Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

bobmcstuff

Dinyull wrote:

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.

If you'd read any of the above, you would know that this is not the case for salbutamol.

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

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.

But in Bertie's case the prosecution had raised the possibility in the hearing. In Froome's case, it's a half baked theory that was tweeted by Jorg Jaksche.

joelsim

bobmcstuff wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

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.

If you'd read any of the above, you would know that this is not the case for salbutamol.

If he can’t explain why he has an elevated level of salbutamol in his urine from a permissible dose based on his physiology then Dinyull is entirely correct.

Coach H

RichN95 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

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.

But in Bertie's case the prosecution had raised the possibility in the hearing. In Froome's case, it's a half baked theory that was tweeted by Jorg Jaksche.

And in contadors case the plasticisers were found but the test method for the plasticisers was ruled inadmissable (cant quite bring to mind why; non validated test method probably) therefore the evidence couldn't be used.

Hey its not just Jaksche, Digger has agreed too you know

professeur

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.

Aye, all this anecodtal "i've got asthma and...' bollox is tedious in the extreme.

I'm actually pretty gutted. No Froome fan but I was hyped for his Giro appearance.

Richj

Joelsim wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

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.

If you'd read any of the above, you would know that this is not the case for salbutamol.

If he can’t explain why he has an elevated level of salbutamol in his urine from a permissible dose based on his physiology then Dinyull is entirely correct.

And unless the UCI (WADA) comes forward and say this happens regularly and dehydration causes values to spike. As far as we know if could happen a lot or this is the first time..... (if it happens a lot the test should be scrapped)

At the end of the day, its up to him to explain the test results....if he can't then he should be banned.

RichN95.

Richj wrote:

And unless the UCI (WADA) comes forward and say this happens regularly and dehydration causes values to spike. As far as we know if could happen a lot or this is the first time..... (if it happens a lot the test should be scrapped)

At the end of the day, its up to him to explain the test results....if he can't then he should be banned.

With this in mind I would recommend reading the interview with a/the scientific director of WADA in LeMonde. In French but Google translate does a good job.

"Circumstances and context are more enlightening than concentration and exceeding the threshold"

http://www.lemonde.fr/cyclisme/article/ ... L03GL0v.99

kingstongraham

If he can't explain it then he will get a ban.

Imagine getting a ban for a non-performance enhancing drug. Might as well have taken EPO.

meursault

That's all well and good, but will it affect my bitcoin value?

bobmcstuff

Joelsim wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

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.

If you'd read any of the above, you would know that this is not the case for salbutamol.

If he can’t explain why he has an elevated level of salbutamol in his urine from a permissible dose based on his physiology then Dinyull is entirely correct.

That was exactly my point, being tested with elevated salbutamol isn't an immediate ban like with clen, which is what Dinyull seems to be suggesting.

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

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.

While I appreciate Martin's efforts in trying to bring cycling back to Germany, he really isn't doing himself any favours here. As soon as the story broke the narratives were being constructed - mainly by people who know better but do it anyway - about how this was another nail in the coffin of Sky's transparency and how this was possibly a team and/or career killer. The whole thing has been scandalized (as in actually turned into a scandal), when even a brief reading of the facts suggests that a) the process was handled correctly, behind closed doors b) there's basically no reason whatsoever to suggest this was an attempt to cheat in any way c) even if it was an attempt to cheat, it wouldn't have helped because it's not a PED.

Martin has helped legitimise what is basically fake news; that this is a doping scandal and that mighty powers have tried to hush it up. He'd do far better to come out and say "it's a bit shit but really it's not as bad as people are making out".

As for Froome and Sky, either it's a f@ck-up that they shouldn't have made (and Froome gets some sort of ban) or there's a genuine problem with the testing, in which case he probably gets off but will be drenched in piss every race by people who already thought he/Sky were dirty. Even if he does have a good case, Martin has helped ensure the dirt sticks - to Froome, to Sky and to cycling.

bobmcstuff

Mad_Malx wrote:

You don’t inhale a litre of urine!

Well I don't know what YOU get up to on Saturday nights...

salsiccia1

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I appreciate Martin's efforts in trying to bring cycling back to Germany, he really isn't doing himself any favours here. As soon as the story broke the narratives were being constructed - mainly by people who know better but do it anyway - about how this was another nail in the coffin of Sky's transparency and how this was possibly a team and/or career killer. The whole thing has been scandalized (as in actually turned into a scandal), when even a brief reading of the facts suggests that a) the process was handled correctly, behind closed doors b) there's basically no reason whatsoever to suggest this was an attempt to cheat in any way c) even if it was an attempt to cheat, it wouldn't have helped because it's not a PED.

