TiRed - good post. Just read your post after I submitted mine.
Not sure I agree with your conclusions though, but understand your point of view.
I do agree with your false positives and that is something I'd also read previously. But, and I do know that we wouldn't know the answer to this, if there is a 31% chance of a false positive and given the amount of asthmatics in the peloton, surely there would have been a lot more failures since this was introduced back in 2010. And yeah, most of the time this is private - but surely the UCI and WADA would have noticed the amount of failures and addressed the system then?
Both myself and Gary_Lager have explained why this case is different to previous salbutamol cases. WADA appear to have accepted that in their published conclusions.
A threshold of 1200 ng/mL is not sufficient to discriminate chronic dosing and daily testing at the doses of salbutamol up to the maximum allowed limit. Having a salbutamol "passport" of test results is more valid in chronic testing conditions.
Hope that is clear now?
"if there is a 31% chance of a false positive and given the amount of asthmatics in the peloton, surely there would have been a lot more failures since this was introduced back in 2010"
No, it is only the LEADERS who are tested daily - most of the peloton may only be tested once, and if perchance they happen to be on a high dose that day due to an infection, their chance of an AAF is still 5%. It is the combination of higher dose AND daily testing that leads to an AAF being more likely. That's why the UCI comment that "the rule has served us so well for is long" is valid.
@tj: You appeared quite certain yesterday:
<div class="bbp-reply-author">tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Why? Because its an obvious cop out of cheating
</div>
or at least that you were certain that someone could disprove WADA. You were definitely certain that you didn’t believe them, therefore it stands to reason that you wanted the data to add weight to your prejudice
I’m not too sure why folks are berating WADA, it is them who make the reasoned decisions tasked by the body who instigated the investigation.
Whether you believe the results or not, a decision has been made and the chap is free to race.
Done deal really.
Yes Fifo - I was. But reading and listening I have moderated my view and would like more data to help me understand more.
Some good stuff here guys - nice to see some interpretation of the data from all sources.
Makes a change to have informed opinions & folks making them from doing their own reading.
Not enough time to read it all now - but this kind of intelligent input is awesome. Thanks to those making the effort!
STW for information and reasoned debate, Cycling News for entertainment 😀
Yes Fifo – I was. But reading and listening I have moderated my view and would like more data to help me understand more.
Coolio. I’ll admit I was more reacting to your very vocal earlier position.
I have never said this – an example of making up stuff
Honestly mate, they aren't making stuff up - that's really how your posts read. Perhaps you are not quite managing to get your point across accurately?
Can we park this part of the conversation until Sky release the data or say that they won't. It's tiresome.
Agreed it is only the leaders who are tested daily, plus stage winners and stage podium riders. Then there are the random tests carried out throughout the year. A lot of races happen throughout the year with different riders winning stages and different riders leading the stage races. I'm not just thinking about data from cycling either, but in professional sport as a whole. Just to throw some numbers around, between October 2017 and 03<sup>rd</sup> July 2018 there has been 477 UCI Road Races. That’s a lot of racing and is not including Track, Cyclocross or Mountain Bike racing. That’s a lot of people being tested and a lot of data being recorded just in cycling alone. If we were just to take this over the last 4 years – that’s lots and lots of data where I would have thought we would see more false positives?
Here’s a statement from the UCI back in December 2017, “WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended 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 the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.” (My Bold)
We know that Ulissi had to visit Switzerland to try and recreate the scenario where he would have been over the limit, and we know he was unable to do so. I don’t know if Petacchi ever did. Petacchi received a 12 month ban for significantly less % of an adverse reading than Froome. If Ulissi or Pettacchi had of had 20 days of data behind them would they have been allowed to not perform the tests? (If Petacchi ever did)
My personal view as I’ve said before, I don’t believe Chris Froome cheated and nor do I see Salbutamol as a PED. But I was also a rather big fan of Contador, even after his little issue with the beef. But I do think its right to question what we are being told and to try and understand the statements and the reasoning behind it.
