Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

Flasher wrote:

Froome on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

He missed a big PR trick there. He should have had an inhaler with him and held it up saying 'This is salbutemol. A common asthma inhaler. This is what I took.'

The general public would have thought "An inhaler, is that it?"

tangled_metal

So there's a story about a process thing ahead relating to Froome's use of an inhaler being above the allowed limit or not so we're discussing it to the tune of 13 pages. That's 13 pages based on very few facts but a lot of speculation over what has happened, what will happen and personal views on how guilty you want Froome and Sky to be or not be.

Meh!

I'll wait for the end result. Ban or not. We'll find that out eventually. What is the point of all this speculation?

trivial_poursuivant

RichN95 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

WADA would have to say that he gained an unfair advantage. Experts suggest he couldn’t do so. If it was in any way performance enhancing then everyone in the peloton would be taking it within its limits. I mean if 2000mg is seen as enhancing to an asthma sufferer then it’s reasonable to say 1000mg would do so to a non sufferer but it does nothing according to experts. So it’s not likely to do anything extra for Froome, according to the expert it’s even likely to be detrimental to performance.

Would they? I mean, the amount of clenbuterol that Contador tested for wouldn't have been performance enhancing. But he was still banned. It will probably reduce any ban to a matter of months, but a total clearance. I don't know.

The more cases like this with suspect results for a drug which experts say is in no way performance enhancing and doubt and credibility over the way the tests are conducted. If it could be that just being dehydrated means a fail and simply drinking a bottle of water shortly beforehand would not.

Slightly of topic, in the army we get compulsory drugs tested quite often . If you return a dilute sample you don’t fail but it’s flagged next time to are tested. It’s not to say you took anything but a dilute sample can be given simply by drinking a large volume of water within an hour of urinating. If you had a banned drug it would show up and a banned substance is a instant fail but when we talk about a limit over a certain threshold it offers a doubt into how and when a sample is given and what condition the tested athlete was in the hour prior to being tested. That is what I believe Sky will no doubt take to any arbitration case and with doubt and experts saying it’s not performance enhancing they do have a case.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Flasher wrote:

Froome on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

He missed a big PR trick there. He should have had an inhaler with him and held it up saying 'This is salbutemol. A common asthma inhaler. This is what I took.'

The general public would have thought "An inhaler, is that it?"

Guilty as - look at the eyes: classic giveaway. First thing you look for when seeing if someone is telling the truth or not.

Best thing about that interview though was the shenanigans in the background.

Matthewfalle

Tangled Metal wrote:

So there's a story about a process thing ahead relating to Froome's use of an inhaler being above the allowed limit or not so we're discussing it to the tune of 13 pages. That's 13 pages based on very few facts but a lot of speculation over what has happened, what will happen and personal views on how guilty you want Froome and Sky to be or not be.

Meh!

I'll wait for the end result. Ban or not. We'll find that out eventually. What is the point of all this speculation?

I think the point is that he failed A and B tests.

salsiccia1

Tangled Metal wrote:

So there's a story about a process thing ahead relating to Froome's use of an inhaler being above the allowed limit or not so we're discussing it to the tune of 13 pages. That's 13 pages based on very few facts but a lot of speculation over what has happened, what will happen and personal views on how guilty you want Froome and Sky to be or not be.

Meh!

I'll wait for the end result. Ban or not. We'll find that out eventually. What is the point of all this speculation?

This is the Internet, after all. What is it for if not uninformed speculation on matters of relatively minor importance?

trivial_poursuivant

Matthewfalle wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So there's a story about a process thing ahead relating to Froome's use of an inhaler being above the allowed limit or not so we're discussing it to the tune of 13 pages. That's 13 pages based on very few facts but a lot of speculation over what has happened, what will happen and personal views on how guilty you want Froome and Sky to be or not be.

Meh!

I'll wait for the end result. Ban or not. We'll find that out eventually. What is the point of all this speculation?

