[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/13/chris-froome-team-sky-reputation-abnormal-drug-test ]Excessive levels of asthma drug - might be stripped of vuelta title[/url]
It seems to me that this is probably/hopefully a non story and he has the correct Doctors evidence or TUE available. Not good for the genre real perception o f cycling or team sky though!
Only really a problem in image if stirred up by the press who generally speaking have little concern for anything but making a quid. If they kept their mouths shut no one would be harmed. The public have no need to know about such a thing. As with most things. Shit stirring until 100% proved the be a concrete wrong doing.
Most likely to be cock up from something legitimate but "oh no the world knows better" and its perfectly acceptable to cause a fuss before anything is proved.
I always wanted to be a pro cyclist growing up but I couldn't cut it at the sharp end because I didn't have asthma.
I'm sure we'd all be as generous if it was Contador.
It's in the public interest to know why he doubled the dose during the Vuelta
[quote=mattsccm ]Only really a problem in image if stirred up by the press
Gosh it's hard fr me to tell sarcasm on the internet sometimes. But this one made me smile.
Onzadog - Member
I always wanted to be a pro cyclist growing up but I couldn't cut it at the sharp end because I didn't have asthma
🙂
Surprised? No, not really.
Disappointed? Yep.
And yeah, maybe the test result is an outlier from permitted medical usage. But there’s no benefit of the doubt from me anymore.
On one hand, salbutamol is not exactly tasty steak/epo/transfusion. If it was I'd be going a lot quicker up hills.
On the other hand, Unlike most, I like Froome as a rider. Now I am disappointed and the seeds of doubt are there. I'm not at the stage where I don't believe what I'm seeing, but it's on that road.
It's fake news from Lewis Hamilton to undermine Froome's SPOTY bid...
Would be intersting to know how accurate and reliable the test is ? If you drink more during a race does your result go down ? That’s why this is being challenged scientifically as many if these tests are less accurate than you might think.
As Froome says he knows he will be tested every day he wears the leaders jersey
As Froome says he knows he will be tested every day he wears the leaders jersey
That's what Armstrong used to say.
And just why is it in the public interest?
Why the assumption that everyone has the right to know everything, especially when currently there is nothing but gossip and click bait. When he is proved to be guilty it may have some minor importance but until then its just click bait at best, generated by nasty people.
And that’s why he ruined it for everyone...clean folk especially.
It’s all about nagging doubts.
Appreciated yes but Armstrong knew what he was taking prior to races during training would not fail the tests.
I have a good mtb-ing friend who used to run a (narco) drugs testing programme - very intereting to understand what can be tested for and what dissapears from your system after given periods. Hence my comment.
Jambalaya, and with it being a urine sample, the converse is also true - if you do not drink enough the concentration goes up. Urine concentrations of drugs don't mean much beyond they are there. Think how much your own urine can vary from almost water to looking like stewed tea. The concentrations of anything in it vary massively unless they are corrected for some kind of markers that is consistently present, usually creatinine, - no evidence of that being quoted here that I have seen.
All the best riders have a toot on the blue puffer.
Sky's explaination, which is obviously one sided:
This is a process that in normal circumstances would be confidential. However, in light of media interest, we believe it is important that the facts are set out clearly for all.
Chris has had asthma since childhood and uses an inhaler to take a common medication, Salbutamol, to prevent and ease symptoms brought on by exercise. Salbutamol is permitted by WADA rules (without the need for a TUE) when inhaled up to a limit of 1,600 micrograms (mcg) over a period of 24 hours and no more than 800mcg over 12 hours.
The UCI informed Chris that a urine test conducted on 7 September 2017, following Stage 18 of the Vuelta, revealed a concentration of Salbutamol which exceeds a threshold that requires him to provide information to confirm that he inhaled no more than the permissible dose. Analysis indicated the presence of Salbutamol at a concentration of 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml), compared with the WADA threshold of 1,000ng/ml. None of the 20 other urine tests taken by Chris required any further explanation.
During the final week of the Vuelta, Chris experienced acute asthma symptoms. On the advice of the Team Sky doctor, he used an increased dosage of Salbutamol (still within the permissible doses) in the run-up to the 7 September urine test. As race leader, Chris was tested after every stage through this period and he declared his use of the medication as part of the process.