All good points. As I said, the likelihood of an AAF on 200 ug per day is extremely small for any individual - probably unmeasurable in a small N=12 typical trial. It is the combination of higher but permitted dosing and repeat testing of the same individual that make the problem.
WADA have accepted that for an endurance cycling event, a single threshold is not appropriate, nor a PK study (my day job). I'm not surprised at that position. Three weeks on a turbo trainer in an oven with simulated altitude efforts and cold does not appeal!
I have sympathies with both Petacchi and Ulissi, but suspect that they would have been unable to establish a "salbutamol passport" of test results, so Ulissi resorted to a single PK study test and was not able to produce a high reading - his metabolism and excretion was probably nothing special under controlled lab conditions. Out in race conditions, things might have been very different.
someone should publish this thread on Cycling News - it's got everything including some #topbants
I have sympathies with both Petacchi and Ulissi...
Of course it's also a possibility that their sanction was entirely justified because they were at it!
Hi TiRed, my view is that there should be parity and fairness between teams and riders. Why are WADA now saying that for an endurance event a one off reading isn't appropriate or for that matter a PK Study? In December 2017 they saw that as the measure of testing whether an AAF was as a TUE administered amount or whether it was intended to be performance enhancing. Since 2010 there has been an awful lot of tests carried out. Seems strange for the Chris Froome case to make WADA realise their previous methodology was wrong.
From RaceRadio Twitter feed....Diego Ulissi, AAF for 1900ng/ml of salbutamol during the 2014 Giro d’Italia. He was suspended from competition for nine months. Alessandro Petacchi, AAF of 1352ng/ml salbutamol at the 2007 Giro d’Italia. He was suspended for a year and had five stage wins removed.
I do wonder if the two AAF readings above also factored in dehydration? Froome went from 2,000 ng/ml to 1400 ng/ml when factoring in dehydration.
Looks like other riders have also been cleared, be good to see some numbers behind that. Chris Froome has done an exclusive with the Times where it appears to say "Multiple other riders went through a similar process and were cleared". But its behind a paywall so I can't read the details. This is also worth a read and provides some useful information that this isn't the first time a rider has successfully appealed.
But being honest, its when I read things in the facebook post that makes me question the honesty of officials. I can't see how Dr Rabin can say there is no reason to question the rules. Surely we should question the rules if they are found to be no longer enforceable or even appropriate. The last part of it to me reads like he is protecting himself. But anyway, be good to see the numbers of other riders who have been cleared of a Salbutamol AAF.
Would hate to look into the Clinic right now - that place is a mad house at the best of times!!
Greyspoke / crazy legs- point taken. WADA are not a party to this all in the way UCI are
UCI are in a position where a lot of what they do is political. A lot of the time that isn't well handled - Brian Cookson came out of his tenure as President looking a bit the worse for wear because he did some great work (genuinely!) but wasn't always amazing at communicating that or engaging with the various political factions within the sport.
Davide Lapparetient has gone a bit too far the other way - he's good politically but that's leaving the UCI a bit slack when it comes to the actual procedures, processes, getting things done.
And of course the UCI need it all to look slick in terms of media, sponsorship, event delivery, team set-up and so on.
Doesn't help that the UCI leaks like a sieve. This whole thing could have been avoided if confidentiality had been preserved (as it should have been!). Chris will come out of it OK (eventually) but the UCI look incompetent because it's taken nearly 9 months to get to this stage and it's further reputational damage to the sport as a whole.
Nice interview and a pragmatic response to the science.
As I said, establishing a "salbutamol passport" from 20 tests looks like the deciding factor for Froome. I have no information as to whether the other two would have been able to do so, but their readings are not exceptional based on the literature for permitted doses of 800 ug every 12 hours or 400 ug every six hours under dehydrated conditions.
His comments basically say that WADA will consider all evidence from any individual with a potential AAF and judge accordingly. Sounds a reasonable scientific approach.
