[quote="Tangled Metal"]How sure are you he hasn't followed the rules but there is a problem with the test for him in those circumstances? That's why he has the opportunity to carry out pharmacokinetic tests to determine this.
Meanwhile anyone else find the way Sky and Froome don't seem to be fretting much over this? Do you wonder whether they know more and what they know is the evidence supporting their case is present / supplied to UCI? Or are they giving a guilty plea and know what UCI are planning on giving him?
/quote] Sky seemed to wash their hands and say it was down to Froome. Froome says he took it after the race. Will he do the PK test or has he already done it? I think that if it wasn’t for the "holier than thou" attitude he’s always emanated it would never have made the news. Amazing but perhaps not unexpected how quickly Mrs Wiggins stuck the boot in. Personally I’ll keep living for the day Richie Porte can return the 'favour'.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
I’ve seen GPS commenting on Twitter the levels achieved,in their opinion, can only be achieved by ingest or inject.
That doesn't make any sense. The form of delivery doesn't change the metabolisation & excretion of salbutamol. Inhalers do have lower doses (it takes 10 - 20 inhaler doses to make one oral dose, in terms of amounts), but that only means that someone needs to use an inhaler more to get the same amount in his system. Also, people meatabolise such things differently depending on activity, hydration, etc. That's why he would need additional tests to determine if he had exceeded the permitted dosage.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Mick F wrote: Froomy? Dunno, but if he has a stress issue like me and his asthma is stress related like mine, no doubt he's squirting it lots. I have some sympathy for him.
He is a pro athlete backed by apparently the best medical science in the peloton and he just squirts a few extra, being double over is not a few
Cyril Haearn wrote:The sample was taken in September
Why was it not tested earlier, why did we not read about it until nearly three months later?
the bigger question is why until the leak did Sky do NOTHING ?
Plus the UCI sat on it but shy did Sky not immediately start testing and latest reports show they are in no rush, in other words Sky never expected to have to defend something that was going to be hidden away.
First off it was tested in September and reported to sky and Froome about the same time.
It's not a test failure for a performance enhancing drug so there are different procedures used. This is an adverse analytical finding. That class of test result is saying the urine sample contains above the limit of this medically acceptable and legal drug. Please explain it. They are then given the time needed to carry out tests and provide whatever evidence they can muster. In the meantime protocol means that privacy is maintained. It's a standard practice and isn't covering up anything. This is not an offence until all evidence is finally reviewed and a decision is made that Froome cannot provide a valid explanation for the excess reading.
Have you looked into the levels of dose needed to provide any of those PE effects in body builders? It is huge amount and can only be taken injected I believe. It's also a level that would have adverse performance issues for an endurance athlete. It just would not cross the mind of any pro cyclist. It would hinder their performance. So using that ten years old information isn't really contributing. More recent test results show no masking effect BTW from what I've read on other forums discussing this (credible reports based evidence linked to).
It seems to me there's some on the Internet very keen to play this situation up as some big cover up and doing scandal. It's not. The protocols used by WADA and pretty much every sporting body that's involved with WADA were being followed to the letter until someone in that loop leaked it to the press.
On top of this there's a lot of use of people's ignorance on this matter (I was too until I read up on it). This is to play up to the obsession over trying to discredit sky and their riders. They're no cleaner or dirtier than any of the other big pro outfits. They do however get the most column inches everytime there is even the remotest chance of impropriety. No doubt on the next tour Froome will get more urine thrown at him.
BTW he will most probably be on the next tour. That is the level of offence WADA view what Froome is being looked at for. That is a mistaken dose of salbutamol that has contravened the arbitrary limit. It's a 4 to 9 month ban back dated to September. AFAIK 4 to 6 months is the most common ban.
Of course tin hat conspiracy types may well argue he's a roid freak who should be banned.
On another note, I've been taking salbutamol inhaler doses all weekend. The way I've been feeling it certainly hasn't been a performance enhancing drug for me. It n has helped me breathe and end this infernal phlegm issue I get with the inflammation of my airways. I reckon I'm only 200-250 on my peak flow meter. After salbutamol I'll bet it'll get to 300. Had access to these meters for decades and I'm generally at 500 IIRC. BTW if I didn't have asthma it would not improve my readings or breathing.
Tangled Metal wrote:First off it was tested in September and reported to sky and Froome about the same time.
It's not a test failure for a performance enhancing drug so there are different procedures used. This is an adverse analytical finding. That class of test result is saying the urine sample contains above the limit of this medically acceptable and legal drug. Please explain it. They are then given the time needed to carry out tests and provide whatever evidence they can muster. In the meantime protocol means that privacy is maintained. It's a standard practice and isn't covering up anything. This is not an offence until all evidence is finally reviewed and a decision is made that Froome cannot provide a valid explanation for the excess reading.
