Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

bigmat

wildpig wrote:

Post race interview he says "I felt quite within myself today", and "I felt fine today" (in response to the question 'are you 100% fit and healthy?') - which does not seem to tally at all with requiring a huge dose of inhaled salbutamol (over and above anything that he has returned before, despite apparently meticulous work with his team Dr) that he can optimally inhale, hold his breath and achieve greater than normal lung delivery of the substance, whilst riding at supramaximal effort?

Forgive me if I'm sceptical.

Are you English? If so you'll surely appreciate that saying "I'm fine" in response to someone asking how you are can mean all manner of things, including feeling absolutely f-ing atrocious.

darkhairedlord

BigMat wrote:

wildpig wrote:

Post race interview he says "I felt quite within myself today", and "I felt fine today" (in response to the question 'are you 100% fit and healthy?') - which does not seem to tally at all with requiring a huge dose of inhaled salbutamol (over and above anything that he has returned before, despite apparently meticulous work with his team Dr) that he can optimally inhale, hold his breath and achieve greater than normal lung delivery of the substance, whilst riding at supramaximal effort?

Forgive me if I'm sceptical.

Are you English? If so you'll surely appreciate that saying "I'm fine" in response to someone asking how you are can mean all manner of things, including feeling absolutely f-ing atrocious.

That, and why would you tell your competitors you're knackered; you would want to at least appear chipper even if you are fit to drop.

wildpig

bobmcstuff wrote:

No problem with the rest of what you've said but why would he advertise he wasn't feeling great in post-stage interviews... Seems like a really stupid thing to do.

BigMat wrote:

Are you English? If so you'll surely appreciate that saying "I'm fine" in response to someone asking how you are can mean all manner of things, including feeling absolutely f-ing atrocious.

darkhairedlord wrote:

That, and why would you tell your competitors you're knackered; you would want to at least appear chipper even if you are fit to drop.

Appreciated. Fixed. Doesn't change the context much, if at all.

"Stage 18 - Froome attacks late, extends lead again by 21 seconds (and delivers an adverse test) - Which does not seem to tally at all with requiring a huge dose of inhaled salbutamol because of his asthma getting so much worse (new addition) (over and above anything that he has returned before, despite apparently meticulous work with his team Dr) that he can optimally inhale, hold his breath and achieve greater than normal lung delivery of the substance, whilst riding at supramaximal effort?"

Anyone familiar with the timetable of the doping tests carried out?
What's the betting there's a regular routine
1) finish race
2) go to doping control
3) left alone until start of the race the next day, giving a window of X hours to do whatever you like

bobmcstuff

/\ I thought the race leader often does press commitments before the drugs test, but may be wrong.

I think this bit is debatable:

that he can optimally inhale, hold his breath and achieve greater than normal lung delivery of the substance, whilst riding at supramaximal effort?

The limits are set taking into account the amount of salbutamol which actually enters your system from a dose (around 9%, on average for a normal person). It's easy to see how this could be lower than 9% during a race (and I don't know if the urine salbutamol limits account for that or not), perhaps harder to see how it would be higher but not totally implausible.

If he took 3 puffs directly after the race to avoid coughing in the interview as stated then you can see how he would give a higher reading than if those same puffs were taken earlier in the stage. Then the onus is on him to show that those 3 puffs would have been enough to give an adverse reading but at the same time did not take him over the allowed dose for inhalation - if not he'll be banned (rightly so).

RichN95.

wildpig wrote:

Appreciated. Fixed. Doesn't change the context much, if at all.

"Stage 18 - Froome attacks late, extends lead again by 21 seconds (and delivers an adverse test) - Which does not seem to tally at all with requiring a huge dose of inhaled salbutamol because of his asthma getting so much worse (new addition) (over and above anything that he has returned before, despite apparently meticulous work with his team Dr) that he can optimally inhale, hold his breath and achieve greater than normal lung delivery of the substance, whilst riding at supramaximal effort?"

