Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Nothing in this makes sense, we'll see what Sky can come up with but any evidence which suggests Froome could have exceeded the limit by 100% legally will beg the question why we haven't had many other cyclists exceeding the limit by lower amounts. If it's possible to hit 2000 then at face value exceeding 1000 shouldn't be unusual.

Well since this was leaked, we actually have no idea if or how many other cyclists may have exceeded the limit and been able to explain it satisfactorily. Exceeding 1000 might not be especially unusual.

haydenm

Tangled Metal wrote:

As a salbutamol taker myself I can say that after taking two puffs of an inhaler I sound pretty good. It works fast and I recover almost to the level I was before I started getting symptoms. Most of the time.

If I read your comment right

Froome looked and sounded good in all the post race interviews so one can assume he was nt dying.

then I would assume that the salbutamol had worked. I've never taken it and not had a noticeable positive reaction myself and would expect if Froome is able to race then salbutamol would have had an equally positive impact.

I've been bad once or twice where I needed 4 dosed puffs on the inhaler in one short period then later on a repeat. I think the most I've taken in any single 24 hour period is 12 doses. IIRC they still didn't get me back to my normal levels. It was usually a bad cold that was causing me issues along with allergic reaction I had to stop riding my bike for a week it was so bad.

I do wonder about asthma in top level sport. I don't doubt they have it just why they would continue suffering in a GT when they're having bad periods of asthma? Perhaps they need better advice / treatment. Is there any better drug regime they could take to prevent rather than treat asthma? Is there a safety issue with all this? Are they medically fit to race a GT? Just curious.

I agree, salbutamol doesn't put me back to high peak flow even with high doses if there is something triggering it. I mentioned it before but this Fostair inhaler I was prescribed (morning and night) last week has 100% stopped any reliance on reliever puffs in the day, and that is coming from a bad spell. Obviously people react differently but there are better drugs to take if you need them so why anyone with such top level support could be caught out like this is just a bit silly. Maybe understandable but silly. As far as I can tell Fostair is legal in competition at my level but the website is pretty difficult to work out

lee_d_m

People are getting confused with the amount of Salbutamol inhaled and Froome's reading

The amount inhaled is measured in mg/l, 1 puff = 100 or 200 mg/l.

Froome's reading was of his urine and was 2000ng/l. Therefore you cannot say that 20 x puffs of 100mg/l = Froome's reading as we're talking about different scales.

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

I do wonder about asthma in top level sport. I don't doubt they have it just why they would continue suffering in a GT when they're having bad periods of asthma? Perhaps they need better advice / treatment. Is there any better drug regime they could take to prevent rather than treat asthma? Is there a safety issue with all this? Are they medically fit to race a GT? Just curious.

Are you asking if Chris Froome is medically fit enough to race a GT?

RichN95.

The problem with asthma is that a lot of people still associate it with the wheezy nerd at school who had a sick note for gym. So if you can't understand how someone with asthma can be a world class athlete it is down to you own ignorance not anything the athlete has done.

I don't understand string theory. That doesn't mean string theory is wrong.

Crozza

Cyclesniper wrote:

Just want to post my two cents worth on this. Ive got a good knowledge of asthma and the use of salbutamol based on the fact my 5yr old boy had several asthma attacks between the ages of 2 and 3 and ended up being rushed to hospital a few times. I'll answer some of the points people are raising and in a lot of case, wrongly I must say.

"Froomes reading of 2000 is way too high!"
To put this into perspective, when I read people saying he was way, way over and obviously doing it deliberately for it to be that high I laughed my socks off. Every puff of an inhaler administers a dose of 100.

100 micrograms correct?

the UCI's limited is 1,000 ng/ml - nanograms/millileter

I'm too thick to understand the relationship between the two, but your post seems to assume the 2,000 referred to is 2,000 micrograms of the drug

tailwindhome

No tA Doctor wrote:

Right then, quick thread round-up.