I think the point is that he failed A and B tests.

You should know as much as anyone that all the b sample is for us to protect against a tainted sample or mistake in testing. It’s the same sample . You also know if it’s like CDT you gets third for independent analysis . Question isn’t whether he took it, it’s whether the amount in his system was correctly measured. I’ve mentioned above that if he was dehydrated he could fail and in CDT you can give a dilute sample which in this case would probably pass as it’s not a case of detecting a banned substance just a threshold. And physiology altitude hydration levels etc can effect that. It offers a doubt in the testing methods.

salsiccia1

Matthewfalle wrote:

Guilty as - look at the eyes: classic giveaway. First thing you look for when seeing if someone is telling the truth or not.

Well you've convinced me, mate. I was 75/25 in favour of it being an oversight/physiological issue, but after your expert judgement I'm all-in on locking him up and throwing away the key. 'Anging's too good for him, etc, etc.

DeVlaeminck

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

You should know as much as anyone that all the b sample is for us to protect against a tainted sample or mistake in testing. It’s the same sample . You also know if it’s like CDT you gets third for independent analysis . Question isn’t whether he took it, it’s whether the amount in his system was correctly measured. I’ve mentioned above that if he was dehydrated he could fail and in CDT you can give a dilute sample which in this case would probably pass as it’s not a case of detecting a banned substance just a threshold. And physiology altitude hydration levels etc can effect that. It offers a doubt in the testing methods.

Why would Froome be any more dehydrated than numerous others in the pro peloton who also suffer with asthma?

OK so maybe there were circumstances that mean the level in his urine sample was not indicative of the amount he inhaled...but twice the allowed limit ?

I doubt Froome's physiology or his circumstances on the day are so unique as to explain such a huge outlier.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Why would Froome be any more dehydrated than numerous others in the pro peloton who also suffer with asthma?

OK so maybe there were circumstances that mean the level in his urine sample was not indicative of the amount he inhaled...but twice the allowed limit ?

I doubt Froome's physiology or his circumstances on the day are so unique as to explain such a huge outlier.

He's no different but others are unlikely to have been tested.

He hadn't taken his usual dose. He had taken more than usual. It's a rare occurance. Someone in a similar situation probably wouldn't have produced a performance that required mandatory testing and would unlikely to have been randomly selected. Froome on the other hand was leading the race at the time and guaranteed to be tested.

trivial_poursuivant

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

You should know as much as anyone that all the b sample is for us to protect against a tainted sample or mistake in testing. It’s the same sample . You also know if it’s like CDT you gets third for independent analysis . Question isn’t whether he took it, it’s whether the amount in his system was correctly measured. I’ve mentioned above that if he was dehydrated he could fail and in CDT you can give a dilute sample which in this case would probably pass as it’s not a case of detecting a banned substance just a threshold. And physiology altitude hydration levels etc can effect that. It offers a doubt in the testing methods.

Why would Froome be any more dehydrated than numerous others in the pro peloton who also suffer with asthma?

OK so maybe there were circumstances that mean the level in his urine sample was not indicative of the amount he inhaled...but twice the allowed limit ?

I doubt Froome's physiology or his circumstances on the day are so unique as to explain such a huge outlier.

He didn’t give a high sample on the 17th nor on the 19th . What was so different to have such a large spike in his sample? From reading about other riders who tested high. It seems they also had fluctuating levels. It’s not to say he had maybe over used it or it was another overlooked factor or an accumulation of factors but the point I’m making is there seems to be a doubt in the testing methodology. I have given drugs test samples that are weak and others not so. The way we do it in the military you sometimes end up being the monitor while others are tested. I’ve seen guys give a sample that looks like they just pissed out Guinness if they’ve been out on a heavy session the night before. The amount you are hydrated will effect the concentration of any substance in your urine. Again they are not looking for evidence of illegal drugs like a steroid or epo. This is a legal drug which is only a failure if you reach a certain threshold. An inhaler will give out x amount per shot but no two people are the same. We will all metabolise substances at a different rate. It isn’t possible to always know how hydrated you are or to know that because of your weight or the altitude you need to aim off with how much you medicate compared to the day before. The variables and the doubts raised by experts. Not just team doctors but people who are experts in respiratory illness and therapy say it’s not a performance enhancing drug bring all together plenty of doubt to what WADA say in their guidelines. They can be overturned by CAS if they see them as unsatisfactory.

