Forum menu
how much of the over long investigation is team sky putting forward bullshit excuses?
My only other speculative question is, could salbutamol be used as a masking agent for something else? But knowing nothing about medicine or metabolism I’m sure it’s a stupid question…
Nothing I've read suggests that as a likely reason, I would have thought that having to have such a high level in your urine as to trigger a AAF in order to mask something worse would make it pretty useless in that role, not to mention that if it was a common masking agent then high levels would definitely raise suspicion of something more serious going on, no-one seems to be suggesting that as far as I'm aware.
I also think that if nothing else the fact that an AAF for an asthma drug is causing such consternation in the media is, in itself, a sign of progress in the sport given that 10 years ago it was EPO, CERA, HGH, athletes running around hotel corridors to stop the excess blood from stopping their hearts.. etc.
how much of the over long investigation is team sky putting forward bullshit excuses?
Well you will know when the report is released if they even put forward one but don't hold back there TJ
I thought the rules stated that once both the A and B sample had returned an AAF the default position was a suspension pending full investigation…
If there is a dispute then they can discuss it further to try and work out what has gone on.
Saxon – twice the very high threshold? There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO. Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.
Yeah, those who live in a black and white world.
As I understand it, the half life of the drug within the body varies depending on a whole load of factors. So if you take a high dose and it's not excreted fast enough then you will have a higher than expected value when tested. I'm not a doctor, but this seems entirely plausible to me.
And, it's not even a performance enhancing drug anyway. That's why it's a very long way from 'clear cheating' as you put it.
We don’t yet know if this is anything more than an inaccuracy in the test (it has already been re-calibrated to some degree) or a god’s honest mistake.
An adjustment was made to allow for possible dehydration and urine concentration, which gave a result of 1429ng/ml. That's still well over the limit, and as others have pointed out, the limit is already set at a generous level to avoid false positives.
I’m inclined to think that Froome producing a sample with double the limit (which is high as you say) it’s more likely the test isn’t accurate.
I'm inclined to think there are two possibilities: Froome's individual test was not executed correctly, or Froome has ingested a very large amount of Salbutamol. I don't think there has been any serious suggestion that the Salbutamol test itself is unreliable. The recent study that claimed to throw doubt on Salbutamol testing has itself been criticised for it's design and conclusions (the authors also believe that doping does not improve performance in elite athletes, and EPO doesn't work as a performance enhancer, claims which few people would take seriously).
The simple question, if Salbutamol testing is unreliable, is why we are not seeing lots of pro cyclists returning AAF results like Froome's, given that there are a lot of Salbutamol users in the peloton?
Should he ride or not? If the rules say he can ride, then it is pretty straightforward. I think Sky's lawyers submitting 1500 pages of evidence at this stage will mean there is no practical chance of actually getting through the process before the start of the TdF.
I’m inclined to think there are two possibilities: Froome’s individual test was not executed correctly, or Froome has ingested a very large amount of Salbutamol. I don’t think there has been any serious suggestion that the Salbutamol test itself is unreliable.
If that were the case would all this not have been resolved by now?
The simple question, if Salbutamol testing is unreliable, is why we are not seeing lots of pro cyclists returning AAF results like Froome’s, given that there are a lot of Salbutamol users in the peloton?
The AAF process is supposed to be held in private, riders who complete the process and do not receive a ban do not have the AAF on their record at all. The system working correctly means that we don't know about any AAF's that do not result in a ban other than Froome's so we have no idea how many times riders have triggered an AAF for Salbutamol but been able to provide a valid defence, for all we know it could have happened a dozen times for other riders in the Vuelta but we only know about Froome's because it was leaked.
I thought it was understood that salbutomol in large doses was performance enhancing. Via inhalor it is not performance enhancing but in massive doses it can be.
Sky’s lawyers submitting 1500 pages of evidence at this stage will mean there is no practical chance of actually getting through the process before the start of the TdF.
I am sure that is both true and deliberate
cycling is far too soft on doping - all those TUEs for drugs that would normally only be used in cases of extreme illness that would have yo in hospital. cover ups and gaming of the system. It stinks and cycling has no credibility.
In this case I think they were using massive does of salbutomol intending to keep him just below the limit but got the dosage wrong so he went over.
I thought it was understood that salbutomol in large doses was performance enhancing.
Do you have a source for this.? Not disputing you but would be genuinely interested in reading any research that claims this.
"And, it’s not even a performance enhancing drug anyway. That’s why it’s a very long way from ‘clear cheating’ as you put it."
"Do you have a source for this.? Not disputing you but would be genuinely interested in reading any research that claims this."
From WADA themselves, it is if taken by IV or ingested:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada
From WADA themselves, it is if taken by IV or ingested:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada/a >
From that article..
Speaking with Cyclist, the World Anti-Doping Agency explains that it places a maximum limit on salbutamol because it considers that the substance can, in certain cases, act as an anabolic agent that can increase muscle mass.
So if I am reading that right then in order to be used in a performance enhancing capacity it would likely be used over an extended period of time as part of a 'doped' training program rather than during a single day of a stage race.?
#Edit: Which is what I said earlier in the conversation. Apologies if I've read the article incorrectly.
Thats how I read it and thats what I think was done. Froome was using large ingested or nebulised dosages but intending to be under the limit and miscalculated
Inhalor dose is microgrammes ( and you don't get it all into your system and it mainly acts locally in the lungs), tablet dose milligrams
That's how I understand it.