Salbutamol isn't thought to be performance enhancing except at high oral doses - which is what the limit is there to prevent. The limit is based on maximum recommended inhaler dose, but how this is metabolised may vary from person to person, and the amount detected in urine may also vary with e.g. dehydration.

Tony Martin doesn't know the rules - until the press got word the case was being handled by the book. More to the point, while moaning about "transparency" Martin has absolutely no idea how many other riders may have been popped for going over the limit but managed to explain it satisfactorily.

Salbutamol isn't a masking agent, so no pont in taking it for that.

Salbutamol is commonly tested, so no point in taking a PED level dose for that when you're getting ested every day.

Should precedent define what should happen here? Possibly, but not if Froome can show there's an issue with the limit (for him personally or in general). Sure, others have suffered penalties for what looks like the same offence, but it doesn't make sense to hang an innocent man just because other innocent men have been hanged before on the same reasoning.

Let's not do the performance-enhancing V performance-enabling debate again. Relieving an illness is different to getting a boost when you're already fit. All sports organisations recognise this, as do WADA. We know there can be some playing-fast-and-loose with TUES, but not for Salbutamol, as it isn't really a PED.

This doesn't damage Sky's reputation at all, except in the eyes of those who already believed it damaged.

Lastly, the Froome-dog should gave got a Kennelog TUE and this wouldn't have happened. Woof.

My understanding is that the evidence he provides must be related to him only. The results of SOD* aren't relevant


*some other dude

Vino'sGhost

Alex99 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Seems to me that everyone is forgetting that he uses Salbutamol to bring him back up to the level of the other riders, he isn't getting a boost, just trying to breathe as easily as the rest of the peloton.
After riding for so many years he must have known how many puffs he could take & stay within the limits, but something obviously happened that day to change this, maybe one puff too many or who knows what.

It's really sad to see so many people quickly jump to use this to taint his achievements

Yes i could take HGH and EPO to bring me up to the standards of other riders. is that ok too?

No you can't because they're banned.

So is too much salbutimol

Mad_Malx

lee_d_m wrote:

People are getting confused with the amount of Salbutamol inhaled and Froome's reading

The amount inhaled is measured in mg/l, 1 puff = 100 or 200 mg/l.

Froome's reading was of his urine and was 2000ng/l. Therefore you cannot say that 20 x puffs of 100mg/l = Froome's reading as we're talking about different scales.

You’re right about unit confusion, but you are confused too.

Inhaled amounts are measured as mass - 100 microgram per puff (not per litre). The concentration is irrelevant, it’s how many drug molecules get inhaled that is important. And mg means milligram, not microgram.
Urine levels are concentration, measured in ng/ml here (not per litre, which would be 1000x more (edit: I mean more volume, so lower drug concentration)). This gives a reflection of how much is in the plasma.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Seems to me that everyone is forgetting that he uses Salbutamol to bring him back up to the level of the other riders, he isn't getting a boost, just trying to breathe as easily as the rest of the peloton.
After riding for so many years he must have known how many puffs he could take & stay within the limits, but something obviously happened that day to change this, maybe one puff too many or who knows what.

It's really sad to see so many people quickly jump to use this to taint his achievements

Yes i could take HGH and EPO to bring me up to the standards of other riders. is that ok too?

No you can't because they're banned.

So is too much salbutimol

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited- ... 2-agonists

It's defined very differently to most things on the list, and specifically has an allowance for a "controlled pharmacokinetic study". I assume he's going to have one of those.

kleinstroker

lee_d_m wrote:

People are getting confused with the amount of Salbutamol inhaled and Froome's reading

The amount inhaled is measured in mg/l, 1 puff = 100 or 200 mg/l.

Froome's reading was of his urine and was 2000ng/l. Therefore you cannot say that 20 x puffs of 100mg/l = Froome's reading as we're talking about different scales.

Yes very much this. That is why 3 puffs easily puts you over the 1000ng or 1mg level

burnthesheep

I recently read the Gaimon books. He tells about how when he joined one conti team that the doctor immediately did a breathing test and claimed he needed an inhaler. He went to the normal doctor he had and was told he was fine.