Reputation wise the sport is bouncing on the bottom as it is. Yes the sport is a target for vitriol, not helped at all by the constant AAF’s and Doping irregularities. Even the most placid Jurno who knows nothing about the sport has an opinion equating to “they’re all at it” before they even log in.
The UCI has a reputation in the same vein as the sport it’s supposed to represent and control. McQuaid and his brown envelope pass the parcel games did everything it could to taint its controllers in the same bucket as the riders.
Only a couple of teams tried to lead the moral high ground, and subsequently vilified for thier stance by other teams and no support from the UCI.
You have to ask, what is the UCI’s Scope? What is it the organisation seeks to represent?
Cookson, bless him, was the Corbin of the UCI. Fairly ineffective, lacking a driven backbone, succumbing to ground roots pressure, no direction.
The new incumbent seems to be “on message” yet channeling his direction at the upper segments of the organisation instead of looking more intimately at the structure and its representation out in the clubs.
Its a crock of old men in shiny bum suits taking a salaried pension and nothing more.
hris Froome has done an exclusive with the Times where it appears to say “Multiple other riders went through a similar process and were cleared”.
It would be interesting to know what that statement really means , because, as noted above, the UKAD and WADA figures suggest there are very few Salbutamol AAFs, and in the case of UKAD, none of the 3 occurring in three years were cleared.
Why are WADA now saying that for an endurance event a one off reading isn’t appropriate or for that matter a PK Study?
The way I read the WADA statement was that the PK study was still the first line of defence but they conceded that it was not feasible do do this in Froome's specific case and therefore based the decision on his other evidence?
Hey TJ, now you're back, this:
I also know that every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one – Froomes Vuelta?) that the main rider was so ill with asthma the week before they needed powerful steroids under TUE the week before – injected in Wiggins case, oral in Froomes.
Tell us about Froome consuming 'powerful steroids under TUEs... the week before... every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one – Froomes Vuelta?).
I wasn't aware of that, but you seem to know all about it. Or have you just got confused?
In a parallel universe, if WADA had analysed the data and found that Froome had used more than the allowed dose of Salbutamol, what would we think?
If he’d broken the rules then he should’ve been banned. Even if it didn’t have a performance enhancing effect.
I did check BWD - I really should know about relying on memory. In Froomes case it was at least during the Dauphine and some other race - not the grand tours. 2013 and 2014. He has certainly done this at least twice but interestingly as I read up I found he refused a tue for prednisilone during one grand tour which is a good point in his favour.
Wiggins had injected steroids before the TDF wins
Edit - 40mg of prednisilone daily a massive dose of a powerful steroid.
So you made a mistake?
In detail yes. From memory it was Froomes grand tours - on checking it was two less important races. Wiggins was as I remembered ie before his TDF wins.
Principle is still the same.
In detail yes. From memory it was Froomes grand tours – on checking it was two less important races. Wiggins was as I remembered ie before his TDF wins.
Principle is still the same.
You can't just admit you were massively wrong can you. You claim to follow road cycling, but you don't even know that Wiggins has only won a single TDF - not 'wins'. Anyway...
Seriously BWD, leave your vitriol out. What do you want, him stripped naked and paraded down the street Cersei stylee just prove how wonderful you are? Some of his flaws are school boy errors and anybody with a passing knowledge can spot them. Play the ball.
and I was about to post how impressive the level of discourse was (and by that I mean/include devoid of my own, ahem, ‘contributions’) but, well...
Yes, you're right, I was unkind, but I just get exasperated by TJ's casual untruths. We all sometimes get a little carried away though eh?
Seriously BWD, leave your vitriol out. What do you want, him stripped naked and paraded down the street Cersei stylee just prove how wonderful you are?
I thought that was what people wanted Froome to do
We all sometimes get a little carried away though eh?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean.... 😉
Cookson, bless him, was the Corbin of the UCI. Fairly ineffective, lacking a driven backbone, succumbing to ground roots pressure, no direction.
On the other hand, he was a vital pivot in the "transition" away from Pat McQuaid. He's very good at regeneration, tunring around a failing organisation and he did that pretty well at the UCI. It was never going to be an easy shift but he did bring a lot of people together and getting Pat out was the first step on the long road to a better and more open organisation.
