Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Matthewfalle

OCDuPalais wrote:

There seems to be strong evidence connecting parasitic diseases (i.e. bilharzia) and renal issues/failure... is this where Froome’s defence is going?

I hope not as that will prove to be as embarrassing as the rest of the tosh they are currently dredging up.

DeVlaeminck

Reading between the lines on this they've spent months trying to reproduce Froome's readings in the lab and having failed have come up with an excuse as to why.

larkim

Still in the absence of anything official, the "real" story could be anything at all. Clearly if there was a really very straightforward explanation which would satisfy a tabloid reader's understanding at first reading I think we'd know about it by now (and it would have been resolved via the UCI processes etc).

The very fact that it continues to rumble on with few people saying anything on the record suggests that the situation, at the very least, is "complex". Whether that means "difficult to convince people of the innocence of the situation" or "nearly impossible to conclude that this presents anything other than a clear doping case" or "needs some complicated science and medical stuff sorting, but still paints a clearly innocent picture" is anyone's guess at the moment.

joelsim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Reading between the lines on this they've spent months trying to reproduce Froome's readings in the lab and having failed have come up with an excuse as to why.

^This.

tailwindhome

Funny thing though, I've yet to see a convincing story of how the one off Salbutamol reading fits into a doping program.

The blood bag theory has been dismissed by many including Stokes' go-to doctor McGrane.

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested which would give a mini biological passport for Salbutamol.

timothyw

How convincing a story do you need?

Surely it's the same one as ever?

Salbutamol works as a recovery/strength drug when taken as a shot or as tablets. It has a short half life in the body, and positive tests are permissible in small quantities - so the 'glow time' is brief.

Then you just have to manage it so that you aren't tested when glowing. You do doping control at the end of the stage, then you pop a couple of tablets. It's clear by the next morning.

When it's clear you aren't getting one of the morning testers (or have done your morning test), you pop another couple of tablets. It's clear by the time you've raced and get tested after the stage (or not, in this case...)

Have you read The Secret Race? Sooner or later, everyone gets caught.

Or, it could be that Froome had kidney failure having been right up to the limit with his inhaler....

Matthewfalle

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Reading between the lines on this they've spent months trying to reproduce Froome's readings in the lab and having failed have come up with an excuse as to why.

^This.

This.

jimmythecuckoo

I have posted this same comment elsewhere but its worth repeating...

As a father of a young child with asthma and having undergone major kidney surgery myself, his explanation had better be good...

larkim

TimothyW wrote:

How convincing a story do you need?

Surely it's the same one as ever?

Salbutamol works as a recovery/strength drug when taken as a shot or as tablets.

This would be valid if it were true. But it isn't, from what I've read.

Happy to be pointed to studies which contradict my view though.

natrix

TailWindHome wrote:

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested

Yes, especially as he may be claiming that on the days before and after his 'failed' test the readings were abnormally low..............

apriliarider

TimothyW wrote:

How convincing a story do you need?

Surely it's the same one as ever?

Salbutamol works as a recovery/strength drug when taken as a shot or as tablets. It has a short half life in the body, and positive tests are permissible in small quantities - so the 'glow time' is brief.

Then you just have to manage it so that you aren't tested when glowing. You do doping control at the end of the stage, then you pop a couple of tablets. It's clear by the next morning.

When it's clear you aren't getting one of the morning testers (or have done your morning test), you pop another couple of tablets. It's clear by the time you've raced and get tested after the stage (or not, in this case...)

Have you read The Secret Race? Sooner or later, everyone gets caught.

Or, it could be that Froome had kidney failure having been right up to the limit with his inhaler....

I thought that the test could differentiate between the inhaled and other forms - anything other than the inhaled form results in a positive test not an adverse finding.

or I could have dreamt that........

bigmat

natrix wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested

Yes, especially as he may be claiming that on the days before and after his 'failed' test the readings were abnormally low..............

