Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

tailwindhome

The actual judgement is worth reading

WADA will not appeal UCI decision in Christopher Froome case
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announces that it will not be appealing the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI’s) decision not to assert an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) in the case involving British rider Christopher Froome.

WADA’s announcement follows that of the UCI earlier today, which announced that the anti-doping proceedings involving Mr. Froome have now been closed. Based on careful consideration of the facts, the Agency accepts that the analytical result of Mr. Froome’s sample from 7 September 2017 during the Vuelta a España, which identified the prohibited substance Salbutamol at a concentration in excess of the decision limitof 1200 ng/mL(1), did not constitute an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).

It should be noted that the 2017 Prohibited List provides that Salbutamol is a prohibited beta-2 agonist under section S.3. However, as an exception, inhaled Salbutamol is permitted subject to a maximum dose of 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours. If Salbutamol is reported in a urine sample in a concentration in excess of the decision limit of 1200 ng/mL(1), the Prohibited List provides that it “is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an AAF unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”

After being notified of the presumed AAF in September, Mr. Froome provided the UCI with explanations, supported by expert opinions, in order to attempt to explain that the concentration of Salbutamol found in his sample resulted from the use of inhaled Salbutamol within the permissible maximum dose of 1600 mcg/24 hours, not to exceed 800 mcg per 12 hours.

WADA’s decision follows a full and careful review of all explanations and supporting evidence submitted by Mr. Froome in the month of June (which the UCI shared with WADA), as well as thorough consultation with internal and independent external experts. On the basis of this, WADA’s position is as follows:

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:
the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
WADA believes this to be the right and fair outcome for what was a very complex case.

(1) Notes:

As defined in WADA’s International Standard for Laboratories, a:

Decision Limit is a concentration, accounting for the maximum permitted combined uncertainty, above which a WADA-accredited laboratory shall report an AAF. The threshold for Salbutamol is 1000 ng/mL and the decision limit, taking into account measurement uncertainty, is 1200 ng/mL.
Threshold Substance is an exogenous or endogenous prohibited substance, metabolite or marker of a prohibited substance which is analyzed quantitatively and for which an analytical result (concentration, ratio or score) in excess of a pre-determined Decision Limit constitutes an AAF.

ademort

Firstly i,m delighted for Froome and team Sky lets hope they can go on and win the TDF again.I,ve just been watching a tv report on telesprt in the Netherlands and it was said by the tv channels cycling expert reporter that Froomes legal team has so far cost a whopping €7 million euros. Can anyone confirm this. Bloody hell thats a lot of cash.

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

Firstly i,m delighted for Froome and team Sky lets hope they can go on and win the TDF again.I,ve just been watching a tv report on telesprt in the Netherlands and it was said by the tv channels cycling expert reporter that Froomes legal team has so far cost a whopping €7 million euros. Can anyone confirm this. Bloody hell thats a lot of cash.

I doubt it. This figure was bandied about some time ago and I worked out that was about the amount (adjusting for inflation) that OJ Simpson spent on his murder defence. And this was no OJ trial.

jimmythecuckoo

Wow... This thread was 5 pages when I last checked.

Have we agreed whether he is innocent or not in the court of BR ?

Vino'sGhost

they should have just hired Rich he dishes his legal expertise out for free on the internet.

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

The actual judgement is worth reading

WADA will not appeal UCI decision in Christopher Froome case
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announces that it will not be appealing the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI’s) decision not to assert an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) in the case involving British rider Christopher Froome.

WADA’s announcement follows that of the UCI earlier today, which announced that the anti-doping proceedings involving Mr. Froome have now been closed. Based on careful consideration of the facts, the Agency accepts that the analytical result of Mr. Froome’s sample from 7 September 2017 during the Vuelta a España, which identified the prohibited substance Salbutamol at a concentration in excess of the decision limitof 1200 ng/mL(1), did not constitute an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).

It should be noted that the 2017 Prohibited List provides that Salbutamol is a prohibited beta-2 agonist under section S.3. However, as an exception, inhaled Salbutamol is permitted subject to a maximum dose of 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours. If Salbutamol is reported in a urine sample in a concentration in excess of the decision limit of 1200 ng/mL(1), the Prohibited List provides that it “is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an AAF unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”

After being notified of the presumed AAF in September, Mr. Froome provided the UCI with explanations, supported by expert opinions, in order to attempt to explain that the concentration of Salbutamol found in his sample resulted from the use of inhaled Salbutamol within the permissible maximum dose of 1600 mcg/24 hours, not to exceed 800 mcg per 12 hours.