It depends how the asthma manifests itself. He may have breathing difficulties a few hours after the finish - a delayed reaction. At the end of the Vuelta, David Lopez told a reporter than Froome had been suffering very badly and coughing heavily the night before the day in question. An increased dose may have been to prevent a similar delayed reaction.

t5nel

Just been through the whole annual asthma check process. Apologies if this has been discussed but I cba to wade through 49 pages.

I had forgotten that during the test they use a plastic device called a spacer which goes between you and the inhaler - this is specifically designed to help with aspiration of the salbutamol rather than it coating the tongue teeth inside of mouth. i.e. it increase the efficiency of the delivery in terms of salbutamol delivered to lungs.

Apparently there an be a big difference between delivery using something like this http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Clement-Clark ... 1364622315 vs th inhaler on its own. All puffs are not equal. If I were Sky/Froome preparing for the test I am sure I would be looking in to the most efficien way of getting every possible bit of salbutamol in me from a puff.

Dorset_Boy

wildpig wrote:

Anyone familiar with the timetable of the doping tests carried out?
What's the betting there's a regular routine
1) finish race
2) go to doping control
3) left alone until start of the race the next day, giving a window of X hours to do whatever you like

We shared the same accommodation as Astana, Trek & Katusha in Le Corbier towards the end of the 2015 Tour.
Nibali won the stage to La Toussuire, stage 19 (when he attacked as Froome had a mechanical) and so will have been tested after the stage.
The next morning as we were getting ready to drive round to Alp D'huez for Stage 20 we called the lift shortly before 7am to take bags to the car, but couldn't get in it as Nibali was in there with two guys from doping control, taking him off to be tested.

So wildpig, point 3 is BS, especially now that cycling has 24/7 testing available.

DeVlaeminck

[quote="RichN95"

It depends how the asthma manifests itself. He may have breathing difficulties a few hours after the finish - a delayed reaction. At the end of the Vuelta, David Lopez told a reporter than Froome had been suffering very badly and coughing heavily the night before the day in question. An increased dose may have been to prevent a similar delayed reaction.[/quote]
"

---

Google does reveal something called cough variant asthma - so yes maybe it's possible I don't know. My experience through my daughter and with coaching youth football is that EIA occurs during not post exercise but that doesn't mean there aren't other forms.

Ultimately they will still have to do tests that show a legal dose can produce a positive result of similar magnitude though. The grey area will be if they can produce a positive but not close to Froome's levels but that's another story. Whether he gets off or not I suppose a plausible explanation will be good PR - his bad luck is that Sky are viewed with more suspicion now than say 3 years ago - at least in the uk perhaps elsewhere it was always thus.

RichN95.

On a stage of the 2011 Tour Andy Schleck was tested post race, then again in the evening during his dinner and a third time the morning after - three times in 12 hours (but not all by the same doping agency)

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Google does reveal something called cough variant asthma - so yes maybe it's possible I don't know. My experience through my daughter and with coaching youth football is that EIA occurs during not post exercise but that doesn't mean there aren't other forms.

There's been a suggestion that he was using it to try to alleviate his cough instead of getting the appropriate medicine via a TUE (but that's just speculation)

DeVlaeminck wrote:

his bad luck is that Sky are viewed with more suspicion now than say 3 years ago - at least in the uk perhaps elsewhere it was always thus.

In many ways his bad luck was being the first champion after the Armstrong affair and being an English speaker. So the media that had so obviously failed with Armstrong needed to recreate a version so they could have another go.

wildpig

Dorset Boy wrote:

wildpig wrote:

Anyone familiar with the timetable of the doping tests carried out?
What's the betting there's a regular routine
1) finish race
2) go to doping control
3) left alone until start of the race the next day, giving a window of X hours to do whatever you like

We shared the same accommodation as Astana, Trek & Katusha in Le Corbier towards the end of the 2015 Tour.
Nibali won the stage to La Toussuire, stage 19 (when he attacked as Froome had a mechanical) and so will have been tested after the stage.
The next morning as we were getting ready to drive round to Alp D'huez for Stage 20 we called the lift shortly before 7am to take bags to the car, but couldn't get in it as Nibali was in there with two guys from doping control, taking him off to be tested.

