Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

Pross

Shirley Basso wrote:

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?

The ASO bit wouldn't have happened had it not been leaked in the first place. The cynics will always find something to cling to, even now it's that the WADA / UCI statements don't give them enough information. All they could have done in that situation was point to the relevant rules that would clearly have been followed but yes, those cynics would then be calling it a whitewash.

bobmcstuff

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

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.”

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Hopefully some people will actually read it...

Nick Payne

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.

What it shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

blazing_saddles

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

You rang?

larkim

Nick Payne wrote:

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.

What is shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

That's certainly Tucker's view, and there is some merit in recognising that there is an issue there.

Whether that means that in Froome's case we should or should not have faith in the outcome I think will depend on your preconceptions about Froome's case in the first place.

On the one hand, it is absolutely right that someone should fight to clear their name if they are innocent using all the resources available to them.

On the other hand, there is a risk that someone can use the resources available to them to attempt to find sufficient wiggle room to force the anti-doping bodies to step back from the precipice, even if you are actually guilty of the offence.

In the absence of any other information, I tend to seeing the former position and feel it is more rational and less dependent on conspiracy theories. But I may be wrong.

Pross

Nick Payne wrote:

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.

What is shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

You haven't bothered reading the various statements then? Sure, having the money to present your case as strongly as possible is an advantage just as it is in a criminal or civil court. There will always be an element like you that have decided guilt based on no knowledge and who would refuse to accept any other verdict no matter what evidence is presented but I'd rather accept the word of the experts that have reviewed all the available information in detail. My sympathies to you in this difficult time, hopefully the next big 'doping scandal' will give you your Lance moment.

shirley_basso

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.


It happens more than you think. Quoted from SBF's article.

daniel_b

bobmcstuff wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

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

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Hopefully some people will actually read it...

Thanks SBF, top post and very informative - shame lots of people will either never read it, or know of it's existence.

blazing_saddles

Nick Payne wrote:

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.

What it shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

If he didn't have deep pockets, you wouldn't be here crying about the result.

RichN95.

Looking for UKAD cases involving salbutamol, I came across this decision regarding footballer Chey Dunkley, who was given a warning.
Sections 87-90 reference three other salbutamol cases (including one with a reading of 2670 - so Froome's isn't the highest ever) and all three were just given a warning.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

Add in Alan Judge, another footballer, and that's five UK salbutamols case, all of which were just given a warning.

Maybe cycling should dispense with the hysteria and just make it a policy to do the same.

Dorset_Boy

The deep pockets just level the playing field and force the authorities to make sure they have a credible case.

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Nick Payne wrote:

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.

What it shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

If he didn't have deep pockets, you wouldn't be here crying about the result.

If those deep pockets have enabled him to show that the test is fundamentally flawed, that has to be a good thing for all asthmatic athletes.

Pross

Daniel B wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

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

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Hopefully some people will actually read it...

Thanks SBF, top post and very informative - shame lots of people will either never read it, or know of it's existence.

Or ignore it and claim he got of due to expensive lawyers / paying off WADA / got off on a technicality. If people have a preconceived opinion of what an outcome will be they won't pay attention to the facts unfortunately.

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Nick Payne wrote:

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.

What it shows is that if you have deep pockets and lawyer up, you can cow WADA into rolling over...

If he didn't have deep pockets, you wouldn't be here crying about the result.

If those deep pockets have enabled him to show that the test is fundamentally flawed, that has to be a good thing for all asthmatic athletes.

It will be interesting to see what is done with regards to the testing, the WADA statement was very clear that the evidence in this case was very specific to Froome in which case the decision shouldn't affect other athletes either way but I suspect the amount of publicity it has created may force a rethink. Whether that's a good or bad thing I'm not sure - it really does depend on the science and reasoning behind the current limit I suppose - but it's possibly yet another reason why this case should not have been leaked as it has created a doubt that may or may not be unfounded.

