Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

gsk82

I wonder if Landa is wishing he was still at sky this year

blazing_saddles

Mad_Malx wrote:

So we agree it was Dave & G wot did it then?

Salbuterol in the welsh cakes, butt.
Nebuliser sounds like something Captain Kirk and his cohorts would use.

tailwindhome

My money's on a combination of 1) and 2)

I can absolutely see how a rider can legitimately be using an inhaler and can accept that a rider could go over 8 puffs in 12 hours very easily.

What needs some explaining is the size of the reading.

bobmcstuff

TailWindHome wrote:

My money's on a combination of 1) and 2)

I can absolutely see how a rider can legitimately be using an inhaler and can accept that a rider could go over 8 puffs in 12 hours very easily.

What needs some explaining is the size of the reading.

Does seem the most plausible based on what is actually known (I.e. not much).

Be nice if SloppySchleckonds was to share his amazing insider knowledge, he seems to know something we don't.

larkim

Agreed it would be incompetence if it did happen, but it's not beyond the realms of possibilities.

I still think one of the potentials is just a timing thing - whether the 24 hour window is expressed as a midnight to midnight window or a rolling 24 hour period. That would equally be incompetence to a degree, but might rationally explain a peak urine level which other explanations might not. Or it might even point to a lack of clarity in the WADA code which doesn't expressly say it is one or the other, and therefore provides some opportunity for the lawyers to have their day.

At the moment we don't have a slew of doctors telling us that the urine test results are highly likely to be the result of a dehydrated athlete, so the rebuttable presumption is that somehow he took too much for some reason. We don't need to know the "why" really.

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

Doctors are quite clever, which is why they are doctors and don't work in an office in the city.

A doctor working for any professional team in any sport may have an inkling as to what the rules are and how they are calculated.

Incompetent is a very insulting word.

You are right, it's impossible for a doctor to be incompetent, strike that possibility from the list.

blazing_saddles

bobmcstuff wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

My money's on a combination of 1) and 2)

I can absolutely see how a rider can legitimately be using an inhaler and can accept that a rider could go over 8 puffs in 12 hours very easily.

What needs some explaining is the size of the reading.

Does seem the most plausible based on what is actually known (I.e. not much).

Be nice if SloppySchleckonds was to share his amazing insider knowledge, he seems to know something we don't.

Nobody knows better than me that having insider knowledge can be very frustrating.
It's very difficult to gauge where to draw the line before comment needs to be backed up, else the comment be rejected completely. This claim goes beyond that line.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Doctors are quite clever, which is why they are doctors and don't work in an office in the city.

A doctor working for any professional team in any sport may have an inkling as to what the rules are and how they are calculated.

Incompetent is a very insulting word.

You are right, it's impossible for a doctor to be incompetent, strike that possibility from the list.

Thank you!

gweeds

Whoosh

Wheelspinner

Ah these threads can be a laugh. And APOLOGIES to Bobmcstuff; I'm not arguing with you at all. Just want to use your examples to show what Pro Race Doping Threads can be like... Plus, it's Saturday morning, I'm now unemployed and on holiday and have time to farnarkle about...

First off...

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

That's all he said. Looks (to me) like the first sentence is simply an opinion, and despite the apparent mentality in here sometimes, it is perfectly ok to hold an opinion that is different to every-or-anyone else's. Whether it is "correct" or not is entirely irrelevant. It's an opinion.

The second bit is a simple acknowledgement that he would not speculate further, but "others" might well do so.

So, then...

bobmcstuff wrote:

I'd really like a bit more detail please?

Goes a bit on the attack and assumes that Sloppy actually has more detail, when all he really expressed was an opinion.

This is the same bobmcstuff

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think that's about right, the only real explanations are:

1. Too much inhaler
2. Unusual circumstances leading to increased urine concentration from legal dose
3. Taking salbutamol by other means for performance enhancement
4. The dodgy blood bag theory
5. Salbutamol as a masking agent

Kindly lists the commonly-accepted range of possible scenarios. Seems to suggest there aren't any other options, which may be a bit limiting, but could be true, so whatever, right? These aren't actual facts by the way, just [some of] the possible explanations for The Fact. Looks to me like Sloppy simply expressed an opinion that he - personally - doesn't believe Option 1 is especially likely. However

bobmcstuff wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

My money's on a combination of 1) and 2)

I can absolutely see how a rider can legitimately be using an inhaler and can accept that a rider could go over 8 puffs in 12 hours very easily.

