You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Some good stuff here guys - nice to see some interpretation of the data from all sources.
Makes a change to have informed opinions & folks making them from doing their own reading.
Not enough time to read it all now - but this kind of intelligent input is awesome. Thanks to those making the effort!
STW for information and reasoned debate, Cycling News for entertainment 😀
Yes Fifo – I was. But reading and listening I have moderated my view and would like more data to help me understand more.
Coolio. I’ll admit I was more reacting to your very vocal earlier position.
I have never said this – an example of making up stuff
Honestly mate, they aren't making stuff up - that's really how your posts read. Perhaps you are not quite managing to get your point across accurately?
Can we park this part of the conversation until Sky release the data or say that they won't. It's tiresome.
Agreed it is only the leaders who are tested daily, plus stage winners and stage podium riders. Then there are the random tests carried out throughout the year. A lot of races happen throughout the year with different riders winning stages and different riders leading the stage races. I'm not just thinking about data from cycling either, but in professional sport as a whole. Just to throw some numbers around, between October 2017 and 03<sup>rd</sup> July 2018 there has been 477 UCI Road Races. That’s a lot of racing and is not including Track, Cyclocross or Mountain Bike racing. That’s a lot of people being tested and a lot of data being recorded just in cycling alone. If we were just to take this over the last 4 years – that’s lots and lots of data where I would have thought we would see more false positives?
Here’s a statement from the UCI back in December 2017, “WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.” (My Bold)
We know that Ulissi had to visit Switzerland to try and recreate the scenario where he would have been over the limit, and we know he was unable to do so. I don’t know if Petacchi ever did. Petacchi received a 12 month ban for significantly less % of an adverse reading than Froome. If Ulissi or Pettacchi had of had 20 days of data behind them would they have been allowed to not perform the tests? (If Petacchi ever did)
My personal view as I’ve said before, I don’t believe Chris Froome cheated and nor do I see Salbutamol as a PED. But I was also a rather big fan of Contador, even after his little issue with the beef. But I do think its right to question what we are being told and to try and understand the statements and the reasoning behind it.
All good points. As I said, the likelihood of an AAF on 200 ug per day is extremely small for any individual - probably unmeasurable in a small N=12 typical trial. It is the combination of higher but permitted dosing and repeat testing of the same individual that make the problem.
WADA have accepted that for an endurance cycling event, a single threshold is not appropriate, nor a PK study (my day job). I'm not surprised at that position. Three weeks on a turbo trainer in an oven with simulated altitude efforts and cold does not appeal!
I have sympathies with both Petacchi and Ulissi, but suspect that they would have been unable to establish a "salbutamol passport" of test results, so Ulissi resorted to a single PK study test and was not able to produce a high reading - his metabolism and excretion was probably nothing special under controlled lab conditions. Out in race conditions, things might have been very different.
someone should publish this thread on Cycling News - it's got everything including some #topbants
I have sympathies with both Petacchi and Ulissi...
Of course it's also a possibility that their sanction was entirely justified because they were at it!
Hi TiRed, my view is that there should be parity and fairness between teams and riders. Why are WADA now saying that for an endurance event a one off reading isn't appropriate or for that matter a PK Study? In December 2017 they saw that as the measure of testing whether an AAF was as a TUE administered amount or whether it was intended to be performance enhancing. Since 2010 there has been an awful lot of tests carried out. Seems strange for the Chris Froome case to make WADA realise their previous methodology was wrong.
From RaceRadio Twitter feed....Diego Ulissi, AAF for 1900ng/ml of salbutamol during the 2014 Giro d’Italia. He was suspended from competition for nine months. Alessandro Petacchi, AAF of 1352ng/ml salbutamol at the 2007 Giro d’Italia. He was suspended for a year and had five stage wins removed.
I do wonder if the two AAF readings above also factored in dehydration? Froome went from 2,000 ng/ml to 1400 ng/ml when factoring in dehydration.
