Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

salsiccia1

Well you would say that, wouldn't you

larkim

Shipley wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

I made this point about 20 pages ago but got shouted down by the Froome fanboys.

Can't wait to see the outcome, which is by now long overdue. This thread will explode if he 'gets off' or gets a ban and isn't fired by SKY as a result.

Now, where's my popcorn

I'm not in a position to say any of this is wrong. I agree, a very high result will require some compelling evidence of innocence. And the duration of the issue is bad for the sport - though I'd suggest that the length of time is a matter for the UCI to control, and has been poorly influenced by the fact it was leaked. It's not Froome's responsibility to step in and "fess up" (to something perhaps he didn't do) just because the UCI can't set an appropriate timescale for resolving it nor keep their mouths shut about it in the way that is supposed to happen at this stage.

Whatever the outcome from this point onwards it's not likely to be satisfactory to a substantial number of people who are genuinely interested in the sport, whether they are instinctively pro- or anti- Froome / Sky / UCI (or, heaven forbid, people who don't have strong pro- or anti- views in the first place).

blazing_saddles

Shipley wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

I made this point about 20 pages ago but got shouted down by the Froome fanboys.

Can't wait to see the outcome, which is by now long overdue. This thread will explode if he 'gets off' or gets a ban and isn't fired by SKY as a result.

Now, where's my popcorn

You must be joking.
Ot else, because it is Froome, folks have forgotten how incredibly slowly wheels turn at UCI HQ.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shipley wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

I made this point about 20 pages ago but got shouted down by the Froome fanboys.

Can't wait to see the outcome, which is by now long overdue. This thread will explode if he 'gets off' or gets a ban and isn't fired by SKY as a result.

Now, where's my popcorn

You must be joking.
Ot else, because it is Froome, folks have forgotten how incredibly slowly wheels turn at UCI HQ.

Exactly. Sanchez who tested positive a month earlier hasn’t been processed yet. And his case is more straightforward.

Vino'sGhost

Shipley wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

I made this point about 20 pages ago but got shouted down by the Froome fanboys.

Can't wait to see the outcome, which is by now long overdue. This thread will explode if he 'gets off' or gets a ban and isn't fired by SKY as a result.

Now, where's my popcorn

Normally i like salted but it n those circumstances it would definitely be sweet

Matthewfalle

He'll get a backdated, the fanboys will be happy and say that there - proven that nothing was done wrong, everyone else will moan, shrug and the reality of the sport will be reinforced.

DeVlaeminck

OCDuPalais wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If I had been in his position, let's assume he genuinely believes he stayed within the limits as far as inhaled salbutamol goes, I think I'd start by consulting experts as to the chances of me being able to avoid a ban, and if those chances were slim I'd probably take 6-9 months if it was offered.

I'd then conduct some tests, talk to some more experts and come up with some kind of excuse, real or BS, that I thought had the best chance of clearing my name, a PR job if you like.

We’re in a dark and cynical place when hypothetical and imagined situations are best remedied with “some kind of excuse” AFTER pursuing correct channels...
We’re it you, and you knew without question that you inhaled as prescribed, then there has to be a scientific basis for the AAF, no?
Previous testing has shown that Froome is a freak and an outlier in other areas: I’d not be overly surprised if Cath Wiggins (or RR2) wasn’t so off the mark and that DNA tests show Froome shares more genetic material with a monitor lizard than an ape. Has anyone tested Salbutamol on reptiles?

I don't think it's that cynical. If I considered myself innocent but suddenly found myself faced with a charge of excess salbutamol I'd sleep easily enough having managed the situation to minimise the damage rather than sacrificing my career on a point of principle.

sbbefc

I'm not a doctor so I have no idea if the overdose has any meaningful performance enhancing side effects. But even if it is an anomaly, i feel Froome has next to no chance of replicating the racing conditions of the Vuelta during the off season to prove his innocence. Unfortunately for him (and if he is innocent, pro cycling) I cant see him retaining his Vuelta title.

iainf72

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't think it's that cynical. If I considered myself innocent but suddenly found myself faced with a charge of excess salbutamol I'd sleep easily enough having managed the situation to minimise the damage rather than sacrificing my career on a point of principle.

What would you do when the same thing happened 6 months after you came back from your ban? Or would you think twice about using your inhaler and endangering your health?

Your position is rational. But then so is Froome's. Just depends on the inputs you use.