If I don't warmup well before hand and it is cooler outside, I may cough/hack after a really hard effort. But.........I won't die or need medical assistance.

In other words, I think I'm fine and normal. Now, is this guy taking this because he'll die in competition or because he'll start coughing or losing performance due to how he is made?

To me, VO2max has a lot of "born with it". Using an inhaler to maximize that is a little iffy if it doesn't keep you from dying.

I think it's one of those things that you can't do a ton of stuff different for some people because they weren't born a certain way for a sport. It sucks.

It's not a wheel chair ramp or disability rights. It's a bike race. If it keeps you from dying, fine. If it's in the rules to let you be more "comfortable" with your condition from a doctor.........you damn well better stay in that rule. It's enough that there are TUE's to help riders with asthma or diabetes still compete. It's amazing, but you still have a tough gig to follow that.

blazing_saddles

No sign of this thread running out of puff, that's for sure.

RichN95.

burnthesheep wrote:

I recently read the Gaimon books. He tells about how when he joined one conti team that the doctor immediately did a breathing test and claimed he needed an inhaler. He went to the normal doctor he had and was told he was fine.

That may be the difference between a doctor with experience working with elite athletes and one who isn't. The normal doctor would probably tell him he was underweight too.

It's like Froome with his bilharzia. A series of European doctors failed to spot it because they had no experience of it, but he turns up in Africa and they get it straight away.

burnthesheep wrote:

If I don't warmup well before hand and it is cooler outside, I may cough/hack after a really hard effort. But.........I won't die or need medical assistance.

In other words, I think I'm fine and normal.

That's because you don't have asthma. I don't either, but your level of understanding of it seems akin to people who tell people with depression to cheer up. I've seen someone have an asthma attack. I've also seen the same person exhausted and 'out of breath' - they are very different.

Richmond Racer 2

No tA Doctor wrote:

Right then, quick thread round-up.

Salbutamol isn't thought to be performance enhancing except at high oral doses - which is what the limit is there to prevent. The limit is based on maximum recommended inhaler dose, but how this is metabolised may vary from person to person, and the amount detected in urine may also vary with e.g. dehydration.

Tony Martin doesn't know the rules - until the press got word the case was being handled by the book. More to the point, while moaning about "transparency" Martin has absolutely no idea how many other riders may have been popped for going over the limit but managed to explain it satisfactorily.

Salbutamol isn't a masking agent, so no pont in taking it for that.

Salbutamol is commonly tested, so no point in taking a PED level dose for that when you're getting ested every day.

Should precedent define what should happen here? Possibly, but not if Froome can show there's an issue with the limit (for him personally or in general). Sure, others have suffered penalties for what looks like the same offence, but it doesn't make sense to hang an innocent man just because other innocent men have been hanged before on the same reasoning.

Let's not do the performance-enhancing V performance-enabling debate again. Relieving an illness is different to getting a boost when you're already fit. All sports organisations recognise this, as do WADA. We know there can be some playing-fast-and-loose with TUES, but not for Salbutamol, as it isn't really a PED.

This doesn't damage Sky's reputation at all, except in the eyes of those who already believed it damaged.

Lastly, the Froome-dog should gave got a Kennelog TUE and this wouldn't have happened. Woof.

I think it does, you know. I know they are in the shoot.

I think you also need to understand Tony Martin's perspective, and where his anger comes from. For most of his pro career, pro cycling has been a byword for doping in his home country, and cyclists a byword for cheats. Sinkewitz and expecially Ullrich being done, T-Mobile, was the final straw for German tv, who pulled the plug on broadcasting the Tour from 07 onwards.

It's taken a huge effort on the part of Martin plus Kittel and Degenkolb, to convince German broadcasters that the sport has changed, to the point where its now being shown and to where Dusseldorf bid for this year's start.

So yeah, he's p*ssed and I can understand why. Seriously, he's the last person anyone should be taking out their frustration.

