Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

magicbastarder

so basically WADA are unable to impose any limits on controlled (but not banned) substances as if it's legal to take them in controlled quantities, and they can't impose penalties based on outcomes (which is the standard way of testing), the only option open would be to test based on inputs? which is a farcical suggestion.

CramCycle

Or simply ban it, most medical professionals agree (AFIAIK, I could be wrong) that if you are sick enough to need Salbutamol for Asthma, you are not fit to ride a bike.

matban

Team Sky have just released all of Froome's Giro data - BBC Sport
I understand very little of the contents of this.

I'm sure there are plenty of experts on this forum that can interpret it though.

Could be interesting.

Lumen

loyatemu wrote: »

but that's basically what the guy on the Off the Ball interview above said... WADA have stated that someone who excretes X amount of the substance has benefited from the performance enhancing effects. Sky challenged them to stand over this and they couldn't - the amount excreted is just too variable; and they may not be able to stand over this methodology for a bunch of other tests too.

You're confusing the justification for banning it with the efficacy of the test.

It doesn't matter whether WADA can prove whether it's performance enhancing or not. The test is unambiguous and reliable. Athletes must pass the test. Or not, apparently.

Leroy42

But what is the point of the test if the results can mean anything? Froome failed the test, but apparently that doesn't mean he doped.

So why even say he failed the test, with the accepted wisdom being that means you doped, if it really doesn't mean that?

It puts Froome under an unfair looking glass, tainted Sky's reputation, caused the UCI to look ineffective (which can they do perfectly well on their own) and now called into question the entire drug testing regime.

Do they test from whether you cornflakes or weetabix? no because the results don't indicate anything at all and its pointless.

Macy0161

Well WADA are holding the line that the test is valid, and it was the explanation presented that was the basis for not treating it as doping.

Sky aren't going to release the data they put forward.

I would say Froome was already under the looking glass, and Sky have done more than enough to taint their own reputation.

crazy_kenny

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/england/pdf/froome_stage19.pdf

Very low average heartrate overall for such an epic ride.

Grassey

Now you too can fuel like froome

https://www.scienceinsport.com/beta

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

Or simply ban it, most medical professionals agree (AFIAIK, I could be wrong) that if you are sick enough to need Salbutamol for Asthma, you are not fit to ride a bike.

Not true, most believe that salbutamol can be used pre ride as a prevention for exercise induced asthma/

Haven't met a medic who believes it should be banned either in or out of competition.

NeedMoreGears

Somewhat confused at this stage. As I understand it

1 - There's this test that measures the concentration of a particular substance

2 - There's a reference level below which there is no deemed performance benefit. Therefore nothing to see here.

3 - Above the reference level there may have been a performance benefit. Better have a good excuse there boyo

So far so good - what happened next?

Did Sky prove the reference level was unreliable or did they have a "good excuse"?

Is there no way an unambiguous pass/fail limit can be determined in the case of salbutamol?

Inquitus

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Somewhat confused at this stage. As I understand it

1 - There's this test that measures the concentration of a particular substance

2 - There's a reference level below which there is no deemed performance benefit. Therefore nothing to see here.

3 - Above the reference level there may have been a performance benefit. Better have a good excuse there boyo

So far so good - what happened next?

Did Sky prove the reference level was unreliable or did they have a "good excuse"?

Is there no way an unambiguous pass/fail limit can be determined in the case of salbutamol?

The restriction is on your intake, this is restricted to 1,600 micrograms in 24 hours. The test is on the urine output with a result greater than 1,000ng/ml considered to mean you have put into your system more than the 1,600 micrograms. The issue is between the input and the output is the complex dynamics of how your body processes what has been input. Sky have submitted evidence to say that you can put in 1,600 micrograms and still get out more than the permissable 1,000ng/ml in urine.

The issue with any test like this is it is not an exact science, you are trying to assume the complex dynamics of the body processing the drug to arrive an output limit that implies the input limit has been breached. Obviously there are a multitude of variables in the process, individuals physiologies are all different, dehydration may be a factor, illness may impact etc. etc.

So in effect Sky have succeeded in casting doubt on this testing process, or the 1,600 microgram maximum intake guide given, and hence Froome has been cleared by WADA.