Suggestion seems to be his readings were very low on the preceding days, then normalised on the following day. The argument would then be that due to some issue with his kidney function, the salbutamol was being processed and excreted on the previous days, but then his kidneys started working normally again resulting i a surge as the salbutamol was cleared out. Its as convincing an explanation as I've seen, although not at all convincing. If they can back it up with the other days' test results, detailed records of the doses he took and some kind of precedent for kidneys behaving in that way, it could possibly work out.

Lets not forget that the official verdict for Contador was that he had probably ingested the clen accidentally, he only got stuck with a ban because it was strict liability and any amount consituted a doping offence. A similarly sympathetic hearing of Froome's case could result in him getting off, given the amount of wriggle room with salbutamol.

tim000

natrix wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested

Yes, especially as he may be claiming that on the days before and after his 'failed' test the readings were abnormally low..............

but how do you know the info is missing? all we know is that it hasn`t been made public .

larkim

i don't think the tests can specifically detect, but the taking is prohibited and the dose taken via a tablet would far exceed the inhaled dosage.

tailwindhome

tim000 wrote:

natrix wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested

Yes, especially as he may be claiming that on the days before and after his 'failed' test the readings were abnormally low..............

but how do you know the info is missing? all we know is that it hasn`t been made public .

That's what I meant.

timothyw

larkim wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

How convincing a story do you need?

Surely it's the same one as ever?

Salbutamol works as a recovery/strength drug when taken as a shot or as tablets.

This would be valid if it were true. But it isn't, from what I've read.

Happy to be pointed to studies which contradict my view though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912897

There are loads of similar studies that point to benefits from salbutamol, that's just the first google.

More pertinent though, is the simple fact that they are tested for it, and if they exceed the threshold then they get a ban if they can't explain themselves.

This would suggest the testers are pretty convinced it can have benefits, otherwise why bother testing?

Again, I'm not particularly bothered if Froome is on the juice or not, but seems mad to dismiss the possibility when he has tested positive (which tends to indicate a drug cheat...) and has won multiple grand tours (which sadly also tends to indicate a drug cheat...)

larkim

Most of the abstracts that I've read deal with chronic salbutamol use (i.e. dosing over a longer period, typically 30 days or so) for which there'd be no hiding.

Your link is to an acute study, so is more relevant to what you have posited, I accept that - though at 4mg dosing that is substantially more than the 1600mcg/24 hours inhaled.

However, the study is for non-asthmatics, so for Froome at the very least that would not be relevant data. Also 25% of the study complained of adverse side effects, and with that 25% included the endurance benefits were not statistically significant (P was > 5%). Also no effect on many other factors as listed in the abstract.

I'd need to see more abstracts to be convinced that your assertion is correct as that one is very small and very weak.

DeVlaeminck

tim000 wrote:

natrix wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The missing information is the reading on all the other days he was tested

Yes, especially as he may be claiming that on the days before and after his 'failed' test the readings were abnormally low..............

but how do you know the info is missing? all we know is that it hasn`t been made public .

But what is abnormally low? Are they going to take his word for the amount of salbutamol he inhaled, do Sky really keep a record of every time he puffs on an inhaler now, the same bunch who when it suits them claim they just wing it and don't keep records of anything.

He can't prove his kidney function on a day last Summer except with reference to being over the limit - he's effectively saying the test result doesn't reflect my dose so therefore my kidneys couldn't have been processing it - the proof is in effect the "positive" test and as such would be a get out for anyone over the limit.

Matthewfalle

And if he did have kidney issues or a UTI there would be a medical record of it so it would take two seconds to produce the paperwork.

timothyw

larkim wrote:

Most of the abstracts that I've read deal with chronic salbutamol use (i.e. dosing over a longer period, typically 30 days or so) for which there'd be no hiding.

Er why do you think there'd be no hiding? He's hiding in plain sight - he has asthma.... he takes it every day to treat his asthma...

Do you think a planned doping program would involve Froome testing positive for something that couldn't be explained away? Did Lance ever test positive?

I would imagine that Froome, if doping, fully expected to sail through that days doping control, as he did every other day.

