collapse


Drummer Boy

  • Classics Winner
  • Country: us
  • Posts: 2927
  • Liked: 3573
  • Awards: Post of the year 2015
Re: Chris Froome
« Reply #2760 on: July 03, 2018, 20:14 »
Have to say that's a pretty selective bit of cut and pasting, which neatly avoids the key conclusions, as laid out by Dr Rabin

It's a short article, and it's all there for anyone to easily read.
I wasn't trying to push an agenda, but merely highlighting points that seemed particularly unique to this interview.

The intact intro from Slater accurately conveys the tone of the piece.

I'm not a fan of Sky or Froome—no secret there. But I'm mostly just interested in following the unfolding narrative of all this.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1890
    • Liked: 1630
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2761 on: July 03, 2018, 22:07 »
    . . .


    https://twitter.com/WestemeyerSusan/status/1013714250211188737

     . . .


    The only problem is that Susan has said that before. At least a few times that I am aware of. This makes the 2nd time this year alone.
  • ReplyReply
  • . . .He had the bit between his teeth, and he loiked the taste, mate . . .

    pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1115
    • Liked: 663
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2762 on: July 03, 2018, 22:20 »
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

    Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2546
    • Liked: 3026
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2763 on: July 04, 2018, 09:08 »
    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations admits that the rules are flawed and "not fit for purpose".

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f?shareToken=9744f1f83b5e0c75b480e278402b2388

    Quote
    “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

    Worth reading if the Times pay wall doesn't block folks.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

    blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 2787
    • Liked: 97
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2764 on: July 04, 2018, 12:01 »
    ....from behind The Times paywall....

    "The Times wrote:

    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

    Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

    Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

    Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

    “I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

    “From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

    “If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

    Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

    Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment"

    ...hmmmm, looks like Petacchi may well get a very nice payday out of this.....

    ...so the story so far, WADA and the UCI have soiled themselves, and pro-cycling, in epic fashion and for good measure also did a face-plant in the, errr, muck..... and to add to the mess they have created they are likely going have to pay out mightily to what now seem to be some innocent injured parties.....

    ...cool....

    Cheers   
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 04:15 by blutto »

    froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2765 on: July 04, 2018, 12:37 »
    Chris Froome: Team Sky's unprecedented release of data reveals how British rider won Giro d'Italia

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

    I found this interesting reading, I dunno if other teams do this but the amount of attention to deal  :-x



  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1890
    • Liked: 1630
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2766 on: July 04, 2018, 13:59 »
    ....from behind The Times paywall....
     . . . 

    Thank you for the clip, Blutto. Appreciated. However, I notice two glaring, and disturbing, things about the Fitch statement.

    ....
    The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

    Ken Fitch  . . .

     were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years  . . .

     . . .
    Given events of the past 20 years, I should have to do no more than highlight IOC to bring attention to how much, or little, faith we can put in any statement from Fitch. I do say that partly with snark - so take it with a modicum of skepticism. After all, there is a high likelihood that someone on the IOC is honest, right?

    The second thing I note is the tone of the article and the quoted bits. It could be the reporter's fault, but some of that wording is very unscientific. I won't go into full discourse - it would be instant TLDR - but I'll point out the quote "a terrible blunder". No scientist worth his reputation would make such a statement. He oversaw, and presumable designed a study. In science-geek-speak, one might say the study was flawed, or that the study indicated further research was necessary, or the study only covered such-and-such a population, and shouldn't be taken to automatically cover a different population (i.e. swimmers vs cyclists). Or something like that. Like I said, it could be a context and communication thing. After all, the journo wants a readable article, one that the readership will want to look at. That doesn't always coincide with a dry and accurate recounting of a conversation. You know, all that "communication difficulties" stuff.

    All in all, though, a useful addition to the conversation. Also notable in the clip provided is the inclusion, near the end, of a dissenting scientific opinion. This is good - shows that the world of science is not entirely in agreement on the whole thing. And that is about what I would expect.