The notification of the test finding does not mean that any rule has been broken. The finding triggers requests from the UCI which are aimed at establishing what caused the elevated concentration of Salbutamol and to ensure that no more than the permissible doses of Salbutamol were inhaled.
There is considerable evidence to show that there are significant and unpredictable variations in the way Salbutamol is metabolised and excreted. As a result, the use of permissible dosages of Salbutamol can sometimes result in elevated urinary concentrations, which require explanation. A wide range of factors can affect the concentrations, including the interaction of Salbutamol with food or other medications, dehydration and the timing of Salbutamol usage before the test.
https://www.teamsky.com/article/ts-statement
People have been banned for less - from Daniel Friebe on Twitter:
Sky say Froome's salbutamol concentration was 2000ng/ml.
Diego Ulissi got a nine-month ban for 1920ng/ml in 2014.
Petacchi got a year for
1320ng/ml in 2007.
BUT Leonardo Piepoli got no ban for levels reportedly similar to Petacchi's in 2007
Surprised? No, not really.Disappointed? Yep.
+1
The public have no need to know about such a thing.
😯 Really?
It's in the public interest to know why he doubled the dose during the Vuelta
"The public" probably couldn't give a toss. It's only blokes on bikes.
Apropos of nothing, 2 days after this test Chris Froome had his end of stage medical test done in our camper van. Not sure the dehydration reason holds water (sic) as the riders have unlimited water available to drink prior to the test, essentially to make them need a wee. I really hope nothing comes of this,I was in the vacinity of him for quite a while at the time and he really seemed to have a bad cough following the wet weather during the last week of the Vuelta.
[img] http://Epic day on the Angliru https://imgur.com/a/a6J0P [/img]
beej - Member
People have been banned for less - from Daniel Friebe on Twitter:Sky say Froome's salbutamol concentration was 2000ng/ml.
Diego Ulissi got a nine-month ban for 1920ng/ml in 2014.
Petacchi got a year for
1320ng/ml in 2007.BUT Leonardo Piepoli got no ban for levels reportedly similar to Petacchi's in 2007
Yeah, this.
Sorry, but there has to be consistency on testing and application of the rules.
I understand Petacchi, he always played around the rules.. even he acknowledges this.. but still you take his single case alone in this instance.
Public interest?
I’ve always been a “prove it, then apply the law, then release statement to media” boring old fart type in this regard.. but I’m old and we don’t live in my world anymore.. trial by media is the norm from now on..
"The public" probably couldn't give a toss. It's only blokes on bikes.
Exactly, the public probably don't even know who Chris Froome is.
Does increased Salbutamol in the blood stream make you cycle faster?
"I don't think anyone should be surprised when a professional sports team pushes the rules right to the very limit," Cookson said.
So take tens of products just below the limit (we know this from the Festina Lille case) get a huge gain from the cumulative effects and still claim not to be doping. Then make a miscalculation and go over on one of the parrameters and stil claim not to be doping. Short of banning sponsorship and payment of athletes I don't see a solution.
Surprised? No, not really.Disappointed? Yep.
And yeah, maybe the test result is an outlier from permitted medical usage. But there’s no benefit of the doubt from me anymore
This is exactly my thoughts. I'll be gutted if he's banned/found guilty but would I be surprised? Sadly, no I wouldn't be.
Key thing about salbutamol (and similar inhalers) is that exceeding the urine threshold isn't automatically an adverse finding, as Sky have said. Some drugs are simply banned at certain concentrations, not these.
The limit is on the inhaled dose, the urine limit is for detection and is on the basis of "explain it or else we will treat it as being an adverse finding". That explanation needs to be "through a controlled pharmacokinetic study" say WADA, so not sure quite how Sky are planning to do it.
On one hand, salbutamol is not exactly tasty steak/epo/transfusion. If it was I'd be going a lot quicker up hills.
It is in the same category of PEDs as clenbuterol (which Contador was caught with), and used for the same reason, weight control. It would only work though if taken to excess (over the prescribed medical dosage) over a period of time. The case is similar to Contador as both did not show usage to an effective dosage over a period of time.
It would only work though if taken to excess (over the prescribed medical dosage) over a period of time.
Thing is, that isn't the bar that WADA set. Probably because they are looking at catching people who are tested intermittently so they have to consider one test as being indicative. When Froome was OK the day before and after (being tested daily) it doesn't really suggest he was taking the mick or getting an illegal performance boost, on the other hand the concentration they found is really really high.