What needs some explaining is the size of the reading.

Does seem the most plausible based on what is actually known (I.e. not much).

That smells a bit like an... an.... opinion! Bob thinks the Option 1 & 2 combo is The Most Plausible all while acknowledging that there are few known facts! Different to Sloppy, and also unsubstantiated by anything remotely resembling a fact, but because it's an opinion, that's actually fine.

But the very next sentence..

bobmcstuff wrote:

Be nice if SloppySchleckonds was to share his amazing insider knowledge, he seems to know something we don't.

Back to complaining that Sloppy had the temerity to express an opinion...

*giggle*.

I may have missed something in the whole reporting mess, but to date there appears to be precisely one actual, relevant fact known in the public arena?

Froome recorded a test result that (far) exceeds the prescribed limit permitted for that test.

That's it. Have I missed any other commonly known facts? Quite possible, I don't read much beyond these pages on cycling these days. If so, please enlighten me.

Everything else so far on here and elsewhere is guess-work. The only requirement now is for Froome to provide evidence that he can reliably reproduce this test result while staying with the WADA dosage guidelines. That still won't change the fact he was over the limit, but it will give the relevant authorities a reason to grant him an exemption from the defined disciplinary action which would otherwise result from the fact he exceeded the test limit.

FWIW, my opinion is Option 1 & 2 combo will be determined to be the likely explanation of the test result, but who knows?

Froome will never be able to prove precisely what he actually used, unless someone was following him around with a video camera for the entire preceding 24 hour period. So, even if a fact is he did not exceed the dosage limit, he can't prove that, and neither can you, WADA, UCI, Sky or anyone else.

The WADA rules and test protocol give him a way of demonstrating that his test result is possible despite staying within the dosage limit. If he manages that, all good; the actual fact of what dose or how he originally took it becomes moot.

If he can't repeat that result, the simple fact remains that he was over the test limit. That won't ever change. In the event he fails to provide that evidence, the assumption/conclusion drawn (not an actual fact) is that he - quite simply - must have broken a dosage rule somehow. The medically accepted evidence is it is not possible otherwise to exceed the test limit. It doesn't matter one iota whether it was excess inhaler, or a nebuliser or even a hitherto unknown suppository version of the drug that he shoved up his jacksie..

The only relevant fact remaining is that his test result was too high, and that result will be used to decide if he's subjected to a ban according to the rules. They can't ban him based on an assumption he must have broken the dosage rule "somehow". They can only ban him based on the fact he failed the test.

You've all been picking on Sloppy here for expressing an opinion. I'd suggest using some facts to justify your claims instead.

Hint: holding a different opinion to Sloppy is *not* a "fact".

DeVlaeminck

Wheelspinner wrote:

... or even a hitherto unknown suppository version of the drug that he shoved up his jacksie...

.

Is this possibility 8 or does it come under option 3?

bobmcstuff

Hey, I was trying to be balanced... no fair! I don't mean to sound like I am trying to pick on anyone and in any event, I severely doubt he gives a toss what I think anyway.

You've only quoted one of Sloppy's posts. He's suggested anyone who believes it is just an inhaler is deluding themselves but hasn't offered anything to support that. I don't want to be deluding myself, so I'd like him to explain his opinion a bit more. Same reason why I asked Rich to provide a reference to the doctor saying the blood bag theory was implausible. Thats all.

Fully accept that my opinion that options 1 and 2 seem most likely at the moment is just an opinion, I don't think I've suggested otherwise. If I have, it was not intentional.

Wheelspinner

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hey, I was trying to be balanced... no fair! I don't mean to sound like I am trying to pick on anyone and in any event, I severely doubt he gives a toss what I think anyway.

