You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Please put all your drug related posts here and let folk talk in the TDF thread about a bike race for once.
Thank you.
Well it appears it will be up to the ASO as Sky are not going to withdraw and for unknown (to me) reasons the legal process may not be resolved in time.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Maybe they will just work out which option is likely to make the most money for them,. They are a commercial organisation, after all.
Could be interesting ion the courtrooms for sure.
Possibly more interesting than the race...
A bit of perspective needed on this topic, I think.
This isn't EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc.
He spent a considerable time in the leaders jersey during the Vuelta, every day of which he was tested. And he 'failed' that test one day only. Now, given the alleged advantages of the overuse of Salbutamol, it makes little sense that he would be abusing it during a 3 week race at all, let alone for one day only.
From what we know, it is in no way comparable to the systematic and casual doping we have seen in the past. We don't yet know if this is anything more than an inaccuracy in the test (it has already been re-calibrated to some degree) or a god's honest mistake.
Absolutely, it should be investigated. And if found guilty, he should be punished. But I think he has every right to continue racing until found guilty.
His 1 day of Salbutamol abuse will not give him any performance advantage in either the Giro, or the TdF.
If he is found guilty, he will serve his ban in due course. I don't see how that makes a mockery out of anything.
Not a banned substance so probably yes to race.
i think that if it hadn’t been leaked by the press this would have stayed between the team and UCI until a decision made which means there’s could be others riding with a similar unusual reading. (Not sure if this is 100% fact or not).
No, he shouldn't ride.
Not because I think he's guilty but because he's very much in a grey area & Sky have way too many clouds hanging over them currently. It would be better for the sport if he didn't,
Yes, he is entitled to ride but morally I think he's making a bad choice & one he may come to regret (i'm very much with the author of the second link on this).
Salbutamol isn't just useful as a puffer. If ingested or taken by IV it can act in a similar way to an anabolic steroid. There's a reason why he'e being investigated:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada
That is the problem. If the justification for not inviting him is to occupy the moral high ground and see that justice is done, then anyone else undergoing non-public enquiries needs to be "invited to withdraw" as well. The damnest scenario would be for them to not invite Froome/Sky and for it to later emerge that there were other riders in similar situations riding in the race. That would confirm to the sceptics that all ASO, UCI etc care about is appearances.
I am miles away from being an insider in this business - does anyone have an idea as to how confidential these investigations are? Would people at ASO have a fair idea of who might be under investigation? Would there be a back-channel of some kind?
Yes - if he's cleared but doesn't race the TDF then whoever does go on to win it will always appear to have won it by default.
Am I right in thinking that we only know about this because of a leak? If so, how many other riders at the Giro were racing while being investigated? How many at the Tour?
If we're going to stop people riding ahead of a clear result, let's make it the same for everyone.
From my perspective he has not got this high reading by taking an inhaler - its nebulised of injected or taken by tablet. the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it
~so for me no - he should not be racing
cycling is far too soft on dopers.
I hear Sky have presented their evidence of around 1500 pages so far. Sounds like it will either be a quick or very slow process to resolve it and could have a serious implication on the Urine test and it's validity.
I don't think he should have been racing, but it should have been resolved by now if only for the credibility of the sport.
Please put all your drug related posts here and let folk talk in the TDF thread about a bike race for once.
Thank you.
Who made you the Boss?
As is No, he shouldn't enter ANY race until the paperwork has been sorted and he's proven innocent.
Is that OK Boss?
I don't think he should ride, but the problem is the shit system. He's failed a drugs test and as far as we know hasn't proved anything to the contrary yet.
It's a massive thing though so the UCI should be setting much more strict deadlines to get sky's information. But it seems like sky can just dawdle until the authorities go away.....
Anything other than sulbutamol, (because of how WADA treat it) we wouldn't be here. But the UCI rules say he can race and he (and Sky) clearly want to. So, that's that really
Whether it's "moral" is just opinion. He may come to regret the decision to race, but he's clearly free to do so.
Just to add something, it wasn't leaked BY the press, it was leaked TO the press. We only know about Froome's AAF because of the leak to the press. If anyone is ever cleared of an AAF then we wouldn't know about it as these are and should always be confidential.
