Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

joe2008

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.

I actually said "If I was susceptible to dying from a sudden asthma attack" -

And, if it were easily treated we wouldn't be commenting on a thread about taking double the allowed amount of the drug to treat it.

smithy21

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.

So WADA need to review their limits which apply across a multitude of sports because Chris Froome went over the limit. Ok then.

RichN95.

smithy21 wrote:

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.

So WADA need to review their limits which apply across a multitude of sports because Chris Froome went over the limit. Ok then.

Not really. The key thing that people need to bear in mind is that this process shouldn't be public. An athlete going above the threshold is asked to submit evidence of how this might have happened (typically a PK test). If this evidence is compelling the case is dropped with the public never knowing. If it doesn't an anti-doping case will be opened - the stage that a B sample would trigger for a substance with no threshold.

The failing is not the threshold - that's just a flagging up a case for investigation. The failing is in a breach of confidentiality.

Matthewfalle

The failing is the person taking too many drugs and breaking the rules they know about because they were told about them when they signed on the dotted line.

dolan_driver

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already but this seems to be a balanced assessment of Froome's adverse result.

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/an ... -up_453381

DD.

DeVlaeminck

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.

If your asthma, even EIA, is reasonably bad the blue inhaler isn't a miracle cure. I think that is the point people are making. If you are needing to take 3 puffs after a race the problem is probably severe enough that you aren't going to be winning bike races.

Pross

We're now at that entrenched phase when the rules and facts have been discussed but people choose to continue arguing to support their own preconceived ideas instead.

Lookyhere

RichN95 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

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.

So WADA need to review their limits which apply across a multitude of sports because Chris Froome went over the limit. Ok then.

Not really. The key thing that people need to bear in mind is that this process shouldn't be public. An athlete going above the threshold is asked to submit evidence of how this might have happened (typically a PK test). If this evidence is compelling the case is dropped with the public never knowing. If it doesn't an anti-doping case will be opened - the stage that a B sample would trigger for a substance with no threshold.

The failing is not the threshold - that's just a flagging up a case for investigation. The failing is in a breach of confidentiality.

You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!

Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.

The dopers are usually well ahead of the authorities, so until Froome can explain this reading, its probably best to err on the side of caution.

gsk82

Wheelspinner wrote:

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.

So clear that you either don't understand them or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Well I'm off to play hockey now. My captain uses ventolin. Maybe I'll have a couple of toots and see if it turns me into Maddie Hinch

It's not Oestrogen.

debeli

Great news! The UCI have been in touch and are hoping to use my opinion as a part of the decision-making process in this Froome case.

They'd been reading my views on Internet forums and have (not before time) come to the conclusion that I know rather more about this than they do.

I'm very touched, but before I can help them I've promised to sort out the Middle East, Net Neutrality and to offer the Arsenal board some advice on the tenure of their current manager.

Should be free ob about 20 minutes.

RichN95.

Lookyhere wrote:

You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!

Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.

No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.

Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.

blazing_saddles

smithy21 wrote:

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.

So WADA need to review their limits which apply across a multitude of sports because Chris Froome went over the limit. Ok then.

Looks as if they already have:-
https://conac.org.uk/important-wada-201 ... r-changes/

Lookyhere wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Not really. The key thing that people need to bear in mind is that this process shouldn't be public. An athlete going above the threshold is asked to submit evidence of how this might have happened (typically a PK test). If this evidence is compelling the case is dropped with the public never knowing. If it doesn't an anti-doping case will be opened - the stage that a B sample would trigger for a substance with no threshold.

The failing is not the threshold - that's just a flagging up a case for investigation. The failing is in a breach of confidentiality.

You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!

Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.

The dopers are usually well ahead of the authorities, so until Froome can explain this reading, its probably best to err on the side of caution.

This is going to drag on well into 2018. Diego Ulissi’s case from the 2014 Giro wasn’t resolved until the following January.
Sounds to me as if you are saying that because of who he is, he shouldn't have the rights afforded to others.
You also seem to be suggesting there would be a cover up, were he afforded these rights.
Assuming the worst, then adding a dose of negative speculation isn't erring on the side of caution.
6 months off and a loss of his Vuelta title is.

pinno

Debeli wrote:

Great news! The UCI have been in touch and are hoping to use my opinion as a part of the decision-making process in this Froome case.

They'd been reading my views on Internet forums and have (not before time) come to the conclusion that I know rather more about this than they do.

I'm very touched, but before I can help them I've promised to sort out the Middle East, Net Neutrality and to offer the Arsenal board some advice on the tenure of their current manager.

Should be free ob about 20 minutes.

Well, apart from RichN, Ta doctor and myself, there are 5 guests reading this. I can only presume 1 of them is from WADA, one from the CAS, one from the UCI and the other two must be Dave and Froome dog - so you must be right.

tailwindhome

The idea that a rider can ride races during this period is really unsatisfactory but I'm not sure what the solution is.
Each race he enters, whether he wins or not is shaped by his presence there.
Which is fine if he's cleared but very unsatisfactory if not.
This is exasperated by *us* knowing when we shouldn't, potentially we're watching each stage of the Giro knowing that the final result is only preliminary pending a pharmacokinetic test

Wheelspinner

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Looks as if they already have:-
https://conac.org.uk/important-wada-201 ... r-changes/

Well, that was published in 2016, heralding changes coming into effect on January 1, 2017, not as a result of anything Froome's been pinged for?

ETA: and the changes are seemingly *more* restrictive, not less. Previously it had the limit as 1600 micrograms in 24 hours, now it still keeps that cap, but also not more than 800 in any 12 hour period.