WADA’s decision follows a full and careful review of all explanations and supporting evidence submitted by Mr. Froome in the month of June (which the UCI shared with WADA), as well as thorough consultation with internal and independent external experts. On the basis of this, WADA’s position is as follows:

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:
the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
WADA believes this to be the right and fair outcome for what was a very complex case.

(1) Notes:

As defined in WADA’s International Standard for Laboratories, a:

Decision Limit is a concentration, accounting for the maximum permitted combined uncertainty, above which a WADA-accredited laboratory shall report an AAF. The threshold for Salbutamol is 1000 ng/mL and the decision limit, taking into account measurement uncertainty, is 1200 ng/mL.
Threshold Substance is an exogenous or endogenous prohibited substance, metabolite or marker of a prohibited substance which is analyzed quantitatively and for which an analytical result (concentration, ratio or score) in excess of a pre-determined Decision Limit constitutes an AAF.

Thanks for that. What are your thoughts on the wording?

Vino'sGhost

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Wow... This thread was 5 pages when I last checked.

Have we agreed whether he is innocent or not in the court of BR ?

That was decided about 9 months ago in his favour (though it was a split decision )

RichN95.

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Wow... This thread was 5 pages when I last checked.

Have we agreed whether he is innocent or not in the court of BR ?

Two threads have been merged - hence the number of pages.

above_the_cows

Thanks for posting the WADA ruling TWH.

Interesting reading. It seems they are saying that in certain cases it is possible to have stuck to to the 1600 mcg/24 hours or 800 mcg/12 hours and still excrete more than 1200 ng / ml.

I feel like that's an argument that has already been aired on here.

I also think their decision regarding the impossibility of doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study are fair. I mean how could you possibly recreate such conditions.

Now I wonder whether this will force the to reconsider this whole test around Salbutamol.

The STS geek in me, with a particular penchant for the medical side of STS, is LOVING this!

tim000

Timoid. wrote:

Can we please ban the word "haters" from the forum?

your just a haters hater

smithy21

Timoid. wrote:

Can we please ban the word "haters" from the forum?

Yeah, like, whatever.

bobmcstuff

Hater haters gonna hate haters

DeVlaeminck

The impression this gives is that Sky have chucked money at finding a loophole to get him off. Hopefully more details are released to explain.

redvision

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The impression this gives is that Sky have chucked money at finding a loophole to get him off. Hopefully more details are released to explain.

He's been cleared. Doesn't matter about what money sky put up, loophole or not, he's been cleared of any wrong doing.

We all need to just accept it, move on, and be grateful that this has been sorted before the start of the tour.

No_Ta_Doctor

Above The Cows wrote:

Thanks for posting the WADA ruling TWH.

Interesting reading. It seems they are saying that in certain cases it is possible to have stuck to to the 1600 mcg/24 hours or 800 mcg/12 hours and still excrete more than 1200 ng / ml.

I feel like that's an argument that has already been aired on here.

I also think their decision regarding the impossibility of doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study are fair. I mean how could you possibly recreate such conditions.

Now I wonder whether this will force the to reconsider this whole test around Salbutamol.

The STS geek in me, with a particular penchant for the medical side of STS, is LOVING this!

There's some interesting stuff in there. There was a lot of talk earlier of how doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study being the only way of defending the charge, which was always looking like madness. It's a genuinely ridiculous bar to set given the extreme physiological stress of riding GTs. Obviously some are upset by this, as their definition of fair seems to be that everyone has to clear an impossible bar, rather than that the bar should be set at a level that produces just decisions.

The concept of natural variability within the test subject is also interesting, this could feasibly be used as a new determinant in future cases - instead of a single test you might be asked to provide a range of tests to demonstrate your variation (similar to bio passport). It does seem a little strange that they've accepted Froome's own data on how much he'd dosed with to correlate with the tests they'd taken (if that's what they did, which seems plausible), given it's not verifiable.

I think there's a definite possibility they've basically bottled out of pressing the charge, given the cost of continuing with it, maybe aiming to salvage something of the salbutamol test rather than lose it altogether if the case was pressed further and Froome won at CAS. They seem quite eager to tell us there's some "subject specific" stuff, rather than giving us much detail on what in particular that was. I think they've accepted that the test isn't as good as it should be and that Froome would be able to show that, but they don't want to give the defence-recipe away entirely.

