Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:
Twitter's not really the format for that....
Anything in it not in the Inner Ring article?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It was conducted by WADA'a anti-doping lab in Lausanne. So it's probably fairly reliable. WADA are fully aware that the threshold is not a perfect test, hence why Froome has been asked for evidence rather than been prosecuted.DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
To test above the threshold for that level a rider would
a) have to take nearly the maximum amount allowed - not their usual dose
and
b) actually be tested
a) is a rarity and b) is amount a 2% chance for a random test. For Froome though, as race leader, b) is about 100%Twitter: @RichN950 -
DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
Seems pretty straightforward, 3 puffs on a ventolin is enough to push you way over the WADA limit, but, it takes around 10 hours for it to go through the system. Now if most samples are taken within 20-30 minutes of race end, then on an average 6hr raceday, that would not be long enough to get through users body and end up in urine. If thye did everybody's test at 10pm on race day, most people would likely fail.0 -
It's actually nine puffs (one more than allowed) - three blocks of threekleinstroker wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward, 3 puffs on a ventolin is enough to push you way over the WADA limit, but, it takes around 10 hours for it to go through the system. Now if most samples are taken within 20-30 minutes of race end, then on an average 6hr raceday, that would not be long enough to get through users body and end up in urine. If thye did everybody's test at 10pm on race day, most people would likely fail.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's actually nine puffs (one more than allowed) - three blocks of threekleinstroker wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward, 3 puffs on a ventolin is enough to push you way over the WADA limit, but, it takes around 10 hours for it to go through the system. Now if most samples are taken within 20-30 minutes of race end, then on an average 6hr raceday, that would not be long enough to get through users body and end up in urine. If thye did everybody's test at 10pm on race day, most people would likely fail.
So it is!
0 -
Lukas Knöfler
@lukascph
3h3 hours ago
More
As mentioned before, Froome now has to prove, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormally high concentration of salbutamol in his urine sample was the result of the inhalation of an amount of salbutamol not over the maximum limit. 21/Lukas Knöfler
@lukascph
3h3 hours ago
More
Conducting such a pharmacokinetic study isn't something you do rashly or on short notice. The 'defendant' will want to maximise his chances of success and do ample research into where & when to conduct it. That is his right. 23/I won't go into detail on how the hearing is to be held, but simply point to Article 8, Hearing Process, in the UCI Rules, Part 14, Anti-Doping: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf …
Suffice to say that there are no time limits within which such a hearing must be conducted. 24/Lukas Knöfler
@lukascph
3h3 hours ago
More
Until the pharmacokinetic study has been conducted and its results appraised by the relevant hearing panel, Froome is neither 'guilty' nor 'not guilty' – both outcomes are still possible. Therefore, the UCI could only make a public disclosure with his consent. 25/
See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
kleinstroker wrote:iainf72 wrote:
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
/Bangs head on table/
It’s 1 microgram/ml. PER MILLILITRE.
If you injest 1600 micrograms and it all ends up in your 5l of blood (which it doesn’t, it’s much less) then the blood concentration will be 1600/5=320 microgram/litre = 320ng/ml plasma. (Edited for units)
As it goes through the kidney this concentrates in the urine, very roughly 2 fold, so you end up with 640 ng/ml, which we can round up to 1 microgram/ml.
Edit: so the 1microgram/ml is USUALLY generous.
The clearance and the ratio will be subject to huge individual variation, and be hugely affected by factors including kidney function and dehydration.0 -
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.Twitter: @RichN950 -
nickice wrote:To be fair to the clinic, people on here were claiming it was a masking agent until earlier on today.
To be fair to the people on here, INRNG was too:
"It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too."0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:kleinstroker wrote:iainf72 wrote:
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
/Bangs head on table/
It’s 1 microgram/ml. PER MILLILITRE.
If you injest 1600 micrograms and it all ends up in your 5l of blood (which it doesn’t, it’s much less) then the blood concentration will be 1600/5=320 microgram/litre = 320ng/ml plasma. (Edited for units)
As it goes through the kidney this concentrates in the urine, very roughly 2 fold, so you end up with 640 ng/ml, which we can round up to 1 microgram/ml.
Edit: so the 1microgram/ml is USUALLY generous.
The clearance and the ratio will be subject to huge individual variation, and be hugely affected by factors including kidney function and dehydration.