Looks like other riders have also been cleared, be good to see some numbers behind that. Chris Froome has done an exclusive with the Times where it appears to say "Multiple other riders went through a similar process and were cleared". But its behind a paywall so I can't read the details. This is also worth a read and provides some useful information that this isn't the first time a rider has successfully appealed.
But being honest, its when I read things in the facebook post that makes me question the honesty of officials. I can't see how Dr Rabin can say there is no reason to question the rules. Surely we should question the rules if they are found to be no longer enforceable or even appropriate. The last part of it to me reads like he is protecting himself. But anyway, be good to see the numbers of other riders who have been cleared of a Salbutamol AAF.
Would hate to look into the Clinic right now - that place is a mad house at the best of times!!
Greyspoke / crazy legs- point taken. WADA are not a party to this all in the way UCI are
UCI are in a position where a lot of what they do is political. A lot of the time that isn't well handled - Brian Cookson came out of his tenure as President looking a bit the worse for wear because he did some great work (genuinely!) but wasn't always amazing at communicating that or engaging with the various political factions within the sport.
Davide Lapparetient has gone a bit too far the other way - he's good politically but that's leaving the UCI a bit slack when it comes to the actual procedures, processes, getting things done.
And of course the UCI need it all to look slick in terms of media, sponsorship, event delivery, team set-up and so on.
Doesn't help that the UCI leaks like a sieve. This whole thing could have been avoided if confidentiality had been preserved (as it should have been!). Chris will come out of it OK (eventually) but the UCI look incompetent because it's taken nearly 9 months to get to this stage and it's further reputational damage to the sport as a whole.
Nice interview and a pragmatic response to the science.
As I said, establishing a "salbutamol passport" from 20 tests looks like the deciding factor for Froome. I have no information as to whether the other two would have been able to do so, but their readings are not exceptional based on the literature for permitted doses of 800 ug every 12 hours or 400 ug every six hours under dehydrated conditions.
His comments basically say that WADA will consider all evidence from any individual with a potential AAF and judge accordingly. Sounds a reasonable scientific approach.
Reputation wise the sport is bouncing on the bottom as it is. Yes the sport is a target for vitriol, not helped at all by the constant AAF’s and Doping irregularities. Even the most placid Jurno who knows nothing about the sport has an opinion equating to “they’re all at it” before they even log in.
The UCI has a reputation in the same vein as the sport it’s supposed to represent and control. McQuaid and his brown envelope pass the parcel games did everything it could to taint its controllers in the same bucket as the riders.
Only a couple of teams tried to lead the moral high ground, and subsequently vilified for thier stance by other teams and no support from the UCI.
You have to ask, what is the UCI’s Scope? What is it the organisation seeks to represent?
Cookson, bless him, was the Corbin of the UCI. Fairly ineffective, lacking a driven backbone, succumbing to ground roots pressure, no direction.
The new incumbent seems to be “on message” yet channeling his direction at the upper segments of the organisation instead of looking more intimately at the structure and its representation out in the clubs.
Its a crock of old men in shiny bum suits taking a salaried pension and nothing more.
hris Froome has done an exclusive with the Times where it appears to say “Multiple other riders went through a similar process and were cleared”.
It would be interesting to know what that statement really means , because, as noted above, the UKAD and WADA figures suggest there are very few Salbutamol AAFs, and in the case of UKAD, none of the 3 occurring in three years were cleared.
Why are WADA now saying that for an endurance event a one off reading isn’t appropriate or for that matter a PK Study?
The way I read the WADA statement was that the PK study was still the first line of defence but they conceded that it was not feasible do do this in Froome's specific case and therefore based the decision on his other evidence?
Hey TJ, now you're back, this:
I also know that every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one – Froomes Vuelta?) that the main rider was so ill with asthma the week before they needed powerful steroids under TUE the week before – injected in Wiggins case, oral in Froomes.
Tell us about Froome consuming 'powerful steroids under TUEs... the week before... every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one – Froomes Vuelta?).
I wasn't aware of that, but you seem to know all about it. Or have you just got confused?
