Velominati Super Prestige

View Comments

• @Rick

  @wiscot

  https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/02/chris-froome-cleared-by-uci-in-anti-doping-investigation

  I just call BS on the whole thing. He was twice the legal limit and when it looked like Froome wouldn’t start the Tour, hey presto a decision is made that absolves him. Stinks as bad as Trump’s new tariff act.

  0

  I would be less cynical if the UCI and/or WADA had provided some sort of explanation for the positive test and why it did not constitute a violation.

  0

  I'm going to remain quietly optimistic that this will be provided, hopefully in some detail, as doubts will remain without it.

  But reading the WADA statement this morning they have basically admitted their test for this substance doesn't work. I.e. you can take the medicine within the permitted limit and can return a concentration in your urine over the threshold.

• @Rick

  Not usually a fan of Velonews but this is a good read: http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/expert-froome-case-shows-system-unequal_471254

  0

  There aren't any actual facts in that article though, are there? It's based on the assumption that the reason Froome has been cleared is that Sky have bought off the UCI and WADA by fair means or foul, not because they successfully proved he didn't exceed the maximum dose.

  It seems like whatever Froome does he gets piss thrown over him, metaphorically and literally.

• @RobSandy

  Here's the basis of the whole thing as I understand it......

  The WADA official limits are:

  >>>>

  • Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours;in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose;
  • Inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;
  • Inhaled salmeterol: maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours.

  The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 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.

  <<<<<

  Now the problem comes in any permissible substance as to how to correlate what is injested with what is then detected in the blood/urine.  My understanding (based on looking at this a few years ago) is that the urine levels were set by extrapolating Salbutamol use by Joe Blogs in the street and then making an assessment of how that would correlate to an athlete under stress and then adding a fudge factor for "safety" resulting in a theoretical boundary figure.  The limit is for any sport under WADA regulations and (as I understand it) has never been correlated with actual usage by athletes under extreme stress and dehydration.  Net the whole subject of permissible substances within limits is always going to be questionable when the limit is set for what can be injested but detection is set by a different method which will vary according to hydration levels.

  So in the Froome case he may well be sure that he did not injest over the maximum allowed and so they will have challenged the correlation and theoretical nature of the detection test boundary.

  A simple analogy is to look at the colour of your pee when you are normally hydrated and compare that with what you produce when dehydrated.  There is a huge variation and that will also vary further individual to individual.

• @Teocalli

  Bang on, and the problem is the rules/tests in this instance as it opens the possibility of an athlete who has not exceed the stated dose returning a test which is over the threshold, AND the possibility of an athlete who HAS exceeded the stated dose getting away with it.

  It seems a massive grey area, as with TUE's.

  Incidentally, you can get a TUE for asthma medication if you need to exceed the 1600mg/24 hour limits.

  Steve Cummings had one, as did one of the Yate's brothers. I'm sure no French riders are asthmatic though.

• @Teocalli

  I generally don't get my bib chamois in a wad over performance drug issues, I prefer to just enjoy watching the races.

  That said, I have a few comments, though not specific to Froome (not trying to crucify him, just a discussion).

  We (me and my science geek peers) put much less value on urine numbers than blood for the reasons you state.  Excretion rates, hydration, and metabolism are all varying factors.  However, I do think there is a reason why WADA has put an upper limit to some drugs, including salbutamol.  There is evidence that in higher concentrations it can enhance performance - maybe only a little, but, you know, "marginal gains" these days (yes, I've seen studies that show no benefits, too).  I don't think the threshold number was selected from casual inspection of the data, or Joe Blog.  Typically, when it's (any drug) considered an abuse level, it's set WAY higher than what you would normally expect from therapeutic use.  As far as hydration and athletes, there are many real-world tests (including Froome's history) that could give a good picture of what happens during intense effort and dehydration.  Not many results in pro cycling have been positive under these circumstances.

  If SKY's position is the lack of correlation between dose and urine quant, they should have followed the rules and had Froome demonstrate that with testing.  Surely they could simulate stress conditions and put him in a partially dehydrated state before the testing begins so that his pee comes out looking like honey or a Belgian tripel.

  [BTW, I'm a chemist by education and training and have worked in an analytical lab for the last 24 years.  I have tested thousands of blood and urine samples for all kinds of drugs, testified many, many times in court to interpreted the findings.  I currently manage the toxicology/drug testing department.  That doesn't make me an expert in salbutamol, but the chemistry (specifically pharmacokinetics) is similar to many other drugs I've studied. ]

• @MangoDave

  @Teocalli

  I generally don’t get my bib chamois in a wad over performance drug issues, I prefer to just enjoy watching the races.

  That said, I have a few comments, though not specific to Froome (not trying to crucify him, just a discussion).