Personally I think the investigation into how this was leaked to the Press is more pertinent than whether he should race or not. My view is that he should be allowed to race until (or if) he gets banned. If he is cleared then he misses out on the opportunity to win another TDF, not just on having the win but all of the benefits that come with winning (financial mainly).
Innocent until proven guilty. All that said, I don't like it, its rubbish for the sport. I don't trust the team or the principles. But that is just my personal view of the team, and to be fair, of most teams. My dislike of the team (actually mainly Sir DB) shouldn't cloud the fact that as of yet he hasn't been found guilty of anything and there is a process to go through.
My understanding is the normal way AAF's are handled is completely private without media and public knowledge until the verdict gets handed down. The rider in question is allowed to carry on competing during the investigation and any sentence handed out as a result of the AAF is applied retrospectively.
The big problems with Froome's case are firstly he has not been afforded the same conditions as other riders in the way his case is being handled which in turn demonstrates that all AAF cases are not being investigated equally.
As a result of the public announcement to the AAF fellow riders and teams will naturally be resentful that he is still competing because it's Chris Froome, the top GC contender whose presence will cause other competitions to modify their approach to racing.
I hope whoever leaked the AAF result is no longer in their position as I think the leak has done far more damage than the offence itself, as a result we are now having to debate about morals and grey areas when the focus should be just about the result of the individual case.
Weather Froome himself should ride is down to him, morally he believes that he as done nothing wrong and therefore why should he stop competing when he is in his prime. If it is discovered that there was systematic abuse then the punishment should be adjusted to take into account his previous protestations as well.
I think he and team Sky should be able to ride in the same way all the other riders are able to when their AAF's are being tried, we cannot change the rules half way through the process. I would be more than happy to see a rider suspension for any AAF moving forward, I just care about all cases being treated equally.
Who made you the Boss?
It seems to be a common feeling that those of us who want to talk about the racing don't want to have to wade through 2 pages of entrenched doping views that are a cut and paste from the previous 10 threads on the topic.
. He’s failed a drugs test and as far as we know hasn’t proved anything to the contrary yet.
Not to play technicalities but it's an adverse finding. If it was a failed test he would have been banned. the evidence/plan as I understand it is that the test is not reliable - hence why he was fine for every day except one as the body holds and releases at rates that do not relate to the pattern of use.
It’s a massive thing though so the UCI should be setting much more strict deadlines to get sky’s information. But it seems like sky can just dawdle until the authorities go away…..
In the post Giro interview he said it was under way, the discussions and case were ongoing but it's confidential, given it was a leak that got the news out it's probably been watched a lot more closely and the UCI are following their rules.
I just love stuff like this;
So yeah, crack on for me. The French already dislike him, so there could be plenty of fun and games 🤗👍
But hopefully less of the wee throwing 🧀🏳🐒
Everything butcher said, above, times a gazillion.
It pains me to see how 'controversial' this has all become, when the idea that Froome was 'cheating' in this instance simply makes no sense at all.
As I've said before, it is not like we are talking about anything anywhere near the bad old days of industrial-strength doping.
Let the guy race. I, for one, will cheer him on.
the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it
I believe the re-calibrated level based on urine concentration is now 1,429nl/ml
As is No, he shouldn’t enter ANY race until the paperwork has been sorted and he’s proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent eh? There’s an idea that could catch on...
i think he he should do what anyone else with an outstanding AAF would do. You know, the ones that are kept confidential.
For clarification:
”
Adverse analytical finding
The LADS receive an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF, in other words, a prohibited substance was detected in a sample) from the CADF.
On the basis of an examination of a potential breach by the CADF, the LADS informs the rider, his or her National Federation, the NADO of his or her country and WADA of the advent of an abnormal result. If the substance discovered is "non-specified" (as opposed to "specified" substances – it is unlikely that the presence of "non-specified" substances can be explained by a credible reason not linked to doping), the rider is provisionally suspended (although this does not insinuate prior proof of guilt). The provisional suspension is reported on UCI’s website. The UCI Management is informed at the same time. Not only is it useful to make a provisional suspension public, but an appropriate communication in this situation contributes to the UCI’s transparency in the subject of anti-doping.
