Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

larkim wrote:

Who is going to great lengths to get yourself declared asthmatic? Doctors can and do prescribe asthma inhalers (especially on private prescriptions where cost isn't an issue) based on patients describing symptoms alone and do so legitimately. If sports bodies are investigating whether there really is any trace of asthma so that they can target resolutions of that issue effectively, that doesn't strike me as "going to great lengths". Remember, you can (if you want) walk into a chemist on the continent and buy a salbutamol inhaler - it won't be illegal, and you won't need a TUE. Hoops don't need to be jumped through, if they are doing testing it is more likely for sound reasons than trying to bend any rules.

That special test the FA did for the soccerists was estimated to cost £50k

estimated as in made up!
Elite Soccerists are also performing in a large bowl in the middle of built up areas with all the smog, pollution and dust you might expect, plus 60,000 old men sitting about coughing at you in the cold and damp. Quite likely to develop symptoms one might think...

larkim

darkhairedlord wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

That special test the FA did for the soccerists was estimated to cost £50k

estimated as in made up!
Elite Soccerists are also performing in a large bowl in the middle of built up areas with all the smog, pollution and dust you might expect, plus 60,000 old men sitting about coughing at you in the cold and damp. Quite likely to develop symptoms one might think...

Exactly my point!

With private doctors on hand, not bound by NICE guidelines on testing before prescribing, their doctors are free to prescribe inhalers on the merest hint of breathlessness based on taking an oral history from the soccerists.

If they are buying in specialists evaluation (whether or not it cost the completely made up figure of £50k) they are doing it because there is something a little more "scientific" they want to resolve. Whether that is access to "grey area" medication, or identification of real potential issues with breathing in foreign climes, I suspect your view will be coloured by your preconceptions of drugs in elite sport.

But if all we're considering is how easy or difficult it is to get access to an inhaler, then the answer is simple - if you're prepared to buy abroad, very easy, if you want to get one legitimately prescribed to you in the UK (where it is a prescription only medicine) then with your private doctor it is very easy and doesn't require any subterfuge. It might be wrong to turn up to the doctor and say "All the rest of my team have inhalers, I have no breathing difficulties at all but I want one too as they are better than me" and for the doc to prescribe an inhaler as that would be contrary to their medical judgement and (whilst it would probably do no good beyond placebo effects) could be construed as attempting to cheat. But equally, if you go to Italy, buy a job lot of salbutamol inhalers yourself with the intention that that will make you faster, as the drug is not banned (up to a limit) and you've not caused a doctor to have to falsify medical information, its no different than buying a job lot of beetroot juice with an intention that it will make you a better sportsman.

darkhairedlord

larkim wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

That special test the FA did for the soccerists was estimated to cost £50k

estimated as in made up!
Elite Soccerists are also performing in a large bowl in the middle of built up areas with all the smog, pollution and dust you might expect, plus 60,000 old men sitting about coughing at you in the cold and damp. Quite likely to develop symptoms one might think...

Exactly my point!

With private doctors on hand, not bound by NICE guidelines on testing before prescribing, their doctors are free to prescribe inhalers on the merest hint of breathlessness based on taking an oral history from the soccerists.

If they are buying in specialists evaluation (whether or not it cost the completely made up figure of £50k) they are doing it because there is something a little more "scientific" they want to resolve. Whether that is access to "grey area" medication, or identification of real potential issues with breathing in foreign climes,I suspect your view will be coloured by your preconceptions of drugs in elite sport.

But if all we're considering is how easy or difficult it is to get access to an inhaler, then the answer is simple - if you're prepared to buy abroad, very easy, if you want to get one legitimately prescribed to you in the UK (where it is a prescription only medicine) then with your private doctor it is very easy and doesn't require any subterfuge. It might be wrong to turn up to the doctor and say "All the rest of my team have inhalers, I have no breathing difficulties at all but I want one too as they are better than me" and for the doc to prescribe an inhaler as that would be contrary to their medical judgement and (whilst it would probably do no good beyond placebo effects) could be construed as attempting to cheat. But equally, if you go to Italy, buy a job lot of salbutamol inhalers yourself with the intention that that will make you faster, as the drug is not banned (up to a limit) and you've not caused a doctor to have to falsify medical information, its no different than buying a job lot of beetroot juice with an intention that it will make you a better sportsman.

