Comparing this to an anecdotal story from women's handball is silly so I'll ignore that part. He didn't prove he can legally go above that limit. What Sky proved is that 6 hour stages do things to the body that make it very difficult to determine the amount of medication used previously and nitpicking this in order to attempt to prove someone to be a cheater is asinine.

What the UCI and ASO have managed to accomplish is that this TdF is going to be a shit show.

As much as I hate Froome, this ain’t on him...

---

Dan Mayberry
Amateur a lot of things, professional a few things.

Blood levels such as?...

Maybe that something is then something you don't know... Which renders your judgement about how much of an advantage it might be to abuse Salbutamol?

]

So other riders cyclists which were caught with less, but did receive bans just hired the wrong experts or didn't have enough money to hire good experts to prove their innocence? He uses the medication routinely, and often in 6 hour stages, and often in 3 week tours. It seems odd that it only happened once, or that he only tested once which such an elevated level. I wonder if they proved that the elevated level was caused by a normal dose, or if they raised enough doubt that it might have been caused by a normal dose but couldn't actually prove it in this case. It's usually fairly easy to have a scientist say: "Well, in exceptional cases, it could be possible that..." and then couple that with the fact that cycling 3 week races at the highest level is exceptional and you raise enough doubt to have the case dropped.

But if Froome gets a clearance for high levels of salbutamol, shouldn't the legally allowed level be raised then? Or dropped at all?

What you and a lot of people here are missing is that:

1 - salbutamol isn’t illegal
2 - there is no ‘legal level’ - there is a threshold, above which you need to show why.

This is exactly why potential AAFs are supposed to be confidential. So keyboard warriors such as people here don’t embark on witch hunts.

As slowman rightly pointed out m, it’s the leak that is the scandal not Froome.

---

I ride:
Cervelo - P-Series/R3
GT - Sensor Carbon Expert

Supporters - Flo Cycling, Mount Bikes

not according to this guy

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/expert-froome-case-shows-system-unequal_471254

Ça sent la merde.

Uhhh...of course a better defense and better experts is helpful. Are you being sarcastic?

I'm not sure why i am repeating this but here it goes. There are very credible studies suggesting the current testing threshold is too low due to potential individual level variance. Secondly, there was some suggestions that if the equipment was calibrated differently it would drop his sample concentration very close to the legal limit ( i have read that could account for 400 ng/ml). Add these two variables together and you cannot conclusively state that he took too much. Also, though the legal limit was around 1000 ng/ml, the supposed actual limit was around 200-300 ng/ml higher to allow for error. Lets theorize that Frooms 2000 ng/ml initial sample is adjusted with a new machine, now you are around 1600 ng/ml, that is 400-300 ng/ml over the actual limit. Now consider the body of evidence which calls into question the actual test and you have a very difficult case to deal with.

I work in medicine, but had the chance to work in analytical chemistry for a few years, primarily GC-MS. Knowing what is in a sample is not really that hard. Knowing the exact concentration is a completely different task. Calibration and upkeep of the equipment is paramount. Talking with biochemists who study metabolism, individual level variation and excretion rates are very hard to nail down.

Well not anymore. Now there's a threshold above which you don't need to show why. Only Ulissi and Petacchi had to show why. Because Italian sprinters and puncheurs have "common circumstances." And wealthy British GC superstars have "unique circumstances."

I love Slowman. He's an athlete advocate. The sport needs people like him, who believe in the processes, people, and institutions. But it also needs skeptics. Because history has shown in pro cycling that skepticism is frequently rewarded.

Sergio Henao has been in and out of trouble because of his blood values. Sky commissioned research by a pet professor to explain them away. Looks like the same technique: Bury the authorities in questionable research that other teams or athletes could not afford.

I was a part of a study where they tested salbutamol while I was doing Vo2 max cycling workouts, sometimes I was given placebo, sometimes the allowed dose, and sometimes many times the allowed dose. In my case there was no performance enhancing effect at all, and afaik the study was in the end inconclusive.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Haters gonna hate.


That response to drug issues is really getting tiring. It is such an intellectually lazy way to defend something but so typical in todays headline environment.

I doubt I have ever heard of a corrupter decision than this one.
The UCI said that they wouldn't sort out his case before the Tour. The ASO ban him from starting, then 1 day later the UCI find him innocent, so that he can start.


I'm just trying to figure out if the UCI is more or less corrupt than the IOC.

Salbutamol isn't illegal


This was an investigation about a adverse finding of a controlled substance not a positive for a banned substance.


