Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

bobmcstuff

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

What you've written is literally nonsensical. Must do better. 2/10.

FocusZing

ocdupalais

Well now he’s cleared to ride the Tour, there’s the perfect opportunity to conduct a pharmacokinetic study on the effects of Salbutamol on his system in France in July.
Asthmatics can’t help themselves when it comes to that good sh!t...

argyllflyer

Considering how often the twitterati brand him an alien, is it any surprise his physiology differs to most!

StillGoing

How about those that were claiming Froome should have done "the right thing" and took his suspension without the allegation being proved? Schmucks. If you know you've done nothing wrong, only an idiot would take an unwarranted punishment before being found guilty/not guilty of the allegation.

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

How about those that were claiming Froome should have done "the right thing" and took his suspension without the allegation being proved? Schmucks. If you know you've done nothing wrong, only an idiot would take an unwarranted punishment before being found guilty/not guilty of the allegation.

Well that’s your opinion, clearly you haven’t capacity for wider consideration so I won’t even attempt to explain it to you.

Vino'sGhost

OCDuPalais wrote:

Well now he’s cleared to ride the Tour, there’s the perfect opportunity to conduct a pharmacokinetic study on the effects of Salbutamol on his system in France in July.
Asthmatics can’t help themselves when it comes to that good sh!t...

Hahaha yes perfect

ocdupalais

UCI dropping case against Froome doesn’t look good for cycling, says some bloke I’ve never heard of from his sofa in Australia- according to first article on Cyclingnews today.

“The [UCI]statement rather naively finished with the following line: "The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar."

Is that naive because you’re going to continue to wang on about this, Mr Benson?
Cyclingnews - used to be my go-to place for pro cycling info, but for last few years it’s snide agenda and aggressive ads have become tedious.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

redvision wrote:

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.

So he has managed to do exactly that to the people responsible for anti-doping by providing highly detailed information that was peer reviewed by their own and external independent experts but you need some form of higher level of evidence to be satisfied? What would you be prepared to accept as evidence for trial by Internet?

slim_boy_fat

From Matt Slater. Still won't be enough for some people I'm sure.

Here's an interview with the World Anti-Doping Agency's science director defending their handling of Chris Froome's case. Pretty sure it's a global exclusive as he was about to board a long-haul flight. Given the criticism WADA is getting on social media since the Froome decision broke, I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up. I'll blame the World Cup, the heat wave and my dull intro and post it here to see who wants to read his quotes.