trivial_poursuivant

You have to look at it from Chris Froomes angle. He is the current TdF champion. He has a lot to lose and he knows he will be tested every single day he is competing. Especially after the Jiffy bag incident with Sky they are in the biggest goldfish bowl of any team in pro cycling. For him to try and cheat is like trying to murder someone in a crowded room and get away with it. It’s either colossally stupid or there is some other overlooked reason for this to happen. I doubt with the media attention Sky get they would do the former with the reputation they are trying to uphold. Especially with previous accusations. He didn’t need to do the Vuelta. He had the tour win again and could have been happy with that. It just doesn’t add up that a team and a rider under so much scrutiny would deliberately take a risk so huge when they know the chances of being caught are almost guaranteed if they did attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

tackleberry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017 ... emarkable/

I think this can be judged and "informed" view.

T

Vino'sGhost

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

You should know as much as anyone that all the b sample is for us to protect against a tainted sample or mistake in testing. It’s the same sample . You also know if it’s like CDT you gets third for independent analysis . Question isn’t whether he took it, it’s whether the amount in his system was correctly measured. I’ve mentioned above that if he was dehydrated he could fail and in CDT you can give a dilute sample which in this case would probably pass as it’s not a case of detecting a banned substance just a threshold. And physiology altitude hydration levels etc can effect that. It offers a doubt in the testing methods.

Why would Froome be any more dehydrated than numerous others in the pro peloton who also suffer with asthma?

OK so maybe there were circumstances that mean the level in his urine sample was not indicative of the amount he inhaled...but twice the allowed limit ?

I doubt Froome's physiology or his circumstances on the day are so unique as to explain such a huge outlier.

He didn’t give a high sample on the 17th nor on the 19th . What was so different to have such a large spike in his sample? From reading about other riders who tested high. It seems they also had fluctuating levels. It’s not to say he had maybe over used it or it was another overlooked factor or an accumulation of factors but the point I’m making is there seems to be a doubt in the testing methodology. I have given drugs test samples that are weak and others not so. The way we do it in the military you sometimes end up being the monitor while others are tested. I’ve seen guys give a sample that looks like they just pissed out Guinness if they’ve been out on a heavy session the night before. The amount you are hydrated will effect the concentration of any substance in your urine. Again they are not looking for evidence of illegal drugs like a steroid or epo. This is a legal drug which is only a failure if you reach a certain threshold. An inhaler will give out x amount per shot but no two people are the same. We will all metabolise substances at a different rate. It isn’t possible to always know how hydrated you are or to know that because of your weight or the altitude you need to aim off with how much you medicate compared to the day before. The variables and the doubts raised by experts. Not just team doctors but people who are experts in respiratory illness and therapy say it’s not a performance enhancing drug bring all together plenty of doubt to what WADA say in their guidelines. They can be overturned by CAS if they see them as unsatisfactory.

What’s was so different was that he upped his dose on one of the most key stages and had more than the permitted amount in his urine as a result.

Matthewfalle

What’s so different is that it can be used as a masking agent and that he upped his dose on one of the most key stages .......

trivial_poursuivant

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

You should know as much as anyone that all the b sample is for us to protect against a tainted sample or mistake in testing. It’s the same sample . You also know if it’s like CDT you gets third for independent analysis . Question isn’t whether he took it, it’s whether the amount in his system was correctly measured. I’ve mentioned above that if he was dehydrated he could fail and in CDT you can give a dilute sample which in this case would probably pass as it’s not a case of detecting a banned substance just a threshold. And physiology altitude hydration levels etc can effect that. It offers a doubt in the testing methods.