In a parallel universe, if WADA had analysed the data and found that Froome had used more than the allowed dose of Salbutamol, what would we think?
If he’d broken the rules then he should’ve been banned. Even if it didn’t have a performance enhancing effect.
I did check BWD - I really should know about relying on memory. In Froomes case it was at least during the Dauphine and some other race - not the grand tours. 2013 and 2014. He has certainly done this at least twice but interestingly as I read up I found he refused a tue for prednisilone during one grand tour which is a good point in his favour.
Wiggins had injected steroids before the TDF wins
Edit - 40mg of prednisilone daily a massive dose of a powerful steroid.
So you made a mistake?
In detail yes. From memory it was Froomes grand tours - on checking it was two less important races. Wiggins was as I remembered ie before his TDF wins.
Principle is still the same.
In detail yes. From memory it was Froomes grand tours – on checking it was two less important races. Wiggins was as I remembered ie before his TDF wins.
Principle is still the same.
You can't just admit you were massively wrong can you. You claim to follow road cycling, but you don't even know that Wiggins has only won a single TDF - not 'wins'. Anyway...
Seriously BWD, leave your vitriol out. What do you want, him stripped naked and paraded down the street Cersei stylee just prove how wonderful you are? Some of his flaws are school boy errors and anybody with a passing knowledge can spot them. Play the ball.
and I was about to post how impressive the level of discourse was (and by that I mean/include devoid of my own, ahem, ‘contributions’) but, well...
Yes, you're right, I was unkind, but I just get exasperated by TJ's casual untruths. We all sometimes get a little carried away though eh?
Seriously BWD, leave your vitriol out. What do you want, him stripped naked and paraded down the street Cersei stylee just prove how wonderful you are?
I thought that was what people wanted Froome to do
We all sometimes get a little carried away though eh?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean.... 😉
Cookson, bless him, was the Corbin of the UCI. Fairly ineffective, lacking a driven backbone, succumbing to ground roots pressure, no direction.
On the other hand, he was a vital pivot in the "transition" away from Pat McQuaid. He's very good at regeneration, tunring around a failing organisation and he did that pretty well at the UCI. It was never going to be an easy shift but he did bring a lot of people together and getting Pat out was the first step on the long road to a better and more open organisation.
UCI was so busy with damage limitation and infighting that it had no time to govern the sport. Bit like the Tory party at the moment, they're so busy fighting over Brexit that they're not actually running the country.
it was not casual untruths - it was an honest error I put my hands up to. Unlike many on here I am capable of doing so
There is no doubt at all team sky have massively abused TUEs - Even Froome himself has said so ( in much more diplomatic language) which is why he refused on in the final week of a grand tour which I said as it does is a serious plus point for him
Whre did I claim to follow road cycling? Why do you have to make stuff up to attack me with? How about an apology for that outright lie BWD? or was it an honest mistake 😉
Give it a rest
It took 9 pages. Quite tardy by STW standards.
Edit – 40mg of prednisilone daily a massive dose of a powerful steroid
A standard dose for treating asthma though. Just for medical context.
A standard dose for treating asthma though. Just for medical context.
Context schmontext. Minds are already made up, nothing will change that.
However, as Tucker and other people have pointed out, EPO can also allegedly benefit riders by allowing them to recover more effectively and train harder, so performance enhancement is not just about the power boosting aspects of the drug in a race scenario.
Absolutely, but again the study they quote does not tackle any of this. They don’t look at training intensity, recovery rates etc. The biggest problem with this particular study is that it’s been so widely misrepresented or selectively quoted/interpreted. That said, I think they could do with repeating it using pro riders with a race mentality, though that would perhaps cause a few issues at their next blood test..!
A possibility that Sky’s defence rested on the validity of the test?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
“
The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.
Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told <i>The Times</i>: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada <span class="paywall-EAB47CFD">rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”</span>
<div class="Article-content paywall-EAB47CFD">
Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.
“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.
“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.
“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”
Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.
Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.”