To repeat myself again, Salbutamol's half life in the body is quoted as between 2.7 and 5.5 hours. Plenty of scope there for exceeding thresholds by several times if you know you aren't going to be tested for a number of hours.

Again, if Salbutamol isn't effective, why do they bother testing for it? Why have the threshold?

He tested at double the permitted maximum level. Given the history of the sport, don't you think there's a possibility that there is funny business involved?

Did you give Ulissi the same benefit of the doubt?

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

Er why do you think there'd be no hiding? He's hiding in plain sight - he has asthma.... he takes it every day to treat his asthma...

Do you think a planned doping program would involve Froome testing positive for something that couldn't be explained away? Did Lance ever test positive?

I would imagine that Froome, if doping, fully expected to sail through that days doping control, as he did every other day.

To repeat myself again, Salbutamol's half life in the body is quoted as between 2.7 and 5.5 hours. Plenty of scope there for exceeding thresholds by several times if you know you aren't going to be tested for a number of hours.

OK, let's run with your theory. If Froome sailed through doping every other day (for many years), what was different on the day in question? The dope test wouldn't have been a surprise, he was leading the race.

TimothyW wrote:

Did you give Ulissi the same benefit of the doubt?

Mostly, yes.

trivial_poursuivant

RichN95 wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Er why do you think there'd be no hiding? He's hiding in plain sight - he has asthma.... he takes it every day to treat his asthma...

Do you think a planned doping program would involve Froome testing positive for something that couldn't be explained away? Did Lance ever test positive?

I would imagine that Froome, if doping, fully expected to sail through that days doping control, as he did every other day.

To repeat myself again, Salbutamol's half life in the body is quoted as between 2.7 and 5.5 hours. Plenty of scope there for exceeding thresholds by several times if you know you aren't going to be tested for a number of hours.

OK, let's run with your theory. If Froome sailed through doping every other day (for many years), what was different on the day in question? The dope test wouldn't have been a surprise, he was leading the race.

TimothyW wrote:

Did you give Ulissi the same benefit of the doubt?

Mostly, yes.

As a race leader he knows he will be tested every single day he wears the leaders jersey. He knows after Sky had the Wiggins debacle he will be watched even closer as an individual and as a team. He went the entire TdF getting tested just the same. He knows his limit, I’m sure Sky know his limit. So to have a one off ultra high reading is either an act of extreme stupidity or quite possibly an anomaly in the testing or the physiology of the subject. Slightly over you would say, ah well he pushed it too far but to have day in day out low readings then a spike then back to low readings it makes zero sense. The stage he produced a failed test was a hard stage but not a stage that was one you would expect him to struggle on normally, his lead at this point was substantial.

larkim

Ref the chronic taking of SAL - I meant the studies I read included taking 12mg of SAL daily for a 30 day period. If any rider was using that in competition, especially a rider who was being tested daily, that would show - and show consistently. Hence my "no hiding". Those chronic studies effectively showed that for non-asthmatics there can be some benefits with those sorts of dosings, but in terms of the urine test there's zero chance of that not being detected.

WRT to half life, that is the efficacy period as I understand it (though I may be wrong). So within 2.7-5.5 hours the *effect* of the drug has reduced to the extent that it's the same as taking half the dose. Excretion is estimated at 80% via urine within 24 hours. It's wrong to suggest that you can ingest large amounts and expect only half of it to be detectable in 2.7-5.5 hours (and 50% 2.7-5.5 hours later, etc etc) - that's a misunderstanding on your part I think.

In terms of his asthma, unless there is some magic that inhaling SAL creates, all that the drug does is restore the constricted airways back to the non-constricted state - i.e. it doesn't make your windpipe wider than it is naturally.

I don't know enough about Ulissi's case to comment.

timothyw

RichN95 wrote:

OK, let's run with your theory. If Froome sailed through doping every other day (for many years), what was different on the day in question? The dope test wouldn't have been a surprise, he was leading the race.

