Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthew - everyone else can see the situation is not binary, so I assume it is that you hate Froome and Sky and this blinds you to logic and reason.....0
-
Matthewfalle wrote:
I wouldn't go that far either - it's more a case of sh*t stirring...0 -
I don't hate anyone dude, some bloke I've never met who rides a bicycle and a corporate entity that doesn't affect my life one jot doesn't even make base criteria.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
He broke the rules, like Ulissi and everyone else he should be banned. End of.
Doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not, he should still be banned for breaking the rules.
This is going to sound pedantic, but since you continue to try and make it sound more black and white than it actually is:
The limit for salbutamol is for the amount ingested, not the amount excreted. The amount in urine is used as a proxy, and it's known not to be 100% reliable, hence why there is leeway and why it is not an immediate suspension. The urine amount is just used an indicator that he probably took to much, not proof that he took too much (otherwise he would have been suspended immediately).
The onus is now on Froome to prove that he did not break the dosage limit. If he can't, then he'll be banned, same as Ulissi.
Not pedantic, just correct. Mind-boggling though that it needs to be re-stated so often, to people that already know it.
Of course he knows it, that's why he never responds to any posts pointing it out (of which there have been lots).
He's just a wind up merchant.0 -
Nope - incorrect again. And nope, not trolling.
Just pretty neutral and tired of people/teams cheating.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:iainf72 wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:AND this is the crux of the matter.
If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.
The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.
If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?
Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.
If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.
If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.
There’s a difference.
I'm honestly struggling to comprehend how you can manage to force such binary distinctions - the same with your assertion that breaking the rules is equal to cheating. Are you being deliberately mendacious, or do you really not see the multitude of important distinctions you're attempting to annihilate?
Because this is blindingly black and white.
Option a: he took too much sally by accident - hold up your hand, say sorry, take the ban like grown up and spend 9 months riding your bike in the sun with no pressure on €4 million a year. You’d probably get away with not losing your contract because it was a self confessed Jeff up.
Option b: drag it in and on and on and on and get the lawyers et al involved and turn the public against you and still get banned and then lose your job with your team because SKY have said that they won’t employ anyone with a doping conviction..........
It is blindingly black and white, so what's with this 9 months horseshit?
The rules are quite clear.
Luckily I knew exactly where to look or else I wouldn't be wasting my time.
No attempt at a defence and you get 2 years.
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf
10.5.1.1
Specified Substances
Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Rideror other Person
can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a
reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Rider’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.
Unless you think a pair of puppy eyes is worth 15 months discount.
This.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:iainf72 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.
And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.
Yes, there's at least a prima facie case that this is possible. The way some people are going on you'd think they had shares in a pitchfork and torches company that had a campaign offer for tar and feathers running.
There is far more of a prima facie case to suggest he has taken a banned dose of salbutamol.
He tested double the concentration limit to trigger a ban. That limit is itself set with significant leeway to prevent false positives. 6 months down the line he has yet to convince the uci of his innocence.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Why should there be doctors and lawyers involved if it was accidental?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it might be useful to be able to prove it was accidental?0 -
iainf72 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:iainf72 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.
And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.
What evidence?
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24518370/
The Swiss athlete underwent subsequent pharmacological studies, recording levels between 3000 and 4000 ng/mL. If Froome was a similar outlier, he would have already undergone a study and been able to resolve the case. He has had over four months to undergo such a study since he was notified of the AAF. It appears that he isn't able to replicate anything close to 2000 ng/mL. Furthermore, if Froome was such an outlier, such a result would have occurred far earlier in his career given that he been using salbutamol since at least 2014. One extremely high reading doesn't fit the profile of a metabolic 'freak'.
The second study isn't relevant to Froome given that he hasn't publicly claimed that dehydration is a possible explanation. There are no facts to that suggest he was dehydrated on the relevant day (temperature, length and nature of stage, Froome's performance and result, etc). The study was also conducted on non-asthmatics.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Nope - incorrect again. And nope, not trolling.
Just pretty neutral and tired of people/teams cheating.
If that is the case, then how come you don't seem to understand this:bobmcstuff wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
He broke the rules, like Ulissi and everyone else he should be banned. End of.
Doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not, he should still be banned for breaking the rules.
This is going to sound pedantic, but since you continue to try and make it sound more black and white than it actually is:
The limit for salbutamol is for the amount ingested, not the amount excreted. The amount in urine is used as a proxy, and it's known not to be 100% reliable, hence why there is leeway and why it is not an immediate suspension. The urine amount is just used an indicator that he probably took to much, not proof that he took too much (otherwise he would have been suspended immediately).
The onus is now on Froome to prove that he did not break the dosage limit. If he can't, then he'll be banned, same as Ulissi.
