Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

That tool of a Daniel Benson is revelling in the news, but he is right in pointing out that Sky' in their press release seem to be going out of its way to stress Froome the individual rather than Sky the team

Surely that's because it's entirely up to Froome how many tokes he has on his inhaler. He does it all himself. It's not like a doctor handing out pills as needed.

I'm sure there's nothing at all deliberate in Sky's wording

*vroom vroom*

bigmat

Anyone know if the prescribed limit is the level beyond which it can't reasonably be deemed as due to therapeutic reasons, are the level beyond which it could be considered performance enhancing? Given the lack of evidence that it is performance enhancing, I'm assuming the former, but either way he's going to need to come up with a pretty good explanation to avoid getting banned. I think 9 months without Froome would be good for the sport, would like to see him keep the Vuelta though as this doesn't feel like cheating to get a performance gain, and I'm not sure Nibali deserves another GT by default.

TheBigBean

So it sounds like Froome needs to do a pharmacokinetic test and demonstrate evidence of what he took on the day in question. I imagine that could be done reasonably quickly, so the delay suggests that he is not able to do this for some reason. In the absence of that it is a ban.

tackleberry

kleinstroker wrote:

The only thing this throws up is that any use of Ventolin inhalers will push you over WADA limits, and maybe that Diego Ulissi was treated a bit unfairly. I seriously doubt UCI will strip Froome of his Vuelta Title, & Sky will have a better response to this then Lampre managed



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

I think this throws up a lot more than that both in terms of the biology and the fact that the test results were LEAKED. An AAF that is resolved, after a satisfactory explanation by the athlete - IS NOT PUBLICISED. So no-one has any idea if an individual has "failed" a drug test like this in the past. Any number of riders, footballers, skaters or baseball players could have been exonerated in the past and the public at large is none the wiser.
Which begs the question, rather than Sky managing this poorly - plasuible denialbility etc etc, isn't it Le Monde who should be censured here? Or the Guardian? Or if we feel like switching to full on conspiracy mode, the UCI? Revenge for a lack of a French Tour winner?Couldn't this be characterized as Gallic sour grapes - Sky is the invention of the devil, and must be stopped and so on and so forth?

RichN95.

tackleberry wrote:

isn't it Le Monde who should be censured here? Or the Guardian?

I don't think you can blame them for anything. Maybe you could blame whoever told them the information for breach of confidentiality.

joelsim

Hmm. Newspapers want an exclusive. Reporting something like this isn’t wrong. Telling lies is wrong, not reporting the facts which is what appears to have happened here,

mamil314

Dealing with Asthma is not doping in my books. Still, if Ulissis offence was exactly the same, Froome should face exact same consequences. Yates was put in the house for using less potent anti Asthma medication without sorting out the paperwork.

Bo Duke

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

RichN95.

mamil314 wrote:

Dealing with Asthma is not doping in my books. Still, if Ulissis offence was exactly the same, Froome should face exact same consequences. Yates was put in the house for using less potent anti Asthma medication without sorting out the paperwork.

Yates's medication is more potent. That's why he needed a TUE for it rather than just taking salbutamol like everyone else.

Ulissi was under the old WADA code. A more recent case under the current code was a skiier called Sundby who only got two months on appeal after originally being cleared.

rick_chasey

Bo Duke wrote:

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

A & B samples not good enough for ya?

The_Boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Germcevoy wrote:

Shite From sky as well. Releasing a presser because of likely media interest even though they’ve known for two months yet they only release it twenty minutes before the UCI break the news.

Due process means it should be confidential until B samples tested, investigation is completed, etc. They've only come out with that as it's been leaked and they want to try and control the narrative. Standard behaviour from a media-savvy organisation.

Hang on.

If they've known for two months, why play all the silly buggers with the Giro?