You've only quoted one of Sloppy's posts. He's suggested anyone who believes it is just an inhaler is deluding themselves but hasn't offered anything to support that. I don't want to be deluding myself, so I'd like him to explain his opinion a bit more. Same reason why I asked Rich to provide a reference to the doctor saying the blood bag theory was implausible. Thats all.

Fully accept that my opinion that options 1 and 2 seem most likely at the moment is just an opinion, I don't think I've suggested otherwise. If I have, it was not intentional.

Yeah I know, and I really wasn’t wanting to imply otherwise.

awavey

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hey, I was trying to be balanced... no fair! I don't mean to sound like I am trying to pick on anyone and in any event, I severely doubt he gives a toss what I think anyway.

You've only quoted one of Sloppy's posts. He's suggested anyone who believes it is just an inhaler is deluding themselves but hasn't offered anything to support that. I don't want to be deluding myself, so I'd like him to explain his opinion a bit more. Same reason why I asked Rich to provide a reference to the doctor saying the blood bag theory was implausible. Thats all.

Fully accept that my opinion that options 1 and 2 seem most likely at the moment is just an opinion, I don't think I've suggested otherwise. If I have, it was not intentional.

I think "deluding" is probably too strong a sentiment, but I certainly am struggling to imagine how you can consume such an obviously larger intake of salbutamol, via a standard ventolin inhaler alone.

bobmcstuff

awavey wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hey, I was trying to be balanced... no fair! I don't mean to sound like I am trying to pick on anyone and in any event, I severely doubt he gives a toss what I think anyway.

You've only quoted one of Sloppy's posts. He's suggested anyone who believes it is just an inhaler is deluding themselves but hasn't offered anything to support that. I don't want to be deluding myself, so I'd like him to explain his opinion a bit more. Same reason why I asked Rich to provide a reference to the doctor saying the blood bag theory was implausible. Thats all.

Fully accept that my opinion that options 1 and 2 seem most likely at the moment is just an opinion, I don't think I've suggested otherwise. If I have, it was not intentional.

I think "deluding" is probably too strong a sentiment, but I certainly am struggling to imagine how you can consume such an obviously larger intake of salbutamol, via a standard ventolin inhaler alone.

It's not far enough over the limit that other means of delivery are required to explain it. That doesn't mean it is impossible he took it another way (which would be banned), but at the same time it's not hard to see how you could get there with an inhaler.

Various studies linked in this thread show that it is possible to read above the 1000 ng/l by taking a legal dose of salbutamol in some circumstances. It doesn't look impossible to get to 2000 on a legal dose, but assuming that's not the case he wouldn't have had to try too hard to get there with an inhaler. He wouldn't necessarily need to take it a different way.

mtb-idle

an interesting take on it from the old uniballer himself

john1967

Stage 18 was 4 hours long. Has anybody seen any footage or pictures of Froome using an inhaler during the stage?

Pross

awavey wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hey, I was trying to be balanced... no fair! I don't mean to sound like I am trying to pick on anyone and in any event, I severely doubt he gives a toss what I think anyway.

You've only quoted one of Sloppy's posts. He's suggested anyone who believes it is just an inhaler is deluding themselves but hasn't offered anything to support that. I don't want to be deluding myself, so I'd like him to explain his opinion a bit more. Same reason why I asked Rich to provide a reference to the doctor saying the blood bag theory was implausible. Thats all.

Fully accept that my opinion that options 1 and 2 seem most likely at the moment is just an opinion, I don't think I've suggested otherwise. If I have, it was not intentional.

I think "deluding" is probably too strong a sentiment, but I certainly am struggling to imagine how you can consume such an obviously larger intake of salbutamol, via a standard ventolin inhaler alone.

But that's the issue, the test is not a measure of how much has been consumed. It's a measure of have much is excreted based on a correlation that it is already known to not be 100% infallible. I suspect that's where any defence will be based.

surrey_commuter

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

sloppyschleckonds

Surrey Commuter wrote:

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

Bike Radar forum seems to be the place to come up with some good excuses.

gsk82

Surrey Commuter wrote:

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

I suspect they get one shot at it and are making sure they get it right. There's no rush.

surrey_commuter

gsk82 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

I suspect they get one shot at it and are making sure they get it right. There's no rush.

