Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Matthewfalle

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Not at all. It's easy to win a fight against the scourge of motors if there aren't any motors. It's about as easy win as me pledging to rid Cardiff of wild bears. Fixing an imaginary problem is the easiest win a politician can get.

You know for certain the rumours of mechanical doping are an imaginary problem????
Anyway there is a thread for that so back on Froome, it's no secret that outside of the UK there is much resentment and suspicion about team sky and their practices. Just imagine the pr he would get if they were found to be exploiting the doping regs during his tenure as UCI president.

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

I think he’ll suffer a ban for the same reason as Ulissi et al - ie his Sally levels exceeded the rules. Nothing to do with having a go at the team.

bobmcstuff

Matthewfalle wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Not at all. It's easy to win a fight against the scourge of motors if there aren't any motors. It's about as easy win as me pledging to rid Cardiff of wild bears. Fixing an imaginary problem is the easiest win a politician can get.

You know for certain the rumours of mechanical doping are an imaginary problem????
Anyway there is a thread for that so back on Froome, it's no secret that outside of the UK there is much resentment and suspicion about team sky and their practices. Just imagine the pr he would get if they were found to be exploiting the doping regs during his tenure as UCI president.

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

I think he’ll suffer a ban for the same reason as Ulissi et al - ie his Sally levels exceeded the rules. Nothing to do with having a go at the team.

Ulissi's lawyer reckons Froome might get a worse ban - since Froome is trying to argue that he didn't exceed the allowed dose, whereas Ulissi basically admitted to accidentally taking more than the allowed dose. Although this was after Ulissi did the PK study so it's a bit unclear whether he did the PK study then decided not to argue he had taken an allowed dose because they couldn't replicate the urine salbutamol levels.

gsk82

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Not at all. It's easy to win a fight against the scourge of motors if there aren't any motors. It's about as easy win as me pledging to rid Cardiff of wild bears. Fixing an imaginary problem is the easiest win a politician can get.

You know for certain the rumours of mechanical doping are an imaginary problem????
Anyway there is a thread for that so back on Froome, it's no secret that outside of the UK there is much resentment and suspicion about team sky and their practices. Just imagine the pr he would get if they were found to be exploiting the doping regs during his tenure as UCI president.

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

I think he’ll suffer a ban for the same reason as Ulissi et al - ie his Sally levels exceeded the rules. Nothing to do with having a go at the team.

Ulissi's lawyer reckons Froome might get a worse ban - since Froome is trying to argue that he didn't exceed the allowed dose, whereas Ulissi basically admitted to accidentally taking more than the allowed dose. Although this was after Ulissi did the PK study so it's a bit unclear whether he did the PK study then decided not to argue he had taken an allowed dose because they couldn't replicate the urine salbutamol levels.

I cant see him getting more than Ulissi, his lawyers would swiftly won that appeal.

If he shows elevated levels in the test, would that basically mean he was able to use as much as he likes in the future? Obviously not officially

RichN95.

Something that has occurred to me. A couple of years ago we had the CIRC report which a lot of dopers contributed to, several in return for a reduced ban. Only one unsanctioned rider contributed and that was Froome. I wonder if his lawyer could use some brownie points from that to reduce any ban that might be forthcoming.

smithy21

I would back Sky’s ability to make bad situations worse to turn this into an absolute clusterf@ck.

MarkusW

Apologies for the noob question but.....

Isn’t it possible he got some dust from the ventolin on his clothes/hands and that he has accidentally contaminated the sample?

You’d only need a very small amount of dust in the urine pot to get a spectacular result. I’ve never been urine tested for ped’s so I don’t know if the donor has to wear gloves or is mandated to wash their hands before sample collection.

I vaguely remember from a uni course many years ago a parable on cross contamination about a police doctor that was swabbing blood sample sites with alcohol for drink driving and produced numbers that’s showed the guy would have been pickled?

Genuinely interested as if I were guilty I think this would get me off, just go our for a ride take the stuff the test my shirt and hands for it, maybe flap my shirt over a pot of water and dip my hands in it and say oops my bad....

RichN95.

MarkusW wrote:

Apologies for the noob question but.....

Isn’t it possible he got some dust from the ventolin on his clothes/hands and that he has accidentally contaminated the sample?

You’d only need a very small amount of dust in the urine pot to get a spectacular result. I’ve never been urine tested for ped’s so I don’t know if the donor has to wear gloves or is mandated to wash their hands before sample collection.