Have you looked into the levels of dose needed to provide any of those PE effects in body builders? It is huge amount and can only be taken injected I believe. It's also a level that would have adverse performance issues for an endurance athlete. It just would not cross the mind of any pro cyclist. It would hinder their performance. So using that ten years old information isn't really contributing. More recent test results show no masking effect BTW from what I've read on other forums discussing this (credible reports based evidence linked to).
It seems to me there's some on the Internet very keen to play this situation up as some big cover up and doing scandal. It's not. The protocols used by WADA and pretty much every sporting body that's involved with WADA were being followed to the letter until someone in that loop leaked it to the press.
On top of this there's a lot of use of people's ignorance on this matter (I was too until I read up on it). This is to play up to the obsession over trying to discredit sky and their riders. They're no cleaner or dirtier than any of the other big pro outfits. They do however get the most column inches everytime there is even the remotest chance of impropriety. No doubt on the next tour Froome will get more urine thrown at him.
BTW he will most probably be on the next tour. That is the level of offence WADA view what Froome is being looked at for. That is a mistaken dose of salbutamol that has contravened the arbitrary limit. It's a 4 to 9 month ban back dated to September. AFAIK 4 to 6 months is the most common ban.
Of course tin hat conspiracy types may well argue he's a roid freak who should be banned.
On another note, I've been taking salbutamol inhaler doses all weekend. The way I've been feeling it certainly hasn't been a performance enhancing drug for me. It n has helped me breathe and end this infernal phlegm issue I get with the inflammation of my airways. I reckon I'm only 200-250 on my peak flow meter. After salbutamol I'll bet it'll get to 300. Had access to these meters for decades and I'm generally at 500 IIRC. BTW if I didn't have asthma it would not improve my readings or breathing.
Thanks for that TM, nice post. I hope this can be resolved but it is the usual issue of trying to prove a negative. I thought Froome seemed close to the edge on his SPOTY interview -must be tough and embarrassing either way.
Tangled Metal wrote:First off it was tested in September and reported to sky and Froome about the same time.
It's not a test failure for a performance enhancing drug so there are different procedures used. This is an adverse analytical finding. That class of test result is saying the urine sample contains above the limit of this medically acceptable and legal drug. Please explain it. They are then given the time needed to carry out tests and provide whatever evidence they can muster. In the meantime protocol means that privacy is maintained. It's a standard practice and isn't covering up anything. This is not an offence until all evidence is finally reviewed and a decision is made that Froome cannot provide a valid explanation for the excess reading.
Have you looked into the levels of dose needed to provide any of those PE effects in body builders? It is huge amount and can only be taken injected I believe. It's also a level that would have adverse performance issues for an endurance athlete. It just would not cross the mind of any pro cyclist. It would hinder their performance. So using that ten years old information isn't really contributing. More recent test results show no masking effect BTW from what I've read on other forums discussing this (credible reports based evidence linked to).
It seems to me there's some on the Internet very keen to play this situation up as some big cover up and doing scandal. It's not. The protocols used by WADA and pretty much every sporting body that's involved with WADA were being followed to the letter until someone in that loop leaked it to the press.
On top of this there's a lot of use of people's ignorance on this matter (I was too until I read up on it). This is to play up to the obsession over trying to discredit sky and their riders. They're no cleaner or dirtier than any of the other big pro outfits. They do however get the most column inches everytime there is even the remotest chance of impropriety. No doubt on the next tour Froome will get more urine thrown at him.
BTW he will most probably be on the next tour. That is the level of offence WADA view what Froome is being looked at for. That is a mistaken dose of salbutamol that has contravened the arbitrary limit. It's a 4 to 9 month ban back dated to September. AFAIK 4 to 6 months is the most common ban.
Of course tin hat conspiracy types may well argue he's a roid freak who should be banned.
On another note, I've been taking salbutamol inhaler doses all weekend. The way I've been feeling it certainly hasn't been a performance enhancing drug for me. It n has helped me breathe and end this infernal phlegm issue I get with the inflammation of my airways. I reckon I'm only 200-250 on my peak flow meter. After salbutamol I'll bet it'll get to 300. Had access to these meters for decades and I'm generally at 500 IIRC. BTW if I didn't have asthma it would not improve my readings or breathing.
You’ve a fair point that some people are keen to discredit some Sky riders. I’d put it down to the Lance Armstrong effect. A man recovered from cancer. Froome a man who doesn’t have one but five debilitating conditions - bilharzia, typhoid, urticaria, blastocystosis, asthma - I know nothing of these conditions. But as you are an asthma sufferer can I ask, Do you manage your symptoms with the inhaler? Or do you, in the morning at breakfast, think I’ve a hard ride ahead today I’d better have a few puffs on the inhaler before we set off?
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote:But as you are an asthma sufferer can I ask, Do you manage your symptoms with the inhaler? Or do you, in the morning at breakfast, think I’ve a hard ride ahead today I’d better have a few puffs on the inhaler before we set off?