Direct that at Froome and Sky.

tailwindhome

Believing Froome will always be tainted by the fact that Froome is unbelievable.

mididoctors

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

to convince German broadcasters that the sport has changed, to the point where its now being shown and to where Dusseldorf bid for this year's start.

So yeah, he's p*ssed and I can understand why. Seriously, he's the last person anyone should be taking out their frustration.

Direct that at Froome and Sky.

I have to agree.

and i like froome... great champion but he needs to take it on the chin and roll over.

haydenm

burnthesheep wrote:

I recently read the Gaimon books. He tells about how when he joined one conti team that the doctor immediately did a breathing test and claimed he needed an inhaler. He went to the normal doctor he had and was told he was fine.

If I don't warmup well before hand and it is cooler outside, I may cough/hack after a really hard effort. But.........I won't die or need medical assistance.

In other words, I think I'm fine and normal. Now, is this guy taking this because he'll die in competition or because he'll start coughing or losing performance due to how he is made?

To me, VO2max has a lot of "born with it". Using an inhaler to maximize that is a little iffy if it doesn't keep you from dying.

I think it's one of those things that you can't do a ton of stuff different for some people because they weren't born a certain way for a sport. It sucks.

It's not a wheel chair ramp or disability rights. It's a bike race. If it keeps you from dying, fine. If it's in the rules to let you be more "comfortable" with your condition from a doctor.........you damn well better stay in that rule. It's enough that there are TUE's to help riders with asthma or diabetes still compete. It's amazing, but you still have a tough gig to follow that.

You're coughing up phlem not suffering from asthma. It's really not that hard to understand. If you don't take huge amounts of the stuff (Froome didn't) it is performance normalising, if you don't have asthma it doesn't have any affect at all. The majority of the sporting community, and every anti doping agency in the World agree that people need to take medication to treat illnesses even if they are competing.

If you can only take an inhaler to stop you dying then where do you draw the line? One puff? three puffs? The difference between being uncomfortable and nearly dying is quite fine with asthma. Why not just let people take their prescription so long as it has no performance enhancing effects in non-asthmatics at that level, that sounds fair. It turns out that Froome can take a fairly reasonable (but poorly managed imo) dose of salbutamol on a 38 degree day with loads of climbing and more of it comes out in his urine than normal and he's been picked up on it. He might even have taken under the recommended dose but conditions meant more was excreted, we don't know

If I wasn't allowed to take my inhaler while competing I would likely just not take it. 99.99% of the time I'd feel ok, a bit tight and my times would suffer, the other 0.01% of the time I might die. It's a bit extreme because you don't understand how it works...

The bit in bold I vehemently disagree with, and so do all the relevant sporting authorities.

davidof

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Tony Martin aint happy

I cant post his FB post here - Sophie Smith tweeted it. But he is not 'appy at all

I am really annoyed. There is definitely a double standard being applied in the Christopher Froome case. Other athletes are suspended immediately after a positive test. He and his team are given time by the UCI to explain it all. I do not know of any similar case in the recent past. That is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.
Not only the public but also I have immediately the impression that there is wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?
These actions are major blow to the difficult anti-doping fight, which I am leading with riders like Marcel Kittel. We need a consequent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsequent, not transparent, unprofessional and so unfair.

https://www.facebook.com/tonymartin.pro ... 6028234766

Richj

HaydenM wrote:

burnthesheep wrote:

I recently read the Gaimon books. He tells about how when he joined one conti team that the doctor immediately did a breathing test and claimed he needed an inhaler. He went to the normal doctor he had and was told he was fine.

If I don't warmup well before hand and it is cooler outside, I may cough/hack after a really hard effort. But.........I won't die or need medical assistance.

In other words, I think I'm fine and normal. Now, is this guy taking this because he'll die in competition or because he'll start coughing or losing performance due to how he is made?

To me, VO2max has a lot of "born with it". Using an inhaler to maximize that is a little iffy if it doesn't keep you from dying.

