Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

gsk82

powerbookboy wrote:

I hope that the threshold limits are set by people with significantly more knowledge of the pharmacology of these drugs and the expected excretion rates than dimwits like myself. They're probably somewhat overly generous to people taking them in the approved manner, but designed to pick up people taking the drug via routes other than inhalation. Otherwise expensive lawsuits every 10mins.

1 in 4 opened cases don't result in any sanction per WADA stats linked in the "known unknown" section in the link below. This shouldn't have been made public and based on very simple probabilities there's a 25% chance no sanction will follow.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/friday-shorts-16/

salsiccia1

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Umm, Tony Martin has an update......

I received a lot of feedback about my comment of yesterday. I even got a phone call from a UCI’s representative who took the time to clarify how the process had been handled. I now understand that the UCI is managing this case in accordance with the rules and that Chris Froome did not get any special treatment. According to the rules, in a case involving a specified substance, every athlete shall have the chance to explain whether the numbers can be due to natural causes.

That said, I am always very angry when another case in relation to antidoping happened in our sport. I will, as I always did, continue to take a strong position regarding the fight against doping and I will always remain an outspoken advocate for a 100% clean sport.

Fair play to him, he could easily have just stayed quiet after the UCI had a word, but it's also fair for him to defend his right to speak out.

iainf72

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Umm, Tony Martin has an update......

I received a lot of feedback about my comment of yesterday. I even got a phone call from a UCI’s representative who took the time to clarify how the process had been handled. I now understand that the UCI is managing this case in accordance with the rules and that Chris Froome did not get any special treatment. According to the rules, in a case involving a specified substance, every athlete shall have the chance to explain whether the numbers can be due to natural causes.

That said, I am always very angry when another case in relation to antidoping happened in our sport. I will, as I always did, continue to take a strong position regarding the fight against doping and I will always remain an outspoken advocate for a 100% clean sport.

Fair play to him, he could easily have just stayed quiet after the UCI had a word, but it's also fair for him to defend his right to speak out.

Pretty mealy-mouthed apology though. First paragraph was 'I'm wrong', second was 'I'm going to keep yelling like a Daily Mail reader without all the facts'. Virtue signalling at its finest.

There is a danger with cases like this that an athlete feels it's too dangerous to use a drug they need - So if you had someone who needed a puffer, but felt scared they'd get pinged and therefore don't use it. Which could have terrible results. I know some doctors raised a similar concern when TUE's raised eyebrows.

Mad_Malx

gsk82 wrote:

1 in 4 opened cases don't result in any sanction per WADA stats linked in the "known unknown" section in the link below. This shouldn't have been made public and based on very simple probabilities there's a 25% chance no sanction will follow.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/friday-shorts-16/

I don’t see what the problem is here. Are you saying that all the adverse findings should result in a ban without any further scrutiny?

The 25% isn’t randomly spread and for anyone with a zillion units of epo in their system the chances are rather lower. And a 1 in 4 chance of getting off don’t sound like a green light to dope to me.

gsk82

Mad_Malx wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

1 in 4 opened cases don't result in any sanction per WADA stats linked in the "known unknown" section in the link below. This shouldn't have been made public and based on very simple probabilities there's a 25% chance no sanction will follow.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/friday-shorts-16/

I
I don’t see what the problem is here. Are you saying that all the adverse findings should result in a ban without any further scrutiny?

The 25% isn’t randomly spread and for anyone with a zillion units of epo in their system the chances are rather lower. And a 1 in 4 chance of getting off don’t sound like a green light to dope to me.

No I'm saying that the limits are far from perfect despite that best efforts of WADA experts and that's evidenced by 1 in 4 opened cases never resulting in action. I think 1 in 4 is a very high number.

Mad_Malx

^ah ok, with you now.

Wheelspinner

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

smithy21

Wheelspinner wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

More like everyone who gets pinged by the speed camera paying their fines. Then the Queen drives through it, gets pinged and all of a sudden the speed camera is wrong.

specialgueststar

Have we had this from Dave Smith on Twotter

For old school asthmatics out there, salbutamol is your blue inhaler, for acute attacks. The brown is beclometasone dipropionate, used for regular control. So imagine an attack so bad you needed 16 puffs of blue in one dose - then imagine being able to win the Vuelta...

RichN95.

Wheelspinner wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

Going over the threshold isn't the offence. Taking too many puffs is. The breach of the threshold is merely a strong indication that an offence has occured not the offence itself.

RichN95.