I vaguely remember from a uni course many years ago a parable on cross contamination about a police doctor that was swabbing blood sample sites with alcohol for drink driving and produced numbers that’s showed the guy would have been pickled?

Genuinely interested as if I were guilty I think this would get me off, just go our for a ride take the stuff the test my shirt and hands for it, maybe flap my shirt over a pot of water and dip my hands in it and say oops my bad....

I would say this is very unlikely.

awavey

MarkusW wrote:

Apologies for the noob question but.....

Isn’t it possible he got some dust from the ventolin on his clothes/hands and that he has accidentally contaminated the sample?

a ventolin inhaler is an aerosol,so you dont get much residue left behind from it, it does build up eventually whether its the dried salbutamol or aerosol component I dont know, but it can block the inhaler mechanism if left, but you are supposed to wash it daily to keep it clean.

a turbohaler would be different because its a powder based so you get alot more residue build up on the mechanism, but still not enough that youd be liberally finding it spread around on clothes/hands in any notable quantity

both types of inhalers work on the principle that you suck down as hard as you can and then hold your breath for as long as possible to try and get as much of the stuff down into your lungs, whilst fighting the reflex action which is often to immediately cough or exhale, , as delivery mechanisms go the chances of you getting a 100% dose from each puff Id say are quite small (which i do think is significant when considering how many doses are taken in this context and why things like injections and nebulisers get talked about), its certainly quite common when you're a kid that you dont have the technique right at all (after watching too many films/tv where inhalers are used almost like a breath freshener spray) and have a tendency to breath the inhaled stuff straight back through your nose, which means you have to take another pop, but you soon learn the technique properly.

smithy21

Please let Sky run the salbutamol residue on my knob after cleaning out my inhaler defence

salsiccia1

What's an inhaler defence? And why do you want Sky to run Salbutamol residue on your knob after they've cleaned it?

wildpig

awavey wrote:

both types of inhalers work on the principle that you suck down as hard as you can and then hold your breath for as long as possible to try and get as much of the stuff down into your lungs, whilst fighting the reflex action which is often to immediately cough or exhale, , as delivery mechanisms go the chances of you getting a 100% dose from each puff Id say are quite small (which i do think is significant when considering how many doses are taken in this context and why things like injections and nebulisers get talked about)

American Association respiratory care guidance estimates 9% of the medication reaches the lungs using an inhaler [with optimum technique]. That includes holding your breath... whilst cycling hard.

ben@31

wildpig wrote:

awavey wrote:

both types of inhalers work on the principle that you suck down as hard as you can and then hold your breath for as long as possible to try and get as much of the stuff down into your lungs, whilst fighting the reflex action which is often to immediately cough or exhale, , as delivery mechanisms go the chances of you getting a 100% dose from each puff Id say are quite small (which i do think is significant when considering how many doses are taken in this context and why things like injections and nebulisers get talked about)

American Association respiratory care guidance estimates 9% of the medication reaches the lungs using an inhaler [with optimum technique]. That includes holding your breath... whilst cycling hard.

What you saying? Is it hard to be twice over the permitted limit (accidentally).

DeVlaeminck

ben@31 wrote:

wildpig wrote:

awavey wrote:

both types of inhalers work on the principle that you suck down as hard as you can and then hold your breath for as long as possible to try and get as much of the stuff down into your lungs, whilst fighting the reflex action which is often to immediately cough or exhale, , as delivery mechanisms go the chances of you getting a 100% dose from each puff Id say are quite small (which i do think is significant when considering how many doses are taken in this context and why things like injections and nebulisers get talked about)

American Association respiratory care guidance estimates 9% of the medication reaches the lungs using an inhaler [with optimum technique]. That includes holding your breath... whilst cycling hard.

What you saying? Is it hard to be twice over the permitted limit (accidentally).

No he's saying Froome got maybe 91% of the Salbutamol on his knob, Brailsford now only has to explain why the levels in his sample were "only" twice the permitted limit and they are home and hosed.

Mad_Malx

wildpig wrote:

awavey wrote:

both types of inhalers work on the principle that you suck down as hard as you can and then hold your breath for as long as possible to try and get as much of the stuff down into your lungs, whilst fighting the reflex action which is often to immediately cough or exhale, , as delivery mechanisms go the chances of you getting a 100% dose from each puff Id say are quite small (which i do think is significant when considering how many doses are taken in this context and why things like injections and nebulisers get talked about)

American Association respiratory care guidance estimates 9% of the medication reaches the lungs using an inhaler [with optimum technique]. That includes holding your breath... whilst cycling hard.