Mad_Malx

he might rethink his stance on Tue for inhaled steroids. Would reduce the risk of salbutamol overuse.

salsiccia1

Matthewfalle wrote:

He'll get a backdated, the fanboys will be happy and say that there - proven that nothing was done wrong, everyone else will moan, shrug and the reality of the sport will be reinforced.

What is the reality of the sport? That it's still EPO/CERA and blood-doping riddled?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-invited-to-pantani-gran-fondo-to-celebrate-1998-giro-tour-double/

The cycling world is in convulsions because a (very prominent, granted) rider over-puffed on an inhaler that may have produced a tiny performance benefit. Yet here we have a Gran Fondo celebrating a proven drugs cheat, who died of a cocaine overdose following the forced decline of his career, with the greatest beneficiary of drugs cheating, and other noted cheats being invited to join in.

Are we saying that Froome et al are the same as this?

If nothing else, the hypocrisy of cycling and many cycling fans is incredible. Some of them are desperate for Sky and Froome to be guilty of something properly sinister, yet still celebrate those of the ancien regime who should be pariahs.

CuthbertC

Sir David John Brailsford, CBE:

If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.

shirley_basso

You can't be a Sir and a CBE

salsiccia1

Shirley Basso wrote:

You can't be a Sir and a CBE

Just shows how much of a cheat he is :roll:

larkim

CuthbertC wrote:

Sir David John Brailsford, CBE:

If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.

That's precisely why not accepting a pragmatic sanction IF you are innocent (even if you are finding it difficult to prove it) is, for me, the right answer - once you take a pragmatic sanction you are formally labelling yourself as a cheat.

timothyw

Not necessarily.

I mean, there is the possibility that he simply lost count of puffs, or his inhaler malfunctioned somehow and was spraying more than it should have been - so guilt under strict liability rather than intention to cheat.

He has admitted to taking more puffs than he normally would.

Certainly, a lot of people would forgive him that. RichN95 at the very least.

I mean, when you're flogging yourself up a mountain there is plenty of scope for doing things that you wouldn't otherwise do - I recall once on a climb I decided it was a good time to change the display on my Garmin, and promptly cycled into the grass bank.

larkim

I think that might wash with many, and might be tolerated by Sky too, if Froome's adverse reading was 1050 and he immediately said "that day I took one extra puff in error, and I immediately notified the UCI. However, I have to accept that I broke the rules and the sanction that follows".

But in the situation Froome's in, it would be a significant watering down of the Sky position in particular if Froome was unable to provide evidence of why the threshold for the urine test was so significantly exceeded but yet there was no (or flimsy) scientific / medical evidence as to why he returned such a result. If Froome is unable to persuade the panel of a good reason why his body returned that result from a below threshold inhalation of salbutamol, he will likely be indistinguishable from all others convicted of doping offences who protest their innocence, irrespective of whether there is a debate about how effective salbutamol might actually be as PED. Sky can't say "salbutamol dopers are fine, but not others".

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

Sir David John Brailsford, CBE:

If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.

That's precisely why not accepting a pragmatic sanction IF you are innocent (even if you are finding it difficult to prove it) is, for me, the right answer - once you take a pragmatic sanction you are formally labelling yourself as a cheat.

No you aren't labelling yourself as a cheat.

As for DaveB, he's talking ba lls. Of course you can cheat a little or a lot, cheat one day and not the other, he is just trying to paint their team as whiter than white but I don't see that as relevant here.

larkim

We'll have to disagree. Once you've got a sanction against you, that's a permanent black mark - a formal label of cheat. IMHO.

Whether or not other people consider you to be a cheat is a different matter. But once the principles of zero tolerance start to be nuanced as "we don't employ drug cheats, other than those who we believe are innocent despite a formal finding or sanction against them" the principles may as well not exist.

salsiccia1

larkim wrote:

We'll have to disagree. Once you've got a sanction against you, that's a permanent black mark - a formal label of cheat. IMHO.

Whether or not other people consider you to be a cheat is a different matter. But once the principles of zero tolerance start to be nuanced as "we don't employ drug cheats, other than those who we believe are innocent despite a formal finding or sanction against them" the principles may as well not exist.

Do you consider Simon Yates to be a cheat? Or, for a non-cycling example, Alain Baxter? They've both had sanctions against them for adverse findings.

larkim

Yates is easy to distinguish - the formal sanction was for "non-intentional doping" as it was a team cockup.