Lumen

Inquitus wrote: »

The restriction is on your intake

Citation please.

RobFowl

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Did Sky prove the reference level was unreliable or did they have a "good excuse"?

Is there no way an unambiguous pass/fail limit can be determined in the case of salbutamol?

Sky proved that the reference level WADA set had so little actual proof to back it up it could not be relied on.

They also used a theoretical model to cast doubt on the accuracy of it when applied to Froome in the middle of a GT.
They also proved that it was not possible to do an accurate controlled pharmackoinetic study.

All in all they showed there was enough doubt about the actual test and limits used that they could not be relied on.
They did not explain (and did not have to given the above) how CF got to such a high level.

Inquitus

Lumen wrote: »

Citation please.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists

Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours*;

*The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL is not consistent with 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 a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.

terrydel

check_six wrote: »

So what he's saying is that Froome and Sky have destroyed WADA's ability to ever take anyone to task over a failed test ever again?

That's... just... terrific.

As if they weren't unlikeable enough already this is just another twist of the knife.

More knighthoods all round for a sterling service to world sport, I suppose?

This from the team that promoted itself to the f**king hilt as zero tolerance.
Anyone who cycles around wearing that jersey is a monumental twat imho and should pull it up over their head in shame.

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

Well WADA are holding the line that the test is valid, and it was the explanation presented that was the basis for not treating it as doping.

Sky aren't going to release the data they put forward.

I would say Froome was already under the looking glass, and Sky have done more than enough to taint their own reputation.

So basically they folded and rolled over when challenged.

Leroy42

terrydel wrote: »

So basically they folded and rolled over when challenged.

Well, when presented with the evidence they had to agree. It has nothing to do with rolling over. Either the test if a true test of doping or it isn't.

It appears, from the earlier post, that Sky were able to show that it could not be relied upon as a true test and as such Froome can't be found to have failed it.

It is like the radar gun for speeding. If one can show that there is the possibility of variation across different units and during the course of the day, then unless the Gardai can show that at that exact time they can prove the reliability of the reading then the weight of evidence on the accusers means that you would get off.

Doesn't mean you were, or were not, speeding though. But what it does do is call into question ever other time the unit is used and the Gardai will have to come up with a calibration process to prove the reading at any given point in time. That or get new units which don't suffer the issue.

Keeks

RobFowl wrote: »

They did not explain (and did not have to given the above) how CF got to such a high level.

I think this is a very important point and why there will always be a cloud over Chris Froomes achievements.....

magicbastarder

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is like the radar gun for speeding. If one can show that there is the possibility of variation across different units and during the course of the day, then unless the Gardai can show that at that exact time they can prove the reliability of the reading then the weight of evidence on the accusers means that you would get off.

there's a difference. there's no question marks over the reliability of the test - this is not about whether the equipment is reliable. the outcome is known; what is not known - and not measured - is the input.
this is more like a defence of 'well, i *was* going that speed, but i didn't know i was because my speedo was inaccurate'. which we all know in driving is not a valid defence.

anyway, the test was not about how much was ingested, but how much was present - and i can't see why there's not a 'you enjoyed an unfair advantage, or enough of a doubt to strip you of the title without imposing a further penalty' option.

which is crucial - even if you accept sky's defence that he did not intake over the limit, he was still able to enjoy a possible unfair advantage based on the concentrations of the drug in his system.

matban

Keeks wrote: »

I think this is a very important point and why there will always be a cloud over Chris Froomes achievements.....

Clouds for some.

Clouds over Anquetil, Merckx,
Minor issues for Hinault, Indurain

All considered greats regardless, a lot of double standarding

Any cloud over Froome today is a major improvement from the hurricane over him after Giro Stage 19.

Inquitus

matban wrote: »

Clouds for some.

Clouds over Anquetil, Merckx,
Minor issues for Hinault, Indurain

All considered greats regardless, a lot of double standarding

Any cloud over Froome today is a major improvement from the hurricane over him after Giro Stage 19.

Let be honest, if Froome is cheating it's not with Salbutamol. The most likely occurrence here is he took within the allowed dose, and came out with an AAF due to the circumstances of his physiology on the day he took it, along with dehydration, not what all the Sky bashers want to hear and it won't stop being another stick to beat him with, but this isn't much of a story.