I don't have a coloured view on this.
Anyone that fakes an illness to get a leg-up is an idiot. All it really does is put up the cost of your health and holiday insurance. And if you forget you are faking an illness when you fill the forms in you might get a large bill if you get ill on your hols.

bobmcstuff

darkhairedlord wrote:

And if you forget you are faking an illness when you fill the forms in you might get a large bill if you get ill on your hols.

Probably not such a concern when you're on several hundred grand a week mind!

dabber

UCI rejects Froome defense and case is now sent to CAS
http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/uci-rejects-froomes-arguments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685

davidof

Dabber wrote:

UCI rejects Froome defense and case is now sent to CAS
http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/uci-rejects-froomes-arguments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685

Question now is how long the ban will be; at least 6 months I would think but probably a year.

salsiccia1

Is that official?

RichN95.

davidof wrote:

Dabber wrote:

UCI rejects Froome defense and case is now sent to CAS
http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/uci-rejects-froomes-arguments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685

Question now is how long the ban will be; at least 6 months I would think but probably a year.

They haven't found him guilty. They've just referred it to a full tribunal, which was always going to happen. The LeMonde journalist on twitter says it has gone to the UCI independent tribunal, not CAS. Velonews seem to have made that bit up.

salsiccia1

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is that official?

That'll be a no, then

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/979813341190328320?s=0

sloppyschleckonds

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is that official?

That'll be a no, then

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/979813341190328320?s=0

Why would someone delete their own tweet? :?

RichN95.

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is that official?

That'll be a no, then

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/979813341190328320?s=0

Why would someone delete their own tweet? :?

Either

a) the use of the phrase 'Fake News' is ill advised

and/or

b) the original Le Monde article was correct but the English versions, which embellished the story considerably, were not. The Le Monde writer pointed this out.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is that official?

That'll be a no, then

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/979813341190328320?s=0

Why would someone delete their own tweet? :?

Either

a) the use of the phrase 'Fake News' is ill advised

and/or

b) the original Le Monde article was correct but the English versions, which embellished the story considerably, were not. The Le Monde writer pointed this out.

Michelle Froome

LOL

argyllflyer

Whenever I hear developments on this story, both Cycling News and the "Stan's dad" meme comes to mind. If that means nothing to you, be grateful!

ducknumber1

argyllflyer wrote:

Whenever I hear developments on this story, both Cycling News and the "Stan's dad" meme comes to mind. If that means nothing to you, be grateful!

The ghost of doping scandals past

CuthbertC

According to Le Monde, Froome's legal team could be preparing to call into question the salbutamol test and the 1,000 ng/ml urine limit, taking on the WADA Code itself.

"They are looking for all the elements that would allow them to challenge the test itself, to convince that it is not valid scientifically," according to another Le Monde source.

"WADA is already in contact with the UCI on these issues," says Olivier Niggli, WADA managing director. "We will provide the UCI with all the elements they need concerning the test itself."

WADA scientific director Olivier Rabin doubts that the salbutamol threshold could be successfully questioned. "The rule has been established for a long time, the threshold has not changed and has already passed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport [TAS]."

Good luck with that.

larkim

I didn't read that article as saying it goes to CAS - it read as if UCI had determined that there was a case to be answered in their formal proceedings at a formal uci hearing.

Having said that, froome's tweet suggests all may not be as reported... again.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

I didn't read that article as saying it goes to CAS - it read as if UCI had determined that there was a case to be answered in their formal proceedings at a formal uci hearing.

Having said that, froome's tweet suggests all may not be as reported... again.

You're probably reading a revised version

larkim

Late to the party again :-(

Mad_Malx

Alien resurrection

Test that resulted in adverse finding for Chris Froome called into question

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... o-question?

shipley

And immediately discredited.

“Straws.....clutching”

RichN95.

Shipley wrote:

And immediately discredited.

By whom?

larkim

"It is understood Froome’s reading has been recalibrated to 1429ng/ml" is at least a mildly interesting, and seemingly factual, new piece of info.

Has that been reported elsewhere? Would be an odd number just to have invented (though doesn't mean it is credible either of course).