So the lawyers might argue that Fenton Is much better than the average sucker, so ODed while taking the correct dose.

The therapeutic dose and wada limits are determined with full knowledge of average delivery. But it it us very variable, and specific devices (inhaler type) vary a lot. Quite a lot of the rest gets swallowed - although oral absorption isn’t very efficient.

Vino'sGhost

all quiet on the froome front. Not a wheeze to be heard.

thegreatdivide

This thread's running out of puff.

ademort

Am currently reading the Dutch website De Telegraaf. Apparently it features an aricle about Greg Lemond. According to Lemond in an artcle published in the Times today, David Brailsford is said to have quoted that the reason for the abnormally high amount of salbutamol in the specimen provided by Chris Froome were because Chris had to take a number of extra puffs after the event so he would not cough too much while being interviewed by the press. Lemond also gos on to say its the most rediculous excuse he has ever heard and Froome should still be banned. Is this true

salsiccia1

What is truth?

Truth is not discovered, it is decided.

Vino'sGhost

ademort wrote:

Am currently reading the Dutch website De Telegraaf. Apparently it features an aricle about Greg Lemond. According to Lemond in an artcle published in the Times today, David Brailsford is said to have quoted that the reason for the abnormally high amount of salbutamol in the specimen provided by Chris Froome were because Chris had to take a number of extra puffs after the event so he would not cough too much while being interviewed by the press. Lemond also gos on to say its the most rediculous excuse he has ever heard and Froome should still be banned. Is this true

Hahahah yes it is true here is the article
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chri ... 2d29823e28

Brailsford the gift that keeps on giving

timothyw

The question that I'd like to see answered - given Salbutamol apparently has a very short half life in the system, is it sufficiently short that Chris Froome could have done his doping control the day before, injected or ingested a load of salbutamol immediately after (IE, a performance enhancing amount), and expected it to be below threshold by the time of his next test?

If yes, then this seems decidedly fishy. If no, then it does seem like rather a storm in a teacup....

Mad_Malx

TimothyW wrote:

The question that I'd like to see answered - given Salbutamol apparently has a very short half life in the system, is it sufficiently short that Chris Froome could have done his doping control the day before, injected or ingested a load of salbutamol immediately after (IE, a performance enhancing amount), and expected it to be below threshold by the time of his next test?

If yes, then this seems decidedly fishy. If no, then it does seem like rather a storm in a teacup....

Half life in body is about 5 hours - that isn't very short. Activity in the airways is short because the local concentration drops rapidly. The (dubious) ped activities are presumably most needed at the end of the stage, shortly before tests are done, so I don't see this as a viable strategy.

timothyw

If the half life is 6 hours then that would imply someone deliberately cheating could take an amount that would test at 16000 ng/l if they knew they wouldn't be tested for 24 hours - ie 16 times the legal threshold.

My understanding is that is basically works like a short lived clenbuterol when in doping quantities- so good for 'cutting', burning fat while maintaining muscle mass (and presumably power output) - so good for maintaining racing leanness without losing form.

I dunno, that's starting to sound fishy to me.

I've not read any of Froome's books, but I've heard second hand there are a few mentions of bilharzia but absolutely no mentions of the Asthma he has apparently suffered from since childhood - anyone else actually read them?

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

The question that I'd like to see answered - given Salbutamol apparently has a very short half life in the system, is it sufficiently short that Chris Froome could have done his doping control the day before, injected or ingested a load of salbutamol immediately after (IE, a performance enhancing amount), and expected it to be below threshold by the time of his next test?

If yes, then this seems decidedly fishy. If no, then it does seem like rather a storm in a teacup....

The alleged performance gains - which are small and disputed - are to do with weight loss and muscle building - which is going to be sod all use by stage 18 of the a second consecutive Grand Tour.

Secondly, cycling has had several confessionals from dopers. Not a single one of them has mentioned using salbutamol - a well known and widely used drug - as part of a doping program. Some may have been falsely diagnosed with asthma in the mistaken belief that an inhaler would help them - but no pills or injections. The only mention of it in the CIRC report is in regard to dispute about its WADA status in 2002. It's not mentioned in any of the Armstrong documents.

timothyw

Sorry correction, misread, half life isn't 6 hours but 5 hours - that then means that given a 24 hour window the legal limit could be exceed by a factor of nearly 28x

That's a pretty big marginal gain right there surely?

