Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Leroy42

robyntmorton wrote: »

That right there is their problem. If they maintain their massive campaign of "We didn't break the rules. He didn't break the rules" then if/when he is found to have broken the rules, they will have no choice but to toss him, or admit the whiter than white don't cross the line philosophy is total bull****, and that could collapse the team outright.

They have already started to deal with that. This is being sold as not really breaking the rules, simply an oversight etc etc.

The rules are wrong anyway, he was only helping his asthma etc.

Therefore no need to fire him. He didn't take any PED for SKY will argue that they are abiding by the rules they created.

Macy0161

Well one things for sure, Froome's own talk, rather than action, when the Wiggins TUE's was being exposed is definitely in a new light now. He was talking the talk, and many wondered why he didn't just walk away from Sky...

DKmac

Two things.
1. Sky could have provisionally banned Froome with the hope of this being wrapped up before the end of the winter months. This would allow for them to backdate any potential ban to the start date of the provisionally self imposed ban. Now because they didn't do this, if he's banned it will be from the date of the verdict not the offence. So potentially even if he receives a short ban say 4 months its looking like he'll miss the Giro whereas if they had took a self-imposed provisional ban he'd be back in time.
2. If Froome is asthmatic and is determined he never went above the correct dosage but his body metabolises Salbutamol at a different rate then why in all his other tests did he not trigger an AAF? Why only this time?

fishfoodie

DKmac wrote: »

Two things.
1. Sky could have provisionally banned Froome with the hope of this being wrapped up before the end of the winter months. This would allow for them to backdate any potential ban to the start date of the provisionally self imposed ban. Now because they didn't do this, if he's banned it will be from the date of the verdict not the offence. So potentially even if he receives a short ban say 4 months its looking like he'll miss the Giro whereas if they had took a self-imposed provisional ban he'd be back in time.
2. If Froome is asthmatic and is determined he never went above the correct dosage but his body metabolises Salbutamol at a different rate then why in all his other tests did he not trigger an AAF? Why only this time?

Froome & Sky probably thought/hoped, that Cookson would be re-elected, & the whole thing would just be swept under the rug; & who is surprised at that; when even when Cookson wasn't re-elected, the UCI failed to take any action or make the AAF public ?

Kaisr Sose

DKmac wrote: »

Two things.
1. Sky could have provisionally banned Froome with the hope of this being wrapped up before the end of the winter months. This would allow for them to backdate any potential ban to the start date of the provisionally self imposed ban. Now because they didn't do this, if he's banned it will be from the date of the verdict not the offence. So potentially even if he receives a short ban say 4 months its looking like he'll miss the Giro whereas if they had took a self-imposed provisional ban he'd be back in time.
2. If Froome is asthmatic and is determined he never went above the correct dosage but his body metabolises Salbutamol at a different rate then why in all his other tests did he not trigger an AAF? Why only this time?

I concur with your second point. This metabolic anomaly should have popped up before. I don’t think the metabolic excuse will stand the test of time or close scrutiny here!

Is a ban not backdated to the last date of competition? In marginal gains land, if there is one, they will certainly try to have it imposed as such.

1bryan

fishfoodie wrote: »

Froome & Sky probably thought/hoped, that Cookson would be re-elected, & the whole thing would just be swept under the rug; & who is surprised at that; when even when Cookson wasn't re-elected, the UCI failed to take any action or make the AAF public ?

the UCI have clarified the procedure around this. For an AAF there is no obligation on them to make it public until the person has had a chance to defend themselves.

Which kind of sucks. It's inconsistent with the case when someone fails a dope test on their A sample. In that case it is made public. I know they're different things, but principally it's the same.

Macy0161

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is a ban not backdated to the last date of competition? In marginal gains land, if there is one, they will certainly try to have it imposed as such.

Ban is from date original sanction or provisional suspension.

Date from original sanction (which he then appealed) is how Contador was back so quick, albeit with loss of results from test date.

Provisional suspension was used by Ulissi and Ale Jet, and more recently Yates - the sanction is effectively back dated to when they were pulled from racing.

Sky/ Froome are going in all or nothing.