Because they knew there was no risk of having to follow thru?

tackleberry

I standby the assertion that Le Monde and the Guardian are at least guilty of subverting a free and fair process. The original "leaker" has committed an obvious breach of confidentiality but I would go further and opine that early release of this information would not have been permissible in a criminal trial - for exactly the same reasons. CF risks being permanently tainted with suspicion when it is entirely possible he could be exonerated - without any qualification. Inner Ring also pointed out that comparing like with like (CF with Ulissi) is fraught with problems - everyone's physiology is different - the cases cannot be judged to be "the same". This is not cut and dried by any means but the leak has, IMO, harmed fair process and it's exploitation by the outlets involved is wrong.

mamil314

RichN95 wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

Dealing with Asthma is not doping in my books. Still, if Ulissis offence was exactly the same, Froome should face exact same consequences. Yates was put in the house for using less potent anti Asthma medication without sorting out the paperwork.

Yates's medication is more potent. That's why he needed a TUE for it rather than just taking salbutamol like everyone else.

Ulissi was under the old WADA code. A more recent case under the current code was a skiier called Sundby who only got two months on appeal after originally being cleared.

Thanks, you could be right, i was going by cycling weekly:
In April 2016, Simon Yates was banned after testing positive for terbutaline, a less potent asthma drug but one for which his team had failed to obtain the necessary TUE.

They gave a pretty extensive go at investigating asthma http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... i2rili0.99

The_Boy

TailWindHome wrote:

There must be some sort of study they could not publish

This took me a second, but chapeau.

kingstongraham

Be a bit weird if the great revelation that brought down Team Sky was Froome taking too much of a drug that isn't performance enhancing.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

Froome's on record as no wanting to rely on TUEs that he could get on valid medical grounds. I wonder whether his refusal to obtain TUEs to take the right kind of drugs has resuted in an over-reliance on ventolin, which is permitted without a TUE (subject to prescribed limits)?

There may very well be something in this theory. Apparently at the end of Vuelta David Lopez said he been worried earlier in the race as he could hear Froome coughing badly through the hotel walls.

powerbookboy

Pollys Bott wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It's worth noting that, according to people who know more about this than us, Salbutamol has not been shown to have performance enhancing properties at all, even in high doses

Probably does help a bit if you have asthma.

Of course. But not beyond that. To use Shane Sutton's terminology it will return a 95% to 100%, but there's nothing to show that it can take anyone to 101%

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool, please may I be educated on why there is then an upper limit on the use of salbutamol if there is no PED effect? Am sure the answer will come from the Sybil Fawlty school of the bl33din' obvious but it's not currently registering in my brain... :?

I was under the impression that there was a strong academic consensus that Salbutamol has significant anabolic effects when tested in animal* models. You can find studies dating back 20+ years using rat models. You'll find more recent studies showing that salbutamol can affect bone density negatively. It also can act as a masking agent for other anabolic compounds. So if you're WADA and you want to avoid idiots and their Drs ruining althletes' health whilst gaining competitive advantage you probably might want to consider trying to minimise harm whilst allowing legitimate theraputic usage.

So if one was cynical one might suggest that Sky have used the same path for Froome as Wiggins. Prescribe a compound to treat a legitimate medical condition that has as a side effect the benefit of increasing muscle mass whilst burning fat. Improve that W/kg and turn a top 10 into a top 3 or better. If a team could find an asthmatic with colitis and diabetes they'd be set for the next 10 years ( salbutamol, insulin and oral low dose steroids ).

As a former Ventolin user who has been utterly terrified as I gasped like a landed fish, I can tell you those '2 short puffs' quickly become 4 or 5 as you desperately try to get enough nubulised drug deep into your lungs rather than coating the inside of your mouth. I can understand people taking more, possibly significantly more than their Dr recommends. Having said that, I was 10, Froome in an adult. I would hope he had better and more knowledgeable care around him than I did.

Im summary, it's one of those gray areas. You will believe who you want to believe and nothing will change that. What isn't debatable is that Froome had unusually high concentrations of a drug that has clear rules. He should be banned if there is any point in having maximum levels.

* Why no clear evidence of human benefit? Maybe because humans don't like being dissected after taking their drugs.

BenjoMunro

t5nel wrote:

inseine wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There is precedent that you get done for this too.

Petacchi tested over the limit for salbutamol, had it absolved by the italian fed, and then that was overruled by CAS.

A better precedent is Ulissi - more recent and under current rules. He got a nine month ban. I’d expect similar here.