    Ultimately, this is reinforcing my thinking that the rules and protocols will tighten up as a result. And, as a result, WADA, the UCI, and anti-doping are going to come out of this better off. I think the IOC is still in the can, though.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1890
    • Liked: 1630
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2767 on: July 04, 2018, 15:49 »
    As an addition to the dialogue, here is more from Dr Rabin (the dissenting opinion in the foregoing). This from Matt Slater via Peter Cossins and Twitter.

    https://www.facebook.com/1481917892086163/posts/2094926427451970/
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 17:52 by M Gee, Reason: correction - wrong name provided - booboo »

    Flo

    • #1 Alberto Contador fangirl
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 8822
    • Liked: 4512
    • Awards: 2019 Worlds prediction champ2019 Giro prediction champNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2018KeithJamesMC award 2016Velorooms Trivia Monday Quiz Champion 2015/2016Dish of the Year 2015Member of the year 2015Fan of the year 20152015 Giro Quiz League - 3rd placeNational Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Fan of the year 2013Best fanboy/girl 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2768 on: July 04, 2018, 16:56 »



     Have to say that's a pretty selective bit of cut and pasting, which neatly avoids the key conclusions, as laid out by Dr Rabin.

    Quote
    “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.”
    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.



    "Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms"
    What is the proof for that? Just what Froome's team of lawyers tells us?

    "he was being treated for an infection"
    Ahh, a nice legal dose of corticosteroids as well

    "And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on"
    And this was different from others days how exactly??

    "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."
    Well, that's reassuring

    I still can't wrap my head around this. He is absolved simply because replication of the circumstances is improbable. Even though the odds of delivering a sample above the max limit while staying within the allowed dosage are slight. Isn't the onus of proof on the athlete in sports? What happened to guilty until proven innocent? Did Froome and his team try everything in their power to replicate the circumstances as best as they could in a pharmacokinetic study? I think not.

    Just burn the entire book of regulations already, if the rules apparently aren't going to be followed anyway.

    10$ says he has been in this position many times before which is why he was so confident he was going to get off.
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith
    RIP krebs

    Echoes

    • Road Captain
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 1430
    • Liked: 1669
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2769 on: July 04, 2018, 23:44 »
    Chris Froome: Team Sky's unprecedented release of data reveals how British rider won Giro d'Italia

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

    I found this interesting reading, I dunno if other teams do this but the amount of attention to deal  :-x


    Nice to see you back Froome19. :)
  • ReplyReply
  • "Paris-Roubaix is the biggest cycling race in the world, bigger than the Tour de France, bigger than any other bike race" (Sir Bradley Wiggins)

    AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6589
    • Liked: 4020
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2770 on: July 05, 2018, 02:01 »
    Good to see you back Froomey


    as to this - certainly no one ... not Froome, nor the UCI, nor WADA comes out of this well.  Perhaps the only happy people ... Ullissi and Petacchi    :D
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11692
    • Liked: 7563
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2771 on: July 05, 2018, 21:36 »
    Moderator Comment Since there's no point in giving a forum to the crazy wishes/threats made elsewhere, a couple of posts about that have been removed.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean

    pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1115
    • Liked: 663
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2772 on: July 06, 2018, 06:39 »
    Since there's no point in giving a forum to the crazy wishes/threats made elsewhere, a couple of posts about that have been removed.

    yup, sorry my fault :P
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 306
    • Liked: 306
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2773 on: July 06, 2018, 17:17 »



    "Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms"
    What is the proof for that? Just what Froome's team of lawyers tells us?

    "he was being treated for an infection"
    Ahh, a nice legal dose of corticosteroids as well

    "And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on"
    And this was different from others days how exactly??

    "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."
    Well, that's reassuring

    I still can't wrap my head around this. He is absolved simply because replication of the circumstances is improbable. Even though the odds of delivering a sample above the max limit while staying within the allowed dosage are slight. Isn't the onus of proof on the athlete in sports? What happened to guilty until proven innocent? Did Froome and his team try everything in their power to replicate the circumstances as best as they could in a pharmacokinetic study? I think not.

    Just burn the entire book of regulations already, if the rules apparently aren't going to be followed anyway.