Hopefully they give the test a solid rethink, especially given Salbutamol's fairly limited use as a PED.

davidof

No tA Doctor wrote:

Hopefully they give the test a solid rethink, especially given Salbutamol's fairly limited use as a PED.

That's the big question, is it even a PED, or not?

Lappartment was just on the French news ranting and raving about someone having to do something. He's the UCI president, perhaps he could do something?

Matthewfalle

redvision wrote:

He's been cleared. Doesn't matter about what money sky put up, loophole or not, he's been cleared of any wrong doing.

.

and that is all what matters to some people.

Vino'sGhost

No tA Doctor wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Thanks for posting the WADA ruling TWH.

Interesting reading. It seems they are saying that in certain cases it is possible to have stuck to to the 1600 mcg/24 hours or 800 mcg/12 hours and still excrete more than 1200 ng / ml.

I feel like that's an argument that has already been aired on here.

I also think their decision regarding the impossibility of doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study are fair. I mean how could you possibly recreate such conditions.

Now I wonder whether this will force the to reconsider this whole test around Salbutamol.

The STS geek in me, with a particular penchant for the medical side of STS, is LOVING this!

There's some interesting stuff in there. There was a lot of talk earlier of how doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study being the only way of defending the charge, which was always looking like madness. It's a genuinely ridiculous bar to set given the extreme physiological stress of riding GTs. Obviously some are upset by this, as their definition of fair seems to be that everyone has to clear an impossible bar, rather than that the bar should be set at a level that produces just decisions.

The concept of natural variability within the test subject is also interesting, this could feasibly be used as a new determinant in future cases - instead of a single test you might be asked to provide a range of tests to demonstrate your variation (similar to bio passport). It does seem a little strange that they've accepted Froome's own data on how much he'd dosed with to correlate with the tests they'd taken (if that's what they did, which seems plausible), given it's not verifiable.

I think there's a definite possibility they've basically bottled out of pressing the charge, given the cost of continuing with it, maybe aiming to salvage something of the salbutamol test rather than lose it altogether if the case was pressed further and Froome won at CAS. They seem quite eager to tell us there's some "subject specific" stuff, rather than giving us much detail on what in particular that was. I think they've accepted that the test isn't as good as it should be and that Froome would be able to show that, but they don't want to give the defence-recipe away entirely.

Hopefully they give the test a solid rethink, especially given Salbutamol's fairly limited use as a PED.

That’s a balanced and reasonable way of looking at it. For me more than anything else it raises questions about access to justice and in this particular instance the horrible potential that money or more precisely the lack of it has stopped things being tested fully.

I’m not sure wether CAS can get involved, wether they have enough funds or if their remit is restricted to rectifying failures in law interpretation.

But it’s certainley not an unequivocal finding which is a shame because it doesn’t draw a line under the situation.

tim000

Vino'sGhost wrote:

But it’s certainley not an unequivocal finding which is a shame because it doesn’t draw a line under the situation.

it dose for any sane person :roll:

above_the_cows

No tA Doctor wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Thanks for posting the WADA ruling TWH.

Interesting reading. It seems they are saying that in certain cases it is possible to have stuck to to the 1600 mcg/24 hours or 800 mcg/12 hours and still excrete more than 1200 ng / ml.

I feel like that's an argument that has already been aired on here.

I also think their decision regarding the impossibility of doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study are fair. I mean how could you possibly recreate such conditions.

Now I wonder whether this will force the to reconsider this whole test around Salbutamol.

The STS geek in me, with a particular penchant for the medical side of STS, is LOVING this!

There's some interesting stuff in there. There was a lot of talk earlier of how doing a controlled pharmacokinetic study being the only way of defending the charge, which was always looking like madness. It's a genuinely ridiculous bar to set given the extreme physiological stress of riding GTs. Obviously some are upset by this, as their definition of fair seems to be that everyone has to clear an impossible bar, rather than that the bar should be set at a level that produces just decisions.

The concept of natural variability within the test subject is also interesting, this could feasibly be used as a new determinant in future cases - instead of a single test you might be asked to provide a range of tests to demonstrate your variation (similar to bio passport). It does seem a little strange that they've accepted Froome's own data on how much he'd dosed with to correlate with the tests they'd taken (if that's what they did, which seems plausible), given it's not verifiable.