I think it's one of those things that you can't do a ton of stuff different for some people because they weren't born a certain way for a sport. It sucks.

It's not a wheel chair ramp or disability rights. It's a bike race. If it keeps you from dying, fine. If it's in the rules to let you be more "comfortable" with your condition from a doctor.........you damn well better stay in that rule. It's enough that there are TUE's to help riders with asthma or diabetes still compete. It's amazing, but you still have a tough gig to follow that.

You're coughing up phlem not suffering from asthma. It's really not that hard to understand. If you don't take huge amounts of the stuff (Froome didn't) it is performance normalising, if you don't have asthma it doesn't have any affect at all. The majority of the sporting community, and every anti doping agency in the World agree that people need to take medication to treat illnesses even if they are competing.

If you can only take an inhaler to stop you dying then where do you draw the line? One puff? three puffs? The difference between being uncomfortable and nearly dying is quite fine with asthma. Why not just let people take their prescription so long as it has no performance enhancing effects in non-asthmatics at that level, that sounds fair. It turns out that Froome can take a fairly reasonable (but poorly managed imo) dose of salbutamol on a 38 degree day with loads of climbing and more of it comes out in his urine than normal and he's been picked up on it. He might even have taken under the recommended dose but conditions meant more was excreted, we don't know

If I wasn't allowed to take my inhaler while competing I would likely just not take it. 99.99% of the time I'd feel ok, a bit tight and my times would suffer, the other 0.01% of the time I might die. It's a bit extreme because you don't understand how it works...

The bit in bold I vehemently disagree with, and so do all the relevant sporting authorities.

Has Froome or Team Sky ever suggested Froome would die if he didn't use his inhaler, I was under the impression like many elite athletes it is exercise related.

Be interesting to see how this pans out, I don't think he has cheated, but I think he has crossed a line and I wouldn't see a ban being unfair if that is what the authorities decide.

I do think the UCI should come out and say if this happens frequently, I mean athletes have tested positive but didn't take more than they were supposed to. At the moment that argument just sounds like an excuse Bertie would have used and it should be made clear if this happens regularly.

bobmcstuff

davidof wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Tony Martin aint happy

I cant post his FB post here - Sophie Smith tweeted it. But he is not 'appy at all

I am really annoyed. There is definitely a double standard being applied in the Christopher Froome case. Other athletes are suspended immediately after a positive test. He and his team are given time by the UCI to explain it all. I do not know of any similar case in the recent past. That is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.
Not only the public but also I have immediately the impression that there is wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?
These actions are major blow to the difficult anti-doping fight, which I am leading with riders like Marcel Kittel. We need a consequent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsequent, not transparent, unprofessional and so unfair.

https://www.facebook.com/tonymartin.pro ... 6028234766

As discussed already, Martin is not right with his facts there - but if that's what he first thinks on hearing about it then you assume most laypeople will think the same.

blazing_saddles

bobmcstuff wrote:

davidof wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Tony Martin aint happy

I cant post his FB post here - Sophie Smith tweeted it. But he is not 'appy at all

I am really annoyed. There is definitely a double standard being applied in the Christopher Froome case. Other athletes are suspended immediately after a positive test. He and his team are given time by the UCI to explain it all. I do not know of any similar case in the recent past. That is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.
Not only the public but also I have immediately the impression that there is wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?
These actions are major blow to the difficult anti-doping fight, which I am leading with riders like Marcel Kittel. We need a consequent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsequent, not transparent, unprofessional and so unfair.

https://www.facebook.com/tonymartin.pro ... 6028234766

As discussed already, Martin is not right with his facts there - but if that's what he first thinks on hearing about it then you assume most laypeople will think the same.

Using a lack of knowledge of his sport's rules to launch a self aggrandising speech?
A strong gambit if Tony is declaring his very early candidature for next president of the UCI...

joelsim

lee_d_m wrote:

People are getting confused with the amount of Salbutamol inhaled and Froome's reading

The amount inhaled is measured in mg/l, 1 puff = 100 or 200 mg/l.

