Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Matthewfalle

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

Yet. Everything else in the world seems to have been part of his defence so far.....

tailwindhome

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

slowbike

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

Are you deliberately being thick?

shinyhelmut

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yet. Everything else in the world seems to have been part of his defence so far.....

I don't believe we know anything about what his defence is. Lots of conjecture though.

tailwindhome

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

Are you deliberately being thick?

It's an elegant and persuasive argument you make

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

But how much of that 100mcg is inhaled (and how much is swallowed) will differ by method therefore leading to different results. I was wondering if this had been taken into account by the WADA threshold which may pre-date the use of these things.

bigmat

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

But how much of that 100mcg is inhaled (and how much is swallowed) will differ by method therefore leading to different results. I was wondering if this had been taken into account by the WADA threshold which may pre-date the use of these things.

They aren't new. Use of one could, in part, explain how he might have taken more than he intended, but it would still be his responsibility so wouldn't amount to a defence.

slowbike

BigMat wrote:

They aren't new. Use of one could, in part, explain how he might have taken more than he intended, but it would still be his responsibility so wouldn't amount to a defence.

Depends - the inhaler administers a set level of the drug - an athlete should keep a note of how much they've triggered during the period - how much gets into his system depends on how it's been administered - if, as suggested, these adapters mean more of the drug gets into the system, then perhaps the WADA system of measuring levels from body waste isn't reliable.

But I doubt it's to do with how he got the drug - as levels on days surrounding this were within allowed limits - therefore it's got to be something to do with how his body dealt with the drug that day - or he took more than he thought.

inseine

According to the length of this thread, the subject is 20 times more interesting than the first week long race of the year. We're as bad as the press.

tailwindhome

inseine wrote:

According to the length of this thread, the subject is 20 times more interesting than the first week long race of the year.

Seems about right

RichN95.

inseine wrote:

According to the length of this thread, the subject is 20 times more interesting than the first week long race of the year. We're as bad as the press.

A race held in the middle of the night (for us) and comprising a series of sprints broken up by a short climb won by the same person who wins it every year (the climb not GC)

jimmythecuckoo

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

That's how I get my daughter to take her inhaler... too much can be sprayed out of the sides of the mouth if not.

bobmcstuff

Slowbike wrote:

BigMat wrote:

They aren't new. Use of one could, in part, explain how he might have taken more than he intended, but it would still be his responsibility so wouldn't amount to a defence.

Depends - the inhaler administers a set level of the drug - an athlete should keep a note of how much they've triggered during the period - how much gets into his system depends on how it's been administered - if, as suggested, these adapters mean more of the drug gets into the system, then perhaps the WADA system of measuring levels from body waste isn't reliable.

But I doubt it's to do with how he got the drug - as levels on days surrounding this were within allowed limits - therefore it's got to be something to do with how his body dealt with the drug that day - or he took more than he thought.

As was already discussed upthread the amount typically absorbed from a puff of the inhaler is typically only around 9% of what comes out of the inhaler, so any method for correlating salbutamol in urine to salbutamol doses would need to take this into account (since if they assumed 100% absorption then the urine limits would be extremely high, the 9% is essentially an order of magnitude reduction between the inhaler dose and the body).

I assume the urinary limit has been set based on tested correlations between inhaler doses and excretion, how many tests were done and what sort of conditions they were in seems that it would have an impact.

salsiccia1

This whole thing is all wind and piss

Matthewfalle

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This whole thing is all wind and piss

Incorrect.

It's salbutamol and p1ss - too much of one in the other to be exact.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was just a phone in on Radio 5 about asthma and a lot of people were emphasising the necessary use of a 'spacer' so that the full proper dose is administered. I wonder if this has been considered with regard to WADA's calculation and whether Froome used one (it's not really suitable for use while riding, but after a race fine.

This is what it looks like

Not sure why this is relevant.

The 'allowance' is for a measured input in micrograms not in puffs.

Why it's relevant is that if you puff the allowed amount - but don't inhale it all, then you're going to measure less - whereas if you do inhale it all and it enters your system - it's going to measure more....
Of course, the irrelevance is that CF probably didn't use one - and it doesn't sound like that's part of his defense.

It won't make more than 100 micrograms come out of a 100 microgram inhalor

But how much of that 100mcg is inhaled (and how much is swallowed) will differ by method therefore leading to different results. I was wondering if this had been taken into account by the WADA threshold which may pre-date the use of these things.

I can see how the variability of a 'puff' means the athlete cannot be sure how much is inhaled each time.
8 puffs one day can and probably will yield a different result than 8 puffs any other day

But the limit is set at 800 micrograms not on the number of puffs.

slowbike

TailWindHome wrote:

But the limit is set at 800 micrograms not on the number of puffs.

Erm - no - it's set at 1600 micrograms in a 24hr period according to CW...

Measured by a threshold of 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml).

So - he's allowed to excrete 1 microgram - or 0.0625% of the maximum permitted level of substance taken.

DeVlaeminck

Yes I don't think use of a spacer is a defence. They aren't new, they aren't rare and I suspect it'd be subject to the same objections as the nebuliser excuse that at least one other athlete has tried and got nowhere with.

Maybe it'd work as PR once he's banned, it was an honest mistake we used a spacer and didn't think.

Moving on, if he has the threat of a ban hanging over him at the Giro how does that affect his motivation and the motivation of any domestiques who may be high on GC, do you sacrifice your race for a rider you think is going to get the win taken off him? And do other riders alter their tactics thinking a second may become a win?

tailwindhome

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

But the limit is set at 800 micrograms not on the number of puffs.

Erm - no - it's set at 1600 micrograms in a 24hr period according to CW...

.

800 in 12 hours
1600 in 24 hours

Vino'sGhost

He’s just another cheat in a long line of cheats

m.r.m.

But how do you know?

mamba80

Vino'sGhost wrote:

He’s just another cheat in a long line of cheats

i m not really getting what you are trying to say there, can you be clearer? lol!

until salbutamol use via an inhaler can be shown to be either an PED or a masking agent for such drugs, how can he be a cheat? what performance gain did he get? so who did he cheat, breaking the rules isnt always cheating.

Matthewfalle

if breaking the rules isn't cheating, what is it?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

if breaking the rules isn't cheating, what is it?

Cheating is breaking the rules intentionally to gain an advantage. Rules are also often broken inadvertently. Froome is unlikely to have intentionally used too much salbutamol to gain an advantage - because it is about as useful as using a fork to eat soup.

(By way of an example: A footballer who is caught in an offside position has broken the rules, but no-one considers him a cheat)

mamba80

Matthewfalle wrote:

if breaking the rules isn't cheating, what is it?

My daughter would have won a regional champs, she came second, the winner was wearing a design with non registered sponsor on her kit, we didnt complain, as no gain was made, its not cheating.

so, froome might have made an innocent mistake with his inhaler, no one so far has come up with any performance effect, so who has he cheated? and out of what?
he has broken the rules, very true and he should face the punishment but its no way akin to steroids, hgh or EPO use.

btw i m not a Sky or Froome fan but to me he is reaping the backlash from the abuses of past riders/teams

Matthewfalle

no - he's partly reaping the rewards of breaking the rules and partly because people are tired of cheats with a million excuses.

shirley_basso

But he hasn't made any excuses

tailwindhome

He didn't cheat.
Sky are just better at inhaling than the testing system allows.

Richmond Racer 2

Mr Rapha, Simon Mottram

https://www.theguardian.com/small-busin ... ping-stuff

phreak

Shirley Basso wrote:

But he hasn't made any excuses

He's already made up his mind despite no verdict being passed. You're wasting your time.