If you take salbutamol while yiu have a specific type of asthma your lungs open to normal, if that... Taking extra puffs when yiur lungs are already open won't give you any extra lungs. That's why it's not illegal. That's also why the double high levels was weird and being investigated in private. It seems they are interested in (the safety of) what the riders are taking or told to take. The investigation leaked for sensation by a journalist.


It's rare to see someone with such skill in twisting in such contortions to defend someone.


I have to score a 9.5 / 10.

You might want to read this.

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.”

---

----------------------------
Need more W/CdA.

Thanks for posting.

I found the part where he said Froome’s case is not unusual to be the most interesting part.

In other words he’s had similar cases to deal with l, they just weren’t leaked. Again as Slowman said, the leak is the scandal, not Froome.

---

I ride:
Cervelo - P-Series/R3
GT - Sensor Carbon Expert

Supporters - Flo Cycling, Mount Bikes

Like I said, it's easy to find scientists who are not so sure and willing to state 'but', 'if' etc. Too bad for Petacchi and Ulissi that they couldn't come up with that. And if what you write is all true, shouldn't they raise the limit considerably? And were other samples tested the same day with the same machines and protocol with the same calibration? Was a B-sample tested with a different machine? Calibrated differently? What was the outcome from that? Were other samples also tested with the same other machine?

He had an infection too? What was his treatment for his infection? Froome really is amazing, the guy was ill and had severe breathing problems, yet he still managed to win the Vuelta!
Much like Wiggins, poor guy was at death's door when he won the Tour!

First, do not quote me saying this, but rather Dr Oliver Rabin.
Second, you speak like those questions were not asked by WADA specialists to Froome, which is certainly not the case.

---

----------------------------
Need more W/CdA.

are the norms used from hydrated individuals and need to adjusted to get less aaf's?
or are the norms used from peloton populations post event - but have a large acceptable variance?

Would it be possible to compare hydration on the day with urine samples from other stages?

ETA - urine probaly doesnt show hydration levels - but perhaps if dehydration was a factor- then other blood values like hematocrit or would be raised that day too?

I hope he likes golden showers.

---

29 years and counting

Having always maintained his innocence...(has any athlete ever not done that before they were caught?)


The British star, as we now know, has been able to satisfy the UCI and WADA (if you think that's difficult, ask the Russian Olympians)


that the one adverse sample he returned during that race, when he was tested almost every day (hmmm, where have we heard that before (*cough*Lance*cough)


was an anomaly...(it's like a miracle)


Given that we are talking about cycling, and about a dominant rider, and the fact that such a high percentage of riders are suddenly "asthmatic", and given the history of how past riders have tested, it is almost unfathomable that anyone actually believes Froome is clean.

It seems every year we go through the same exercise with so many claiming that this time the best rider and the sport is clean only to be "shocked" a little later. Then, after the collective short term memories fade, and after the UCI publicly claims they have been reborn, it all happens over again.


Maybe this time it will be different.

That's some pretty serious gymnastic around semantic bullshit you're doing

https://www.wada-ama.org/...imes/beta-2-agonists

Salbutamol IS prohibited at all times, except in specific situations (inhaled under a certain concentration) and the definition of AAF clearly refers to prohibited substances.
You work for Sky or what?

I've been watching cycling long enough that I'm rarely surprised by doping scandals, but personally my view is:

1) I watch sport to be inspired and feel good. That makes me intrinsically optimistic and inclined to give riders the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. If I assumed everybody was cheating then I probably wouldn't watch the sport, and there were times in the 90s and 00s when I did lose a fair bit of interest
2) Speaking of optimism, I do think there's reason to think that the benefits of doping have been reduced enough by the controls now in place that we're seeing a more level playing field. I'm sure it's not clean, but it's maybe more akin to what we had before the days of EPO and blood transfusions, when doping was going on but the benefits were small enough that clean riders could still win. We're seeing riders speak out more against doping. We haven't had a big scandal in a while - when was the last GT winner to be banned/stripped? Can't think of one since Contador. OK that wasn't that long ago, but compared to the 90s and 00s when practically every leading name seemed to be embroiled in a scandal. And the stuff that people are getting pinged for seems to be more grey zone and marginal benefits doping than the big EPO/transfusion/HGH we were seeing in the past - asthma treatments, questionable TUEs, etc.

I totally understand people having the view that cycling (or professional sport) is fundamentally dirty, and I'm probably naïve. But I think I'd rather have my naïve, glass half full approach and be regularly disappointed, than give in completely to cynicism and scepticism about a sport I love.