At this stage, the rider may request the LADS to order the opening of the B sample. If this confirms the AAF of the A sample, or if the rider dispenses with this option, the LADS request the rider to explain why the sample has returned an AAF.
In all cases, the LADS then consult the external legal counsel without revealing the rider's identity. Two situations are then possible:
• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that there is cause to open disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the rider is informed of the applicable sanction. If the rider accepts the sanction, the LADS informs the UCI Management as well as the external legal counsel (which is then informed of the rider’s name). If the rider rejects the sanction communicated by the LADS, the case is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that the case should not be pursued. In this case, no disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. The UCI, NADO, National Federation and WADA are informed accordingly.”
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/
It would appear that it’s unclear whether AAF’s should be kept confidential as it only mentions suspensions..
Saxon - twice the very high threshold? There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO. Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.
given what we know about team sky and its gaming of TUEs ( at the very most benign interpretation) I think its a certaintly he cheated and there is a frantic cover up going on. Remeber he has high potency steroids on a TUE before previous wins and so did Wiggins.
Saxon – twice the very high threshold? There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO. Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.
TJ
What you understanding on the update and release of the drug from the body for different athletes and the effectiveness of a urine test to relate to the uptake vs the total concentration, would you agree that if the body does not excrete it via urine at the rate it takes it in then the test may be called into question.
mike - that is correct which is why the threshold is set at such a high level. a level that normal inhalor use would never get close to is my understanding.
so Froome exceeding the level by such a large amount shows he did not get that reading by using an inhalor.
so Froome exceeding the level by such a large amount shows
Something...we will find out when the results are made public, without all of the other information it's speculation.
Saxon – twice the very high threshold? There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO. Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.
I appreciate you were probably typing this when I posted the re-calibrated levels above, but that just goes to show how unclear it is, when the original test was so far off the mark, failing to take into account something very simple. But the general public have already made up their minds.
Transparency is a great thing, but it's understandable why these cases are normally kept confidential.
Who made you the Boss?
Nobody. That's why I asked. If I was the Boss I would have said folk had to stop jamming up threads that other people were enjoying. It's not like anything new has surfaced since the Giro thread so why go ruining other peoples day?
There again I suppose I'm ruining your day by asking you not to do it.
Just out of curiosity, how many people have actually had to take Salbutamol at the kinds of dosages we are talking about.? As has been pointed out, it's unlikely that the dosages talked about were purely from inhaler usage, which leaves a nebuliser, injection, or tablets to get to those levels.
I had pretty severe asthma as a teenager and was hospitalised more than once and put on high dosages of ventolin(salbutamol) as well as having tablets kept at the nurses office in school and at home.
Having had to take the kinds of dosages in question I can say that performing at any level, let alone those required to win a grand tour stage are very unlikely. Any (minimal) performance benefits are completely overwhelmed by the side-effects.. I would get dizzy, limbs would be very shaky, to the point I couldn't write and walking was something that took concentration (assuming I was in any fit state to walk at all!)
I can't for a minute imagine why any athlete would essentially overdose this drug for any reason. As far as I have read it's only real performance related use is to aid in muscle tone and weight loss and that's something you would do at low levels over an extended training camp type situation..
Therefore, given that this one a one day spike in a raft of daily tests, I am inclined to believe that something else is going on, either an issue with the test or something else physiological with Froome himself.
Just my thoughts..
Innocent until proven guilty
Sorry, he's returned an AAF twice the permitted maximum. He's guilty until he can prove himself innocent. That's how the system works.
And if people would open their eyes and see how the cycling profession reacting to him 'doing a Landis' then you'll maybe wake the **** up. This is NOT NORMAL.
Name the last person to win three consequtcon GTs. Name someone who has done it four times.
Froome is hiding in plain sight and trolling us to boot.
Yes he should race.
If he doesn't, then no one else with current AAF should either. Why should other teams benefit from the leak of a confidential process? Far too open to abuse that way.
Name the last person to win three consequtcon GTs. Name someone who has done it four times.