I may be wrong but I think Petaccho would have been cleared under current rules.

Did Ulissi have a TUE? I thought that was the issue. Still if it's really 2000 it's a above the maximum allowed even with a TUE

Does anyone on here understand what the benefit, if any, of having so much in the blood stream. I would have thought there was no effect pas an optimum dose (i.e. airways open.)

Funnily enough, cycling weekly had this article ready to publish 60mins after announcing the new "scandal".

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... hma-317941

larkim

Someone posted the stage 18 thread earlier. Surely the relevant one is stage 17 where Froome struggled and was dropped? That at least looks like evidence of him struggling with "something" that day, and maybe corroborates the concept that he needed / wanted to up his dosage overnight / next day to compensate.

Ben6899

powerbookboy wrote:

[If a team could find an asthmatic with colitis and diabetes they'd be set for the next 10 years ( salbutamol, insulin and oral low dose steroids )

I know it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment (right?), but I'm guessing you've never taken the 'favourite' steroid to combat IBD - prednisolone. It's no performance enhancer!

gsk82

larkim wrote:

Someone posted the stage 18 thread earlier. Surely the relevant one is stage 17 where Froome struggled and was dropped? That at least looks like evidence of him struggling with "something" that day, and maybe corroborates the concept that he needed / wanted to up his dosage overnight / next day to compensate.

He could have over used the following day after struggling with it on stage 17

haydenm

powerbookboy wrote:

As a former Ventolin user who has been utterly terrified as I gasped like a landed fish, I can tell you those '2 short puffs' quickly become 4 or 5 as you desperately try to get enough nubulised drug deep into your lungs rather than coating the inside of your mouth. I can understand people taking more, possibly significantly more than their Dr recommends. Having said that, I was 10, Froome in an adult. I would hope he had better and more knowledgeable care around him than I did.

This is basically my opinion so far. He/his doctors should know better if it was an accident, and if he is abusing it for PE effects then it's worse, neither are great.

I can't say I've been at all convinced by the PE effects of it though having taken it my entire life and having a brief read of the literature hoping I'd get some sort of unfair advantage. I've never taken it in really high doses for any period of time though so I'd never know.

Cock ups like this just make me feel self conscious taking asthma medication at races/rides to be honest

Vino'sGhost

EPC06 wrote:

t5nel wrote:

inseine wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There is precedent that you get done for this too.

Petacchi tested over the limit for salbutamol, had it absolved by the italian fed, and then that was overruled by CAS.

A better precedent is Ulissi - more recent and under current rules. He got a nine month ban. I’d expect similar here.

I may be wrong but I think Petaccho would have been cleared under current rules.

Did Ulissi have a TUE? I thought that was the issue. Still if it's really 2000 it's a above the maximum allowed even with a TUE

Does anyone on here understand what the benefit, if any, of having so much in the blood stream. I would have thought there was no effect pas an optimum dose (i.e. airways open.)

Not really the point is it.

You dont get that skinny without help or AIDS

smithy21

Oooof.

Any space on the Astana roster for 2018?

Vino'sGhost

lolol this is brilliant reading the various stages of grief on show in one thread.

He's clean. Just like Millar who only kept the needle to remind himself how close he came.

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

shame really, froome was growing on me.

Vino'sGhost

I cant see them getting off with this like they did with Wiggins dodgy deliveries

davidof

RichN95 wrote:

Ulissi was under the old WADA code. A more recent case under the current code was a skiier called Sundby who only got two months on appeal after originally being cleared.

It is not just Martin Sundby, the entire Norwegian cross country ski team puff away on Ventolin. You can buy it over the counter in Italy, I pick it up for the missus who regularly takes Froome like doses. Johaug, also from the Norwegian X country team, has just got a 18 month ban for using a lib cream with a clostebol in it, I must say it has cleared up her persistent lip sores really well.

the article don

Joelsim wrote:

INRNG's take.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

That is a beautifully written piece

TheBigBean

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

Contador's trouble was that he had infinite multiples of the accepted amount in his system.

joelsim

Bo Duke wrote:

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

IMO it doesn’t really matter whether he’s guilty or innocent. He’s over the permitted limit.