Anticipating need is part of managing symptoms for many asthma sufferers. My dad is heavily affected by pollution, so he takes a couple of puffs before he leaves the house. He doesn't wait until the pollution is actually bothering him. And why should he? He knows what's going to happen. He can, at least to some extent prevent symptoms by using his inhaler before they occur. He's not going to compete in any athletic events, but I don't see how Chris Froome should have to treat himself differently with regards to his asthma because he is competitive. It's not all that long ago that treatment for asthma would have meant he was told he could never take more than gentle exercise.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Paulatic wrote:But as you are an asthma sufferer can I ask, Do you manage your symptoms with the inhaler? Or do you, in the morning at breakfast, think I’ve a hard ride ahead today I’d better have a few puffs on the inhaler before we set off?
Anticipating need is part of managing symptoms for many asthma sufferers. My dad is heavily affected by pollution, so he takes a couple of puffs before he leaves the house. He doesn't wait until the pollution is actually bothering him. And why should he? He knows what's going to happen. He can, at least to some extent prevent symptoms by using his inhaler before they occur. He's not going to compete in any athletic events, but I don't see how Chris Froome should have to treat himself differently with regards to his asthma because he is competitive. It's not all that long ago that treatment for asthma would have meant he was told he could never take more than gentle exercise.
Thanks for that so we replace "pollution" with "exercise" and we are managing exercise induced asthma.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Paulatic wrote:But as you are an asthma sufferer can I ask, Do you manage your symptoms with the inhaler? Or do you, in the morning at breakfast, think I’ve a hard ride ahead today I’d better have a few puffs on the inhaler before we set off?
Anticipating need is part of managing symptoms for many asthma sufferers. My dad is heavily affected by pollution, so he takes a couple of puffs before he leaves the house. He doesn't wait until the pollution is actually bothering him. And why should he? He knows what's going to happen. He can, at least to some extent prevent symptoms by using his inhaler before they occur. He's not going to compete in any athletic events, but I don't see how Chris Froome should have to treat himself differently with regards to his asthma because he is competitive. It's not all that long ago that treatment for asthma would have meant he was told he could never take more than gentle exercise.
Wider question is do you believe he has asthma ? Many think it is totally made up and amazing how his performance after taking it so damn good.
For reference check my attachment, this is why Cofidis sacked two people back in late 90's and not the mister of drugs ?
Now if his condition was so bad he needed so much then he was unfit to ride surely ? My mum in law has asthma and two puffs is for here struggling, he had arguably TEN time that ,,,
Now the other thing is that he claims he took some after the stage, before doping to make him not wheezy doing interviews, the lies are all spilling out now as we saw with Wiggins or do you still believe it was Flumacil in the Jiffy ha ha
Vorpal wrote:Anticipating need is part of managing symptoms for many asthma sufferers. My dad is heavily affected by pollution, so he takes a couple of puffs before he leaves the house. He doesn't wait until the pollution is actually bothering him. And why should he? He knows what's going to happen. He can, at least to some extent prevent symptoms by using his inhaler before they occur.
I thought preventer inhalers were the brown ones and they contained something else? Not that Froome is allowed anything other than salbutamol (blue inhaler) without a TUE anyway.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
In answer to Paulactic I can say there are two classes of inhaler, preventer inhalers you take before activities likely to trigger an attack salbutamol isn't one of these and doesn't work in the same way. Salbutamol gives immediate relief and taking it half an hour before an attack is likely doesn't really give you any benefit. That's been my experience. It is a wonderful drug though for when you have an attack. It acts fast and brings your breathing back to a more comfortable level and clears phlegm too which is one of the symptoms of my asthma. It's also a safe drug that you can take puffs a lot during a bad day, not that I have needed to.
Can we please clear up the dosage thing? You need to realise the test result is nano grammes per volume and his results was as high as 2000. Dose of an inhaler is mass per puff in milligrammes. The figure is 100 of those units per puff. If you put the dose from one puff into a urine sample you're over this AAF limit by a factor with a lot of zeros before the decimal point I believe.
The AAF and dosage per inhaler puff have no relation in terms of units. You cannot say the AAF result is 20 times one puff for example. There is no direct relationship like that. You could have 48 people taking the same dose come out with different levels in their urine when sampled at the same time. Some will be over this WADA limit others won't be.
One more thing to point out. UCI has this AAF on Froome but they do not know whether Froome has done anything wrong. There is simply not enough conclusive evidence. If they applied strict criteria that a criminal case would require they would not have a case as it stands. They would have to carry out pharmacokinetic testing to get that evidence which may equally clear Froome.
It is this process of determining guilt or innocence that is going on. This usually goes on under confidentiality. It is actually dealing with a medical condition of a human being afterall. His ability to filter out salbutamol from his body is kind of what's happening.
It's public now but they should not change their rules because the media know about it. They have a process going on which everyone talking about this matter is second guessing.
Even if he can't clear himself through extra testing he's still only guilty if a mistake with his doses. WADA and UCI punish such mistakes but not very severely because it is still a mistake.