Berhard Hinault.. Eddy Merckx
Not refuting your opinions but I don't really think claiming that anyone who does something that's never been done before is an obvious sign of cheating.. That kind of invalidates pretty much all sporting achievement throughout human history not mention pisses all over everyone's Strava PB's.!
There again I suppose I’m ruining your day by asking you not to do it.
Don't give yourself any credit, barely scratched the surface of any ruining my day.
And if people would open their eyes and see how the cycling profession reacting to him ‘doing a Landis’ then you’ll maybe wake the **** up. This is NOT NORMAL.
Do you mean one off the cuff comment from George Bennet that didn't make any suggestion of doping?
There has been lots made about Froome's ride on the Finestre in the Giro, and it was quite incredible to watch. And I'll be honest, it raises an eyebrow when compared to his performance in the first weeks (though his crashes alone can explain that). Do we remember Gilbert going from 50k out in the Tour of Flanders? That was quite possibly a bigger feat given the terrain, yet I never heard his performance questioned once. Froome put out pretty much the exact same power figures as Dumoulin on the Finestre. He's a few kilos lighter however, and naturally a better climber.
I think he should be racing but 2 things standout.
1. Who leaked it and why? What did they hope to get out of ir
2. Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.
Under the rules he is perfectly entitled to race the TDF if it is before his case comes to trail. Those talking about morally he shouldn’t ride because it is bad for cycling should be directing their anger at the UCI who allowed the leaking of the AAF in the first place . The UCI is supposed to be representing the sport and if they can’t adhere to their own rules then what does that say about cycling?
I don't think he should be racing. But I also think that if an athlete has an AAF then it should be made public anyway - to this end I think Froome has been unfairly treated. On Froomes test, it's twice the allowed limit and as mentioned, to have that quantity in your body would take more than just an inhaler. Does it point to something more sinister? I have no idea, but for the sake of the sport they should withhold the rider from competition until it's cleared.
I also don't get this TUE nonsense either - from my very simplistic way of looking at things, these riders need a TUE to allow them to take medication which in turn allows them to perform. On that basis, I'm fat and useless and therefore for me to be a pro rider I need a motor in my bike to allow me to keep up on the big climbs.
I think the evidence might involve physiological experiments to show the relationship between inhaler use, the state of the athlete (how exhausted/dehydrated etc) and the test result. That could involve quite a programme, and interpreting the results could involve quite a lot as well. If that is what Sky have been up to, it will have taken a while. Ideally the protocol for the testing should have been agreed with the authorities, who should have had the option to take part and observe (to minimise the opportunities to quibble about the test procedure etc.)* If that is what has been going on, I am not surprised it has been taking ages tbh.
*this is based on my experience of dealing with technical issues requiring tests to be carried out in civil dispute resolution, which may be the angle the parties' lawyers come at it from
I'm up for Froome being in but comparing one day race's to the big tours isn't realistic.
Do we remember Gilbert going from 50k out in the Tour of Flanders? That was quite possibly a bigger feat given the terrain
Gilbert himself is very clear on the difference.
Yes. He is not guilty (yet) and asking someone to stand down in the peak of their career whilst an overly long investigation takes place into something you vehemently deny is neither sensible or realistic.
Do we know how common AAF's are? Is Froome's case unusual, or do riders get them left right and centre.
From my perspective he has not got this high reading by taking an inhaler – its nebulised of injected or taken by tablet. the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it
~so for me no – he should not be racing
cycling is far too soft on dopers.
I think it's actually really hard on dopeing since the bad old days.
I'm inclined to think that Froome producing a sample with double the limit (which is high as you say) it's more likely the test isn't accurate. For Froome to be in the wrong he would have to be cheating, taking a huge dose of a drug with little performance benefits, and the Sky doctors would know about it which if they were cheating they would be doing everything possible to make sure he was under the limit.
Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.
It's not a straightforward failed test like it would be if he had taken testosterone, HGH, EPO etc. It's an adverse analytical finding because the substance isn't banned and is covered by a TUE. So the procedure is slightly different, if it was the former he wouldn't have continued the race, the latter he should be going through this anonymously but it was leaked. Sky's defense is that the test isn't an accurate way of determining how much of the drug he took.
I think he should be racing but 2 things standout.
