Initially there was no test that could distinguish between the effects of endogenous (naturally occurring) and exogenous (externally administrated) EPO, so you could not prove that changes in an athlete's blood were due to doping. As a result, the authorities came up with the policy of suspending riders on "health grounds" if their haemocrit levels were too high.
Current testing, and the use of biological passports, can be used to spot the specific blood signature that results from using EPO, although it is apparently possible to beat the test by micro-dosing EPO, as described here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932
What I want to see is either the raw data
To do what? Notwithstanding the fact that it would never be released just as you would never release a patient’s record, what would you do with it? Why do you think you’d be qualified to interpret it?
or preferably an independent analysis of the data.
Like WADA, you mean.
It seems clear to me that Sky/Froome guilty or not had enough evidence to blow the case out of the water. Will be interesting to see if the levels of salbutemol needed to trigger a adverse test will alter. It sounds like the variation in results throughout the Vuelta was so high that the adverse day was not statistically significant so unless he was boosted every day he was taking too much. Everyone certainly climbed down fast.
This isn’t to say, ah, he must cheat because other people used to cheat. But its just a reply to Butcher’s line of “makes no sense from a doping perspective”. From a historical and from a racing perspective, it made perfect sense to cheat. (And no, I don’t think he did, and no I don’t think Salbutamol is a PED)
What you've just described is simply not possible (that we know) through any kind of administration of Salbutamol.
When I say it makes no sense from a doping perspective, I'm referring to the substance he was accused of abusing.
Of course it should be questioned, but we've got to stick to the known facts.
Froome is innocent for now
You see, even that 'for now' - and I'll admit, might be my interpretation - indicates a certain bias; that eventually he'll be done for something. I know if you unpick the words completely that's not what they actually say - on the other hand you can say the same for every other rider that climbs aboard on saturday.
To those that don't accept the WADA / impartial analysis and finding and want to read the evidence and decide for themselves. There's 1500 pages, and I'm not accepting any comment on particular aspects until you've read it all. If you can also state your qualification that makes you sufficiently expert to read and understand what is in the evidence, I'll listen even harder.
“Wasn’t testing less rigorous during LA’s era, and wasn’t there no test for EPO?”
Quite possibly.
Althought there was a test for EPO – designed by Robin Parisotto I believe.
EPO is easy to identify - the challenge was differentiating endogenous EPO that we all have from recombinant EPO taken as a drug. This was quickly solved, though, as there are small differences that can be identified on a gel - Lasne and de Ceaurriz from the French anti-doping laboratory published a testing protocol in 2000 in Nature, which included retro-spective testing of frozen TdF samples.
Interesting in hindsight that that the analytical science was cut and dried from an early stage, but the political dimension allowed LA to keep riding for years after that.
I would say WADA are not an impartial player in this. they are a part of the process.
I think there are quite a few of us that could make some sense out of the data. Sky have said they will release it but I would like to see an independent ( completely from the process) analysis of it. Transparancy and nothing to hide then Sky should publish it
Why do you think you’d be qualified to interpret it?
Guessing it must be part of Nurse training these days. It sounds very in depth if it is....
I would say WADA are not an impartial player in this. they are a part of the process.
So what do you suggest? We can all sit here throwing peanuts...
I would say WADA are not an impartial player in this. they are a part of the process.
If that is how we are playing it then nobody is independent as they are all coming from one side or the other.
Although some people here could make some sense of it the experts have made their call, you know the people who spend all day dealing with piss and blood and drugs - assuming not much rock and roll there.
TJ your comment only makes sense if you are thinking WADA are on Froome's side. Otherwise, they are a good source for the outsider to look to, as they would be the ones seeking a finding against Froome, so if they think there isn't one, then there probably isn't.
This isn’t to say, ah, he must cheat because other people used to cheat. But its just a reply to Butcher’s line of “makes no sense from a doping perspective”. From a historical and from a racing perspective, it made perfect sense to cheat. (And no, I don’t think he did, and no I don’t think Salbutamol is a PED)
Maybe but not the way he did. Anyway, everyone can have a bad day in a stage race and recover to regain time. I've worked on multi-day corporate guiding, ride leading etc and there's been occasions where I've felt like absolute shit on one day (and had to hide it from the paying customers!) but then recovered to feel OK again by the end of the ride.
Fortunately in events like that the guides are (usually) considerably stronger than the clients so it's easy-ish to hide it by sitting in the group, working with a slower group etc.
In a race it's nearly impossible to hide it if the attacks are going and if another team finds out they'll exploit it ruthlessly. Froome is actually very good at playing tactically astute games, hiding his true form. He did a good job of that on that super steep finish in the Tour on that mountain runway.