</div>
TJ I think this forum is a better place for having you on it but isn't it time that you changed your whole approach and start putting the trial before the hanging?
Shall we take bets on how much money the lawyers appointed by Petacchi and Ulissi will be asking for?
“TJ I think this forum is a better place for having you on it but isn’t it time that you changed your whole approach and start putting the trial before the hanging?”
Do you want to explain that ‘cos I’m F’d if I understand your point.,
Did you read the article? I’ll wager not!
All I’ve done is paste a link to an article by the author of the test - I thought it would be of interest as it shows an insight to what’s possibly going on.....& you’ve done I don’t know fing what in your head & decided to have a dig!
How & in what way am I hanging someone without a trial here???
I’ve made no conclusions about it & pointed no fingers!
Just a link to an article by the author of the test!
Edit: My thoughts are: can of worms all over the place & it looks like we are going to get an explanation as to why Froome was cleared...which can only be good. In fact, if anything, this is an article attesting to Froome’s innocence with an explanation why.
Do you want to explain that ‘cos I’m F’d if I understand your point.,
Given the content & tone of his posts on this subject, some have inferred that TJ has made up his mind that Froome and Sky are/continue to be guilty of if not outright doping (cheating) then sailing so close to the rules that in effect it makes no difference. He's come to this conclusion through years of disappointment created by cycling teams and individuals loudly proclaiming their innocence, only to be found guilty later on.
Given the recent tawdry history of road cycling's addiction to cheating, this is a somewhat reasonable stance to take.
However in this case it appears the shoe is on the other foot, and it turns out that the cyclist is innocent and the test (and by extension, the UCI and WADA) have cocked it up, and it further turns out that they were made aware years ago that the test was flawed but not only chose to ignore it, banned at least 2 riders that we know of.
TJ is choosing not to be fulsome in his apologies for getting it wrong in this case.
I think that just about covers it.
Many subsequent studies have called into question the threshold when taking the maximum allowed dose. The original publication of Berges 2000 is based on some very flawed statistics with assumptions of a normal distribution for concentrations (they aren’t).
when I reanalysed their own data i concluded that the rate of false positives would be about 1/33! They originally quoted a figure of 1/30000. That value is in keeping with subsequent studies.
Cripes! At both the apparent ineptitude of WADA/UCI to deal with an issue they 'knew about' and make Petacchi, Ulissi and Froome go through this shite, and also a spot of handle-flying-off on here 😉
Thank you nickc, I think that covers it perfectly.
And mrlebowski wtf are you on!!! 🙂
I don't think I mentioned anything you have said so I'm not entirely sure of your point.
"I don’t think I mentioned anything you have said so I’m not entirely sure of your point."
My bad - reading on an iPhone & dirt obscured some of your post!
Sorry!
Anyway, don't the UCI/WADA look stupid now.......I mean just WOW..
Btw Froome took a standard TUE allowed dose of predisolone oral glucocorticoid in 2014 for an asthma exacerbation due to an infection. Something most asthmatics with moderate/severe asthma will have done. Wiggins received an on-label approved injection of kenscort which is the same glucocorticoid and also requires a TUE as it is not inhaled. The kenacort injection is a slow release intramuscular injection that provides low protective suppression of symptoms of allergy over weeks. The dose is the same as the oral dose for asthma but only given once not for five days. Neither dose has been shown to have performance enhancing properties. You really don’t want to take prednisolone chronically orally if you can help it. Performance studies use supratheapeutic levels and longer dosing periods. And rodents.
Sorry to disappoint, but neither of these two events are anything noteworthy. Kenacort injection is not a common treatment, but it is approved for just this use. As are intranasal steroids. Which may be less effective if you are as snotty as I am when I race! Glucocorticoids are much more effective than antihistamines as anyone with bad hay fever will know. Intranasal sprays have almost zero systemic exposure (unless you are taking certain HIV meds).
I wonder if L'Equipe will be reporting on the findings of WADA and particularly the comments by Fitch. You know, just so the French "fans" intent on heading out dressed as inhalers lobbing bidons of piss about are kept up to date with the latest findings.