Why would Froome be any more dehydrated than numerous others in the pro peloton who also suffer with asthma?

OK so maybe there were circumstances that mean the level in his urine sample was not indicative of the amount he inhaled...but twice the allowed limit ?

I doubt Froome's physiology or his circumstances on the day are so unique as to explain such a huge outlier.

He didn’t give a high sample on the 17th nor on the 19th . What was so different to have such a large spike in his sample? From reading about other riders who tested high. It seems they also had fluctuating levels. It’s not to say he had maybe over used it or it was another overlooked factor or an accumulation of factors but the point I’m making is there seems to be a doubt in the testing methodology. I have given drugs test samples that are weak and others not so. The way we do it in the military you sometimes end up being the monitor while others are tested. I’ve seen guys give a sample that looks like they just pissed out Guinness if they’ve been out on a heavy session the night before. The amount you are hydrated will effect the concentration of any substance in your urine. Again they are not looking for evidence of illegal drugs like a steroid or epo. This is a legal drug which is only a failure if you reach a certain threshold. An inhaler will give out x amount per shot but no two people are the same. We will all metabolise substances at a different rate. It isn’t possible to always know how hydrated you are or to know that because of your weight or the altitude you need to aim off with how much you medicate compared to the day before. The variables and the doubts raised by experts. Not just team doctors but people who are experts in respiratory illness and therapy say it’s not a performance enhancing drug bring all together plenty of doubt to what WADA say in their guidelines. They can be overturned by CAS if they see them as unsatisfactory.

What’s was so different was that he upped his dose on one of the most key stages and had more than the permitted amount in his urine as a result.

That stage was one of the highest of the race. Higher altitude - thinner air , very hot. Harder to breathe and chances of being dehydrated increase. And there are still plenty of experts saying there is no performance enhancing benefit.

joe2008

Matthewfalle wrote:

What’s so different is that it can be used as a masking agent

Is this not why there are so many 'asthmatics' in the peloton?

redvision

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

This is a legal drug which is only a failure if you reach a certain threshold.

A threshold he exceeded.

As someone who suffers badly with asthma i really do sympathise with him. But if his asthma was that bad that he needed to take his inhaler so many times he should not have continued racing.

Vino'sGhost

I have no pleasure in finding Froome is a cheat.

Non at all and in fact I've warmed to him recently. Not in the way I could to a Contador who has flair and style or Sagan who has a huge character but I do like his aggression and desire to hurt people at times.

I do find a certain pleasure in watching Skys cynical everything up to the line marginal gains unravelling as they make mistakes. I don't for a minute believe Wiggins wasn't cheating and jiffygate hasn't exactly put rumours to bed. This may well be more of the same but jiffy gate was "not proved" through lack of evidence.

This is different, it has been proved he was at twice the limit. The rules have been broken. Now they have to show the rules are unfair. Which they might or might not be able to do. At the same time the PR is being lapped up, arbitrary limit, dehydration etc etc all being trotted out as the truth by people no more qualified than me.

Richmond Racer 2

I think people need to understand the specifics around EIA, instead of 'ordinary' asthma

(and no, I'm not caping for Froome - everyone would know that there's more likelihood of me trying to talk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon)

Richmond Racer 2

Meanwhile

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lobato- ... ning-camp/

smithy21

The dehydration angle has to be bullshit. I mean, how many times must these guys finish hard stages dehydrated. This has happened to Froome once and we know he is asthmatic and he has been using his inhaler consistently over his career.

He is over the limited. He has been pinged. Others have been pinged for this in the past and copped bans. There is no way Sky get a pass here. The rest of the peloton would, quite rightly, feel they were not operating on a level playing field.