UCI was so busy with damage limitation and infighting that it had no time to govern the sport. Bit like the Tory party at the moment, they're so busy fighting over Brexit that they're not actually running the country.
it was not casual untruths - it was an honest error I put my hands up to. Unlike many on here I am capable of doing so
There is no doubt at all team sky have massively abused TUEs - Even Froome himself has said so ( in much more diplomatic language) which is why he refused on in the final week of a grand tour which I said as it does is a serious plus point for him
Whre did I claim to follow road cycling? Why do you have to make stuff up to attack me with? How about an apology for that outright lie BWD? or was it an honest mistake 😉
Give it a rest
It took 9 pages. Quite tardy by STW standards.
Edit – 40mg of prednisilone daily a massive dose of a powerful steroid
A standard dose for treating asthma though. Just for medical context.
A standard dose for treating asthma though. Just for medical context.
Context schmontext. Minds are already made up, nothing will change that.
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.
Absolutely, but again the study they quote does not tackle any of this. They don’t look at training intensity, recovery rates etc. The biggest problem with this particular study is that it’s been so widely misrepresented or selectively quoted/interpreted. That said, I think they could do with repeating it using pro riders with a race mentality, though that would perhaps cause a few issues at their next blood test..!
A possibility that Sky’s defence rested on the validity of the test?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
“
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 <i>The Times</i>: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada <span class="paywall-EAB47CFD">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.”</span>
<div class="Article-content paywall-EAB47CFD">
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.”
</div>
TJ I think this forum is a better place for having you on it but isn't it time that you changed your whole approach and start putting the trial before the hanging?
Shall we take bets on how much money the lawyers appointed by Petacchi and Ulissi will be asking for?
“TJ I think this forum is a better place for having you on it but isn’t it time that you changed your whole approach and start putting the trial before the hanging?”
Do you want to explain that ‘cos I’m F’d if I understand your point.,
Did you read the article? I’ll wager not!
All I’ve done is paste a link to an article by the author of the test - I thought it would be of interest as it shows an insight to what’s possibly going on.....& you’ve done I don’t know fing what in your head & decided to have a dig!
How & in what way am I hanging someone without a trial here???
I’ve made no conclusions about it & pointed no fingers!
Just a link to an article by the author of the test!
Edit: My thoughts are: can of worms all over the place & it looks like we are going to get an explanation as to why Froome was cleared...which can only be good. In fact, if anything, this is an article attesting to Froome’s innocence with an explanation why.
Do you want to explain that ‘cos I’m F’d if I understand your point.,
Given the content & tone of his posts on this subject, some have inferred that TJ has made up his mind that Froome and Sky are/continue to be guilty of if not outright doping (cheating) then sailing so close to the rules that in effect it makes no difference. He's come to this conclusion through years of disappointment created by cycling teams and individuals loudly proclaiming their innocence, only to be found guilty later on.
Given the recent tawdry history of road cycling's addiction to cheating, this is a somewhat reasonable stance to take.
However in this case it appears the shoe is on the other foot, and it turns out that the cyclist is innocent and the test (and by extension, the UCI and WADA) have cocked it up, and it further turns out that they were made aware years ago that the test was flawed but not only chose to ignore it, banned at least 2 riders that we know of.
TJ is choosing not to be fulsome in his apologies for getting it wrong in this case.
I think that just about covers it.
Many subsequent studies have called into question the threshold when taking the maximum allowed dose. The original publication of Berges 2000 is based on some very flawed statistics with assumptions of a normal distribution for concentrations (they aren’t).
when I reanalysed their own data i concluded that the rate of false positives would be about 1/33! They originally quoted a figure of 1/30000. That value is in keeping with subsequent studies.
Cripes! At both the apparent ineptitude of WADA/UCI to deal with an issue they 'knew about' and make Petacchi, Ulissi and Froome go through this shite, and also a spot of handle-flying-off on here 😉