1. Who leaked it and why? What did they hope to get out of ir
2. Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.
This was my thought, it's not Fancy Bears at it again is it?
Given there's contention over the benefits of salbutamol I can see why he should be allowed to start but there's always the chance of a retrospective ban...
Under the rules he is perfectly entitled to race the TDF if it is before his case comes to trail. Those talking about morally he shouldn’t ride because it is bad for cycling should be directing their anger at the UCI who allowed the leaking of the AAF in the first place . The UCI is supposed to be representing the sport and if they can’t adhere to their own rules then what does that say about cycling?
I thought the rules stated that once both the A and B sample had returned an AAF the default position was a suspension pending full investigation...
But that rule seems a bit heavy handed, especially where benefit is apparently harder to prove, it would make more sense to put the rider "on notice" that a an AAF is being investigated and that should they be found guilty, any results achieved since the sample's submission will be withdrawn and an appropriate ban/sanction imposed...
My only other speculative question is, could salbutamol be used as a masking agent for something else? But knowing nothing about medicine or metabolism I'm sure it's a stupid question...
It’s an adverse analytical finding because the substance isn’t banned and is covered by a TUE.
Agree with everything you say but my understanding was that Salbutamol doesn't require a TUE.
Hi Metalheart, At the moment he has returned an adverse analytical reading (both A & B samples). CF needs to prove that the reading is from the result of a therapeutic dose. The onus is on the athlete to prove why this was the case. By being innocent until proven guilty, I meant, he is innocent of cheating until it is proven either way (in a court of law which will be the case).
Like I mentioned, I'm not a fan, but at the same time he should be afforded the same rights as the other riders who may be in his position.
What happens legally if CF is banned, but is subsequently able to prove his innocence? Can you imagine the legal storm that would follow. Team Sky focus on the TDF, I would imagine it is one of the main reasons why Sky sponsor the team. How much revenue would team Sky lose if their main rider was banned but then found to be innocent? How much would Froome himself lose? Just wildly speculating, but I imagine the legal ramifications are one of the reasons why this is taking so long to be resolved. I imagine Team Sky are pretty strong in the lawyer department and quite possibly have more money than LADS to throw at the case. (This is worth a read, not saying it is the case for LADS/UCI - but you never know https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/41899478 )
It could transpire that the actual test itself is flawed, I believe this is an avenue Sky are looking at. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29722428 ) ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044066 )
At the end of the day, its rubbish for cycling. But this may well show that the test itself is wrong and other measures should be used.
how much of the over long investigation is team sky putting forward bullshit excuses?
My only other speculative question is, could salbutamol be used as a masking agent for something else? But knowing nothing about medicine or metabolism I’m sure it’s a stupid question…
Nothing I've read suggests that as a likely reason, I would have thought that having to have such a high level in your urine as to trigger a AAF in order to mask something worse would make it pretty useless in that role, not to mention that if it was a common masking agent then high levels would definitely raise suspicion of something more serious going on, no-one seems to be suggesting that as far as I'm aware.
I also think that if nothing else the fact that an AAF for an asthma drug is causing such consternation in the media is, in itself, a sign of progress in the sport given that 10 years ago it was EPO, CERA, HGH, athletes running around hotel corridors to stop the excess blood from stopping their hearts.. etc.
how much of the over long investigation is team sky putting forward bullshit excuses?
Well you will know when the report is released if they even put forward one but don't hold back there TJ
I thought the rules stated that once both the A and B sample had returned an AAF the default position was a suspension pending full investigation…
If there is a dispute then they can discuss it further to try and work out what has gone on.
Saxon – twice the very high threshold? There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO. Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.
Yeah, those who live in a black and white world.
As I understand it, the half life of the drug within the body varies depending on a whole load of factors. So if you take a high dose and it's not excreted fast enough then you will have a higher than expected value when tested. I'm not a doctor, but this seems entirely plausible to me.
And, it's not even a performance enhancing drug anyway. That's why it's a very long way from 'clear cheating' as you put it.
We don’t yet know if this is anything more than an inaccuracy in the test (it has already been re-calibrated to some degree) or a god’s honest mistake.