Baxter is harder - it was all his doing, irrespective of the clear lack of intention on his part. But you're right, in that case of a complete and understandable (and undisputed) mistake, I suppose the cheat label doesn't stick.

Froome will likely be in a very different place, unless something comes out that we don't already know (and given we know very little, I suppose that's likely). Unless the UCI categorically finds no fault and no intention on his part, he will have a cheat's label that a team like Sky would have to work very hard indeed to distinguish from any other sanctioned athlete who was found "guilty" and yet protested complete innocence.

redvision

larkim wrote:

Once you've got a sanction against you, that's a permanent black mark - a formal label of cheat.

TBH i think in today's world an accusation of doping is enough to tarnish a rider and label him from then on as a cheat. Froome will always be viewed in this light as a result of his high salbutamol levels, even if he gets cleared.

From the CAS decision today on the suspended Russian athletes i think it is inevitable that Froome will appeal to CAS if he does receive a suspension, so this case will drag on and on.

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

I think that might wash with many, and might be tolerated by Sky too, if Froome's adverse reading was 1050 and he immediately said "that day I took one extra puff in error, and I immediately notified the UCI. However, I have to accept that I broke the rules and the sanction that follows".

Nothing would have happened if it was 1050, the limit is 1000 but the "decision limit" for an AAF is 1200.

And as posted earlier in the thread, it is certainly possible to read well over the 1000 limit off a legal dose of salbutamol:


(3x inhalations 3x100 micrograms)

However staying in Switzerland there have been studies on the use of Ventolin, a “puffer” containing salbutamol and it is possible to get very high concentrations of the substance, far in excess of the set limit to trigger a doping test, even when using Ventolin under a prescription and Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE).

http://inrng.com/2015/02/diego-ulissi-and-the-mpcc/

The main issue here is Froome has been tested so much in the past and salbutamol is so easy to detect that it seems surprising he hasn't had this issue before, if he responded in that way.

larkim

OK, swap my 1050 for 1250 and you get the same point.

On that swiss study, the pdf linked to says it is testing based on therapeutic dose of Ventolin nebulizer. Something might be lost in translation here, but I thought nebulized Salbutamol wasn't what we were talking about in relation to Froome and Ulissi?

I agree that a well tested (and known asthmatic) Froome makes a "one off blip" much harder to evidence.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

I agree that a well tested (and known asthmatic) Froome makes a "one off blip" much harder to evidence.

On the other hand a long history of salbutamol tests, especially in that Vuelta, does help support a defence that this is result of a one-off event rather than systematic use, and therefore unlikely to be intentional doping.

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

OK, swap my 1050 for 1250 and you get the same point.

On that swiss study, the pdf linked to says it is testing based on therapeutic dose of Ventolin nebulizer. Something might be lost in translation here, but I thought nebulized Salbutamol wasn't what we were talking about in relation to Froome and Ulissi?

I agree that a well tested (and known asthmatic) Froome makes a "one off blip" much harder to evidence.

That reference to nebulizers is for a previous study "A few years ago some experiences made in our laboratory with healthy volunteers had shown that the concentration as salbutamol can be higher than 1000 ng/l with therapeutic dose of ventolin inhaler" - referring to a separate piece of testing

"Recently [an athlete was found with 8,000 ng/l] . it was decided with the Swiss Medical Comission to perform some investigations with this athlete" - this example is from a real athlete trying to replicate some dosages from a race.

(clearly this athlete has a history of producing high readings in his urine, so not like Froome, but the point is that it is possible to get high readings without taking too much, which adds a lot of uncertainty)

larkim

I was just picking up on the fact that they mention nebulizers at first, and then stop mentioning them - wondering if there was an implicit assumption that they were using nebulizers with the test subjects they were reviewing.

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

I was just picking up on the fact that they mention nebulizers at first, and then stop mentioning them - wondering if there was an implicit assumption that they were using nebulizers with the test subjects they were reviewing.

I didn't get that, but I can see where you're coming from. I just read it as an introduction to the work they have done previously.

shipley

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vegni-c ... o-ditalia/


Good - a bit more pressure applied to sort this mess out.

Vino'sGhost

Shipley wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vegni-calls-on-uci-to-guarantee-race-result-if-chris-froome-starts-giro-ditalia/


Good - a bit more pressure applied to sort this mess out.

or an acceptance that the giro organisation is t too fussed about doping