[quote="Jekkyl"]Does increased Salbutamol in the blood stream make you cycle faster?No.
It gives you the shakes. Quite bad too. I can't work my gears or drink from a bottle properly if i have more than 3 (successful) drags on it.
It's also a bugger to get the right dose when trying to synchronize your breathing and squeezing the puffer. Usually end up with a load of it smeared all over my tongue.
Just googled the official side effects list:-
nervousness, headache, tremor, dry mouth, chest pain or heavy feeling, rapid or uneven heart rate, pain spreading to the arm or shoulder, nausea, sweating, dizziness, seizure (convulsions), feeling light-headed or fainting. 😕
From [url= https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/do-asthma-meds-make-you-faster ]here[/url]:
The study involved 48 well-trained male cyclists (VO2max > 60 ml/kg/min); before the study started, they were all screened for exercise-induced asthma, and 14 of them tested positive (all but one had been previously diagnosed). They all did two 10-km cycling time trials, which take about 15 minutes -- a combination of intensity and duration that's thought to offer the toughest challenge to an athlete's respiratory system. An hour before each time trial, they inhaled either salbumatol or a placebo; neither they nor the researchers knew which one they'd been given on which occasion.The results? Lung function did improve in both the asthma and non-asthma group -- but that didn't translate into any improvement in time-trial performance. The surprise here is that the increase in lung function didn't translate to better performance even for the group with exercise-induced asthma. That doesn't mean salbutamol doesn't work -- it's highly effective as relieving the acute symptoms of an asthma attack.
There's a [url= http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/1/51.long ]scientific paper to read[/url] but I can't be arsed paying for it. The conclusion though:
Conclusions: The inhalation of salbutamol induced a significant increase in resting lung function in EVH+ and EVH? athletes but this improvement in lung function did not translate to improved exercise performance. Salbutamol had no discernible effect on key ventilatory and exercise parameters regardless of EVH challenge outcome.
So in theory there's no performance gain to be had, just mitigation of his symptoms. That said, there IS a limit (as there is with caffeine) which has been breached.
mattsccm - Member
And just why is it in the public interest?
Why the assumption that everyone has the right to know everything, especially when currently there is nothing but gossip and click bait. When he is proved to be guilty it may have some minor importance but until then its just click bait at best, generated by nasty people.
You are Buzz Bissinger and I claim my £5
That said, there IS a limit (as there is with caffeine) which has been breached.
That's it, unfortunately rules are rules.
It gives you the shakes. Quite bad too. I can't work my gears or drink from a bottle properly if i have more than 3 (successful) drags on it.
I must be a hardened doper - I have no real problems with it, bit of tremor, but nothing like you've described.
I imagine makes you cycle faster if you have the right kind of airway inflammation, I suppose. In other words, if you have some form of constricted airways due to asthma.
I suppose the principle with Froome should be that if he is having a major asthma exacerbation in competition, his medical team should be managing it better out of competition with long-acting preventer drugs so he doesn't need to take a larger dose on the day.
Again, it is used for weight control, you cycle faster by being lighter.
Does increased Salbutamol in the blood stream make you cycle faster?
Doesn't matter if he's exceeded the permitted dose - them's the rules - the onus is on Froome and Sky to show that the levels in his urine are an anomaly due to other factors like dehydration, impaired kidney function, the effects of another medicine etc. He's twice the permitted urine concentration limit, which seems like a lot.
But anyway, studies seem to suggest that it doesn't make you cycle faster - [url= https://www.wired.com/2010/12/salbutamol-doping/ ]the one referred to here[/url] for example.
But they're still the rules.
I suppose the principle with Froome should be that if he is having a major asthma exacerbation in competition, his medical team should be managing it better out of competition with long-acting preventer drugs so he doesn't need to take a larger dose on the day.
What, like Wiggins and his TUE you mean? 😉
MSP - Member
Again, it is used for weight control, you cycle faster by being lighter.
Well then I dread to think how much I'd weigh without salbutamol!
Why isn't his mum writing him a PE excusal note when his asthma gets bad?
What, like Wiggins and his TUE you mean?
Hehe, not quite! That was using a pharmaceutical sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If I turned up at my doctors asking for a triminaclone jab because I had a big event coming up and felt a bit bunged up and wheezy, he'd tell me to bugger off, but he might up my dose of inhaled preventer medicine to get my symptoms under control so I didn't need to use salbutamol.