I doubt they'll be interested though.
Guys - I have been asked to shut up so I will rather than addressing points put to me as all it does is further entrench positions.
For the record my view on Froome is changing as the evidence comes out as I have said from "guilty" to " dubious"
Point of order - Prednisilone and Kennacort are not the same drugs. 40 mg daily is a very high dose of prednisilone for exacerbation of asthma. Both are performance enhancing at the dosages used.
With that - consider me completely out of this debate please. I have annoyed enough folk and got annoyed enough myself.
OK?
Wiggins received an on-label approved injection of kenscort
Sorry to disappoint, but neither of these two events are anything noteworthy.
Is that the same Wiggins who claimed never to have injected?
Prednisilone and Kennacort are not the same drugs. 40 mg daily is a very high dose of prednisilone for exacerbation of asthma.
Bollocks, frankly. My son is currently on 30mg daily for exacerbation of asthma due to hayfever. He is 15, 5 foot six and weighs 50 kilos. The GP looked up the correct dose for his weight and height. I checked it later on.
Froome is, allegedly, 6ft 1ins and 68 kilos. Go figure.
The maximum recommended dose for an adult for asthma exacerbation is 60mg daily.
You could at least look it up on BNF before making such an assertion.
Interesting, so what about Millar's thoughts on Kenacort - he seems to think it was weapons grade stuff? Maybe at a different dosage?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html?_r=0
5 foot six and weighs 50 kilos
So pretty big for the pro peloton then 😉
Sorry TJ is correct. My mistake. Kenacort is triamcinalone another glucocorticoid steroid. It’s relative potency is 40/32 or about 1.33 times prwdnisolone, so really no much difference. For comparison fluticasone is many many times more potent.
as for the no needles, well it does look like a contravention but perhaps the detail was for non approved indications and vitamin supplants etc. I assume they were not denied a flu vaccination? I do not know.
So pretty big for the pro peloton then
I'm not noticing any major performance gains at the moment. I'm planning to give him some FTP tests when he stops coughing so much.
40 mg daily is a very high dose of prednisilone for exacerbation of asthma. Both are performance enhancing at the dosages used.
Please stop with this sort of hyperbole, 40mg is not a "massive" or "very high" dose, it can be a lot of pills in one go if you're offered 5mg tabs (so you end up taking 8 pills in one go) but it's still a normal dose.
Neither is it particularly performance enhancing; one of the long term effects is weight gain (for example)
A possibility that Sky’s defence rested on the validity of the test?
Sky and WADA have indicated in their press releases that the main plank of the defence was Froome demonstrating that his AAF test result was within the range of "natural variability" for a series of Salbutamol tests taken over the course of the race. Froome's result included the adjustment which was introduced into the test for the specific gravity of urine (which is why the original test value was revised downwards).
Despite the alleged limitations of the test, it only appears to have caught a small number of people, despite the large number of professional athletes that appear to be using Salbutamol.
My thoughts on Millar is that either he did not have it intramuscular, but subcutaneous instead (both injections) and hence would have very much higher concentrations over a shorter period. And repeatedly. Or it was a placebo effect.
TJ the patients in our severe asthma studies are taking those doses all the time for exacerbations. It is really not a large dose. It would be a large dose for maintenance therapy (5 mg is more usual), and in the age of biological therapies, one would like to remove oral use completely. See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25199060/
And the fluid retention, lipid changes, fat redistribution, bone weakening, etc... with chronic oral use are not performance enhancing.
40 mg daily is a very high dose of prednisilone for exacerbation of asthma
As stated above it is entirely normal for an asthma flare. In fact (not opinion) the standard guidelines (British Thoracic Society) state that 40-50 mg is the standard dose for an acute flare and emphasise the need for adequate dosing. I wouldn't normally correct but IIRC you are in the health profession TJ (apologies if I got that wrong) and so you would understand that your opinion on drug dosing carries a certain weight. To be absolutely clear it is a dose prescribed every day in GP and Respiratory clinics round the country for asthma flares. I have never ever heard it described in a medical setting as a "massive" or "very high" dose for this purpose. It is simply misleading to state otherwise.