Martin has helped legitimise what is basically fake news; that this is a doping scandal and that mighty powers have tried to hush it up. He'd do far better to come out and say "it's a bit shoot but really it's not as bad as people are making out".

As for Froome and Sky, either it's a f@ck-up that they shouldn't have made (and Froome gets some sort of ban) or there's a genuine problem with the testing, in which case he probably gets off but will be drenched in wee-wee every race by people who already thought he/Sky were dirty. Even if he does have a good case, Martin has helped ensure the dirt sticks - to Froome, to Sky and to cycling.

Really good post.

mididoctors

even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.

bobmcstuff

mididoctors wrote:

even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.

They aren't talking about changing the rules - Froome has to show that the levels of salbutamol in his urine were caused by permitted levels of salbutamol inhalation. Which has been shown to be possible, and for all we know (given the cases are supposed to be secret until a ban is announced), has been shown by other cyclists already. That's the rules.



http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

RichN95.

mididoctors wrote:

even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.

The doping authorities are quite aware that the threshold test is not watertight and that there are several circumstances that can lead to a high reading. That's why Froome has been invited to present evidence. If the evidence points to a legal dose leading to a high reading, then they will just drop the case. If it doesn't they'll open a disciplinary case. At the moment we are at the 'brought down the station for questioning' stage not the courtroom.

The rules don't need changing, they're fine. People's understanding of them does.

tim000

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.

so whats you theory on mick Rodgers ?

iainf72

Good thread

Warning. fact heavy

https://twitter.com/lukascph/status/941356128692260865

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Good thread

Warning. fact heavy

https://twitter.com/lukascph/status/941356128692260865

It is good. It also worth could that if the UCI did chose to voluntarily suspend him against guidelines and the case rumbles on for ages with Froome eventually being cleared, they could be sued to high heaven.

Vino'sGhost

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.

"Its an enhancer because it allows more oxygen into the body!!"
Salbutamol ISN'T a performance enhancer. All it does is simply open up closed airways you already have. It doesn't create new ones. It doesn't enhance existing airways to perform better than they can. It simply opens up the airways you already have to get a basic, brain needing, level of oxygen. If it didn't, you would die of brain failure first due to lack of oxygen supply. So people saying it would have enhanced Froomes ability are just wrong. I specifically asked the doctors this when my son was ill as I didn't want to be putting masses amounts of steroids or a substance into him that might send him haywire.

"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. When my son had his first asthma attack he was immediately put on a constant drip feed of salbutamol in the form of a mask, for 2 days and nights. When we finally got him home we were given a asthma plan by the paediatrician. In it, he had (as well as a brown inhaler) the salbutamol inhaler with the advice that should he/we think he's having an attack of any kind, even in the early stages or a cold coming on, give him the inhaler straight away. Don't wait. The dose? 4 (minimum) to 10 puffs (maximum) every 4 hours. Read that again...4 to ten puffs EVERY 4 HOURS. Now you do the maths.
In the space of 24 hours, even with the minimum 4 puffs every 4 hours, my 2 year old boy was getting 2400 as a dose. Minimum. And he was only 2 at the time. More often than not, my wife would give him 8 puffs, so even in a 24hr period he was getting a constant 4800. In a 2yr old. If we had given him 10 puffs every 4 hours he would have received a dose of 6000.
And some people think 2000 is a lot? its laughable. My son would have died on that amount, and this was just to keep him alive and keep oxygen flowing through his blood, just walking around. To think that elite athletes, pushing themselves are limited to 1600 is, quite frankly, and absolute joke! Froome isn't the problem, its the WADA/UCI ruling that 1600 is the upper limit. Even now, with my boy being 5yrs old and slightly bigger lungs, he will have 3 puffs every 4 hours for a couple of days if we feel a cold is coming on, so even on a basic level during winter he's getting 1800. Basic. A 5yr old.