Short term large dosage of reliever (salbutamol) is a product of failure to manage correctly in the longer term in most cases involving otherwise fit and healthy adults.
Well then I dread to think how much I'd weigh without salbutamol!
Reduced salbutamol use is the only possible explanation for my weight gain since my asthma was better managed. <fetches mince pie>
Well then I dread to think how much I'd weigh without salbutamol!
Well it won't make much difference if you are just using it at levels to control asthma. But as noted on the last page, when people get the dosage a bit high it gives them the shakes, that is the effect it has on metabolism.
[url= https://www.livestrong.com/article/381131-albuterol-for-weight-loss/ ]https://www.livestrong.com/article/381131-albuterol-for-weight-loss/[/url]
Why isn't his mum writing him a PE excusal note when his asthma gets bad?
She would but her laptop got stolen on holiday..
I also avoid taking it at all costs. So when i do take it, i may not have touched it for 6 months or more (last time i needed a hit the puffer was still sealed and 3 months out of date, think they last 2 years. Probably why i get side effects.)I must be a hardened doper - I have no real problems with it, bit of tremor, but nothing like you've described.
Guess it takes a lot of energy to shake all the time........Again, it is used for weight control, you cycle faster by being lighter.
People have been banned for less - from Daniel Friebe on Twitter:
Sky say Froome's salbutamol concentration was 2000ng/ml.Diego Ulissi got a nine-month ban for 1920ng/ml in 2014.
Petacchi got a year for
1320ng/ml in 2007.BUT Leonardo Piepoli got no ban for levels reportedly similar to Petacchi's in 2007
My understanding is that they weren't banned for these concentrations; these concentrations just trigger a requirement to explain why the concentrations would be as they are. If there is a (legit) reason, then there is no price to pay. Simply triggering the threshold is not necessarily indicative of an offence. So you can't say they were banned (or not) for these (similar) levels, they were banned because they couldn't explain the levels.
Hence
That said, there IS a limit (as there is with caffeine) which has been breached.
That's it, unfortunately rules are rules.
to parrot my learned friend from another thread - Nope.
A good analogy on a similar case from a cycling friend is that it's like a police car triggering a traffic light camera. Does he automatically get a ticket? No, if he can show he was on a call and needed to then it's wiped off; if he was just heading to Dunkin' Donuts for a round for the station then yes he'll get the punishment the offence deserves.
On one hand, salbutamol is not exactly tasty steak/epo/transfusion. If it was I'd be going a lot quicker up hills.
this. It's hardly a drug that has a significant effect if any at all even though it is steroid based. I don't have Asthma and never have, but did go through a period for a couple of years of Asthma like symptoms. It was never diagnosed as anything because in true NHS style they were not interested in actually understanding what the cause of the issue was and just treated the symptoms, so just chucked me a repeat prescription of Salbutamol which did ease my symptoms. Eventually the condition, whatever it was, subsided and I've been fine and off Salbutamol ever since.
What I can say it didn't to anything to improve any aspect of performance in my life other than enabling me to breathe normally. I noticed no improvement in any physical activity and certainly didn't become a ripped gym god over the time I was using it. I'm sure if Froome was going to go to the trouble of abusing the TUI system to legitimate take a performance enhancing drug then he'd have gone for something that would have actually had a performance enhancing effect unlike Salbutamol. Why risk the fall out and doubt over something that is not going to actually provide a performance benefit. He's got the benefit of my doubt on this one. False news.
Only one study but oral delivery appears to have a different effect than inhaled, 4.1% increase in power output.
[url= http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/albuterol-salbutamol-doping-works.html?m=1 ]oral v inhaled[/url]
As others have said, not surprised
My understanding is that they weren't banned for these concentrations; these concentrations just trigger a requirement to explain why the concentrations would be as they are. If there is a (legit) reason, then there is no price to pay. Simply triggering the threshold is not necessarily indicative of an offence. So you can't say they were banned (or not) for these (similar) levels, they were banned because they couldn't explain the levels.
Good point. Would be interesting to see what they did to try and explain it, that got rejected.
A good analogy on a similar case from a cycling friend is that it's like a police car triggering a traffic light camera. Does he automatically get a ticket? No, if he can show he was on a call and needed to then it's wiped off; if he was just heading to Dunkin' Donuts for a round for the station then yes he'll get the punishment the offence deserves.