Froome's reading was of his urine and was 2000ng/l. Therefore you cannot say that 20 x puffs of 100mg/l = Froome's reading as we're talking about different scales.

Was just about to post this.

An ng is 1/1000th of a mg.

tangled_metal

I think Hayden made a point ppl might not have picked up on. That is salbutamol doesn't work of you've not got asthma or similar condition. It's not a drug that opens your airways up more than they are naturally. It returns your airways back to close the level of dilation they would naturally be at without an asthma attack. If Froome didn't have an issue with asthma when he takes it there is likely to be no effect (he might have an attack so mild he doesn't bother about it).

What I am curious about is whether Froome and his doctors is managing his asthma right. My personal view is doctors should treat athletes for asthma first and then worry about racing. What I mean is if there's a need and benefit to in taking a non-PE asthma treatment in excess of the limits they should. Then worry about anti-doping. If this limit is preventing a cyclist getting needed treatment because they're worried about WADA rules then the rules are wrong.

BTW I take salbutamol if I'm in a bad way. For me that's breathing is rasping or I'm hacking my guts up when I've not got a cold. The latter case I never thought of as asthma so never took it. Then one time it was so bad I tried it in desperation. It worked so I learnt that cough was asthma related. Basically you don't need to be at death's door for it to be needed. Why should you suffer when a safe drug is available?

Anyhow, we'll have to wait for evidence to be gathered, arguments to be presented and a decision to be made. This thread will puff along nicely based on opinions and judgements from self appointed experts. Meanwhile those real experts and those appointed to make the judgements will quietly work away until Froome gets a decision made about his fate. Our pontifications over probably 50 pages by then have little value or point to them. Ain't forums a great waste of time?!

Coach H

Just been on the Clinic for the first time in a LONG time.

I'd forgotten just how much made up gibberish became established fact on there.

I think the most common conclusion is a contaminated blood bag! Apparently you can make this $h!t up

dinyull

It's amazing how many asthma experts we have on here.

Doesn't matter if he took it intentionally or not or if it's performance enhancing or not he's been popped and should correctly be stripped of the title and banned.

It's up to him (like Alberto in the clem case) what's in his body.

And I am in no way a Contador fanboy or Sky hater.

Mad_Malx

Joelsim wrote:

lee_d_m wrote:

People are getting confused with the amount of Salbutamol inhaled and Froome's reading

The amount inhaled is measured in mg/l, 1 puff = 100 or 200 mg/l.

Froome's reading was of his urine and was 2000ng/l. Therefore you cannot say that 20 x puffs of 100mg/l = Froome's reading as we're talking about different scales.

Was just about to post this.

An ng is 1/1000th of a mg.

NO!
mg = milligram = 1,000,000 nanogram. You mean micro.
And you are still confusing dose (mass of drug) with concentration (mass per unit volume). You don’t inhale a litre of urine!

RichN95.

It's also worth noting that this isn't a black and white positive/negative 'strict liability' case. It's more akin to a biological passport case where certain values flag a case up. The rider is then invited to submit evidence that might explain the values . This is done because there are genuine reasons for anomalous values. If the rider can't provide convincing evidence then he gets a ban.

kingstongraham

Dinyull wrote:

It's amazing how many asthma experts we have on here.

Doesn't matter if he took it intentionally or not or if it's performance enhancing or not he's been popped and should correctly be stripped of the title and banned.

It's up to him (like Alberto in the clem case) what's in his body.

And I am in no way a Contador fanboy or Sky hater.

I assume you mean if he can't prove that he took a dosage underneath the allowed limit.

Mad_Malx

Coach H wrote:

Just been on the Clinic for the first time in a LONG time.

I'd forgotten just how much made up gibberish became established fact on there.

I think the most common conclusion is a contaminated blood bag! Apparently you can make this $h!t up

Lots here were happy that it explained Bertie’s clen, and that seemed a whole lot more plausible than the steak.