Dorset_Boy

One of the things unique to Froome is the number of tests he has had. A low ranked rider wouldn't have has 21 tests in the race, and there are suggestions that Froome had 60 consecutive days of tests too. That then makes it far easier to show what is normal, what is low and what is high.

above_the_cows

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

OK I'll start...

1. Haimar Zubeldia

bobmcstuff

Dorset Boy wrote:

One of the things unique to Froome is the number of tests he has had. A low ranked rider wouldn't have has 21 tests in the race, and there are suggestions that Froome had 60 consecutive days of tests too. That then makes it far easier to show what is normal, what is low and what is high.

That's a massive amount of tests!

And to think that certain other sportspeople complain about having a handful....

above_the_cows

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.

But it isn't just the UCI/ASO/WADA who are responsible for how we got here. There are a whole load of actors in this particular assemblage. You have the people who leaked the test, you have the journalists, editors and lawyers working for the press who decided to publish the leaks and you have segments of 'fans' who live for such stories.

Now, all those things operate together to produce the current situation. You can't solely lay blame at the doors of the UCI/ASO/WADA, someone in the UCI knew that there was an appetite for an AAF about Froome, the Guardian and Le Monde knew that it would get a reaction from certain quarters. It's why we know about Froome's AAF and never hear about other people's. There are many links in this chain.

above_the_cows

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

You rang?

I can't lie to you. I am a little excited.

ridgerider

Above The Cows wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

OK I'll start...

1. Haimar Zubeldia

2. Sprint finishes

kleinstroker

Froome on Hinault

“He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed"

B'zing!

Vino'sGhost

lostboysaint wrote:

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.

Hmmmm let me see is there a parallel here? no. bell end.

carbonclem

So if Froomes wealth made WADA back off, are we to assume he/Sky have more wealth/power/threat than say, Russia ?

That’s some force!

salsiccia1

kleinstroker wrote:

Froome on Hinault

“He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed"

B'zing!

Did he really say that? It sounds pretty impolitic from one of the most diplomatic men in sport.

bobmcstuff

CarbonClem wrote:

So if Froomes wealth made WADA back off, are we to assume he/Sky have more wealth/power/threat than say, Russia ?

That’s some force!

I knew Sky's budget was high but I didn't realise it was $1.6 trillion!

daniel_b

Salsiccia1 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Froome on Hinault

“He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed"

B'zing!

Did he really say that? It sounds pretty impolitic from one of the most diplomatic men in sport.

Widely qouted in multiple articles - my opinion of him has just gone up a notch.

The four-times Tour winner refused to be drawn into a war of words with the five-times winner Bernard Hinault, who had called for the peloton to strike if Froome were allowed to start the race without the case being resolved. “I can’t say anything bad about Bernard,” said the Team Sky leader. “He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed, but if I see him I’ll very happily explain it all in a bit more detail.”

rick_chasey

Here’s a question for those who think this ruling is terrible.

Why is this so much worse than, say, motos riding close enough to local riders who are on the attack to offer them a draft? For example, any time Nibali is in a race deciding attack in Italy??

I know which one affects the race result more.

shirley_basso

I guess it's not so much about affecting the outcome, but the intention.

Nibali can't help if an Italian Moto tows him and french riders can't help if jury decisions are overturned when it's realised it affects a French GC hopeful.

timoid.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Froome on Hinault

“He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed"

B'zing!

Did he really say that? It sounds pretty impolitic from one of the most diplomatic men in sport.

Agreed. Not a classy move, regardless of what Hinault said.

slowbike

Timoid. wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Froome on Hinault

“He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed"

B'zing!

Did he really say that? It sounds pretty impolitic from one of the most diplomatic men in sport.

Agreed. Not a classy move, regardless of what Hinault said.

Yet if he'd said nothing on the subject then he'd be accused of being spineless and having something to hide.

Here's hoping that Froome goes on to win this years TdF and next years too ...