---

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has strongly denied that the decision to clear Chris Froome of cheating has left its policy on the asthma drug salbutamol in shreds.
Speaking to Press Association Sport, WADA’s science director Dr Oliver Rabin said the case was “not unique” and he did not believe it would lead to a wave of appeals from athletes who have been banned in the past.
Earlier on Monday, cycling’s governing body the UCI announced it was not proceeding with an anti-doping case against Froome despite the Team Sky star returning a urine sample at last year’s Vuelta a Espana that contained double the permitted amount of salbutamol.
Having always maintained his innocence, the four-time Tour de France champion welcomed the news but many pundits have questioned how WADA’s rules on salbutamol, and other so-called “threshold drugs”, can survive.
Asked what impact he thought the case would have, Dr Rabin said: “I may be about to disappoint you, but I do not believe it will have much at all.”
Salbutamol is classed as a ‘specified’ drug by WADA, which means it is allowed for therapeutic reasons up to a certain dosage. This is because there is no performance-enhancing effect for asthmatics taking normal amounts of the drug via an inhaler.
For salbutamol, the limit is 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml) and that has been set so the majority of people, taking no more than 1,600 micrograms a day, or 16 puffs on an adult inhaler, would not fail the test.
The word “majority” is crucial as Dr Rabin acknowledges WADA “is well aware of salbutamol’s variability” – in other words, not everyone processes it in the same way and some process it differently some of the time.
“That is why an adverse finding only opens the door to further study – it’s not an automatic sanction,” he said.
Froome’s sample contained 2,000 ng/ml of salbutamol, double the limit, although that was then corrected to 1,400 ng/ml when his dehydration was factored in. Having returned that finding, the onus was on him to explain how it happened without taking more than the permitted dose.
The British star, as we now know, has been able to satisfy the UCI and WADA that the one adverse sample he returned during that race, when he was tested almost every day, was an anomaly and not a result of taking too many puffs or taking the drug orally or intravenously.
This last point is significant as WADA does ban higher dosages of salbutamol taken via those methods, as there is evidence it acts as a stimulant and a muscle-building agent.
The problem for WADA, Dr Rabin explained, is that even when you inhale salbutamol 60-70 per cent of it goes into the gastrointestinal tract, as it would if you took it as a pill. This is why WADA’s advice is not to get too close to the dosage limit as doing so would suggest your asthma is out of control and you run the risk of an adverse finding.
“In this case, we had several specific elements,” said Dr Rabin.
“First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days (Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms). Second, he was being treated for an infection.
“And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on.
“Given all of this, we decided an excretion study was impossible and the finding was not inconsistent with therapeutic dosages.”
The reference to excretion study relates to WADA’s usual requirement in these cases that the athlete replicates what happened in a laboratory.
Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.
“It’s not a unique case but because it was Froome, a sporting celebrity, and it was put in the limelight, it appears to be unique,” he said.
“We deal with all cases on an individual basis and I have personally dealt with several in the past. Yes, there are elements of this case that are fairly unusual but I can assure you it is not unique.”
Stressing that the rules are “for everyone”, Dr Rabin said that WADA would send the details of the case to its experts for review, as it does after every significant case.
“But for now, we have no reason to question the rules,” he said.
And on whether WADA should prepare itself for appeals, he said: “That is more of a legal issue than a science question but, again, each case is different and we can see no reason that previous cases have not been handled fairly.”

ocdupalais

I accidentally dip into it now from time to time like people say they can’t help peeking at an ex’s social media pages...

inseine

I it’ll be interesting to see how many of the posters who go on and on about this actually post about the racing come this weekend.

larkim

philthy3 wrote:

How about those that were claiming Froome should have done "the right thing" and took his suspension without the allegation being proved? Schmucks. If you know you've done nothing wrong, only an idiot would take an unwarranted punishment before being found guilty/not guilty of the allegation.

According to Tucker, that's exactly what Ulissi did. But as I say, according to Tucker...

above_the_cows

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

What do you find unreasonable in the WADA statement TWH shared?

above_the_cows

inseine wrote:

I it’ll be interesting to see how many of the posters who go on and on about this actually post about the racing come this weekend.

Don't worry I've already got a whole gallery of cows and horses lined up.

Someone else can do the cheese and wine.

shirley_basso

I'll be too full of both to do any posting.

dabeastos

Shirley Basso wrote:

I'll be too full of both to do any posting.

Too full of cows and horses??

shirley_basso

BBQ and oven both in operation.

Wine and cheese while-u-wait.

rick_chasey

I've been playing a game in my head of things that falsely impact a race more than too many puffs on sabultamol.

It's quite a long list, so far.

craigus89

This sport is a f****** fiasco.

shirley_basso

Why? Because you thought someone should be found guilty and you're gutted that they weren't?

On the assumption that you're not a brexiteer, do you not trust the medical professional experts?

reborn2

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Why is this guy still on the forum? Almost every post he’s after a reaction, having a pop at someone. I’d call him a troll, but occasionally trolls are funny.

ridgerider

Craigus89 wrote:

This sport is a f****** fiasco.

I have stopped watching football because of all the very obvious diving that goes on. THAT 'sport' is a fiasco. THAT is very clear cheating.

larkim

Whilst I am definitely in the camp of "I believed in Froome" and "I accept whatever the UCI / WADA says", is too balanced from me to suggest that there are clearly things that "could be better" for the future?