I would say WADA are not an impartial player in this. they are a part of the process.
I think there are quite a few of us that could make some sense out of the data. Sky have said they will release it but I would like to see an independent ( completely from the process) analysis of it. Transparancy and nothing to hide then Sky should publish it
They're the independent anti-doping body across all sports globally.
Please define "independent". Someone you know personally? Someone who has never been connected with any sport, anywhere, ever?
This is like a conspiracy theory, the standard response to "this video proves [X]" is for all the CTs to come togther and say "oh no, it must be faked, he must be in on it, he's a paid shill..." Repeat ad infinitum.
All the construction experts who looked at the World Trade Centre debris. All the NASA experts (moon landings, flat earth...). Anything from them and the CT repsonse is immediate - they're in on it, they're hiding the truth, it's their job, they are part of the establishment. You'll just do the same.
WADA are independent. They look at all the evidence from the accredited labs worldwide, the experts and the rules within that particular sport and they come to their conclusion.
Greyspoke / crazy legs- point taken. WADA are not a party to this all in the way UCI are
Kerley - post grad training in understanding and analysing research gives me some clues as to reading the raw data. Not to expert witness level of course but enough to give me confidence that I could at least make a basic understanding of it and have some confidence in the conclusions.
Others on here could make a far better job of it.
there are quite a few of us that could make some sense
Yeah but that's like saying you can jump some of the way over a muddy ditch. Unless you understand it all, you don't know if the bits you don't understand are the vital bits.
I could at least make a basic understanding of it and have some confidence in the conclusions.
and for that reason, I'm out.
I am quite happy with information coming from the UCI, WADA etc. don’t believe a word sky say.
I think the UCI certainly have their own agenda and the perception of a reputation to protect, I think in cases of suspected doping they play to a particular group of journalists and the wider public. I have no doubt they'd happily throw an innocent rider under a bus if they thought it would protect their reputation
I would say WADA are not an impartial player in this.
Hang on, dies that contradict your earlier statement?
"There’s 1500 pages"
Reading the summary of a scientific paper ain't that hard.
"You see, even that ‘for now’ – and I’ll admit, might be my interpretation – indicates a certain bias; that eventually he’ll be done for something. I know if you unpick the words completely that’s not what they actually say – on the other hand you can say the same for every other rider that climbs aboard on saturday."
I'll freely admit my bias.
Why am I biased? History. Rider's have in the past tested clean & then been found to be dirty later down the line. The release of Froome's exonerating evidence would, however, go a long way to helping dispel those thoughts. Basically, what's needed here is more transparency. Yes, WADA have cleared him & that's good. But I think the evidence needs looking at? Why? Namely other riders have been busted for similar AAF's & I'd like to know why Froome is different. Not it's only fair on those who were busted but also to the fans.
But for now he's cleared to race - whose to say what might happen in the future. Like I said pro-cycling's history has taught us that things aren't always what they appear. It'd be foolish to deny that.
Kerley – post grad training in understanding and analysing research gives me some clues as to reading the raw data. Not to expert witness level of course but enough to give me confidence that I could at least make a basic understanding of it and have some confidence in the conclusions.
So, whilst accepting you’re far from an expert, you reckon your student-level data analysis skills would enable you to reliably come to a conclusion that would (given your clear lack of independence and inherent bias) reliably contradict the world’s experts at this? Right-o.
Reading the summary of a scientific paper ain’t that hard
Save the effort, WADA have already done it and published an expert finding.
But I think the evidence needs looking at
What do you think WADA did with it? Use it to adjust the height of their computer monitors? I have to say the arrogance of the armchair experts is particularly breathtaking on this one.
post grad training in understanding and analysing research gives me some clues as to reading the raw data.
And data analysis is my job but I would have no interest in the raw data as I have no expertise in the subject PLUS I trust the various bodies (containing many experts) to be doing their job. Why wouldn't they be?
nickc - yes - correcting my earlier statement WADA are inmpartial, UCI have a vested interests.
fifo - its not unreasonable to want to have a look at the data and see what you think of it is it? I do not expect to be able to contradict experts of course but it would nice to see how robust the data is. Numerous conclusions could be drawn.
I love the way you keep calling me out as biased. I am not or no more than you are ( but in a different direction) 😉
I'd love to be able to have confidence in the cleanness of pro cycling again and as said - my view has already moved on Froome.
Regardless of ones expertise or not- it's only right that it's made known why Froome was cleared.
Other's have been found guilty of a similar transgression....so......why is Froome not guilty? Why is he an exception?