For next year incidentally, they've made a change to the wording of the exception clause for Salbutamol.

Current wording says this:
"The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) ..."

Next year the wording changes to this:
"The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)..."

That change suggests a tougher approach, no?

RichN95.

What we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. A dehydrated rider taking several puffs between a race and testing at a time when he would also presumably be taking on the liquids that would end up in the urine test. The various studies that get posted would seem to be of little relevance beyond showing that the threshold can be breached legally.

smithy21

Blazing Saddles wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

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.

So WADA need to review their limits which apply across a multitude of sports because Chris Froome went over the limit. Ok then.

Looks as if they already have:-
https://conac.org.uk/important-wada-201 ... er-changes

Sneaky. They are definitely out to get him if they have time travelled back to change the rules.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

What we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. A dehydrated rider taking several puffs between a race and testing at a time when he would also presumably be taking on the liquids that would end up in the urine test. The various studies that get posted would seem to be of little relevance beyond showing that the threshold can be breached legally.

What we have here is a rider who has broken the rules of a race he signed up to so has to face the consequences of breaking those rules.

Thing is, if that is the case, he would have known that his actions may have caused him to get into trouble, so you would have thought that he would have immediately told a tester what he had done so it could have been taken into consideration .... That’s what I would have done.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Thing is, if that is the case, he would have known that his actions may have caused him to get into trouble, so you would have thought that he would have immediately told a tester what he had done so it could have been taken into consideration .... That’s what I would have done.

They write on the testing form if they have been taking anything

If the rule is not to take more than 8 puffs in a 12 hour period. It is not unreasonable to expect that if you keep to that then there should be no problem. It appears, irrespective of Froome's case itself, that that is not necessarily the case.

dennisn

Pross wrote:

We're now at that entrenched phase when the rules and facts have been discussed but people choose to continue arguing to support their own preconceived ideas instead.

How would ANYONE on this forum know the actual facts? You're all guessing.

pinno

dennisn wrote:

Pross wrote:

We're now at that entrenched phase when the rules and facts have been discussed but people choose to continue arguing to support their own preconceived ideas instead.

How would ANYONE on this forum know the actual facts? You're all guessing.

I think TA Doctor summed up the scenario on page 29.
It should have died there until further developments materialise.

#PBlakeney.

gsk82

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

What we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. A dehydrated rider taking several puffs between a race and testing at a time when he would also presumably be taking on the liquids that would end up in the urine test. The various studies that get posted would seem to be of little relevance beyond showing that the threshold can be breached legally.

What we have here is a rider who has broken the rules of a race he signed up to so has to face the consequences of breaking those rules.

Thing is, if that is the case, he would have known that his actions may have caused him to get into trouble, so you would have thought that he would have immediately told a tester what he had done so it could have been taken into consideration .... That’s what I would have done.

He hasn't been proven to have broken any rule. You still don't get it the rule. The rule relates to the input of the drug. The reading is an indication of a rule breach, not a rule in itself.

Lookyhere

RichN95 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!

Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.

No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.

Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.

uh? these are not "laws" though are they?

He is not innocent either, he failed the test and he now has to "prove" his innocence, so its not "innocent until proven guilty at all !!! "

I am not sayng he should nt be afforded the same rights as you or i, but celebrities get snitched on, regrettably it happens but thats an internal matter for the authorities.

As i said, given the history of the sport and doping, a cynical approach is hardly surprising.

inseine

What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.

Matthewfalle

inseine wrote:

What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.

Why should they tell him he’s close. That’s not their job.

Matthewfalle

gsk82 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

What we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. A dehydrated rider taking several puffs between a race and testing at a time when he would also presumably be taking on the liquids that would end up in the urine test. The various studies that get posted would seem to be of little relevance beyond showing that the threshold can be breached legally.

What we have here is a rider who has broken the rules of a race he signed up to so has to face the consequences of breaking those rules.

Thing is, if that is the case, he would have known that his actions may have caused him to get into trouble, so you would have thought that he would have immediately told a tester what he had done so it could have been taken into consideration .... That’s what I would have done.

He hasn't been proven to have broken any rule. You still don't get it the rule. The rule relates to the input of the drug. The reading is an indication of a rule breach, not a rule in itself.

Rule says don’t have over a 1000 thingies. Froome had 2000. Rule broken.

tailwindhome

inseine wrote:

What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.

Then they need to test and prove this hypothesis

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

What we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. A dehydrated rider taking several puffs between a race and testing at a time when he would also presumably be taking on the liquids that would end up in the urine test. The various studies that get posted would seem to be of little relevance beyond showing that the threshold can be breached legally.

What we have here is a rider who has broken the rules of a race he signed up to so has to face the consequences of breaking those rules.

Thing is, if that is the case, he would have known that his actions may have caused him to get into trouble, so you would have thought that he would have immediately told a tester what he had done so it could have been taken into consideration .... That’s what I would have done.

He hasn't been proven to have broken any rule. You still don't get it the rule. The rule relates to the input of the drug. The reading is an indication of a rule breach, not a rule in itself.

Rule says don’t have over a 1000 thingies. Froome had 2000. Rule broken.

This is just factually incorrect. There is no rule that says how much you're allowed to have in your urine. There is a rule that says how much you're allowed to inhale. How much you have in your urine is purely an indicator of how much you're inhaled. If you're over that indicator you're asked to explain how, and if the answer is unsatisfactory, you're charged with a doping violation.

For someone that seems desperate to string Froome up for cheating, on the basis that the rules are the rules and regardless of the fact that there is a vanishingly slim chance of any attempt to actually dope, you seem to have very little understanding or regard for what the rules actually are.

salsiccia1