It's not quite like that. The WADA permitted intake is based on a specific number of actual inhaled doses. The urine concentration is just an indicator that the actual intake may have been exceeded. It's up to the rider/team to show that the urine levels can be explained by something other than an excessive intake of the salbutamol.
If he's used too much, that's illegal regardless of whether it's performance enhancing or not. However if he's used a legal dosage, but there are other factors that could have increased its concentration in the urine - some sort of kidney problem or interaction with other medicine for example - and Sky can demonstrate that, then he hasn't broken any rules.
Your analogy suggests that he could come up with a reason for having exceeded the legal-permitted dosage, but that's not quite the same. He has to show that he didn't exceed the dose and the urine levels can be explained by other factors.
Wiggo's gonna be rubbing his hands together reading this, eh? Christmas come early.
all analogies will fall down in the end. The point is that triggering the camera is just an indication that the light was jumped. It's not an offence if there's a reason why they jumped the light.
The high urine result is at this stage just an indication there was a higher than permitted conc in the urine. It's now up to Froome / Sky to justify why which includes showing he didn't exceed the dose.
Thank God it is only this, from the title I was expecting to see him in a provocative pose in a revealing santa suit, and was wondering why I was actually drawn to open the thread!! Let us hope its cleared up for Christmas and he will be able to take his new bike out. 🙂
I just hope that this is concluded quickly and not dragged out until next season...
WADA: The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL [...] will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) [b]unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose[/b]
So Froome has to take the legal amount of puffs under supervision then thrash himself on the turbo trainer with the heating on full blast to try to replicate the result?
the principle with Froome should be that if he is having a major asthma exacerbation in competition, his medical team should be managing it better out of competition with long-acting preventer drugs so he doesn't need to take a larger dose on the day.
This is a really good point that deserves repeat, why is he needing big does of Salbutamol?
TBH looks dodgy to me, I think at least a ban like Petacchi got seems fair.
Only one study but oral delivery appears to have a different effect than inhaled, 4.1% increase in power output.
So about the same performance boost that some studies have shown caffeine to produce. So Salbutomol is no better performance enhancing drug than a good stiff espresso.
Why does it look dodgy?
Given the preventers (ie what asthmatics take daily to try and minimise the use of salbutamol) are cortico steroids, is there a disincentive for athletes to take them?
Would be intersting to know how accurate and reliable the test is ? If you drink more during a race does your result go down ? That’s why this is being challenged scientifically as many if these tests are less accurate than you might think.
For most stuff it's done relative to other chemicals in the blood/urine which give a correlation for that compound to the amount in the blood.
Some drugs/chemicals only get flushed out at the same concentration they exist in the body (sweeteners like aspartame for example), some the kidneys actively filter out (or the body metabolises them into compounds they can filter out e.g. Urea), and others go the other way and the kidneys pass them back into the blood (unless you have a problem like diabetes or a kidney disease, normal sugar).
So in theory you could claim a false positive because your kidneys were doing the wrong thing (after two grand tours in a season that might not be too much of a stretch that they might be). But I'd assume WADA/UCI have validated the tests and that SKY have probably exhausted that deffence if they haven't.
Why does it look dodgy?
Because he's tested positive with levels that would imply he took 32 successful puffs (which is difficult in itself) on his inhaler a day.
Given the preventers (ie what asthmatics take daily to try and minimise the use of salbutamol) are cortico steroids, is there a disincentive for athletes to take them?
Yes, I do wonder if Froome has resisted TUEs and cortico-steroids after seeing Wiggo's woes.
Still rules is rules, I'm sure he'll be treated reasonably but if there's no valid excuse I won't cry if he gets a ban. Would certainly shake things up a bit.
The news has come out three months after the test as Team Sky have been trying to explain it so I think it isn't explainable otherwise they wouldn't have released it like this.
Why does it look dodgy?
It looks dodgy because there are better ways to control asthma, and the amount of salbutamol taken is way above the WADA limit.
Clearly what they need to prevent abuse is a gadget that automatically administers drugs when it detects the rider is at risk of death through asphyxiation. Only then can we know for sure they really needed them.