Clearly the salbutamol testing regime is imprecise and relies on balanced views being determined by "someone". Even if Froome's case is such that 100 doctors qualified in analysing these things would independently conclude the same way, this implies that there will be cases where 100 such qualified doctors won't be able to agree on an outcome. That's just about as unsatisfactory as the fact that VAR in football sometimes results in two professionals drawing different conclusions.

The transparency of the process and the opinions from which conclusions are drawn is an issue. I'm actually opposed to transparency generally as it would cause some (not many) individuals' private medical details to be in the public domain when it is morally inappropriate that we should know about them (the obvious example is female participants and terminations for example, but there will be hereditary conditions being disclosed for example that are best kept private). I know this needs trading off against people making money from being in the public eye, and that's an easy argument to make for the best of the best, but if we're going to have rules which are applied fairly that would also cascade down through the peloton or to sports which aren't in the public eye, and to me that level of disclosure goes above and beyond what I would expect to have to submit to as a sports-person.

I still think in many ways the fact that this has been out in the open is marginally better than behind closed doors, as the snide reactions if we'd found out about UCI / WADA dropping a case against Froome behind closed doors would create different and potentially more significant issues. But overall, it's not very satisfactory is it?

Pross

Craigus89 wrote:

This sport is a f****** fiasco.

Yes, it's terrible having a set of rules that were followed as the conclusion doesn't suit the pitchfork wavers.

lostboysaint

Vino'sGhost wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

How about those that were claiming Froome should have done "the right thing" and took his suspension without the allegation being proved? Schmucks. If you know you've done nothing wrong, only an idiot would take an unwarranted punishment before being found guilty/not guilty of the allegation.

Well that’s your opinion, clearly you haven’t capacity for wider consideration so I won’t even attempt to explain it to you.

You're accused of sexual harassment at work. You're offered the chance of a suspension and always being tagged as a groper despite the fact that you know you're innocent. You taking that unwarranted punishment?

Thought not.

Bell end.

craigus89

Shirley Basso wrote:

Why? Because you thought someone should be found guilty and you're gutted that they weren't?

On the assumption that you're not a brexiteer, do you not trust the medical professional experts?

Pross wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

This sport is a f****** fiasco.

Yes, it's terrible having a set of rules that were followed as the conclusion doesn't suit the pitchfork wavers.

Nothing to do with me wanting a certain outcome. I like Froome and want him to race the Tour.

The sport as a whole is farcical at times though. I'm no where near as informed on all of this as many of you clearly are (no sarcasm) but the actions by people high up in various organisations like trying to block Froome from riding as a last ditch attempt is crazy. The bad press that comes as a result of things like this just reinforces peoples views on cycling.

When people are more interested in doping and the drama surrounding it than the spectacle itself you are doing something wrong.

jimmythecuckoo

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hater haters gonna hate haters

Pross

Craigus89 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Why? Because you thought someone should be found guilty and you're gutted that they weren't?

On the assumption that you're not a brexiteer, do you not trust the medical professional experts?

Pross wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

This sport is a f****** fiasco.

Yes, it's terrible having a set of rules that were followed as the conclusion doesn't suit the pitchfork wavers.

Nothing to do with me wanting a certain outcome. I like Froome and want him to race the Tour.

The sport as a whole is farcical at times though. I'm no where near as informed on all of this as many of you clearly are (no sarcasm) but the actions by people high up in various organisations like trying to block Froome from riding as a last ditch attempt is crazy. The bad press that comes as a result of things like this just reinforces peoples views on cycling.

When people are more interested in doping and the drama surrounding it than the spectacle itself you are doing something wrong.

In that case I'd agree, I assumed you meant the WADA decision was a fiasco. Basically, if someone at the UCI hadn't leaked all this none of the other issues would have arisen.

shirley_basso

Although, as Larkim had said earlier in a hypothetical, but no impossible situation. If it had correctly taken place behind closed doors, but then was subsequently leaked that Froome had had an AAF and that it was then cleared by UCI and WADA and he was going to be thrown out the Le Tour by ASO but finally cleared to ride that would probably raise even more pulses.

How does one win?