    10$ says he has been in this position many times before which is why he was so confident he was going to get off.

    Yes, I feel your suffering, Flo.  Believe me, I have been there.

    As hellish painful as reading some (a lot?)  of my posts are, I am enjoying my moment when I can hear the four words Gore Vidal stated were the most beautiful in the English language.  I refer you to my post 2501.

    Them rules are only for following when they want to.  The shysters are still in control and Sir Dave Brasilford Michele and the Dawg know nothing has changed in the Admin of the sport since Lance was sending the UCI $100,000 cheques for something neither he or Verbruggen could remember what it was, let alone find a receipt.

    The leak did not come from Sky.  And it did not come from Cookson.  Brailsford, Michele and Froome knew where the leak was from and that is why Froome didn't back off like a scalded kid and go and sit in a corner whilst the grown-ups decided on his punishment.  He had been dealt the ace of the trump suit and was gauranteed to win the only trick that mattered - the last one.

    Again I am in awe of the way Cound and Froome have outplayed those around them with a deep respect born of a nearly fathomless cynicsm. 

    The test data is a smokescreen, something for people who love the sport to focus on.  Something for the inept administrators of the sport to point out and say - "we would love to, if only ................" 

    (Like hell they would !  If it wasn't "X" they would find "Y" to be an unfortunate but insurmountable obstacle.)

    I think Landis did damage the sport but I am loving his quote from his interview with Ewan MacKenna "There is nothing anyone can say or do to harm cycling because it is a giant pile of sh*t. You can't make it any worse so if they want to accuse me of harming something that has no value, they can f*** straight off.” 
  • ReplyReply

  • Claudio Cappuccino

    • National Champion
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 924
    • Liked: 789
    • Venga! Venga! Venga!
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2774 on: July 06, 2018, 18:13 »
    Yes, it is a cover up. The eventual truth will come out someday.

    Did anyone expect something different?

    This was a clear warning for Froome not to overdo his shenanigans.

    I hope he goes for the triple this year though. Just to pee everyone off, He is untouchable till that time.

    Too big to fall.

    WADA confirmed, the are known pussies.
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 2787
    • Liked: 97
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2775 on: July 07, 2018, 23:39 »
    ....file under I wish I had thought of this ( courtesy of poster Pantani_lives from a forum far far way...)....short,sweet,dead nuts on...what's not to like eh...

     Team Skybutamol

    Cheers
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 00:01 by blutto »

    Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2546
    • Liked: 3026
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2776 on: July 08, 2018, 10:30 »
     Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6589
    • Liked: 4020
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2777 on: July 08, 2018, 10:56 »
    sounds like their are 30 more guys who will have an action against WADA / UCI soon

    what a mess
  • ReplyReply

  • Claudio Cappuccino

    • National Champion
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 924
    • Liked: 789
    • Venga! Venga! Venga!
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2778 on: July 08, 2018, 11:35 »
    Yeah
    Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.
    We dont know those circumstances, as we dont know Froomey's. Pretty unusefull I might say.

    I bet Froomey and SKy will show how transparent they actually are and release everything concerning?
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2546
    • Liked: 3026
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2779 on: July 08, 2018, 12:19 »
    Yeah We dont know those circumstances, as we dont know Froomey's. Pretty unusefull I might say.

    I bet Froomey and SKy will show how transparent they actually are and release everything concerning?

      If nothing else, it serves to show that the decision far from unique, even if an individual's circumstances are unique.

    I'm pretty sure that if they did release everything, few opinions would change.

    Anyhow, further to that, the UCI issue a rather long press release on various things stemming from public questioning.

    http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 15:04 by Mellow Velo »

    t-72

    • Road Captain
    • Country: no
    • Posts: 1828
    • Liked: 3316
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2780 on: July 08, 2018, 19:53 »
    Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.

    I assume this is across all sports, ie....mostly swimming, then some xc skiing and some cycling too?
  • ReplyReply

  • Merckx Index

    • Sunday Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 39
    • Liked: 106
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2781 on: July 08, 2018, 21:31 »
    I assume this is across all sports, ie....mostly swimming, then some xc skiing and some cycling too?