It hasn't yet been proven that he broke the rules (no matter what you think). It might seem likely that he did, it might seem obvious to you, but the fact that he had too much salbutamol in his wee does not prove that he broke the rules.
The rules relate to how much you are allowed to take - not how much you are allowed to p!ss out. The amount in his p!ss is just a proxy for how much he might have taken.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:iainf72 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.
And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.
Yes, there's at least a prima facie case that this is possible. The way some people are going on you'd think they had shares in a pitchfork and torches company that had a campaign offer for tar and feathers running.
There is far more of a prima facie case to suggest he has taken a banned dose of salbutamol.
He tested double the concentration limit to trigger a ban. That limit is itself set with significant leeway to prevent false positives. 6 months down the line he has yet to convince the uci of his innocence.
Strictly testing double the concentration doesn't automatically trigger a ban. It only triggers a ban if it can't be suitably explained.
I agree taking a banned dose of salbutamol looks like the most likely explanation (based on what we actually know, i.e., not very much...).0 -
CuthbertC wrote:It appears that he isn't able to replicate anything close to 2000 ng/mL. Furthermore, if Froome was such an outlier, such a result would have occurred far earlier in his career given that he been using salbutamol since at least 2014. One extremely high reading doesn't fit the profile of a metabolic 'freak'.
How do you know he's not managed to replicate it? It's all speculation - The CADF or UCI or whoever may have a response, or not. I don't know.
No previous evidence of him not being an outlier is not evidence of him not being an outlier.
Maybe this is just a black swan? Maybe he took too much? If it's the latter, why? There is no performance benefit, so then it's likely to be accidental.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:It's all speculation - The CADF or UCI or whoever may have a response, or not. I don't know..
It will be interesting to see what approach UCI/Sky take to the disclosure/publication of evidence/reasoning for decisions after the decision is taken.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
iainf72 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:It appears that he isn't able to replicate anything close to 2000 ng/mL. Furthermore, if Froome was such an outlier, such a result would have occurred far earlier in his career given that he been using salbutamol since at least 2014. One extremely high reading doesn't fit the profile of a metabolic 'freak'.
How do you know he's not managed to replicate it? It's all speculation - The CADF or UCI or whoever may have a response, or not. I don't know.
No previous evidence of him not being an outlier is not evidence of him not being an outlier.
Maybe this is just a black swan? Maybe he took too much? If it's the latter, why? There is no performance benefit, so then it's likely to be accidental.
From what is publicly known, he hasn’t undergone an official study. If he is able to replicate something close to 2000 ng/mL, why hasn’t he undergone a study?
Years of salbutamol use as a professional, yet no known history of levels greater than 1000 ng/mL. No levels greater than 600 ng/mL during the Vuelta apart from the AAF if I recall correctly. Of course it’s evidence. If he had such a history, the AAF probably would have been resolved without incident.
‘He took too much’ isn’t staying within the allowed dosages.
‘It’s likely to be accidental.’ I still haven’t seen a plausible explanation as to how he could have recorded double the limit through inhalation whilst staying within the allowed dosages. For someone to record double the limit through inhalation (supposedly) beggars belief in the absence of a clear explanation.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:
From what is publicly known, he hasn’t undergone an official study. If he is able to replicate something close to 2000 ng/mL, why hasn’t he undergone a study?
Years of salbutamol use as a professional, yet no known history of levels greater than 1000 ng/mL. No levels greater than 600 ng/mL during the Vuelta apart from the AAF if I recall correctly. Of course it’s evidence. If he had such a history, the AAF probably would have been resolved without incident.
He's currently doing Vuelta levels of workload, so they're probably trying to replicate the conditions now.
It is evidence. It's evidence in all the other tests he remained within the levels. It tells us nothing about the next test though.
Like the man said, no evidence of black swans is not evidence of no black swans.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:
From what is publicly known, he hasn’t undergone an official study. If he is able to replicate something close to 2000 ng/mL, why hasn’t he undergone a study?
Years of salbutamol use as a professional, yet no known history of levels greater than 1000 ng/mL. No levels greater than 600 ng/mL during the Vuelta apart from the AAF if I recall correctly. Of course it’s evidence. If he had such a history, the AAF probably would have been resolved without incident.
He's currently doing Vuelta levels of workload, so they're probably trying to replicate the conditions now.
It is evidence. It's evidence in all the other tests he remained within the levels. It tells us nothing about the next test though.
Like the man said, no evidence of black swans is not evidence of no black swans.
Aye. Probably a mistake to post to Strava, but I guess that was/is part of the potential defence.0 -
Black swans?Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Black swans?
John Stuart Mills0 -
THere’s so much we don’t know.
We don’t know if he exceeded the dose.
We don’t know if he exceeded the dose intentionally.
We don’t know if he exceeded the dose accidentally.
We don’t know if he has returned adverse results previously and been exonerated.