An adjustment was made to allow for possible dehydration and urine concentration, which gave a result of 1429ng/ml. That's still well over the limit, and as others have pointed out, the limit is already set at a generous level to avoid false positives.
I’m inclined to think that Froome producing a sample with double the limit (which is high as you say) it’s more likely the test isn’t accurate.
I'm inclined to think there are two possibilities: Froome's individual test was not executed correctly, or Froome has ingested a very large amount of Salbutamol. I don't think there has been any serious suggestion that the Salbutamol test itself is unreliable. The recent study that claimed to throw doubt on Salbutamol testing has itself been criticised for it's design and conclusions (the authors also believe that doping does not improve performance in elite athletes, and EPO doesn't work as a performance enhancer, claims which few people would take seriously).
The simple question, if Salbutamol testing is unreliable, is why we are not seeing lots of pro cyclists returning AAF results like Froome's, given that there are a lot of Salbutamol users in the peloton?
Should he ride or not? If the rules say he can ride, then it is pretty straightforward. I think Sky's lawyers submitting 1500 pages of evidence at this stage will mean there is no practical chance of actually getting through the process before the start of the TdF.
I’m inclined to think there are two possibilities: Froome’s individual test was not executed correctly, or Froome has ingested a very large amount of Salbutamol. I don’t think there has been any serious suggestion that the Salbutamol test itself is unreliable.
If that were the case would all this not have been resolved by now?
The simple question, if Salbutamol testing is unreliable, is why we are not seeing lots of pro cyclists returning AAF results like Froome’s, given that there are a lot of Salbutamol users in the peloton?
The AAF process is supposed to be held in private, riders who complete the process and do not receive a ban do not have the AAF on their record at all. The system working correctly means that we don't know about any AAF's that do not result in a ban other than Froome's so we have no idea how many times riders have triggered an AAF for Salbutamol but been able to provide a valid defence, for all we know it could have happened a dozen times for other riders in the Vuelta but we only know about Froome's because it was leaked.
I thought it was understood that salbutomol in large doses was performance enhancing. Via inhalor it is not performance enhancing but in massive doses it can be.
Sky’s lawyers submitting 1500 pages of evidence at this stage will mean there is no practical chance of actually getting through the process before the start of the TdF.
I am sure that is both true and deliberate
cycling is far too soft on doping - all those TUEs for drugs that would normally only be used in cases of extreme illness that would have yo in hospital. cover ups and gaming of the system. It stinks and cycling has no credibility.
In this case I think they were using massive does of salbutomol intending to keep him just below the limit but got the dosage wrong so he went over.
I thought it was understood that salbutomol in large doses was performance enhancing.
Do you have a source for this.? Not disputing you but would be genuinely interested in reading any research that claims this.
"And, it’s not even a performance enhancing drug anyway. That’s why it’s a very long way from ‘clear cheating’ as you put it."
"Do you have a source for this.? Not disputing you but would be genuinely interested in reading any research that claims this."
From WADA themselves, it is if taken by IV or ingested:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada
From WADA themselves, it is if taken by IV or ingested:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada
/a>
From that article..
Speaking with Cyclist, the World Anti-Doping Agency explains that it places a maximum limit on salbutamol because it considers that the substance can, in certain cases, act as an anabolic agent that can increase muscle mass.
So if I am reading that right then in order to be used in a performance enhancing capacity it would likely be used over an extended period of time as part of a 'doped' training program rather than during a single day of a stage race.?
#Edit: Which is what I said earlier in the conversation. Apologies if I've read the article incorrectly.
Thats how I read it and thats what I think was done. Froome was using large ingested or nebulised dosages but intending to be under the limit and miscalculated
Inhalor dose is microgrammes ( and you don't get it all into your system and it mainly acts locally in the lungs), tablet dose milligrams
That's how I understand it.
It has the potential to act like an anabolic steroid if taken in large enough doses - i.e. it can add lean muscle & reduce fat. As you say: as part of a doping program.
That's why it's tested for - it's not just an innocent puffer!