I tend to avoid commenting on doping threads. Not because I'm not interested. I've followed pro cycling since the 80s, so doping has always been a big part of the story. More because sensible rational people whose posts I generally enjoy seem to become quite irrational on these threads and I don't want to fall out with people that I generally like.
Anyway, I just wanted to say well done to everyone for mostly keeping this one pretty civil for 10 pages and for all the interesting points made.
TiRed, this what Millar says:
"
<p class="css-1i0edl6 e2kc3sl0">On one occasion, I received a T.U.E. for a fake tendon issue. A doctor simply wrote a prescription for an ankle injury that required an intra-articular injection, although the injection was then administered intramuscularly (at the time, injecting the drug intramuscularly was banned, hence the need to lie on the T.U.E., because, I can only assume, it is more powerful when administered in that way). The maximum dosage I ever took was 40 milligrams, which is in the range of the manufacturer’s recommended dosages.</p>
<p class="css-1i0edl6 e2kc3sl0">The Kenacort was so powerful that it was ultimately destructive: Apart from being a catabolic agent, it would also suppress your immune system, making you more susceptible to infections. I didn’t like taking it, but I was so deep into what I was doing at the time that I did what I considered had to be done. Still, I took it only twice after 2001: for the 2002 Vuelta a España and the 2003 Tour de France. Both were big targets, as, for the first time, I was aiming for a high placing in the overall classification, and this required me to be lighter and stronger than ever before. Both times, I took an initial 20 to 40 milligram dose, and then topped up with 10 to 20 milligrams about 10 days later, in order to prolong the effects into the final week of the three-week stage race and to avoid too rapid a descent off it."</p>
So, intramuscular & multiple doses.
Shall we take bets on how much money the lawyers appointed by Petacchi and Ulissi will be asking for?
Doesnt seem much point chasing retrospective remediation for an event that occurred over 10 years ago, and to what end? Reinstatement of classification? Loss of earnings (dropped from team and banned for a year)?
I’d hazard a guess that there is some sort of statute of limitations in place at the UCI.
Good point though, if opened up could result in many retrospective claims.
On the question of the placebo effect, in "Breaking the Chain", Willy Voet, the Festina soigneur, who was busted with a boot full of drugs in 1998, describes Richard Virenque pleading for a dose of a new wonder drug that he had learned another team were using. Voet was worried about adding something else to the mix of stuff that Virenque was already taking, and in the end jabbed him with a syringe of saline solution to keep him quiet. Virenque declared that he had never felt so good when he raced the next day!
I used to know an Orthopaedic surgeon who also was involved as a physio for a Scottish football team. He would give saline injections for injuries that he didn't think were injuries, which were very effective
Going off topic here so I apologise now….TiRed, think we may need to agree to disagree on the Wiggins Kenacort use. Kenacort is a strange one, I don’t think we can safely say “Sorry to disappoint, but neither of these two events are anything noteworthy.”
From Jeroen Swart ( https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/)
But the benefits of corticosteroids are documented. Not only in peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts that have demonstrated statistically-significant performance enhancing effects of corticosteroids in endurance sport. But you have also got the testimony from a large number of riders, ex professionals. David Millar’s testimony in his book. Laurent Fignon when he got diagnosed with cancer. Armstrong admitted to the use of corticosteroids. There are probably dozens of others if you went hunting for them.
The use of corticosteroids as a performance-enhancer in cycling is, from an anecdotal perspective, is very well founded and from a performance perspective in science in competition, definitely evidence is there.
So you are taking a long-acting corticosteroid just before a Grand Tour, and the chances are you can gain a performance benefit out of it.
Michael Rasmussen talked about applying for a TUE to get this injection. He said that Geert Leinders did exactly that for them. He would apply for a TUE for some arbitrary illness, and then inject them with exactly the same substance, Triamcinolone acetonide, just before a Grand Tour.