Salbutamol is renally excreted, but one of the issues is accumulation. Although it only has a relatively short active half-life at the beta adrenergic receptor in the lung, it is eliminated with a half-life of 4-6 hours. If you take it every half-life, then you will see concentrations in blood effectively double. A bit like when you drink more than one unit of alcohol per hour 😉
Now the urine bit... Salbutamol can be concentrated in urine. Cyclists have to give a sample immediately after a race - when they are dehydrated. That leads to an over-concentration of salbutamol in urine, and the thresholds take this into account. We were asked to review this issue for WADA a few years ago - it was possible to fail a salbutamol urine test (and test for inactive metabolite) without having taken excessive doses.
Nothing to see here, and back to my day job (Oncology today)
A Clinical Pharmacologist
EDIT: and this publication may be useful in the defence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21083771
The news has come out three months after the test as Team Sky have been trying to explain it so I think it isn't explainable otherwise they wouldn't have released it like this.
They released it because it had been leaked to the Guardian and Le Monde rather than because they'd failed to explain it I think. The process is ongoing. Otherwise he'd have been sanctioned no?
When I was at school the asthmatic kid was always the last to be picked for playground footie. It's fabulous to see so many pro cycling teams righting that wrong.
Thanks for that input TiRed, good to have some facts.
@JeroenSwart on Twitter is making some good points on this subject this morning. (I can't get onto twitter on work laptop to copy & paste).
[quote="molgrips"]Why does it look dodgy?Probably as the vast majority of the people commenting get their "understanding" of the rules from reading the papers. Rather than the rule book.
I have low level asthma, i never get attacks as such, and very rarely use inhalers at all in summer months, i only seem to get symptoms when it is cold and when i am going down with something.
The GP states to take 1-2 puffs first thing in morning, then the same in evening, but when i get a thick cold and this goes down on to my chest, then the advice is to up the dose to 7-8 times a day, so could easily be 14-16 puffs a day, even then it doesn't seem to have much effect.
The thing is he would have declared to WADA his condition and the fact that he was Salbutomol, he would of been tested every day as well so to purposefully taken to excess such a simple drug that gives little performance enhancement and for which he knows they would definitely have been testing for as he'd declared would be pretty stupid by anyones standard?
[quote="scotroutes"]When I was at school the asthmatic kid was always the last to be picked for playground footie.Yeah, it's amazing how they actually manage illnesses these days, rather than assuming it's due to not doing enough exercise.
Why does it look dodgy?
Because he's tested positive with levels that would imply he took 32 successful puffs (which is difficult in itself) on his inhaler a day.
We were asked to review this issue for WADA a few years ago - it was possible to fail a salbutamol urine test (and test for inactive metabolite) without having taken excessive doses.
scotroutes » When I was at school the asthmatic kid was always the last to be picked for playground footie.
nah to be fair it was because I was crap.
Because he's tested positive with levels that would imply he took 32 successful puffs (which is difficult in itself) on his inhaler a day.
As an asthma sufferer and if it flares up then 32 puffs in a day would be very easy to do. That's only 2 - 3 puffs an hour for 12 hours.
It's no smoking jiffy bag.
Probably as the vast majority of the people commenting get their "understanding" of the rules from reading the papers. Rather than the rule book.
I quoted WADA upthread. It's dodgy.
I'm sure Dave B. will have all the necessary paperwork. Won't he?
So, is this an actual technical anti-doping violation?
I'd piss myself laughing if it turns out Wiggins gets away with 'legal' doping but Froome gets popped for 'legal' use. 😆
Now, where's that DAF youtube clip of Froome sucking on a respirator then disappearing up the mountain leaving everyone for dead.... DAF is DAF...
As an asthma sufferer and if it flares up then 32 puffs in a day would be very easy to do. That's only 2 - 3 puffs an hour for 12 hours.
As a fellow sufferer I agree. However if I was that sick I'd barely be able to ride a bike let alone at world class pace.
My thoughts:
Contador was busted because he was using Clen in the off season to control his weight and extracted a blood bag when he thought it was out of his system. When he microdosed the blood bag at the 2010 TdF, he tripped the test for Clen. That's why the amount was so miniscule.
Froome has been busted as he's been using Salbutamol (taken orally) during the off season to control his weight. He has also extracted a blood bag. When he's microdosed the blood after his bad stage 17 performance, the amount of Sal was enough that, when combined with his normal usage of Sal the next day, it tripped the test for excessive Sal.
Contador took the punishment for Clen as it was much less than the punishment for blood manipulation. Froome will probably do the same.
Just a theory. Feel free to demolish it! (and everyone should read "The Secret Race". There's nothing in there that still couldn't be done today.)