If they did get a pass does Petachhi get his Giro stages back? Does Ulissi sue them for implementing his ban.

salsiccia1

Smithy21: I think you're right, as disappointing as it is. Unless there's something completely out-of-the-ordinary he's got to cop it. And I say that as a fan. I reckon he'll be looking at 6-9 months, backdated to the positive. Loss of Vuelta and Worlds medal.

I don't think it's particularly sinister but he is responsible for what's going in and has to wear it if he can't prove some sort of abnormality.

What's disappointing, but not surprising, is the number of people who are desperate for this to be a deliberate attempt to cheat. It might be, it might not be. But it's disappointing that people want the biggest name in cycling to be a cheat rather than hoping it's something unfortunate.

gsk82

I'm surprised it took so long for the inevitable claims it's a masking agent to surface.

Mad_Malx

joe2008 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

What’s so different is that it can be used as a masking agent

Is this not why there are so many 'asthmatics' in the peloton?

This keeps coming up. I know of no evidence to support this, I really don’t think there is any, but please share if you know of any. Lots of journos keep repeating this and inrng said it, but in the comments acknowledges that this was an error.
Masking agents either increase elimination from the body (eg diuretics) or interfere with assay of peds (not really a problem with modern analytical methods). I don’t think there is any evidence showing Salbutamol does either of these.

Matthewfalle

gsk82 wrote:

I'm surprised it took so long for the inevitable claims it's a masking agent to surface.

Its not a claim that Sally is a masking agent - it's a well known and proven fact.

I'm surprised there are so many people sticking up for him on what is a black and white finding of a failed doping test.

powerbookboy

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

I think people need to understand the specifics around EIA, instead of 'ordinary' asthma

(and no, I'm not caping for Froome - everyone would know that there's more likelihood of me trying to talk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon)

The mechanism that causes the airways to constrict is irrelevant isn't it? It's the drug that was used in excess to treat the condition and the potential for abuse of said drug that's the problem. Unless Froome has some wildly atypical metabolism that can in a reproducible manner be shown to produce a similar result, with legally mandated dosage levels, he has to serve a ban. If the science then shows the permitted levels need to be modified in light of new evidence, then more power to him.

Professional sport is fundamentally about people doing unnatural things to their body, competing through illness and injury when they should be resting, looking for every legal advantage they can and probably quite a few that they shouldn't. This may be the former, or an innocent mistake, but strict liability doesn't and shouldn't distinguish.

The fact he lucked out on some parts of the genetic lottery and lost out when it comes to exercise induced asthma is no less 'unfair' than someone being rolled the wrong mix of slow twitch fibres. However he can moderate his asthma with permitted quantities of drugs - you can't (yet) get around many of the rolls people get.

mfin

Salsiccia1 wrote:

it's disappointing that people want the biggest name in cycling to be a cheat rather than hoping it's something unfortunate.

Actually it is disappointing that people are hoping either of those two scenarios. Wanting it to turn out one way or the other is pretty stupid. As long as things resolve as they should, it does not matter one jot either way.

iainf72

Matthewfalle wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

I'm surprised it took so long for the inevitable claims it's a masking agent to surface.

Its not a claim that Sally is a masking agent - it's a well known and proven fact.

I'm surprised there are so many people sticking up for him on what is a black and white finding of a failed doping test.

No one serious is suggesting it’s used as a masking agent, are they? As Jeroen Swart said, it’s something you’d be obviously pinged for so why would you do something so obvious.

Mad_Malx

Matthewfalle wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

I'm surprised it took so long for the inevitable claims it's a masking agent to surface.

Its not a claim that Sally is a masking agent - it's a well known and proven fact.

I'm surprised there are so many people sticking up for him on what is a black and white finding of a failed doping test.

So where is this proof?

I don’t see anyone people here disputing that he failed the test, and most are saying that a sanction is inevitable.