I think there's a definite possibility they've basically bottled out of pressing the charge, given the cost of continuing with it, maybe aiming to salvage something of the salbutamol test rather than lose it altogether if the case was pressed further and Froome won at CAS. They seem quite eager to tell us there's some "subject specific" stuff, rather than giving us much detail on what in particular that was. I think they've accepted that the test isn't as good as it should be and that Froome would be able to show that, but they don't want to give the defence-recipe away entirely.

Hopefully they give the test a solid rethink, especially given Salbutamol's fairly limited use as a PED.

Good points. I too wonder if we're a) seeing a shift to a more nuanced approach to the effect of certain substances on individual physiology that becomes easier and easier to monitor with advances in technology and increased testing, as you say akin to the biopassport and b) seeing a wavering in WADA's belief in the validity of the Salbutamol test.

tangled_metal

I wonder if the subject specific bits relate specifically to personal medical information provided by Froome or some other deeply personal information. If so you'd probably find it quite reasonable to keep private such information. As well as that the AAF events wouldn't have been made public if due process had been allowed to happen let alone the details.

The statement is necessary to try to close out the matter but there's no reason to give it the full details if they're personal and unique to Froome.

Of course haters hate and won't give up their hope for finding dirt on Froome and Sky.

BBC radio four news report on this at 5pm was interesting. They used highly critical of Froome IMHO. I thought the wording were chosen to paint it as Froome got away with it. Was it Dan Roan?

They should have used the phrase AAF instead of doping allegation. It was more about doping and cheating than an AAF that needed explaining / defending through evidence. Are the bbc just biased because the team is backed by their rival broadcasters Sky? Can it really be that? Or just a bunch of lazy, ignorant sports hacks cutting and pasting other journo's reporting? Just because your know a bit about footie or cricket doesn't mean you know owt about cycling it seems.

One more thing, wasn't Froome's defence based on the testing carried out during the whole of the Vuelta? As in the organiser's own testing regime provided the defence. I suspect it was about margin of error for each reading. Kind of like a graph over time of finite test results with error bars that overlapped between the reading above the actionable threshold for the AAF (1200 nanogrammes per litre iirc) and reading below the threshold with legal dosage of salbutamol. Something like that perhaps, could it be that simple? Doubt it but reading it there seems to be doubt generated that the reading meant what WADA rules state it meant. They went with innocent until proven guilty I guess.

big_harv

Day before the appeal though. Now that's finally unsettled me..

UCI may be slightly incompetent.

So are Abellio Greater Anglia trains.

pblakeney

tim000 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

But it’s certainley not an unequivocal finding which is a shame because it doesn’t draw a line under the situation.

it dose for any sane person :roll:

I would applaud if I thought it was intentional.

specialgueststar

This is the Froome salbutomol Tour thread? I thought he wasn't going to do that anymore

dolan_driver

Cycling News have their most negative article on Froome front-and-centre on their website. Nothing deliberate in that, of course.

DD.

DeVlaeminck

redvision wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The impression this gives is that Sky have chucked money at finding a loophole to get him off. Hopefully more details are released to explain.

He's been cleared. Doesn't matter about what money sky put up, loophole or not, he's been cleared of any wrong doing.

We all need to just accept it, move on, and be grateful that this has been sorted before the start of the tour.

Well of course it does matter in the way some people apparently get out of traffic offences by hiring lawyers most couldn't afford to find loopholes. It may be that the uci has to accept it but we don't have to do any such thing.

Personally I'll accept it if a plausible explanation as to why he's been cleared is made public, in the absence of that it's reasonable to have some doubts as to whether he did inhale more than the permitted dose.

shirley_basso

Plausible explanation is that the concentrations off all other things in his urine were equally increased on that day compared to the other 20 tests taken on the Vuelta. Pretty good control samples.

RichN95.

Bog standard explanation.

He had one test high, but (uniquely) lots either side that weren't. This showed that this was clearly not a case of someone cheating and with a lot of circumstantial evidence and powerful opposition, WADA/UCI didn't think this was hill they were willing to die on.

DeVlaeminck

Shirley Basso wrote:

Plausible explanation is that the concentrations off all other things in his urine were equally increased on that day compared to the other 20 tests taken on the Vuelta. Pretty good control samples.

I agree and hopefully something that sounds reasonable will come out in time.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Bog standard explanation.

He had one test high, but (uniquely) lots either side that weren't. This showed that this was clearly not a case of someone cheating and with a lot of circumstantial evidence and powerful opposition, WADA/UCI didn't think this was hill they were willing to die on.

How much rich lolol you think this sounds like a complete absolve this?

Well you do have a certificate in law lolololol