DirkVoodoo

There are loads of really interesting papers on salbutamol excretion profiles by oral and inhalant delivery. I suggest people read a couple of the abstracts and let their paranoid minds wander (as I have done):

Data on pharmacokinetics of inhaled and oral salbutamol in elite athletes with asthma are needed to differentiate between therapeutic use and doping in doping control. An interventional open-label crossover. Respiratory Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg. Eight elite athletes with asthma and 10 nonasthmatic subjects aged 18 to 33 years. Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days. Urine concentration of free salbutamol. Maximum urine concentrations peaked in the period of 0 to 4 hours after the administration of inhaled and oral salbutamol in both groups. Median concentrations after inhaled salbutamol and oral salbutamol were 401.6 and 2108.1 ng/mL in healthy subjects and 334.9 and 2975.2 ng/mL in elite athletes with asthma. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups. One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL. We found no significant difference in pharmacokinetic profile of inhaled and oral salbutamol between elite athletes with asthma and nonasthmatic subjects. Our results indicate that urine salbutamol concentrations should be corrected for urine specific gravity when evaluating doping cases

The Pharmacokinetic Profile of Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol in Elite Athletes With Asthma and Nonasthmatic Subjects. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221886286_The_Pharmacokinetic_Profile_of_Inhaled_and_Oral_Salbutamol_in_Elite_Athletes_With_Asthma_and_Nonasthmatic_Subjects [accessed Dec 19 2017].

There is another one that said no test subjects exceeded 1400 ng/mL when inhaling according to their regimen, only through oral ingestion.

This whole "missing the mark by 100%" is extremely hard to understand if it was an inhalant and he was below the prescribed daily threshold.

I've no doubt the sky defense will be: mutant.

As someone who was in and out of Harcourt street from the age of 4, puffing on nebulisers and carrying around ventolin and becotide every day, I find it bizarre that another life long sufferer only became so visible about his condition after 2011. No mention in his book, right? That would probably be my opening chapter: sitting on the sidelines of every gym class.

Macy0161

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I've no doubt the sky defense will be: mutant.

High Altitude Native

DirkVoodoo

Macy0161 wrote: »

High Altitude Native

I also think the "Mr Burns" defense might be something to look at:

1bryan

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

.
I've no doubt the sky defense will be: mutant.

:D:D

MPFGLB

Interesting

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938

pelevin

Greg LeMond has weighed in on the issue.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-chris-froome-broke-the-rules-and-should-be-punished/

'"The fallacy that salbutamol does not improve performance is only true if you use it as prescribed. Taken orally or by injection it acts as an anabolic steroid, similar to clenbuterol, the drug that Alberto Contador was positive for," said LeMond.

"It’s the athlete’s responsibility for following the rules. As for the use of salbutamol, it’s up to Chris Froome to be responsible for what he puts into his body. He alone is responsible. The peloton relies on the equal application of the rules. If these are not followed, it undermines the sport."

It has been suggested that Froome will argue that he took three puffs of his inhaler just before providing his sample to anti-doping after stage 18 of the Vuelta.

"Give me a break," LeMond said in blunt riposte.

"That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. If this is what he claims, then it’s simple, he broke the rules and should be punished accordingly."

"You have to look at Froome’s AAF in context of everything around Team Sky. The comments from Shane Sutton, admitting that the team would push things right to the limit, the lost records, the jiffy bag," LeMond told The Times.

"I don’t believe in Dave Brailsford. He’s secretive, he skirts around questions, and from what I read and hear, the team is not as scientific and as knowledgeable as they claim to be."

"It pains me to hear Brailsford and the team dismiss real science as pseudoscience, always a red flag as far as I am concerned. As history has shown, when things are too good to be true, they usually are."'

MPFGLB

Greg Le Mond....he certainly tells it as it is ...and one of the few Tour winners that was clean in my opinion

Leroy42

We are very lucky as a sport to have people like Greg LeMond.

The sport really doesn't deserve him

Kaisr Sose

MPFGLB wrote: »

Greg Le Mond....he certainly tells it as it is ...and one of the few Tour winners that was clean in my opinion

When it comes to the truth, there is only one way to tell it!

If it wasn't Le Mond saying those things it'd be great but still what he says is spot on.

The only reason I'm glad he hasn't been banned yet is so I can ready my popcorn for the defence

Lusk_Doyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it wasn't Le Mond saying those things it'd be great

???

Lumen

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

???

From what I recall his past utterances on doping haven't been very well informed, technically.

TheBlaaMan

The storm clouds are certainly gathering....the more riders that speak out about Froome, the less tenable the situation becomes for him

If it depends on Mathieu van der Poel, we will not see Chris Froome in the cycling peloton for a while. "Cycling is a sport for healthy people", says Van der Poel in the Dutch program EenVandaag.

Van der Poel: "It's a positive test". Mathieu van der Poel has his own opinion about the positive test. "What they should do with Froome? Suspensions", Van der Poel replied a while ago in the Dutch program EenVandaag.

"For me, that's just a positive test: if you have 2,000 nanograms of salbutamol per milliliter of urine instead of the permissible 1,000 nanograms, I do not think there's anything to talk about."


Newly minted Australian time trial champion Rohan Dennis (BMC) has offered his perspective on the Chris Froome salbutamol saga, saying he would have handled the situation differently had he been in Froome’s shoes.