  We (me and my science geek peers) put much less value on urine numbers than blood for the reasons you state. Excretion rates, hydration, and metabolism are all varying factors. However, I do think there is a reason why WADA has put an upper limit to some drugs, including salbutamol. There is evidence that in higher concentrations it can enhance performance – maybe only a little, but, you know, “marginal gains” these days (yes, I’ve seen studies that show no benefits, too). I don’t think the threshold number was selected from casual inspection of the data, or Joe Blog. Typically, when it’s (any drug) considered an abuse level, it’s set WAY higher than what you would normally expect from therapeutic use. As far as hydration and athletes, there are many real-world tests (including Froome’s history) that could give a good picture of what happens during intense effort and dehydration. Not many results in pro cycling have been positive under these circumstances.

  If SKY’s position is the lack of correlation between dose and urine quant, they should have followed the rules and had Froome demonstrate that with testing. Surely they could simulate stress conditions and put him in a partially dehydrated state before the testing begins so that his pee comes out looking like honey or a Belgian tripel.

  [BTW, I’m a chemist by education and training and have worked in an analytical lab for the last 24 years. I have tested thousands of blood and urine samples for all kinds of drugs, testified many, many times in court to interpreted the findings. I currently manage the toxicology/drug testing department. That doesn’t make me an expert in salbutamol, but the chemistry (specifically pharmacokinetics) is similar to many other drugs I’ve studied. ]

  0

  Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

  http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

  Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

• @Rick

  @MangoDave

  Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

  http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

  Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

  0

  I had not seen that article before you posted the link, thanks.  It starts by stating SKY won't be releasing details of the defense argument, so that alone means it will be difficult to be an armchair judge.

  A couple of things from the article got my attention:

  They cite a possibility of 10% uncertainty in the lab measurements.  This is a valid point for most drugs and quant methods.  But then they added 20% (to 1200) above the cutoff for the 'decision limit'.  I'm not sure why, exactly.

  According to The Times, the team argued that most scientific studies on the excretion of salbutamol have been done over a single day, not over nearly three weeks of intense competition, and they built a statistical model showing the chances of a false positive for someone who is regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently, as Froome was when leading the Vuelta from stage 3 to the finish.

  Just about any drug listed in the banned substances won't be studied in 'three weeks of intense competition' for research.  It's a statement that implies what, exactly?  In my opinion, you can't throw statements like that out there without proof that it changes the meaning of the results.  Otherwise it's just a red herring.  Also, It's not a false positive - it's really there, just more concentrated because of dehydration.

  Saying "..regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently.." means they have a history of what Froome's levels were under similar racing conditions.  That's probably the best info we can look at to address this point.  Were all of those other tests significantly different? We'll probably never know, except for the fact that he hasn't been flagged with an adverse finding with the other tests.

  I don't really want to write a rambling dissertation, I hope my couple of points were clear enough.  There are some good articles that discuss this topic, much better than I'm prepared to put together now.

  As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis' book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid.  When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury.  I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up.  That's not exactly apples to apples to Froome's case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

• The formatting changed when I posted the above. Note that the paragraph "According to The Times..." was copied as a direct quote from the cycling news article.

• @MangoDave

  @Rick

  @MangoDave

  As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis’ book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid. When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury. I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up. That’s not exactly apples to apples to Froome’s case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

  0

  I can see exactly what you're saying and I'm frustrated that the evidence that exonerated Froome is not clear cut.

  For what it's worth, I think Froome is telling the truth. I don't think he overdosed on his inhaler and at this time I don't think there is anything more suspicious going on. I'm just not convinced he/Sky have proved that, rather than just casting doubt on the whole testing process.

  It's unsatisfactory for everyone. And I still don't believe a word Brailsford says.

• @MangoDave

  @Rick

  @MangoDave

  Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

  http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

  Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

  0

  I had not seen that article before you posted the link, thanks. It starts by stating SKY won’t be releasing details of the defense argument, so that alone means it will be difficult to be an armchair judge.

  A couple of things from the article got my attention:

  They cite a possibility of 10% uncertainty in the lab measurements. This is a valid point for most drugs and quant methods. But then they added 20% (to 1200) above the cutoff for the ‘decision limit’. I’m not sure why, exactly.

  According to The Times, the team argued that most scientific studies on the excretion of salbutamol have been done over a single day, not over nearly three weeks of intense competition, and they built a statistical model showing the chances of a false positive for someone who is regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently, as Froome was when leading the Vuelta from stage 3 to the finish.

  Just about any drug listed in the banned substances won’t be studied in ‘three weeks of intense competition’ for research. It’s a statement that implies what, exactly? In my opinion, you can’t throw statements like that out there without proof that it changes the meaning of the results. Otherwise it’s just a red herring. Also, It’s not a false positive – it’s really there, just more concentrated because of dehydration.

  Saying “..regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently..” means they have a history of what Froome’s levels were under similar racing conditions. That’s probably the best info we can look at to address this point. Were all of those other tests significantly different? We’ll probably never know, except for the fact that he hasn’t been flagged with an adverse finding with the other tests.

  I don’t really want to write a rambling dissertation, I hope my couple of points were clear enough. There are some good articles that discuss this topic, much better than I’m prepared to put together now.

  As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis’ book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid. When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury. I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up. That’s not exactly apples to apples to Froome’s case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

  0

  Thanks for the input. Casting doubt on the process is always the last hope for the guilty.