Thats how I read it and thats what I think was done. Froome was using large ingested or nebulised dosages but intending to be under the limit and miscalculated
Ok. That's one perspective. I'm not sure I see the value in using a drug in that context i.e. to build muscle mass during an actual race rather than in training, every example of 'in race' doping that has become common knowledge concentrates on either reducing the stress on the body for a given level of performance or improving the bodies ability to perform on a specific occasion (i.e important mountain stage). I simply don't see the opportunity for the required recovery necessary to take advantage of the effects within a race.
Even given the 'increase muscle mass' aspects of overdosing Salbutamol, wouldn't that require a more training/recovery regime over an extended time rather than the body destroying efforts of a grand tour.? I am assuming here that the Salbutamol simply increases the bodies capacity to build lean muscle mass rather than it producing muscle mass on it's own that wouldn't otherwise exist..
Given the huge amount of resources and effort that must go into a grand tour, as well as the financial cost, surely sky must be 99% confident that they will overturn this if they are letting him race.
If he receives a back dated ban he'll most probably be stripped of the giro and the tour (if he wins), plus further tarnish sky's reputation, whilst at same time meaning the huge financial outlay they will have made to ride these events is wasted.
Im absolutely convinced he'll be cleared, even if only on a technicality... Sky may be a bit untrustworthy, but they aren't stupid.
My suspicion is that they messed up on the "glow time" for Salbutamol - that's assuming they have been doping obviously.
Massive conjecture but like I said - there's a reason they are looking at it & why in the past others have been banned on the back of AAF's for this drug with similar readings..
Froome has a chance via pharmokinteic (?) tests to clear himself, but that hasn't proved particularly successful in the past.
Froome has a chance via pharmokinteic (?) tests to clear himself, but that hasn’t proved particularly successful in the past.
My understanding is that they have ruled out this method of defense as they claim it would be impossible to accurately reproduce the circumstances of the AAF (i.e 3rd week of a grand tour, post incredibly hard mountain stage) in a laboratory and therefore the result would be meaningless in helping to prove their case.
My suspicion is that they messed up on the “glow time” for Salbutamol – that’s assuming they have been doping obviously.
I'm still not convinced that the published 'use case' for doping Salbutamol fits into a race doping scenario. In order to build lean muscle mass, you need the kind of recovery periods and lower intensity training regime that just don't exist in a race, let alone a Grand Tour..!? Am I misunderstanding how it works.?
I thought the traditional explanation for sudden spikes in 'training' drugs was via blood transfusions, i.e. fresh blood accidentally tainted with banned substance the night before a big stage. Or is that now a hopelessly out-of-date understanding of how people cheat?
Don’t give yourself any credit, barely scratched the surface of any ruining my day.
I'm sure of that. But you've got to admit this thread is a lot better without any of that bicycle racing getting in the way. 🙂
1) Should Froome be allowed to race etc etc
Yes, because the rules allow it and every athlete has the right to operate within the rules
2) Should the rules be changed ?
Quite possibly. If the accuracy of the test is upheld by CAS then perhaps anyone who exceeds it by as much as Froome did should be treated as a positive rather than an AAF.
3) Is the test accurate ?
Therin lies the rub. Not surprised that the quantity that ends up in your urine from inhaler use varies a lot, but is that handled by a large safety margin? And maybe Sky narrowed that margin by taking it by other means? What happens if poor inhaler technique means you swallow the residue ? And is nebuliser use really banned ?
Innocent until proven guilty is fundamental IMO.
WItchcraft style trials and justice has no place in a decent society.
If guilty, I'm all for a ban for life.
nebuliser use requires a TUE. If one of these asthmatic racers had a severe asthma attack it can be life threatening and a nebuliser should be given immediately and a TEU applied for which will be granted from the wada link above
13th thats how contador got caught. I doubt its much used now if at all but it could be the explanation. I doubt a pint or two of blood would be enough to give such a high reding even if it was full of the stuff
HIghlander - the dopers are always one step ahead of the testers. It could well have other effects such as improving recovery / healing microtears in muscle? Pure conjecture on my part- does steroid dosing not do this?
and to summarise the 2 pages so far...