A simple "because & you don't need to know how or why & experts have said no" with no release of the why & wherefore just doesn't cut it & if anyone had any interest in fair play they'd agree.
If I'd been busted for an AAF & lost a number of years of my career & earnings.....then heard Froome had got off for having a similar AAF & then being told I should just shut up & accept it I'd be spitting teeth over it!
This is about transparency why Froome is an exception. Not a difficult concept to grasp I feel.
Bottom line: the evidence needs to be released otherwise the accusations of a cover-up will linger for a long time to come. There's no downside to releasing it if its plausible yet a massive one to not doing so.....
It's not rocket science.
So, whilst accepting you’re far from an expert, you reckon your student-level data analysis skills would enable you to reliably come to a conclusion that would (given your clear lack of independence and inherent bias) reliably contradict the world’s experts at this? Right-o.
This.. Very much this..
As fine an example as there has ever been of forum members thinking they are qualified to make judgements on a topic they aren't a specialist in.. And that's saying something.
This is a fact.. If you read the full 1500 pages of evidence and come to a conclusion different to wada... then your conclusion is wrong. Because they will have spent more time looking at it, they are experts in the field, they will know how to interpret every minor detail. You don't have any of this expertise.
If you are suggesting that you will be able to come to a conclusion that is different, but yet may still be correct, then that is arrogance beyond belief.
Really guys - whats so controversial at wanting to have a look at the data / see it independently analysed?
What on earth makes you think I know better than others / am unable to understand it / want to contradict WADA
All I want is to be able to see what the conclusions are and how they were drawn? There are many possiblities.
"Save the effort, WADA have already done it and published an expert finding."
Yet it singularly lacks any specifics.
Aren't you even the slightest bit curious as to why Froome has been treated differently?
I think there are quite a few of us that could make some sense out of the data. Sky have said they will release it but I would like to see an independent ( completely from the process) analysis of it. Transparancy and nothing to hide then Sky should publish it
I don't see how this would work. What happens if the "independent analysis" contradicts the official WADA decision? It's a bit like being convicted of a crime in court and then saying you want all the evidence reviewed again by someone else outside the court system! You have to accept the authority of the official process. That doesn't mean that the process cannot be challenged and improved if it is demonstrated that it is not working properly.
Like any legal process, it's not about "proving the truth", it's about arguing whether there is enough reasonable doubt about the alleged offence to dismiss it. I'm not defending Sky, but they've submitted their evidence to the authorities and argued their case to a successful outcome.
Aren’t you even the slightest bit curious as to why Froome has been treated differently?
Has he ? Apart from the fact the information was leaked ? Were other riders who had dodgy results not given the same chance to prove their innocence then ?
Yes they have. But is it
"Froomes results are well within normal variation and the test is flawed"
"Sky have cast reasonable doubt on it ie not proven"
"The results are suspicious but no wrongdoing can be proved"
whats so controversial at wanting to have a look at the data
Well, for starters a good chunk of it probably contains a person’s medical records
/ see it independently analysed?
youve seen it independently analysed. The findings were published yesterday
What on earth makes you think I know better than others
Your continued questioning of their findings
/ am unable to understand it
Youre not, I suspect, a group of experienced pharmacologists, sports scientists, and physiologists
/ want to contradict WADA
you certainly don’t seem to want to agree with them
All I want is to be able to see what the conclusions are and how they were drawn? There are many possiblities.
youve seen them, published yesterday.
KCR, just be wary of that Ross Tucker tweet - there’s quite a bit of misrepresentation/opinion going on there. I’d urge you to read the actual studies, particularly the EPO one.
An extract from the results:
“During the course of the study, maximal power output per kg did not differ between the rHuEPO group compared with the placebo group... However, absolute maximal power output did show a significant increase in the rHuEPO group compared with the placebo group over the entire treatment period... which reached significance at the exercise test at 25 days... A similar significant increase in the rHuEPO group was seen in VO2 max, VO2 at VT1 and VT2, and power at VT1... rHuEPO treatment increased VO2 max by 10% compared with baseline, and the placebo group also improved by 4%. This results in a net improvement of about 5% over placebo. Similar effects were found on maximal power output, with an increase of about 4% for rHuEPO treatment compared with placebo. There was no indication that rHuEPO treatment had a stronger effect on maximal power output in the highest performing participants (appendix p 15). Gross efficiency, lactate threshold, maximal heart rate, or any of the other respiratory parameters did not differ between groups.”
In a rather bland academic way they’re simply stating their results and basically saying that epo on well trained non professional cyclists increases maximal power significantly but has little effect at sub maximal levels. This is not the same as what Tucker claims. I’m just saying be wary because his analysis is not really any better than us armchair coaches.