"To get to 2000 he would need to be having 32 puffs over 24 hours, no one can do that!"
As Ive already said, its actually very easy. My sons minimum was 4 puffs every 4 hours. In 24hrs thats 24 puffs. Again, thats minimum. If he had been on the max (10 puffs) he would have taken 60 puffs in 24hrs. As it was, he was on 8 puffs every 24hrs which is 48 puffs.
With 100 per puff, Froome would have taken 20 puffs in a 24hr period. He would have done this during the night too if he had waken up. 20 puffs is less that 1 puff per hour. Do people think thats a lot or thats hard to to? 1 puff an hour?
Now we all know he wouldn't have taken 1 puff an hour for 24hrs. So lets assume he's also taking a dose every 4 hours. From waking up at 7am, to going to bed at 10pm (as an average during a GT) thats 15 hours. It roughly equates to him taking 5 puffs every 4 hours.
Again, compare that to what me and my wife were told to take, 4-10 puffs, every 4 hours. For a 2yr old. Just to run around. Just to make sure he doesn't have an attack.
You think Froomes gone over the top? During a Grand Tour, pushing it to the limit? Have a proper think about it.

Some other points worth noting, is that Doctors don't f*ck about when it comes to taking salbutamol. If you are an asthma sufferer, you are simply told 'take it', don't muck about. The consequences are your lungs sealing up and you die. Thats it. So if Froome was going to his doctor and saying his asthma was particularly bad on a given day, it makes perfect sense for a doctor to just say 'take it', levels or not. I say again, the level of 1600 for an elite athlete is simply just laughable.
Or sons doctor said just don't think about it, especially during humid weather where dust, pollen (and there are hundreds of different types of pollen in the world) or during winter where colds and flu are rife. Just take it. In fact if Nike were doing a salbutamol promo thats the phrase they should use..'JUST TAKE IT'.

People on here saying this and that, coming from a cycling point of view, really need to stop and read up on the subject. I was amazed just how much the doctors filled my son full of salbutamol, just to keep him on an even level. When he was on a monitor you could see the oxygen readings going up and down, depending on how much was in his system. Now if you are Froome, going up and down mountains for 3 weeks, you're going to need it. No mistake. Not even a second thought.

The consequences, if he didn't, is that we would all be mourning another Simpson. He would die.

you joined yesterday and come out with this??? LOLOLOLOL are you paid by sky or froome or another interested party?

Matthewfalle

Right, o let's get this straight.

Do we all agree that Froome broke the rules that everyone who competes in the Vuelta has to abide by?

Vino'sGhost

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.

sums it up

Vino'sGhost

Matthewfalle wrote:

Right, o let's get this straight.

Do we all agree that Froome broke the rules that everyone who competes in the Vuelta has to abide by?

i used to come on here when armstrong was in the shit and got the same denial lololol

kleinstroker

iainf72 wrote:

Good thread

Warning. fact heavy

https://twitter.com/lukascph/status/941356128692260865

It's a mess. So WADA say you are allowed to take 1600 micrograms of Salbutamol per 24 hours, but if for some reason 1 microgram (1000ng) is found in urine then it's taken to be an adverse reading.

Just weird. I don't know the metabolism of salbutamol but it doesn't seem likely that if you take so much of a drug that it wouldn't be excreted in the urine in large amounts. 1600x more

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Right, o let's get this straight.

Do we all agree that Froome broke the rules that everyone who competes in the Vuelta has to abide by?

No.

The rule is that a rider may not inhale more than 800mg in a 12 hour period.

The rule is NOT that a rider must have less than 1000ug in a urine sample. That is merely a strong, but not certain, indication that the above rule has been broken.

kleinstroker

Matthewfalle wrote:

Right, o let's get this straight.

Do we all agree that Froome broke the rules that everyone who competes in the Vuelta has to abide by?

no!

nickice

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

To be fair to the clinic, people on here were claiming it was a masking agent until earlier on today.

Richmond Racer 2

No tA Doctor wrote:

[good exchange tween thee and me

Well Froome has rarely been reluctant to comment on other riders situation, so *Alan Partridge shrug*

nickice

kleinstroker wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Right, o let's get this straight.

Do we all agree that Froome broke the rules that everyone who competes in the Vuelta has to abide by?

no!

The doctor in the Telegraph article said it is not a performance enhancer. So, I guess the limit is set for rider health (in which case a ban would be grossly unfair) or it's just an arbitrary number. Neither explanation is satisfactory but I feel a bit sorry for Froome (in this case, anyway!

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.

They aren't talking about changing the rules - Froome has to show that the levels of salbutamol in his urine were caused by permitted levels of salbutamol inhalation. Which has been shown to be possible, and for all we know (given the cases are supposed to be secret until a ban is announced), has been shown by other cyclists already. That's the rules.



http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

Do you think that research is reliable, it claims a dose slightly over the permitted maximum can result in a positive test three times the limit. If that is taken at face value we should be seeing many cases like Froome's even if at a lower level than 2000. Yes I know there may be some that haven't come to light but it seems unlikely.