Vino'sGhost

The Giro organisers must be kin cheesed off about this.

blazing_saddles

larkim wrote:

"It is understood Froome’s reading has been recalibrated to 1429ng/ml" is at least a mildly interesting, and seemingly factual, new piece of info.

Has that been reported elsewhere? Would be an odd number just to have invented (though doesn't mean it is credible either of course).

I'm afraid, it comes with the same old insurance line: "it is understood". So, pass the salt.

I heard about this a few days ago. Here is the original article. Check out the date. Nice timing!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142737.htm

Vino'sGhost

Blazing Saddles wrote:

larkim wrote:

"It is understood Froome’s reading has been recalibrated to 1429ng/ml" is at least a mildly interesting, and seemingly factual, new piece of info.

Has that been reported elsewhere? Would be an odd number just to have invented (though doesn't mean it is credible either of course).

I'm afraid, it comes with the same old insurance line: "it is understood". So, pass the salt.

I heard about this a few days ago. Here is the original article. Check out the date. Nice timing!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142737.htm

If you read the full report, youll see that it is a long way from clearing froome. Its a good exercise in drawing together information and marshalling it to support a position though. Nicely done.

Mad_Malx

larkim wrote:

"It is understood Froome’s reading has been recalibrated to 1429ng/ml" is at least a mildly interesting, and seemingly factual, new piece of info.

Has that been reported elsewhere? Would be an odd number just to have invented (though doesn't mean it is credible either of course).

I don’t think this is part of the newly published study.

The scientific study uses established pharmacokinetic models and data to throw substantial doubt on the validity of single urine measurements as a index of administered dose.

It is exactly what Froome has been looking for. I suspect it will get him off the rap but not enough for us to put down our pitchforks.

Burden of Proof
In the current situation, the WADA does seem to acknowledge the problem of variability to some extent as an athlete that produced a urine sample with an unacceptably high salbutamol concentration, is given the possibility to prove this was a result of a dosing scheme within WADA limits by means of a controlled pharmacokinetic study. Hereby the WADA transfers the responsibility of resolving the flaws in the rules designed by WADA itself to the athlete. Setting up such a study and getting the desired result will takes months at least. And even if an athlete does prove his innocence, this could already do major damage to a reputation (see the Froome case). This is to say, if showing innocence will be successful at all, as this might not prove simple. Although intra-subject variability will be smaller than the previously described inter-subject variability, substantial variability will still be present within a subject. It is therefore not unlikely that many trials will be needed to produce another urine sample that exceeds the threshold with allowed dosages, even more so because it will be difficult to reproduce the circumstances leading to the original finding. Aside from this being a very expensive and time consuming venture for the athlete, the fact that the foundation on which these WADA rules are based in the first place are flawed as we have shown, makes placing the burden of proof with the athlete completely unacceptable.

larkim

Ross Tucker has thrown some useful questions / criticism of the paper out there. Worth a read if you can put up with his multi-tweet approach.

Suggests the 1429 reading is the adjustment for specific gravity / dehydration etc./

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/stat ... 7204678662

RichN95.

Ultimately it's just one study. Single studies aren't much really much use to anyone unless independently replicated.

For Froome it will just be supporting evidence to the main evidence. His best chance is to show that the spike in the salbutamol level was matched by spikes in levels of other excretions. This is probably the first salbutamol case where the athlete has been tested every day either side of the offending test.

Mad_Malx

It's not really one study Rich. It's a model based on several studies, and gives a better assessment of the possibility that a high reading can be gained from a legal dose.

Tucker does make some reasonable points (amongst irrelevant ones), but if further doubt can be thrown at the urine measurement as a surrogate for intake then it's looking good for the defence.

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

It's not really one study Rich. It's a model based on several studies, and gives a better assessment of the possibility that a high reading can be gained from a legal dose.

Tucker does make some reasonable points (amongst irrelevant ones), but if further doubt can be thrown at the urine measurement as a surrogate for intake then it's looking good for the defence.

I hadn't actually read the report. I wouldn't understand it.

I wonder if this might end up a bit like the Kreuziger biological passport case where it seems he managed to cast enough doubt on the passport according to his circumstances that UCI/WADA preferred to drop the case rather than risk having the passport undermined.