Are races won and lost at sub maximal levels? I don’t think so - when I consider a typical mountain stage there’s generally a series of savage maximal efforts (attacks) then recovery. Froome et al are constantly looking at their power meters because they know if they stay in the red too long they won’t recover at the right time, leaving them vulnerable.
Sky’s whole tactic seems to be to put massive engines on the front working at threshold levels in order to smother these massive attacks. Then when the team is depleted it’s down to their biggest engine to finish off.
Has he ? Apart from the fact the information was leaked ? Were other riders who had dodgy results not given the same chance to prove their innocence then ?
Reading the interview that was linked to earlier, it suggests that Froome is not the only one who has been cleared, and it's in fact quite common...
I'm sure the facts will emerge in good time.
Regardless of ones expertise or not- it’s only right that it’s made known why Froome was cleared.
Other’s have been found guilty of a similar transgression….so……why is Froome not guilty? Why is he an exception?
He's an exception because he's the most tested cyclist in the world. This gives him a panel of test results for each day of a grand tour, allowing a false positive to easily be identified and a sensible case to be argued. If you were thinking of Ulissi, the Lampre rider who was banned for salbutamol, he would not have had that data that establishes a similar background picture.
Although I'm sure Ulissi and others are considering their options right now as far as striking things off the record, given recent developments.
If I’d been busted for an AAF & lost a number of years of my career & earnings…..then heard Froome had got off for having a similar AAF & then being told I should just shut up & accept it I’d be spitting teeth over it!
Aren’t you even the slightest bit curious as to why Froome has been treated differently?
Define similar AAF?
All it means is that the test returned a result that is above a limit set by the testing authorities as being worthy of further investigation / explanation. (Whether that test / limit is now discredited is now open to discussion, but maybe not relevant here)
This process is supposed to be done in private and the fact is we don't know what the other AAF's were in any real detail. Just that they were above the limit, no acceptable explanation was forthcoming, and bans were imposed / accepted.
If the acceptance was on the basis that the teams didn't have the desire / wherewithal to defend their rider - then that is a shame, but of course Sky (and yes, with all their dislikable money and manner and capability to wheel out lawyers and experts) threw everything they could at defending a multi GT winner in the peak of his career, in a way another team may not have wanted or been able to defend their rider. That's not Sky's 'fault' however much we dislike it. And the others may feel let down - but not necessarily by UCI or WADA, who were acting in good faith at the time, but by their teams who didn't go the extra mile.
But if the acceptance was on the basis that they were actually cheating and got pinged for it - no, I wouldn't be spitting teeth over that.
So while yes I'm keen to find out more about why this test is flawed and why CF's result was what it was, to say that all others with the 'same' result should also be exonerated isn't valid.
You could tell me the grid reference of your current location, doesn't particularly tell me how you got there......
Am the only one who's more interested in who leaked it in the first place and why?
fifo - we have not seen the "how the conclusions were drawn" bit - thats the bit that is important to me. All we have seen ( unless you have seen more) is a bland press release. No hint of methodology. No hint as to the robustness of the conclusions. No hint as to whether the SKY evidence was accepted as true or actually just showing reasonable doubt.
that sort of thing
You do come over as really hysterical about this making personal attacks, making up things I never said and refusing to considfer that actually what I am looking for is too see if i can believe in Team Sky / Froome again or not.
What is the hrm here?> Sky themselves have said they will release the data. Openness and transparency go a long way in making things look honest.
Those WADA conclusions in full
- Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
- WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
- In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
- Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:
- the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
- an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
- the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
Now my comments:
Froome provided 21 test samples, 20 of them were below the threshold. Some of these were whilst he was taking an increased dose to manage asthma symptoms. The above conclusions show that based on all 21 tests, and including factors specific for Mr Froome and the conditions of the race, that the high value was consistent with the variability from the other 20 tests (one value will ALWAYS be the highest after all), and hence not a significant outlier despite adjusting for an increase in dose. Hence not an Adverse Analytical Finding.
For me the difference between this and previous cases is the combination of chronic testing, as opposed to a one-off test, and establishing day-to-day variability in an athlete to identify an expected range rather than a threshold from a controlled study. Previous studies have looked at the likelihood of exceeding the threshold in one test - not one of 21 tests. We call this multiplicity. Where athletes have produced an AAF from just one testing event then they have submitted Clinical PK Study evidence to show that they have different metabolic activity. Froome submitted 20 tests below the threshold as his control.