I firmly believe that team wide conspiracies, like some think has been going on for many years at Sky, cannot and will not stay hidden through the fullness of time, so I am sure in a decade, one way or the other we'll know whether they cheated or not, in the meantime "Keep Calm and Carry On!"

Borderfox

What does Grigory Rodchenkov have to say on the matter?

Weepsie

Inquitus wrote: »

Let be honest, if Froome is cheating it's not with Salbutamol. The most likely occurrence here is he took within the allowed dose, and came out with an AAF due to the circumstances of his physiology on the day he took it, along with dehydration, not what all the Sky bashers want to hear and it won't stop being another stick to beat him with, but this isn't much of a story.

I firmly believe that team wide conspiracies, like some think has been going on for many years at Sky, cannot and will not stay hidden through the fullness of time, so I am sure in a decade, one way or the other we'll know whether they cheated or not, in the meantime "Keep Calm and Carry On!"

If there's something so unique about his physiology, he would be getting pinged for it a lot more.

They set a precedent with other riders for the exact same thing and banned them.

Plus he was struggling in such a way the previous day, that it really is hard to fathom how he so comfortably got away from everyone while suffering from severe asthma and being so severely dehydrated. It doesn't stack up. If he was that I'll he should've been clinging on at the most

osarusan

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is like the radar gun for speeding. If one can show that there is the possibility of variation across different units and during the course of the day, then unless the Gardai can show that at that exact time they can prove the reliability of the reading then the weight of evidence on the accusers means that you would get off.

Doesn't mean you were, or were not, speeding though. But what it does do is call into question ever other time the unit is used and the Gardai will have to come up with a calibration process to prove the reading at any given point in time. That or get new units which don't suffer the issue.

I don't think it is like that really. There is no suggestion that the test reading is false or unreliable - that the levels detected in Froome's sample were wrong.

The issue (as I understand it) lies in the connection between permitted excretion limits and ingestion limits. The idea is that the limit for excretion is set at a level where it can't be exceeded without the limit for ingestion having also been exceeded - the only way there could be possibly that much Salbutamol in Froome's piss is if he had inhaled more than he was permitted to.

Sky's argument was that given the conditions that existed when the sample was taken - dehydration, another illness, repeated Salbutamol use during the previous stages of the tour - theoretically it might just be possible to excrete that much without having inhaled beyond the limit... and furthermore that Sky can't really be asked to turn that theory into practice without basically recreating the all conditions that existed at the end of stage 18 of the Vuelta, which was just not practical.


That is my understanding of it anyway - open to correction.

Lusk_Doyle

Leroy42 wrote: »

It...tainted Sky's reputation...

Ha ha ha. How do you taint the already tainted any further?

Lusk_Doyle

Regarding the other recent bans for the riders caught. Was there an admission of guilt by those riders?

Inquitus

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Regarding the other recent bans for the riders caught. Was there an admission of guilt by those riders?

It doesn't seem so, no. Pettachi went to CAS and lost - http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/may08/may06news2

CantGetNoSleep

matban wrote: »

Clouds for some.

Clouds over Anquetil, Merckx,
Minor issues for Hinault, Indurain

All considered greats regardless, a lot of double standarding

Any cloud over Froome today is a major improvement from the hurricane over him after Giro Stage 19.

Froome is on a similar level as Lance to me

MPFGLB

So here is what Froome was eating at Giro and Sky's master plan to win the race

What I dont understand is how you can have such a calorie defecit during one of the hardest races ever , lose the weight and still be beyond excellent by the en do of the race

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Yates, Pinot & Chaves didnt manage to get it so precise and 'right' somehow

I am begining to believe Froome must be a very unique human ....

DanDublin1982

CramCycle wrote: »

Or simply ban it, most medical professionals agree (AFIAIK, I could be wrong) that if you are sick enough to need Salbutamol for Asthma, you are not fit to ride a bike.

Do you mean competitively/professionally? Cos I'd be much less fit if I didn't cycle my bike although I tend to need a puff or two of the inhaler per outing.