    Yes. To add a little more, according to CN, who inquired, only eight athletes in that five year period were cleared of a salbutamol AAF. This means that 19 (27-8) of the cases that did not result in a sanction involved athletes with TUEs, whose cases would have been cleared before even notifying the athlete. So 30 athletes in that five year period—an average of 6 per year—were sanctioned, while 8, an average of 1-2 per year, were not. Thus about 80% (30/38) of salbutamol AAFs that do not involve a TUE are sanctioned. A very large majority of AAFS are sanctioned, not the roughly 50% that one would conclude not taking into account TUEs (which need to be excluded since in that case the athlete can exceed the limit).

    Some other important stats. In 2016, there were about 212,000 tests. Based on figures provided by researcher Ken Fitch, it appears that something like 5-8% of all athletes are (or claim to be) asthmatic, so roughly 10-15,000 tests were done on athletes who take salbutamol some of the time. Thus less than one in a thousand of those tests resulted in an AAF that did not involve a TUE.

    Exceeding the limit is clearly a very rare occurrence. Though WADA hasn't said so in so many words, the implication of clearing Froome, and at the same insisting that the rules don't have to be changed, is that most athletes, most of the time, don't take the full allowed amount of 800 ug within twelve hours. That has to be their argument for why so few AAFs occur, because otherwise (if athletes usually took all or close to the allowed 800 ug) the stats I've just provided would alone show how high wildly improbable Froome's AAF was. And in fact, this claim--that most of the time athletes don't take the full amount, and certainly he didn't most of the time--is the basis for Froome's defense. He's claiming that most of the time during the Vuelta (and throughout his previous career, for that matter) he was taking far less  than the allowed maximum. This is why his values prior to stage 18 were relatively low, only spiking on that stage.

    But even to spike that high is a very rare occurrence according to the literature. Froome's defense claims that this literature doesn't take into account the effect of intense efforts on salbutamol excretion (though studies have been done involving intense effort and dehydration, and still show that exceeding the limit is a very rare occurrence). Then apparently they used all of Froome's values, together with his reported amounts inhaled those days (having to trust his word, I assume, though it could definitely be in his interest to lie) to run a simulation model. They claim there was a fairly high % of events exceeding the limit when 800 ug were taken.

    Without seeing the data, it's impossible to evaluate, but simulation models are easy to manipulate, because relatively small changes in starting inputs can often have very large effects on outputs. Models of this kind should be validated by using them to predict values which are then compared with values in the literature, but this can't have been done here, since the literature clearly doesn't agree with the conclusions of the model. Again, they're assuming the conditions of a GT are different (or Froome himself is; to be fair, the literature looks at variation among subjects, but generally not within them), but it would be very hard to test this. You would need samples every day from GT riders taking salbutamol, and other than Froome, such data are very rare if existent at all.

    I have some other comments/criticisms that I've posted elsewhere and won't go into here. But one point I think should be emphasized, because the media haven't picked up on it. WADA said that Froome didn't have to provide a CPKS--a controlled lab study showing that his salbutamol level could be replicated--because the conditions of the Vuelta would be impossible to repeat. Among those conditions were mentioned illness and the use of certain other drugs. But UCI, in their statement, rejected those factors as irrelevant to Froome's case. So all WADA is left with is that riding in a GT can't be replicated in a lab. Therefore. any rider who exceeds the limit in a GT should be excused from the CPKS. That would be a very large proportion of the cases--both Petacchi and Ulissi, e.g.--and one could probably extend the same reasoning to one day races, since they're preceded by hard training.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 21:58 by Merckx Index »

    riding too slowly

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 306
    • Liked: 306
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2782 on: July 08, 2018, 22:04 »
    ...............................The leak did not come from Sky.  And it did not come from Cookson.  Brailsford, Michele and Froome knew where the leak was from and that is why Froome didn't back off like a scalded kid and go and sit in a corner whilst the grown-ups decided on his punishment.  He had been dealt the ace of the trump suit and was gauranteed to win the only trick that mattered - the last one. .....................................