Very good. I think you are spot on up until the time it passes through the kidneys, the 2x concentration does seem to be quite a small multiplying factor. Is that something hsown to be typical?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.
Are we sure he hasn't already done his PK tests?0 -
No. I suggested several pages back that maybe he has and that's why he has seemed so tranquillo.kleinstroker wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.
Are we sure he hasn't already done his PK tests?Twitter: @RichN950 -
kleinstroker wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:kleinstroker wrote:iainf72 wrote:
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
/Bangs head on table/
It’s 1 microgram/ml. PER MILLILITRE.
If you injest 1600 micrograms and it all ends up in your 5l of blood (which it doesn’t, it’s much less) then the blood concentration will be 1600/5=320 microgram/litre = 320ng/ml plasma. (Edited for units)
As it goes through the kidney this concentrates in the urine, very roughly 2 fold, so you end up with 640 ng/ml, which we can round up to 1 microgram/ml.
Edit: so the 1microgram/ml is USUALLY generous.
The clearance and the ratio will be subject to huge individual variation, and be hugely affected by factors including kidney function and dehydration.
Very good. I think you are spot on up until the time it passes through the kidneys, the 2x concentration does seem to be quite a small multiplying factor. Is that something hsown to be typical?
The 2x is a number I’ve seen in a couple of very small studies on Salbutamol and differs wildly for other drugs. I agree, it could be a lot more, but the plasma level is certainly a lot less, because there will be plenty in the tissues and I’ve made the assumption that the whole lot goes in at once, rather than over24h. So I’ll stand by the figure being usually generous.0 -
Since the whole exercise induced asthma thing is so common (apparently) that 40% of Olympic class cyclists “suffer” from it, what of the other 60%? Is it so cut and dried that you either have the condition or you don’t? Seems unlikely.
So, the Non-Puffers are possibly, (or probably?) also losing a bit of their performance edge due to a bit of EIA at the extremes of effort. Pick a number: 2%? 10%? Maybe more?
Meanwhile, the Puffers are also taking that drop, but presumably more likely, or earlier (hey, they’re asthmatic, right?). But a few shots of Salbutamol is to return them to near their “normal” condition. What’s normal? Normal resting condition, or normal relative to what *any* athlete should be like under the exact conditions of racing?
Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
The drug may not be performance enhancing in any way for an individual, but in comparison to your competitors it appears possible it helps you minimise your performance deterioration under extremes of effort. That sure sounds like a marginal gain and a calculated risk worth taking.
I’m sure some internet experts will be along shortly to tell me I’m so wrong it’s not funny, which is fine. But reading the WADA entry for this “rule” says any reading exceeding the threshold “is assumed not to be an intended therapeutic use” of the drug.
If I understand correctly, the intended therapeutic benefit of it is to restore your (nearly) normal breathing functional capacity. Not one rider maxed out climbing a 20% gradient at the end of 6 hours in hot dry racing weather is breathing “normally” are they? Sure never looks like it on the telly. The Puffers might just be breathing a bit more easily though, and at that point of a race, that may be all the margin they need.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
So do people who have invested far too much time into this think he's gonna get banned or not?
Ultimately that's all that really matters.
What's the betting?0 -
Since the whole exercise induced asthma thing is so common (apparently) that 40% of Olympic class cyclists “suffer” from it, what of the other 60%? Is it so cut and dried that you either have the condition or you don’t? Seems unlikely.
So, the Non-Puffers are possibly, (or probably?) also losing a bit of their performance edge due to a bit of EIA at the extremes of effort. Pick a number: 2%? 10%? Maybe more?
Meanwhile, the Puffers are also taking that drop, but presumably more likely, or earlier (hey, they’re asthmatic, right?). But a few shots of Salbutamol is to return them to near their “normal” condition. What’s normal? Normal resting condition, or normal relative to what *any* athlete should be like under the exact conditions of racing?
Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
The drug may not be performance enhancing in any way for an individual, but in comparison to your competitors it appears possible it helps you minimise your performance deterioration under extremes of effort. That sure sounds like a marginal gain and a calculated risk worth taking.
I’m sure some internet experts will be along shortly to tell me I’m so wrong it’s not funny, which is fine. But reading the WADA entry for this “rule” says any reading exceeding the threshold “is assumed not to be an intended therapeutic use” of the drug.