But suppose he is closely tested and monitored after every training ride surely they would have the data to prove that his attempts to deal with chronic asthma threw up random results when taking the same dose of ventolin

gsk82

Surrey Commuter wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

I suspect they get one shot at it and are making sure they get it right. There's no rush.

But suppose he is closely tested and monitored after every training ride surely they would have the data to prove that his attempts to deal with chronic asthma threw up random results when taking the same dose of ventolin

But theres no rush, his season doesn't really start until March. They could be waiting until straight after a big training block or until the weather is hotter. They could have done various dry runs already to make sure it's almost certain to be replicated in the actual tests.

They may also be struggling to replicate it.

We don't know and until we do there's no point in guessing.... but we'll still keep guessing

surrey_commuter

gsk82 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

After three months of producing no medical evidence to muddy the legal waters is it reasonable to assume that Froome/Sky are struggling to come up with a vaguely plausible set of mitigating factors

I suspect they get one shot at it and are making sure they get it right. There's no rush.

But suppose he is closely tested and monitored after every training ride surely they would have the data to prove that his attempts to deal with chronic asthma threw up random results when taking the same dose of ventolin

But theres no rush, his season doesn't really start until March. They could be waiting until straight after a big training block or until the weather is hotter. They could have done various dry runs already to make sure it's almost certain to be replicated in the actual tests.

They may also be struggling to replicate it.

We don't know and until we do there's no point in guessing.... but we'll still keep guessing

You lot are funny - we know he scored double on the test yet you lot are quite happy to explain it away

iainf72

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You lot are funny - we know he scored double on the test yet you lot are quite happy to explain it away

But "double" doesn't mean anything in this context. If there is a circumstance where Froome has that amount in his urine without using too many puffs, then he will be fine.

No_Ta_Doctor

I love the fact that people think Sky might be/should be/have been taking blood/urine tests from riders to monitor their salbutamol levels in correlation with inhaler puffs. This just blows my mind.

redvision

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You lot are funny - we know he scored double on the test yet you lot are quite happy to explain it away

Thing is, while I personally have suspicions regarding his salbutamol level, his high level should never have become public knowledge and Froome deserves to be considered innocent until further action is announced, if that happens.

As I keep stating though, if he is cleared a serious question needs to be asked why he was allowed to continue in the race if his asthma was so bad.

DeVlaeminck

redvision wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You lot are funny - we know he scored double on the test yet you lot are quite happy to explain it away

Thing is, while I personally have suspicions regarding his salbutamol level, his high level should never have become public knowledge and Froome deserves to be considered innocent until further action is announced, if that happens.

As I keep stating though, if he is cleared a serious question needs to be asked why he was allowed to continue in the race if his asthma was so bad.

Realistically how bad can it be if he's only using a blue inhaler and can still win a grand tour?

redvision

DeVlaeminck wrote:

redvision wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You lot are funny - we know he scored double on the test yet you lot are quite happy to explain it away

Thing is, while I personally have suspicions regarding his salbutamol level, his high level should never have become public knowledge and Froome deserves to be considered innocent until further action is announced, if that happens.

As I keep stating though, if he is cleared a serious question needs to be asked why he was allowed to continue in the race if his asthma was so bad.

Realistically how bad can it be if he's only using a blue inhaler and can still win a grand tour?

Well that's where the suspicion forms.

I have suffered since I was a child with severe asthma. I have a emergency guide to follow when it flares up and basically it says if I take my salbutamol inhaler more than 12 times in a day, and my peak flow is below a certain value, I have to call for an ambulance. Granted this is an emergency guide specifically for me but when you suffer an asthma attack it can take days before your breathing returns to normal and so If Froome was that bad that he needed so much salbutamol then in my eyes it is neglect from the medical team to let him continue.

Mad_Malx

As someone commented miles back, this probably wouldn’t have been an issue if he’d not tried to make a point about not using a TUE for steroids.