You can ask that exact same question (and they are) for what was different about his legitimate inhaler usage on that day that made him test at double the threshold?

And the answer is the same -

Either he was careless and took too much (be that with his legitimate inhaler or doping pills) and is bang to rights.

Or he was unlucky that for some reason his wee came out particularly strong, be that dehydration, kidney malfunction, whatever.

The difference is, if you're taking salbutamol as required to regulate your asthma, then most days you would hope not to be pushing the limits with it - as someone mentioned some way up thread, if you are routinely going up to the limit with your inhaler, then you ought really be looking at other treatment avenues. On a good day, you wouldn't take any.

If you're doping though, you want to get the maximum benefit. You want to get every % possible from your doping program. So much like in the days of the 50% hematocrit rule where riders would aim for 48%, you'd want to be turning in 850-900 on the salbutamol test as a routine, to maximise the benefit while giving yourself a bit of headroom on the test.

Which of those two strategies are you creating more opportunities for an unusual day to create a positive test? I'd suggest the second, and if the first (IE this was that rare day when he actually took the maximum permitted inhaled dose), then I'd suggest that the tests to prove his unusual physiology would not be a problem - he walks in to the test centre a bit dehydrated, takes the number of puffs he claims, waits half an hour, has a wee, job done.

But Ulissi couldn't do that, and with this Kidney story coming out I'm thinking Froome can't either.

And I agree - Salbutamol is not rocket fuel. It isn't turning a donkey into a racehorse.

But it helps.

timothyw

larkim wrote:

WRT to half life, that is the efficacy period as I understand it (though I may be wrong). So within 2.7-5.5 hours the *effect* of the drug has reduced to the extent that it's the same as taking half the dose.

Nope

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/r ... index.html

This is the period of time required for the concentration or amount of drug in the body to be reduced by one-half.

You are right though, in that efficacy is pretty much directly related to how much you have in the system.

And if it's primarily removed from the body by getting pissed out, then obviously the number of times you have a wee is going to have an effect on the concentration that your wee tests at, I don't know what the body does with it to remove it from the system though, might get metabolised into something else, haven't done the reading.

Again though, if your athlete was going on a salbutamol doping program, presumably you'd be testing them to ensure their dosage wasn't a threat to tests. They'd get it dialled in, same way that riders would manage their hematocrit with their own centrifuge back in the epo days.

larkim

It simply doesn't make sense for anyone to be using Salbutamol in race weeks as a doping agent. It's too detectable, and the benefit (if any) is too small.

Logic says that you would have to be a complete and utter idiot to be doing that.

Froome may not be to everyone's taste, and I don't know what he'd score on an IQ test, but he doesn't strike me as stupid.

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

OK, let's run with your theory. If Froome sailed through doping every other day (for many years), what was different on the day in question? The dope test wouldn't have been a surprise, he was leading the race.

You can ask that exact same question (and they are) for what was different about his legitimate inhaler usage on that day that made him test at double the threshold?

And the answer is the same -

Either he was careless and took too much (be that with his legitimate inhaler or doping pills) and is bang to rights.

Or he was unlucky that for some reason his wee came out particularly strong, be that dehydration, kidney malfunction, whatever.

Exactly. But you seem to dismiss those reasons for inhaler usage

TimothyW wrote:

If you're doping though, you want to get the maximum benefit. You want to get every % possible from your doping program. So much like in the days of the 50% hematocrit rule where riders would aim for 48%, you'd want to be turning in 850-900 on the salbutamol test as a routine, to maximise the benefit while giving yourself a bit of headroom on the test.

Do you really think no-one would notice this?

timothyw

RichN95 wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

OK, let's run with your theory. If Froome sailed through doping every other day (for many years), what was different on the day in question? The dope test wouldn't have been a surprise, he was leading the race.

You can ask that exact same question (and they are) for what was different about his legitimate inhaler usage on that day that made him test at double the threshold?

And the answer is the same -

Either he was careless and took too much (be that with his legitimate inhaler or doping pills) and is bang to rights.