Conclusion A
He's Doping
We don't know what for but it must have been something
We don't know what the increased level he had was for but it was helping him
He must have messed up his dosing one day during a 3 week tour
He is guilty of something
Conclusion B
He was taking a substance that was allowed
The amount in his urine spiked on that piss
Sky knew how much he had taken, when and how - where that sits within allowable limits etc. we don't know
They are presenting a case
Any other ones?
The test only showed how much was in his urine at that moment. The link between that value and how much he actually took is not definitive, is it?
The link between that value and how much he actually took is not definitive, is it?
Exactly the point, could people be under reporting at the same time?
this is why it's being done confidentially and scientifically rather than being decided on the internet who know the answers already
cycling is far too soft on doping – all those TUEs for drugs that would normally only be used in cases of extreme illness that would have yo in hospital. cover ups and gaming of the system. It stinks and cycling has no credibility.
Name one sport that's tougher. Like someone said above, the very fact that such a huge storm has kicked up over something we don't even know gave any advantage whatsoever, is testament to how far it has come.
In this case I think they were using massive does of salbutomol intending to keep him just below the limit but got the dosage wrong so he went over.
So, they were playing by the rules and unintentionally crossed the line by mistake? Perhaps there should be repercussions for that, after all it would be their own fault for playing so close to the line. But we need to keep perspective on what it is.
I agree that Sky are probably using every advantage they can. And that is a whole moral debate in itself. Though why wouldn't you? It's no different really to consuming caffeine gels or painkillers. It's a tough game, and you don't win it without taking every advantage you can get, and that's the way it will always be. The lines need to be clearly defined and the testing accurate. I actually think high profile cases like this are a vital part of improving the process for future generations.
I’m up for Froome being in but comparing one day race’s to the big tours isn’t realistic.
Completely different, I agree. But to turn up at one of the biggest one day races of the year - the one where a whole bunch of people have based their entire year around and arrived in tip-top condition - and to ride away from those guys from 50k out... That's impressive.
No molgrips not definative but indicative - but normal inhaler dosing cannot get anywhere near the levels he showed. thats the problem
Butcher - I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme and I agree cycling is cleaner than it was but the Wiggins and Froome steroid use shows huge loopholes that are being used and the Contador case shows its far from clean
Butcher – I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme
What would be the key differences between the 2 systems?
If that were the case would all this not have been resolved by now?
No, because you have to go through due process to try and determine the cause of the AAF. I expect that Sky will try to cast doubt on the testing process as a defence, because it will be very difficult to explain such a high reading if Froome has just been puffing legally on his inhaler. Cases like this, involving millions of pounds in sponsorship and major sporting events are never going to be resolved in a hurry.
As TJ points out above, tackling doping is an ongoing battle, and the latest doping techniques are not necessarily going to be public knowledge, so who knows how Salbutamol might be misused?
Butcher – I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme
Not convinced that the out of competition testing system in either Kenya or Jamaica - the superpowers of distance and sprinting respectively - is very effective
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/44312755
Yes.
To date, anything is an accusation and remains unresolved.
If the authorities in charge can't get their act together then he shouldn't be punished in the meantime.
Not convinced that the out of competition testing system in either Kenya or Jamaica – the superpowers of distance and sprinting respectively – is very effective
Yeah, wandering off the point of the topic a bit but was thinking similar.. A lot of the national federations in Athletics seem to be very lax in testing. Pretty sure I read somewhere a while ago that Usain Bolt went more than a complete season between out of competition tests.
As TJ points out above, tackling doping is an ongoing battle, and the latest doping techniques are not necessarily going to be public knowledge, so who knows how Salbutamol might be misused?
It's not like Salbutamol is something new though, it's been on the market 30+ years, I think the way it works is pretty well understood, independent studies and those done by the producer seem to concur that there is no performance benefit other than the aforementioned 'development of lean muscle mass'. Having said that if it's being used in combination with something new that isn't commonly known about then that is a different matter, possibly.
As has been said, we are all just discussing in a vacuum here as we don't have anything close to the full facts. Just about the only thing that is certain is that Froome isn't being fairly treated as this is being conducted in the public eye thanks to the leak rather than in private and that according to the rules as they currently stand, he is allowed to race. ASO are likely going to have a hard time stopping him as there is precedent with CAS overrulling them previously with Tom Boonen's cocaine ban.