inhaled dose is 100micrograms (ie 1000x higher than the press release says), but up to 4x400 micrograms per day allowed. Only a fraction of this reaches the circulation and hence urine, so the urine concentration would still be below the correctly stated limit even after such a high (but legal) load (total 1600microgram). There is no way he could get up to 1900ng/ml through inhalation of standard doses - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563035.

Edit - lack of ergogenic effects of therapeutic doses -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241101

From cyclingnews: The Italian was allowed two puff of the inhaler, which would equate to 100 ng/ml

ng = nanogram not microgram. 100 micrograms = 100,000 nanograms.

Are cyclingnews incorrect?

Unless ng/ml = ng/1000?

Yes - they're just repeating the faulty press release. I see one of the commenters (not me) says the same as I do, as does the BNF and the articles I cite.

BNF = British National Formulary, but the European's the same.

frenchfighter

So a standard dose is 100,000 ng and he had 1900 ng? Or do they mean he had 1,900,00 ng?

Mad_Malx

Also, you're mixing up dose (mass of drug taken) and concentration (amount per ml urine or plasma).

Unless he has a plasma volume of 1 ml, then taking 100 ng will not result in 100 ng/ml

frenchfighter

Got it. Is there a rough approx you could give for how much ng he would have had for 1900ng/ml?

Mad_Malx

Turfle wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

no TUE required for ordinary inhaled use, and therapeutic doses VERY unlikely to be of any benefit to non-asthmatic in or out competition. Non-asthmatic airways are pretty much fully dilated, so no benefit there.

Standard inhaled dose is 100micrograms (ie 1000x higher than the press release says), but up to 4x400 micrograms per day allowed. Only a fraction of this reaches the circulation and hence urine, so the urine concentration would still be below the correctly stated limit even after such a high (but legal) load (total 1600microgram). There is no way he could get up to 1900ng/ml through inhalation of standard doses - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563035.

Edit - lack of ergogenic effects of therapeutic doses -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17241101

Thanks for that, Malx.

What, if anything, does it suggest to you?

If the B sample confirms he's taken oral or intravenous salbutamol, either because he's very very stupid (limited effect and easily detected) or someone put it in his bidon/sandwiches.

bigcgilmour

Can it be used as a masking agent???

I'm mildly asthmatic, couldn't say my performance was ever enhanced..then again I'm no athlete.

Mad_Malx

frenchfighter wrote:

Got it. Is there a rough approx you could give for how much ng he would have had for 1900ng/ml?

According to the first article I mention above, people taking up to 1.6 mg over 6 hours (ie 16 x100 microgram or 8x200) reach up to about 1 microgram/ml in urine, so very roughly twice this would be needed - 32 puffs of 100microgram.
(very roughly because the calculation needs sums I can't do without more information about the kinetics of salbutamol, but I think I'm in the right ballpark). Higher strength preps of 200 are available, but I'm assuming they only got their units 1000 fold out and the numerals are right.

frenchfighter

Ok thank you.