Reproducing the conditions that led to the variability in a controlled manner over a three-week period is obviously impracticable. For a track and field athlete tested once and giving an AAF, less so (Swiss track and field athlete is the most recent case with an 8000 ng/mL test and subsequently reproduced 2000 ng/mL in a study and given a warning to be more careful).
WADA realises that it is possible to exceed 1200 ng/mL under some conditions, as has been demonstrated in several studies at allowed doses. What these studies have failed to look at is multiplicity of testing. If there is a 0.1% chance of giving an AAF with 200 ug/day, (which would be very hard to establish in any small Sports Science study) then in 21 tests, one has a probability of only 2% of at least one AAF - the rule looks like a good one. Now suppose you increase the dose to 1600 ug/day (as allowed) for the last week, and that probability increases to say 5% (still small but detectable in a study - see Haase et al 2016 for example). Then the probability of at least one AAF increases to 31%. That's a seriously high false positive rate.
t’s a bit like being convicted of a crime in court and then saying you want all the evidence reviewed again by someone else outside the court system!
Not really - the evidence is public in a criminal court.
But surely TJ is allowed to read the data and form his own opinion? Whether or not he is qualified to do so, doesn't matter. Surely we should all be allowed to question what officials or people in power say. We may come up with an incorrect conclusion, but that has to be allowed.
I also wouldn't understand the data, but I also don't know a great deal about politics or the economy, but I still read party mandates and make a decision on who I am going to vote for. It becomes an informed decision, which can still be wrong.
I also agree with mrlebowski, its important to know why the CF case different than the other riders who have been banned for being over the allowed level of Salbutamol. Is it a genuine difference, are the UCI wrong in banning the other riders or is it a case of more money to pay for experts and lawyers for team Sky?
You do come over as really hysterical about this making personal attacks, making up things I never said and refusing to considfer that actually what I am looking for is too see if i can believe in Team Sky / Froome again or not.
Re: hysteria; Perhaps im just providing the mirror you require? I’ve mostly just dissected and quoted your own posts. Apart from that, I’m (quite reasonably IMO) questioning why a couple of armchair experts (of which you appear to be one) seem to think you’d be able to disprove WADA’s findings.
You do do appear to be climbing down from that somewhat, which is good
Surely we should all be allowed to question what officials or people in power say. We may come up with an incorrect conclusion, but that has to be allowed.
Sure, provided we’re willing to accept that we’re wrong when provided with facts that counter our opinions. Otherwise we just end up with a load of Daily Mail columnists.
In a rather bland academic way they’re simply stating their results and basically saying that epo on well trained non professional cyclists increases maximal power significantly but has little effect at sub maximal levels.
Fair enough, I accept they are publishing the results of a specific constrained experiment in this case. However, as Tucker and other people have pointed out, EPO can also allegedly benefit riders by allowing them to recover more effectively and train harder, so performance enhancement is not just about the power boosting aspects of the drug in a race scenario.
The "bland academic" style of the report authors in this case also contrasts with attention grabbing titles like "Futility of current urine salbutamol doping control" and quotes suggesting PEDs don't work for elite athletes, so they seem to be just as publicity hungry as Tucker!
Reading the interview that was linked to earlier, it suggests that Froome is not the only one who has been cleared, and it’s in fact quite common…
If you look at the numbers I posted earlier in the thread UKAD had three Salbutmol AAFs between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, and all three of these cases resulted in an ADRV (Anti-Doping Rule Violation). WADA had a total of six Salbutamol AAFs in 2016, but I couldn't find out what the outcome of these cases were. Michael Hutchinson tweeted an anecdotal second hand comment from a WADA source that no one had ever overturned a Salbutamol AAF.
So Salbutamol AAFs don't appear to be very common in the first place, and in the case of the UKAD figures, successful appeals are even rarer. The interviewed WADA official just said that Froome's situation was not unique and he had been involved in similar cases, he didn't say anything about other riders being cleared.
its important to know why the CF case different than the other riders who have been banned for being over the allowed level of Salbutamol.
Are you suggesting then that the other rides weren't given an opportunity to present evidence that showed why they got an AAF? If that's the case, surely it's not Froome you want to be concentrating on. Or is it that Froome/Sky are able to bring considerable legal forces to bear and you fear a one sided battle where WADA just threw in the towel and accepted their evidence at face value as they were outgunned legally. If that's the case, again it's not Froome you want to be concentrating on...
questioning why a couple of armchair experts (of which you appear to be one) seem to think you’d be able to disprove WADA’s findings.
I have never said this - an example of making up stuff you want me to say in order to make personal attacks.
I want to understand how WADA came to the conclusions and the degree of confidence in them.
FROOME IN!
CORBYN OUT!
Wait, what are we arguing about again?