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Have we had this from Dave Smith on Twotter

For old school asthmatics out there, salbutamol is your blue inhaler, for acute attacks. The brown is beclometasone dipropionate, used for regular control. So imagine an attack so bad you needed 16 puffs of blue in one dose - then imagine being able to win the Vuelta...

First of all it's 16 puffs in a 24 hour period - not all at once. Or 8 in a 12 hour period. It is also possible to go over threshold with fewer. Froome took three at once between finishing the race and dope testing. Is that enough to go over? We shall find out.

Dave Smith isn't an impartial observer. He's a rabid 'everyone is doping especially the Brits' type.

joe2008

iainf72 wrote:

There is a danger with cases like this that an athlete feels it's too dangerous to use a drug they need - So if you had someone who needed a puffer, but felt scared they'd get pinged and therefore don't use it. Which could have terrible results. I know some doctors raised a similar concern when TUE's raised eyebrows.

It does seem a little crazy how you can be in such danger that you need a significant amount of a drug to keep you in the race, and then, low and behold, you win the Grand Tour.

iainf72

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It does seem a little crazy how you can be in such danger that you need a significant amount of a drug to keep you in the race, and then, low and behold, you win the Grand Tour.

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Have we had this from Dave Smith on Twotter

For old school asthmatics out there, salbutamol is your blue inhaler, for acute attacks. The brown is beclometasone dipropionate, used for regular control. So imagine an attack so bad you needed 16 puffs of blue in one dose - then imagine being able to win the Vuelta...

First of all it's 16 puffs in a 24 hour period - not all at once. Or 8 in a 12 hour period. It is also possible to go over threshold with fewer. Froome took three at once between finishing the race and dope testing. Is that enough to go over? We shall find out.

Dave Smith isn't an impartial observer. He's a rabid 'everyone is doping especially the Brits' type.

Aye. Dave Smith is very anti-Sky.

Wheelspinner

RichN95 wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

Going over the threshold isn't the offence. Taking too many puffs is. The breach of the threshold is merely a strong indication that an offence has occured not the offence itself.

I agree. But using the speed gun analogy above, don't forget that Froome has not just gone over the limit, he's gone rocketing along at 40 mph through the 20 mph school crossing zone. He's *double* the limit.

joe2008

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

RichN95.

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

But you won't know if you are susceptible until you have such an attack. Contador didn't know he was susceptible to seizures until he almost died of one in a race.

gsk82

Wheelspinner wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

Going over the threshold isn't the offence. Taking too many puffs is. The breach of the threshold is merely a strong indication that an offence has occured not the offence itself.

I agree. But using the speed gun analogy above, don't forget that Froome has not just gone over the limit, he's gone rocketing along at 40 mph through the 20 mph school crossing zone. He's *double* the limit.

The faulty speed camera has indicated he was doing 40.

redvision

iainf72 wrote:

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

Same here. Forget the fact he exceeded the limit, asthma (attack) is a really serious condition. Speaking as someone who has ended up in hospital as a result of asthma on several occasions, I think more questions should be asked why he was allowed to continue racing if he was struggling so much with his breathing.

joe2008

RichN95 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

But you won't know if you are susceptible until you have such an attack. Contador didn't know he was susceptible to seizures until he also died of one in a race.

But if I had asthma I'd know I had a risk of such an attack.

joelsim

redvision wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

Same here. Forget the fact he exceeded the limit, asthma (attack) is a really serious condition. Speaking as someone who has ended up in hospital as a result of asthma on several occasions, I think more questions should be asked why he was allowed to continue racing if he was struggling so much with his breathing.

Agree. An old gf at uni had one whilst I was with her. It was horrendous.

Wheelspinner

No tA Doctor wrote:

The point is that riders have no way of being 100% sure that taking the permitted dose (which is what WADA sets) doesn't take them over the threshold where they trigger an alarm (but not per se a doping infringement if it can be explained).

Please also note that I'm in no way challenging strict liability. The athlete still has strict liability for what enters his or her body. The athlete cannot have liability for precisely how their body processes that, which is why WADA needs to ensure that going over a limit is a clear indicator of breaking a dosage rule.