We don’t know what stage the UCI process is at.
We don’t know what defence Froome is planning to use.
We don’t know if he has provisionally suspended himself.
We don’t know what his usual physiological response to salbutamol is.
Etc etc
All we know is he has had an adverse urine test and what the results of that are.
Everything else is speculation / inference / assumption / application of common sense / logical deduction / probability.
As I’ve posted before - if the UCI is satisfied he broke the rules, that’ll be good enough for me, and the sanction needs to be consistent with previous sanctions for the same offence. Equally, if the UCI (and potentially WADA) are satisfied that no offence has been committed, I’ll accept that.
But at the moment we know precisely diddly squat, so those on here who are saying that “we know he doped” etc are off the mark. For the time being, I’m in the camp that finds it implausible that he’d take a one day dose of salbutamol intentionally in excess of that allowed. But I’m happy to admit that I don’t know that, and can’t know that. THere’s probably only one person who actually does know that at the moment. And I don’t think he posts on here...2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
iainf72 wrote:He's currently doing Vuelta levels of workload, so they're probably trying to replicate the conditions now.
Or he's training for the Giro.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
iainf72 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:
From what is publicly known, he hasn’t undergone an official study. If he is able to replicate something close to 2000 ng/mL, why hasn’t he undergone a study?
Years of salbutamol use as a professional, yet no known history of levels greater than 1000 ng/mL. No levels greater than 600 ng/mL during the Vuelta apart from the AAF if I recall correctly. Of course it’s evidence. If he had such a history, the AAF probably would have been resolved without incident.
He's currently doing Vuelta levels of workload, so they're probably trying to replicate the conditions now.
It is evidence. It's evidence in all the other tests he remained within the levels. It tells us nothing about the next test though.
Like the man said, no evidence of black swans is not evidence of no black swans.
The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
The ‘next test’ is irrelevant to the point, which is whether he is an outlier. Several years is more than enough time to form a decent sample size.
It’s not about whether black swans exist. It’s whether or not Froome can prove that the 2000 ng/mL reading was the consequence of a (supposed) therapeutic dose through a pharmacokinetic study. Good luck with that.0 -
How is that a 'fact'? Because no-one has told you?CuthbertC wrote:The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
You have no idea what has and hasn't happened.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
How is that a 'fact'? Because no-one has told you?CuthbertC wrote:The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
You have no idea what has and hasn't happened.
Ah, the inherent problem with a leaked story.
If the leaks stop, assumptions soon follow.
Enter the individual's bias."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
No evidence of black swans is evidence of no black swans - evidence doesn't have to be absolute proof. We don't have a lot of certainty about this case but we can make reasonable assumptions - we can argue the toss about what constitutes reasonable but it doesn't make it nonsensical to come to conclusions as to what is or isn't likely.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Whilst not expecting a rushed decision which would be bad for the sport in general, even I am starting to wonder why it's taking so long to process this fairly common situation (think how regularly olympic aspirants are processed for example). If nowt else there should be better communication.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0
-
Matthewfalle wrote:gsk82 wrote:Why are you lot still feeding the troll? I came on here a few days ago and saw there'd been 4 pages clocked up in a few hours and assumed something had happened. But no, it was more of this dross that's been going on for probably 50 pages.
Yet again, straight to the troll. Just because someone isn’t following your train of thought/sycophancy.
I think if you bother to do any reading this is my standard line about dopers no matter what team they are from.
I just feel sorry for you that you are happy for “our” sport to yet again be dragged through the sewers.
If you just owned up to it and said you were trolling accidentally then we'd forgive you but you've dragged it on and on for bloody ages trying to convince us that you're not a troll.0 -
Bo Duke wrote:Whilst not expecting a rushed decision which would be bad for the sport in general, even I am starting to wonder why it's taking so long to process this fairly common situation (think how regularly olympic aspirants are processed for example). If nowt else there should be better communication.
Why? The rules are clear on an AAF, the athlete has the opportunity to prove that it wasn't due to doping, before any decision, i.e. they are given a suspension or cleared. It's only out in the open because someone leaked the story to the press.0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Black swans?
John Stuart Mills
I only had a rudimentary schooling, but I'm pretty sure there was only one of him.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
RichN95 wrote:
How is that a 'fact'? Because no-one has told you?CuthbertC wrote:The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
You have no idea what has and hasn't happened.
If he had undergone a study and been able to replicate 2000 ng/mL, he would have been cleared by now and it would have been made public. If he had undergone a study and hadn't been able to prove it was the consequence of a therapeutic dose, he would have been sanctioned already. Since he seems to have been training in South Africa since early January, any study would have been conducted prior to him going to South Africa. So, at least three weeks for the case to be resolved either way.
Feel free to share any information that indicates he has actually undergone a study.0