So wildpig, point 3 is BS, especially now that cycling has 24/7 testing available.

Hence it being a question - I'm not familiar with it.

Mad_Malx

This 3 puffs after the race is really dumb though. If it's 3x200 then it means just one earlier in the day takes him to the 12h limit regardless of urine level.
Almost like running into the house and necking vodka after crashing the car. police check again later to test the defence, but alcohol elimination is much better characterised and reproducible.

timothyw

RichN95 wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

As I said before, I'm not by any stretch a biologist so can't claim to understand the mechanisms at work

Then I would recommend listening to what the actual experts say rather than trying to generate your own 'facts'.

Would those be the experts who say that Froome tested at double the maximum accepted level of salbutamol on the test, and that pending a pharmacokinetic test he's going to be losing the Vuelta, worlds tt podium and getting a ban?

Honestly, do you even consider the possibility that what is at present a failed doping test might be an indication of doping?

It's like some absurd inversion of the Armstrong defence of 'never having failed a test....'

It might just be bad luck or clumsiness with an inhaler.

It might also be a deliberate and calculated doping effort.

tailwindhome

Mad_Malx wrote:

This 3 puffs after the race is really dumb though. If it's 3x200 then it means just one earlier in the day takes him to the 12h limit regardless of urine level.
Almost like running into the house and necking vodka after crashing the car. police check again later to test the defence, but alcohol elimination is much better characterised and reproducible.

Good point
The discussion on the number of puffs seems to assume a 100 whatever inhaler


Could accumulation be a factor?
8 puffs every 12 hours for 18 days....

redvision

TailWindHome wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

This 3 puffs after the race is really dumb though. If it's 3x200 then it means just one earlier in the day takes him to the 12h limit regardless of urine level.
Almost like running into the house and necking vodka after crashing the car. police check again later to test the defence, but alcohol elimination is much better characterised and reproducible.

Good point
The discussion on the number of puffs seems to assume a 100 whatever inhaler


Could accumulation be a factor?
8 puffs every 12 hours for 18 days....

Salbutamol has loads of side affects, especially uncontrollable shaking/trembling, when taken in large quantities. If he had inhaled 8 puffs every 12 hours for 18 days he would be in a hell of a mess.

As i keep pointing out, the volume of salbutamol in his blood suggests he was medically very unwell and the first question which should be answered before anything is why he was allowed to continue racing, and why was he not admitted to hospital if his asthma was so bad??!!

Mad_Malx

redvision wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

This 3 puffs after the race is really dumb though. If it's 3x200 then it means just one earlier in the day takes him to the 12h limit regardless of urine level.
Almost like running into the house and necking vodka after crashing the car. police check again later to test the defence, but alcohol elimination is much better characterised and reproducible.

Good point
The discussion on the number of puffs seems to assume a 100 whatever inhaler


Could accumulation be a factor?
8 puffs every 12 hours for 18 days....

Salbutamol has loads of side affects, especially uncontrollable shaking/trembling, when taken in large quantities. If he had inhaled 8 puffs every 12 hours for 18 days he would be in a hell of a mess.

As i keep pointing out, the volume of salbutamol in his blood suggests he was medically very unwell and the first question which should be answered before anything is why he was allowed to continue racing, and why was he not admitted to hospital if his asthma was so bad??!!

Like smack, regular use leads to marked tolerance. More needed for same effect.
For 9k you can have the full lecture.

bobmcstuff

Minor point, but weren't the levels measured in his urine not his blood.

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Minor point, but weren't the levels measured in his urine not his blood.

Yes.

It's actually a major point as dehydration and dilution are key factors.

Mad_Malx

It's not a minor point.
The wada limit is dose, but urine levels are measured to give a flawed indication of this. I don't think Blood levels are mentioned in the rules

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Minor point, but weren't the levels measured in his urine not his blood.

Yes.

It's actually a major point as dehydration and dilution are key factors.