I agree with almost all your post, except the bit I've quoted in bold above. WADA sets *both* the permitted dose AND the threshold limit in this case. I think the athlete therefore very definitely does have strict liability for understanding how their body processes whatever they put in it. The actual arbitrary limit on dosage intake is by far the less meaningful one anyway - nobody ever gets followed around 24 hours a day by an official counting the number of puffs they take. 800 microgram in 12 hours is a guideline for what will tip a "normal" person over the limit. And that 800 number takes no account of the body weight or fluid intake of the athlete. These aren't special rules for GT cyclists, they apply to Super Heavyweight (amateur) boxers, rowers, fencers and even archers in the Olympics or any other event where the WADA code is adopted.

The measurement limit of concentration in urine as the test result *is* a lot closer to an individual and condition specific value - and the only reason for the allowance by WADA for some variation to be discussed, in relation to its "therapeutic use".

A bike race takes 6 hours, give or take, and while I suppose it is theoretically possible that scrutineers could follow along and count the puffs, it's logistically a ludicrous idea. The defined dosage limit is a guideline, nothing more surely?

Pick the alternative scenario - someone who metabolises this stuff very efficiently. They can do 1000 micrograms (10 puffs) in 12 hours and yet still come in under the threshold at testing time? Busted or not? Maybe an impossible scenario, I dunno, but how would WADA ever hope to prosecute a breach based solely on that?

I think the WADA rules for this product are quite clear, especially since it is on the "Prohibited at ALL times" list, not just in competition. It's there for athlete health reasons *at all times*. That arbitrary limit is really the only relevant measure. It may not be fair for (some) asthmatics, nor even a reasonable limit for any of them, but it is the rule.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

But you won't know if you are susceptible until you have such an attack. Contador didn't know he was susceptible to seizures until he also died of one in a race.

And I thought coming back from a broken leg was impressive.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

But you won't know if you are susceptible until you have such an attack. Contador didn't know he was susceptible to seizures until he also died of one in a race.

Contador is dead? When did that happen?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

You're misunderstanding. Let us say Froome says he took 3 puffs. And you had strong reason to believe that (witnesses, whatever) but he was still over the threshold. It would be pretty reasonable in that case to be nervous about if it could happen to you, right?

I knew someone who died after a sudden asthma attack so I'm sensitive to it not just being a bit of a wheeze or whatever.

If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack I'd be nowhere near the sharp end of a bike race that's for sure.

But you won't know if you are susceptible until you have such an attack. Contador didn't know he was susceptible to seizures until he also died of one in a race.

Contador or is dead?

I should have typed almost, not also

Matthewfalle

Oh - cool. Thank you. Thought I'd missed something there.

Wheelspinner

gsk82 wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

As you know the above is like getting a new speed camera that isn't accurate, but still banning anyone who it says is speeding.

No it's not at all like that.

You forget the very obvious point that everybody competing in the bike race has already signed up and agreed that the readings produced are the benchmark by which they will be measured. Whether the speed gun readings are accurate, or even fair, is moot.

Going over the threshold isn't the offence. Taking too many puffs is. The breach of the threshold is merely a strong indication that an offence has occured not the offence itself.

I agree. But using the speed gun analogy above, don't forget that Froome has not just gone over the limit, he's gone rocketing along at 40 mph through the 20 mph school crossing zone. He's *double* the limit.

The faulty speed camera has indicated he was doing 40.

Eh? Are you now claiming the measurement from his test is wrong? He didn’t exceed the limit after all, just a mistake by the lab? Or having picked a poor analogy are you just still digging to find a use for it?

Jez mon

Can't help but find the various posters saying if I had asthma I wouldn't be near the sharp end of a bike race amusing...

If you had the talent to get paid millions to ride a bike and a medical condition that was easily treated you'd take the puffs and go for it.

Ultimately either WADA should totally ban in competition use of salbutamol, with apologies to those with asthma, alternatively they seemingly need to have a thorough review of the limits.

redvision

Jez mon wrote:

Can't help but find the various posters saying if I had asthma I wouldn't be near the sharp end of a bike race amusing...

If you had the talent to get paid millions to ride a bike and a medical condition that was easily treated you'd take the puffs and go for it.

Ultimately either WADA should totally ban in competition use of salbutamol, with apologies to those with asthma, alternatively they seemingly need to have a thorough review of the limits.

Is this really what people are saying???
The question I am posing is why, if he was showing serious asthmatic symptoms, was he allowed to continue racing?

It's a condition which can be easily controlled, but can also very quickly escalate to a life threatening illness.

Personally I think if he was that unwell at the end of the stage it was neglect by the medical team for not pulling him out.

tailwindhome

Jez mon wrote:

alternatively they seemingly need to have a thorough review of the limits.

based on what?