From the Secret Pro….
"I’ve never taken Kenacort, but from what I have heard, it’s just rocket fuel. All of my injuries have involved me ending up in the hospital. I can only take it from guys I’ve spoken with, how good it is. Supposedly it makes you bionic. It strips down any muscle you’re not using, and any fat you have is used as energy. Your arms waste away, your legs become lean; the muscles you do use become all muscle, no fat."
Pretty similar to what Millar says. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html
My thoughts….Isn't the thing about Kenacort that not only does it reduce body fat it also preserves glycogen thus enhancing performance which is what you would want for an endurance sport? Along with the possible PED advantages it also aids with recovery, reducing any inflamations a rider may have? Should pre-emptive use of a Corticosteroid be allowed? Ethically I don’t think its correct.
Looks to me like it’s not really safe to say that Wiggins’ injection of kenacort was nothing noteworthy. Its been used as a PED since the 1960’s. I also accept there are other medical studies showing no performance enhancement. So its quite contradictory and in my opinion based on the history of the usage of the drug, the fact that Team Sky doctors wouldn’t allow Wiggin’s doctor to order a fourth TUE by changing the password on the Adams system, by the lack of medical records kept by Sky, make it in my opinion noteworthy.
I’m familiar with millar’s rocket fuel quote. I’ve also conducted a lot of placebo controlled trials. If it is administered intramuscular then the absorption is very slow and the levels remain low compared with oral dosing.
Wiggins use was on-label for an approved medicine at the approved regimen with a documented medical history. I don’t have a problem with that.
for salbutamol, athletes must undergo a reversibility test to show that the have airway obstruction. Exercise induced asthma is a legitimate indication and salbutamol only restores normal function. It’s pretty hard to bronchodilate healthy volunteers. I spent years trying!
Salb can be a PED if ingested at chronic levels though TiRed or do you think otherwise?
I've seen 4 studies which, if I've understood correctly, indicate that chronic uptake can increase maximal aerobic power:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16195983
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16687481
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22230921
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/09/albuterol-salbutamol-doping-works.html
The research looks legit to me.....what are your thoughts?
As for it's use for asthma in athletes I've obviously no issue there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122
So who has read it all yet?
Team Sky have taken the unprecedented step of releasing a cache of data to BBC Sport detailing Chris Froome's diet, power output and heart-rate from the Briton's victory in May's Giro d'Italia.
Thanks for the link...
But you can keep the sarcasm....there's no need for it.
The other riders who also requested Kenacort for PED reasons behind false TUE’s were also on label for an approved drug. They’ve since confirmed their usage and how they played the TUE system.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Geert Leinders, the Sky doctor in 2011 and 2012, who was banned for life in 2015 for doping violations.
“Rasmussen – who was thrown off the Tour de France in 2007 because of disparities in the information he gave over his whereabouts for out-of-competition testing – claimed that Leinders assisted him with blood transfusions during the 2004 and 2005 Tours de France and the 2007 Giro d’Italia, that Leinders wrote false medical certificates to enable him to use cortisone”
Just seems strange, that a drug used as a PED since the 1960’s, used by a doctor in professional cycling as a PED, one who gave out false TUEs, who worked at Sky during the years in question, a rider who injected it, but then said he never had injections, whose team had a no needle policy. A TUE which was used as preventative, using a drug that is not the best or most appropriate for the condition, was used. By a team who didn’t keep any medical records of who was given the treatment, what amounts they were given or how often.
When I read things like this it makes me think, hmmm, maybe something fishy went on with Wiggins’ TUE as well....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/westra-admits-using-tues-for-performance-enhancement/
Anyone follow the Anti Cycle Cycle Club on Insta or FB, if not you are missing out on some very witty/sarcastic posts.
But you can keep the sarcasm….there’s no need for it.
Sarcasm? Who's post was that in?