“I’ve got a zero tolerance for any sort of positive test, and that goes for myself,” Dennis said after winning his third-straight national time trial title. “If I accidentally or purposefully take something — which I never would purposefully take something — then you just have to own it and accept that you get a slap on the wrist and try to move on and try not to make a mistake again.”

Dennis, who was likely to race against Froome at the 2018 Giro d’Italia, said he would have handled the situation differently to Froome.

“I don’t know the full details but I think for myself, if that was me, I’d just say ‘Look, I screwed up. I shouldn’t have done this’, or what not, if that is the case [that Froome made a mistake]”.

terrydel

The depressing thought for me here is that this will take the OJ Simpson route, everyone knows hes guilty but he will use money to create any ounce of doubt possible and get away with it more or less. Sky will be lawyering and doctoring up now just looking for any scenario that might show a possibility of doubt over the deliberate nature of this, and applying that to Froome. And it will probably succeed.

Keeks

terrydel wrote: »

everyone knows hes guilty but he will use money to create any ounce of doubt possible and get away with it more or less.

Do you ever get that DejaVu feeling.....

Raymzor

terrydel wrote: »

The depressing thought for me here is that this will take the OJ Simpson route, everyone knows hes guilty but he will use money to create any ounce of doubt possible and get away with it more or less. Sky will be lawyering and doctoring up now just looking for any scenario that might show a possibility of doubt over the deliberate nature of this, and applying that to Froome. And it will probably succeed.

Well said. Also Sky will drag this out for as long as possible while their Star gets to perform! WADA May step in if UCI don’t deal with it. Sounds like “StrongArming” the situation!

MPFGLB

If SKY dont suspend Froome from races until this is sorted then we all know what their grasp on reality is...not unlike a certain Texan

harringtonp

I can't understand why Froome didn't take a voluntary suspension as soon as he knew and then while suspended explain away.

As others have said he solely is responsible for what goes into his body. Too much went in so the thing to do (from his innocent perspective) is man up and accept your suspension while at the same time iterating that it was a genuine mistake.

If it was a genuine error this is the obvious course of action. And if he was deliberately and knowingly working the system this is still the best course of action.

Raymzor

harringtonp wrote: »

I can't understand why Froome didn't take a voluntary suspension as soon as he knew and then while suspended explain away.

As others have said he solely is responsible for what goes into his body. Too much went in so the thing to do (from his innocent perspective) is man up and accept your suspension while at the same time iterating that it was a genuine mistake.

If it was a genuine error this is the obvious course of action. And if he was deliberately and knowingly working the system this is still the best course of action.

I don’t disagree-but SKY AKA Sir/ Saint Brailsford will have been orchestrating responses as per Froome interview for sports star of the year awards.

koutoubia

harringtonp wrote: »

I can't understand why Froome didn't take a voluntary suspension as soon as he knew and then while suspended explain away.

Listening to The Cycling Podcast the other day and they were a but bemused by this as well.
One of them even went to interview THe Froomes in the days before the story broke and they were acting as if everything was as normal.
2 & 2 was not getting 4.
For an English based podcast they are getting very critical of SKY!
SKY's win at all costs is becoming detrimental to the sport.

The tax man

Listened to that podcast a few days ago. Hard not to put my foot through the dashboard of the car knowing now what Richard and Orla didn't know when they interviewed the pair. I'd said they'd love to be even more critical than they have been. Have to laugh at the amount of people blocked by Froome on Twitter.
Surely Chris is too busy training to be bothered with social media matters, better leave that stuff to his, possibly over-controlling manager.:cool:

kevingonewest

People are calling this and it is just too early. It is too early to call just because the science is obscure enough to allow for the possibility of extraordinary conditions effecting retention of Salbutamol beyond the limit set so far in the sport. As mentioned in an earlier post a GAA player casually managed 1900ng and it is worth noting how he achieved this with no intent to cheat and no advantage gained greater than expected for an asthmatic feeling perked up by keen/desperate inhaler use.

El Caballo

kevingonewest wrote: »

People are calling this and it is just too early. It is too early to call just because the science is obscure enough to allow for the possibility of extraordinary conditions effecting retention of Salbutamol beyond the limit set so far in the sport. As mentioned in an earlier post a GAA player casually managed 1900ng and it is worth noting how he achieved this with no intent to cheat and no advantage gained greater than expected for an asthmatic feeling perked up by keen/desperate inhaler use.

Aidan O'Mahony testified to having taken 20 puffs of the inhaler in 24 hours, that is not casual. At the time of the test, The WADA lab that found his adverse readings was handling over 10,000 samples a year and had never seen anything above the threshold of 1000ng/ml. Even if O'Mahony didn't realise it, his results and testimony show clear abuse of Salbutamol and cannot be associated with casual usage. His results were high because he took so much, not because of a physiological quirk where his body retained Salbutamol.