Well dehydration affects blood plasma volumes as well as urine concentration so it applies to both to some extent. I assume not as much for blood since one of the reasons you p!ss out less water is to retain the water in your blood and organs. But I am not a doctor.

I meant minor point with relation to the rest of his post, since I don't think substituting the word blood for urine really makes any difference to what he was saying.

salsiccia1

Mad_Malx

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Minor point, but weren't the levels measured in his urine not his blood.

Yes.

It's actually a major point as dehydration and dilution are key factors.

Well dehydration affects blood plasma volumes as well as urine concentration so it applies to both to some extent. I assume not as much for blood since one of the reasons you p!ss out less water is to retain the water in your blood and organs. But I am not a doctor.

I meant minor point with relation to the rest of his post, since I don't think substituting the word blood for urine really makes any difference to what he was saying.

Blood volume decrease of 10% very serious
Urine volume decrease of 90% - normal

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

A search for asthmatic cricketer suggests Darren Gough.

He didn't get many 50s though

bobmcstuff

Mad_Malx wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Minor point, but weren't the levels measured in his urine not his blood.

Yes.

It's actually a major point as dehydration and dilution are key factors.

Well dehydration affects blood plasma volumes as well as urine concentration so it applies to both to some extent. I assume not as much for blood since one of the reasons you p!ss out less water is to retain the water in your blood and organs. But I am not a doctor.

I meant minor point with relation to the rest of his post, since I don't think substituting the word blood for urine really makes any difference to what he was saying.

Blood volume decrease of 10% very serious
Urine volume decrease of 90% - normal

Not a bad assumption then!

ademort

Well we,ve had 50 pages of debate and one thing seems clear. Froome should be banned if the dosage measured cannot be explained satisfactorily to the UCI. In which case Froome will miss all or part of next season. So my question would be what happens to Team SKY. Will the main sponsor want to continue with the team or will it be the end of Team SKY??

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

Well we,ve had 50 pages of debate and one thing seems clear. Froome should be banned if the dosage measured cannot be explained satisfactorily to the UCI. In which case Froome will miss all or part of next season. So my question would be what happens to Team SKY. Will the main sponsor want to continue with the team or will it be the end of Team SKY??

Sky aren't the sponsor, they own the team. I believe the money is guaranteed until 2020. I doubt this will effect anything short term. It may lead to the withdrawal of Sky's involvement in 2020, but many already thought that could happen.

You'd be hard pushed to find someone sensible and informed who believes this is part of a doping program rather than an error on someone's part (either Froome or WADA). Any adverse decision will likely confirm that so Froome will be kept on the team on the basis that it wasn't doping (which would also open the door to hiring Simon Yates in future - although I doubt that would happen)

tailwindhome

Current TDF odds

Chris Froome 7/4
Tom Dumoulin 9/4
Richie Porte 9/2
Nairo Quintana 6/1
Mikel Landa 14/1
Nibali 20/1
Uran 25/1
Bardet 25/1

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Current TDF odds

Chris Froome 7/4
Tom Dumoulin 9/4
Richie Porte 9/2
Nairo Quintana 6/1
Mikel Landa 14/1
Nibali 20/1
Uran 25/1
Bardet 25/1

So the favourites are someone who might be banned and someone who isn’t riding it.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Current TDF odds

Chris Froome 7/4
Tom Dumoulin 9/4
Richie Porte 9/2
Nairo Quintana 6/1
Mikel Landa 14/1
Nibali 20/1
Uran 25/1
Bardet 25/1

So the favourites are someone who might be banned and someone who isn’t riding it.

What impact does that have on the odds for the others?

yorkshireraw

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Current TDF odds

Chris Froome 7/4
Tom Dumoulin 9/4
Richie Porte 9/2
Nairo Quintana 6/1
Mikel Landa 14/1
Nibali 20/1
Uran 25/1
Bardet 25/1

So the favourites are someone who might be banned and someone who isn’t riding it.

Nibali (the only active rider who's won all 3 GTs) and is Mr Consistent, is offered at better odds than Landa - who isn't even guaranteed team leadership.
Got to be worth an e/w punt?