If I understand correctly, the intended therapeutic benefit of it is to restore your (nearly) normal breathing functional capacity. Not one rider maxed out climbing a 20% gradient at the end of 6 hours in hot dry racing weather is breathing “normally” are they? Sure never looks like it on the telly. The Puffers might just be breathing a bit more easily though, and at that point of a race, that may be all the margin they need.
Normal as in the airways are as clear as any person who doesn't suffer from asthma, exercise induced or not.
You whole rant is speculative and based on fairy dust (which may or may not induce asthma).0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote: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?
Brilliantly dramatic as well. Could almost have been out of the Daily Fail.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So do people who have invested far too much time into this think he's gonna get banned or not?
Ultimately that's all that really matters.
What's the betting?
Banned for 9mths and loses his Vuelta
Sky stand by him and 'it was all a mistake'“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.
So what moves the process on to that point?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Navrig2 wrote:Normal as in the airways are as clear as any person who doesn't suffer from asthma, exercise induced or not.
You whole rant is speculative and based on fairy dust (which may or may not induce asthma).
That didn’t take long. At least some of my guesses were on the mark. Someone who’s defining characteristic according to their avatar is an ability to fart no less!
It wasn’t even a rant, but don’t let that put you off. Care to provide any facts then? When you say “normal as in as clear as any person who doesn’t suffer blah blah blah” what is your reference for comparison? A person under identical extreme effort conditions, or a person who has been for a coffee shop ride at slow pace or a person who is blissfully free of any asthma at all under ideal conditions? Or what? Insult me all day if you like, but I’m hopeful you can fart out something more useful.
I *will* hold my breath just in case.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
I'm with Rich's theory that they've done the PK measurements, and he's clear and will keep the Vuelta.
However, a mystery illness will mean he doesn't ride the Giro & Sky will announce their new mickey mouse themed kit.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So do people who have invested far too much time into this think he's gonna get banned or not?
Ultimately that's all that really matters.
What's the betting?
Banned for 9mths and loses his Vuelta
Sky stand by him and 'it was all a mistake'
I would think that. Except it seems like there might be something else to it, perhaps it's already been long enough since the that he has done these tests already. Wait and see I think.0 -
My guess is the loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban in line with other sports. I think eight months is the maximum if it is deemed accidental.Rick Chasey wrote:So do people who have invested far too much time into this think he's gonna get banned or not?
Ultimately that's all that really matters.
What's the betting?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Froome submits all his evidence. Then the CADF will decide whether to progress further. If Froome has PK tests which show him testing over 1000 they will probably drop it. Otherwise they will go to a hearing, where Froome will have to plead guilty, plead an error of dosage and maybe get a quick ruling. That Froome freely admits to taking the substance (as Yates did) will speed things along. Yates's hearing concluded only three months after his test.TailWindHome wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.
So what moves the process on to that point?Twitter: @RichN950 -
-
I think he will be acquitted. Not sure if he should, but think that is what will happen.
Personally, I don't see the offense as doping. If he can show it as a "false positive" I think he shouldn't have to carry an asterisk.
PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230 -
Get the worms back in your blood Chris!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/sep ... rch.health
‘Irish scientists may have a drastic answer to the great asthma epidemic. It is called bilharzia. They think one of the world's nastiest parasitic infections could help combat the scourge of the affluent society.’0 -
21 pages in 24 hours roughly. What has been the quintessential post to sum all of this up as I have a serious case of cba*?
*Beyond:
'
Marginal gains'.
Abuse of TUE's.
SKY PR engine popping the big end bearings.
Brailsford's surprise sudden retirement from cycling and going into coaching over weight rowers.
Froome getting a) metaphorically or literally guillotined by the French b) getting a ban and/or c) having the Vuelta win rescinded.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Why would their respiratory function be impaired? People get dropped because the blood can't get enough oxygen to the muscles causing lactic acid to build up. The lungs can get enough oxygen in, the blood just can't process it.Wheelspinner wrote:Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I love the way that the fact this case was being handled correctly for a change (I.e. not leaked for a while) is being spun by some as an attempted cover up. It sums up the joys of social and traditional media.
Undecided what to think overall, it seems odd to have a rule limiting intake is tested by concentration being emitted and that there are doubts over the correlation between the two. It also seems a stupid thing to get busted for if there was an intent to cheat. That said, there's an element of schadenfreude following the holier than thou attitude Froome took when details of Wiggins' TUEs first came out.0