To paraphrase Paracelsus, the dose makes the poison. Those studies look well controlled. But oral doses of 12000 micrograms per day will give you a lot more adrenergic drive than 1600 much/day, which is the maximum allowed daily dose of salbutamol
Yea it can be performance enhancing. But there is a reason why we go to all the trouble of developing inhaled drugs. Patients would really much rather take tablets, but topical inhaled drugs like salbutamol and inhaled steroids keep lung pharmacology high and systemic pharmacology low.
Cheers TiRed - nice to have someone around who can be objective.
Not sure who Paracelsus is, was that the Jiffybag courier? (Ah, well I thought it was amusing!)
Reading the BBC Link from MikeWSmith makes great reading. The numbers, in terms of watts and duration are awesome. Planned timing and power 45 mins at 350 watts, 45 mins at 250 watts, recovering for an hour at 200 watts, followed by just over an hour at 400 watts, Froome managed 407 watts for the climb. Just seeing how organised the team is in terms of energy expenditure versus energy consumed is really interesting.
16 mins averaging 603 watts - wow. Makes my 1 min effort look incredibly feeble!! (Note to self, must try harder!)
Not read the full document yet, but will do this evening. Just shows he is a machine, and as the article says, a perfect match between intelligence and athletic ambition.
Back to Froome and the Salbutamol, some really interesting quotes from Dr Jeroen Swart yesterday, which I fully agree with....
"So my take on the Froome issue. This has been brewing for some time. 1) There is limited evidence for Salbutamol being on the list in the first place. Other more pressing substances aren’t on it. 2) The thresholds were based on very limited research. This is WADA’s mess."
"It just took someone who had the finances and means to challenge the regulations on Salbutamol and they’ve been found wanting."
"My opinion: Take Salbutamol off the list. You get more bang for your buck out of a cup of coffee. Then put Tramadol on it. And prohibit Corticosteroids at all times. Hopefully some changes soon."
That's a good read but I've yet to listen to the podcast or read any other analysis. You have to me impressed by Sky's planning.
The only thing I'd call out at this stage is the "Beta Fuel" & it's claims of being ground-breaking. It seems somewhat hyperbolic. The Glucose/Fructose science has been out for over a decade to start with.
Anyway, thoughts are:
SIS at 500ml has 80g of carbs.
Torq for example has 30g of carbs at 500ml.
They are both isotonic, though I can't find out anything on SIS & how you mix it.....so I'm stumped by that a bit.
Exercising at the kind of intensity on Finestre would require about 60-90g per hour. So, either you have 1 bottle of SIS or 2 bottles of Torq - with the bottle being 750ml. It would appear that the SIS would be really quite syrupy so you might need another source for hydration.
So the only difference I can see is it's more concentrated & then secondly how have they managed it & kept the drink isotonic?Or is it balanced out by having a second source for hydration?
Any new research out there?
Just to say that this thread has been most illuminating, thanks to those who have been able to explain the science around the testing, the drugs and protocols. Its much appreciated. Having an acquaintance who was subject to a ban brought about poor testing/contamination I have been aware that those who we rely on to police the sport can and do make mistakes.
Teadious point scoring from me. Perhaps there would be a little less suspicions about from if he was not on a Murdoch sponsored team.
16 mins averaging 603 watts – wow
It's 16 seconds. If he was reporting that power output for 16 minutes, you would definitely be stripping his bike down to look for a motor.
14 Go gels? That's an effective weight loss plan... Wouldn't want to ride behind anyone consuming that amount
Any new research out there?
Cycling Weekly from last week (28th June edition) has a whole article about nutrition science and how new research in "the understanding of carbohydrate uptake" has lead to new products, higher carbs per hour uptake etc.
It's actually quite an interesting piece, seems well researched.
Context is everything with the data. As Michael Hutchinson points out, without being able to compare this to other riders, it's difficult to draw overall conclusions. Probably in an ideal world we should be logging everyone in the race and continuously analysing the results to spot odd patterns. That doesn't sound completely unfeasible, based on current technology, and it might be more effective than retrospectively trying to catch cheats by looking for drugs.