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

I've not read any of Froome's books, but I've heard second hand there are a few mentions of bilharzia but absolutely no mentions of the Asthma he has apparently suffered from since childhood - anyone else actually read them?

It's not in the book because it's not particularly interesting.

The British sportsman with the biggest media profile in history is probably David Beckham. No-one knew he had asthma until he was 34.

bobmcstuff

TimothyW wrote:

My understanding is that is basically works like a short lived clenbuterol when in doping quantities- so good for 'cutting', burning fat while maintaining muscle mass (and presumably power output) - so good for maintaining racing leanness without losing form.

I dunno, that's starting to sound fishy to me.

Why would you take something which helps with cutting fat during stage 18 of a grand tour? The idea that any rider would be struggling with fat right at the end of a GT isn't really credible. Also the doses reported to be taken by weightlifters while cutting seem to be significantly higher than therapeutic doses - much more than double. I think Friebe quoted around 7.5x or more.

This is why I initially thought the contaminated blood bag argument was a more likely "dodgy" explanation (i.e., he was using it to cut fat when the blood was drawn) - until it was pointed out that to test at 2000 ng/l in urine would mean that the amount of salbutamol in the <500ml blood bag would need to be impossibly high.

Given the half life it does seem plausible that an extra 3 puffs right before the test might give a high reading - which means the question is how much he took during the stage and whether he exceeded the allowed dose by taking the extra ones afterwards. If he took the allowed dose during the stage and then 3 puffs afterwards then of course Lemond is right and he should be banned.

timothyw

RichN95 wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

The question that I'd like to see answered - given Salbutamol apparently has a very short half life in the system, is it sufficiently short that Chris Froome could have done his doping control the day before, injected or ingested a load of salbutamol immediately after (IE, a performance enhancing amount), and expected it to be below threshold by the time of his next test?

If yes, then this seems decidedly fishy. If no, then it does seem like rather a storm in a teacup....

The alleged performance gains - which are small and disputed - are to do with weight loss and muscle building - which is going to be sod all use by stage 18 of the a second consecutive Grand Tour.

Secondly, cycling has had several confessionals from dopers. Not a single one of them has mentioned using salbutamol - a well known and widely used drug - as part of a doping program. Some may have been falsely diagnosed with asthma in the mistaken belief that an inhaler would help them - but no pills or injections. The only mention of it in the CIRC report is in regard to dispute about its WADA status in 2002. It's not mentioned in any of the Armstrong documents.

Well, back then it would have been more likely that they'd use Clenbuterol, back in the wild west era? Floyd Landis seemed to think abuse of that was pretty widespread.

Given Salbutamol works a lot like Clen, and given (having just checked) elimination half life seems to be quoted at between 2.5 hours and 5.5 hours - so 5 would actually be on the high end, with a 3 hour half life you're talking a mind boggling 256 times the legal limit in a 24 hour window.

I am basically on the fence with this, to be clear, I have no particular concern if froome is doping or not, I'm purely interested in my original question of how exploitable the current situation is - I suffer from exercise induced asthma myself, often wheezing away on Sunday afternoons after long hard rides so obviously have no interest in preventing those with a genuine issue from taking medication to treat their asthma.

But still, when you have a rider as lean as Froome, and you have a drug that allows you to presumably maintain form while also maintaining unusually low % bodyfat, this could well be a golden ticket if you were prepared to abuse it?

Isn't the point of this type of cutting drug that they encourage the body to burn fat rather than muscle? That's got to be a good thing for a pro rider?

Mad_Malx

How much spare fat do you think Grooms has on stage 18?

Vino'sGhost

Mad_Malx wrote:

How much spare fat do you think Grooms has on stage 18?

a bit less than he will have when its stage 18 this year

timothyw

Mad_Malx wrote:

How much spare fat do you think Grooms has on stage 18?

Enough... it's pretty well established that on a several hour ride most of the energy will be/has to be derived from fat, as we are not capable of storing/ingesting sufficient glycogen/carbs to fuel it.

And isn't that why aerobic capacity is so important for endurance events? Because a lot of oxygen is needed to burn fat?

Either way, I think you might be missing the point - anything that stops your body from breaking down your muscles for food, that helps you maintain your power output despite doing things that would normally put it in a catabolic state (such as riding a grand tour...) is obviously worth doing.