    Loving it https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44752765   All the confidence of someone who knows he also can play that ace the Froome holds.

    As I said - Brasilford knows where the leak came from and he may well have someone who is willing to go on the record and state so, if push gets to shove...................
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11692
    • Liked: 7563
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2783 on: July 09, 2018, 08:39 »
    Exceeding the limit is clearly a very rare occurrence. Though WADA hasn't said so in so many words, the implication of clearing Froome, and at the same insisting that the rules don't have to be changed, is that most athletes, most of the time, don't take the full allowed amount of 800 ug within twelve hours. That has to be their argument for why so few AAFs occur, because otherwise (if athletes usually took all or close to the allowed 800 ug) the stats I've just provided would alone show how high wildly improbable Froome's AAF was. And in fact, this claim--that most of the time athletes don't take the full amount, and certainly he didn't most of the time--is the basis for Froome's defense. He's claiming that most of the time during the Vuelta (and throughout his previous career, for that matter) he was taking far less  than the allowed maximum. This is why his values prior to stage 18 were relatively low, only spiking on that stage.
    Indeed, they don't take the maximum allowed dose most of the time.
    The WADA limits are extremely generous compared to 'normal' use of any medication because you can then assume that going over the limit indicates unnormal use - otherwise known as abuse.
    E.g. the testosterone-epitestosterone ratio is (or was) allowed to go up to 5:1 in a sample before triggering a positive while the ratio in an unmedicated human is closer to 1:1.[1] That shows that in case of there being a limit you have to cross in order to trigger a positive, it's more of a case of limiting the use of that substance than of eliminating it altogether.

    I know that plenty of riders in the peloton use inhalers even though they don't have asthma - simply because it's not banned. And some may take salbutamol in other forms (nebuliser, pills, injections) because you cannot determine how the substance was administered, just how much of it there is.

    In my opinion, to use salbutamol, you should have to get a TUE on the basis of a neutral, third-party physician assessing you and confirming that you do indeed have asthma. And even then, you should have to stay below certain limits.
     1. not an expert on this, so the actual numbers may be a bit different
  • ReplyReply

  • Merckx Index

    • Sunday Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 39
    • Liked: 106
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2784 on: July 09, 2018, 16:26 »
    Indeed, they don't take the maximum allowed dose most of the time.
    The WADA limits are extremely generous compared to 'normal' use of any medication because you can then assume that going over the limit indicates unnormal use - otherwise known as abuse.

    WADA bends over backwards to accommodate athletes:

    1)   800 ug in twelve hours is more than an athlete who is well enough to compete should need (when Petacchi was sanctioned, he had a TUE, but it only allowed 600 ug)
    2)   1000 ng/ml is very rarely exceeded by someone taking 800 ug, even all at once and right before providing a urine sample, which should almost never happen in a race
    3)   the threshold of 1000 ng/ml is extended to 1200 ng/ml decision limit, to allow for the maximum amount of assay error or uncertainty
    4)   the urine level can be reduced by correcting for urine specific gravity, but only if the correction makes it less; if the correction makes it more (dilute urine), the athlete doesn’t have to use it
    5)   if an athlete thinks he will need more for an emergency, he can get a back-dated TUE (probably what Froome should have done, if he was as ill as he claims)
  • ReplyReply

  • Kiwirider

    • Neo Pro
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 242
    • Liked: 450
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2785 on: July 09, 2018, 20:26 »
    Reading all of this stuff over the past few days about the actual levels of the drug, etc made me think back to Katie Compton's comments earlier this year over at CN

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/compton-questions-chris-froomes-asthma-medication-claims/

    The relevant passage from her is:
    "In Bredene, I had an asthma attack. I used my inhaler four times before the race, and then I had an attack, so I used it three times post-race to get me back to where I needed to be," Compton told Cyclingnews. "That was a legit[imate] asthma attack. That still is underneath the legal limit of salbutamol."

    So, we have a situation where an athlete with well known really bad "normal" (ie., non-exercise induced) asthma - enough to sideline her for a couple of races for every season of her career - has two asthma attacks and takes a total of 7 puffs on her inhaler ... and stays under the limit.