Or he was unlucky that for some reason his wee came out particularly strong, be that dehydration, kidney malfunction, whatever.

Exactly. But you seem to dismiss those reasons for inhaler usage

Not at all. But when a professional cyclist tests positive, I'm open to the possibility that they just might be doping. History has taught us they often are.

TimothyW wrote:

If you're doping though, you want to get the maximum benefit. You want to get every % possible from your doping program. So much like in the days of the 50% hematocrit rule where riders would aim for 48%, you'd want to be turning in 850-900 on the salbutamol test as a routine, to maximise the benefit while giving yourself a bit of headroom on the test.

Do you really think no-one would notice this?

What is there to notice? He's asthmatic, he regulates it with salbutamol, why would it raise any eyebrows if he tests within the threshold on a regular basis?

Did anyone tell us that Wiggo kept testing positive for Triamcinolone during the 2012 tour (and 2013 Giro etc)? No, there was a TUE, it was all completely kosher.

davidof

UCI Boss calls on someone to ban Froome
PARIS (AFP)



Four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome should be banned according to world cycling governing body chief Dave l'Apartement

“Someone should ban Froome,” l'Apartement told French regional newspaper L'Immonde. “Now, far be it from me to stick my oar in and I don't want to comment on the rider’s guilt, but it would be easier for a French rider to win the 2018 Tour if Froome didn't start. Quite apart from that, I think that’s what the other riders want. They’re fed up with the lanky streak of misery winning everything, it is just not fair!”

l'Apartement said that regardless of Froome’s innocence or guilt, until he is either exonerated or found to have broken the rules, he should be banned

“Whether the test result is abnormal or not, either naturally or fraudulently, it’s awful: in the eyes of the French public he’s already guilty and should be banned from cycling, I don't really give a shit about the details” said the UCI chief.

Froome’s main rivals have hit out at cycling authorities for failing to ban the reigning Tour and Vuelta a Espana champion, who tested for elevated levels of the asthma medication salbutamol during his victory in Spain’s Grand Tour last September.

French rider Roman Bidet (Ag2r-La Mondiale) said Froome had made cycling a “a laughing stock” earlier this week over the affair.

Bidet went as far to suggest that if Froome wasn't banned, the rider himself should voluntarily “retire” from racing to give everyone a fair crack. l'Apartement said that “Bidet is only saying out loud what everyone’s thinking under their breath.”

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/uc ... usdCZez.99

redvision

davidof wrote:

UCI Boss calls on someone to ban Froome
PARIS (AFP)



Four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome should be banned according to world cycling governing body chief Dave l'Apartement

“Someone should ban Froome,” l'Apartement told French regional newspaper L'Immonde. “Now, far be it from me to stick my oar in and I don't want to comment on the rider’s guilt, but it would be easier for a French rider to win the 2018 Tour if Froome didn't start. Quite apart from that, I think that’s what the other riders want. They’re fed up with the lanky streak of misery winning everything, it is just not fair!”

l'Apartement said that regardless of Froome’s innocence or guilt, until he is either exonerated or found to have broken the rules, he should be banned

“Whether the test result is abnormal or not, either naturally or fraudulently, it’s awful: in the eyes of the French public he’s already guilty and should be banned from cycling, I don't really give a shoot about the details” said the UCI chief.

Froome’s main rivals have hit out at cycling authorities for failing to ban the reigning Tour and Vuelta a Espana champion, who tested for elevated levels of the asthma medication salbutamol during his victory in Spain’s Grand Tour last September.

French rider Roman Bidet (Ag2r-La Mondiale) said Froome had made cycling a “a laughing stock” earlier this week over the affair.

Bidet went as far to suggest that if Froome wasn't banned, the rider himself should voluntarily “retire” from racing to give everyone a fair crack. l'Apartement said that “Bidet is only saying out loud what everyone’s thinking under their breath.”

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/uc ... usdCZez.99

Think it's safe to say, as Julie Harrington suggested last week, Froome hasn't voluntarily suspended himself then.