    Yet we have another athlete who reportedly has exercise induced asthma ... who didn't have any specific asthma attack at the time in question (it has never been reported so ... and it surely would've been the ultimate defence - "your honour I had no choice as I couldn't breathe and was going to either be hospitalised or die"!) ...

    Yet said "healthier athlete" evidently takes a greater dose than said "unhealthier athlete" (who, if you remember, is actually having an asthma attack at the time that she medicates). In doing so, said "healthier athlete"  pushes the legal limits thanks to the higher actual level of salbutamol ingested than said "unhealthier athlete" (simple maths on dosage per puff for KFC's reported self treatment ...)

    Or am I missing something that someone here who has an actual medical background can enlighten me on? (Genuine question.)
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11692
    • Liked: 7563
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2786 on: July 09, 2018, 22:59 »
    Or am I missing something that someone here who has an actual medical background can enlighten me on? (Genuine question.)
    I don't have a medical background (unless you count my father being a nurse), but I will say this:
    There is the definite possibility that Froome did not inhale the salbutamol. :shh
  • ReplyReply

  • t-72

    • Road Captain
    • Country: no
    • Posts: 1828
    • Liked: 3316
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2787 on: July 09, 2018, 23:24 »
    .... And some may take salbutamol in other forms (nebuliser, pills, injections) because you cannot determine how the substance was administered, just how much of it there is....
    AFAIK and not an expert, but:
    Martin Johnsrud Sundby was convicted for using a nebulizer and for using an amount of salbutamol that would give him an uptake under the limit (there are losses with the nebulizer, not all of the fog is inhaled) but he was convicted for the gross amount of salbutamol used instead of the concentations measured.

    In other words, athletes probably can still use a nebulizer legally but then their uptake would be significantly less than the limit.

    The long list of legal-concentration samples vs the 1 presumed adverse analytical finding is the main problem here. It is quite contrived to explain it as if there was a special need to cheat on just that single day.

    Having said all that, there is a need across all sports to take a look at all the "breathing-helpers" being used by athletes these days. Today I saw both Geraint Thomas and Warren Barguil warming up with something (white pad of some kind) stuffed up their noses - I assume this is ammoniumr. If that's the case - the Russian football team uses it too, not to mention just about every weight lifting competitor. Should this really be allowed?   
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1890
    • Liked: 1630
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2788 on: July 10, 2018, 01:59 »
    . .  - I assume this is ammoniumr.  . . .


    Did you mean ammonium? I googled ammoniumr and got no results.

    You know, the "experts" have frequently been quoted as saying there is no performance benefit from salbutamol. Which, frankly, I do not believe, not even 10%. There is way too much doubt in my mind.

    Created, first, by the fact that it became widely recognized in the EPO era that some people "responded", and others did not. So, we have a variance in individual response. Secondly, this is a drug that helps asthmatics open their air passageways during an asthma attack. So, how is it possible that the drug - a chemical - only benefits back to the "normal" baseline? No, sorry, I can't swallow that. Going back to the first point, maybe it somehow affects some people by only bringing the situation back near somewhere "normal". But it simply makes sense that there are other people whom it would give a benefit to, and some people for whom it would not work particularly well. Normal range of human response.

    I do think Froome believes he's only "leveling the playing field". But I don't believe it. Not for a New York second. Fortunately, we are not talking about the sort of advantage that EPO or steroids can confer. As it is, I would probably have joined in the booing if I had been at the TdF team presentation. As rude as that was, I probably would have. I do think, though, that he is still beatable, even with the drug advantage.
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11692
    • Liked: 7563
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2789 on: July 10, 2018, 05:41 »
    I do think Froome believes he's only "leveling the playing field". But I don't believe it. Not for a New York second. Fortunately, we are not talking about the sort of advantage that EPO or steroids can confer.
    You're right, it's probably not on that level.

    But salbutamol, in high doses, is believed to work almost like an anabolic steroid, a.o. stripping every gram of extra fat you might have.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

    Recent Posts



    Top
    Back to top