It has the potential to act like an anabolic steroid if taken in large enough doses - i.e. it can add lean muscle & reduce fat. As you say: as part of a doping program.
That's why it's tested for - it's not just an innocent puffer!
Thats how I read it and thats what I think was done. Froome was using large ingested or nebulised dosages but intending to be under the limit and miscalculated
Ok. That's one perspective. I'm not sure I see the value in using a drug in that context i.e. to build muscle mass during an actual race rather than in training, every example of 'in race' doping that has become common knowledge concentrates on either reducing the stress on the body for a given level of performance or improving the bodies ability to perform on a specific occasion (i.e important mountain stage). I simply don't see the opportunity for the required recovery necessary to take advantage of the effects within a race.
Even given the 'increase muscle mass' aspects of overdosing Salbutamol, wouldn't that require a more training/recovery regime over an extended time rather than the body destroying efforts of a grand tour.? I am assuming here that the Salbutamol simply increases the bodies capacity to build lean muscle mass rather than it producing muscle mass on it's own that wouldn't otherwise exist..
Given the huge amount of resources and effort that must go into a grand tour, as well as the financial cost, surely sky must be 99% confident that they will overturn this if they are letting him race.
If he receives a back dated ban he'll most probably be stripped of the giro and the tour (if he wins), plus further tarnish sky's reputation, whilst at same time meaning the huge financial outlay they will have made to ride these events is wasted.
Im absolutely convinced he'll be cleared, even if only on a technicality... Sky may be a bit untrustworthy, but they aren't stupid.
My suspicion is that they messed up on the "glow time" for Salbutamol - that's assuming they have been doping obviously.
Massive conjecture but like I said - there's a reason they are looking at it & why in the past others have been banned on the back of AAF's for this drug with similar readings..
Froome has a chance via pharmokinteic (?) tests to clear himself, but that hasn't proved particularly successful in the past.
Froome has a chance via pharmokinteic (?) tests to clear himself, but that hasn’t proved particularly successful in the past.
My understanding is that they have ruled out this method of defense as they claim it would be impossible to accurately reproduce the circumstances of the AAF (i.e 3rd week of a grand tour, post incredibly hard mountain stage) in a laboratory and therefore the result would be meaningless in helping to prove their case.
My suspicion is that they messed up on the “glow time” for Salbutamol – that’s assuming they have been doping obviously.
I'm still not convinced that the published 'use case' for doping Salbutamol fits into a race doping scenario. In order to build lean muscle mass, you need the kind of recovery periods and lower intensity training regime that just don't exist in a race, let alone a Grand Tour..!? Am I misunderstanding how it works.?
I thought the traditional explanation for sudden spikes in 'training' drugs was via blood transfusions, i.e. fresh blood accidentally tainted with banned substance the night before a big stage. Or is that now a hopelessly out-of-date understanding of how people cheat?
Don’t give yourself any credit, barely scratched the surface of any ruining my day.
I'm sure of that. But you've got to admit this thread is a lot better without any of that bicycle racing getting in the way. 🙂
1) Should Froome be allowed to race etc etc
Yes, because the rules allow it and every athlete has the right to operate within the rules
2) Should the rules be changed ?
Quite possibly. If the accuracy of the test is upheld by CAS then perhaps anyone who exceeds it by as much as Froome did should be treated as a positive rather than an AAF.
3) Is the test accurate ?
Therin lies the rub. Not surprised that the quantity that ends up in your urine from inhaler use varies a lot, but is that handled by a large safety margin? And maybe Sky narrowed that margin by taking it by other means? What happens if poor inhaler technique means you swallow the residue ? And is nebuliser use really banned ?
Innocent until proven guilty is fundamental IMO.
WItchcraft style trials and justice has no place in a decent society.
If guilty, I'm all for a ban for life.
nebuliser use requires a TUE. If one of these asthmatic racers had a severe asthma attack it can be life threatening and a nebuliser should be given immediately and a TEU applied for which will be granted from the wada link above
13th thats how contador got caught. I doubt its much used now if at all but it could be the explanation. I doubt a pint or two of blood would be enough to give such a high reding even if it was full of the stuff
HIghlander - the dopers are always one step ahead of the testers. It could well have other effects such as improving recovery / healing microtears in muscle? Pure conjecture on my part- does steroid dosing not do this?
and to summarise the 2 pages so far...
Conclusion A
He's Doping
We don't know what for but it must have been something
We don't know what the increased level he had was for but it was helping him
He must have messed up his dosing one day during a 3 week tour
He is guilty of something
Conclusion B
He was taking a substance that was allowed
The amount in his urine spiked on that piss
Sky knew how much he had taken, when and how - where that sits within allowable limits etc. we don't know
They are presenting a case
Any other ones?
The test only showed how much was in his urine at that moment. The link between that value and how much he actually took is not definitive, is it?
The link between that value and how much he actually took is not definitive, is it?
Exactly the point, could people be under reporting at the same time?
this is why it's being done confidentially and scientifically rather than being decided on the internet who know the answers already
cycling is far too soft on doping – all those TUEs for drugs that would normally only be used in cases of extreme illness that would have yo in hospital. cover ups and gaming of the system. It stinks and cycling has no credibility.
Name one sport that's tougher. Like someone said above, the very fact that such a huge storm has kicked up over something we don't even know gave any advantage whatsoever, is testament to how far it has come.
In this case I think they were using massive does of salbutomol intending to keep him just below the limit but got the dosage wrong so he went over.
So, they were playing by the rules and unintentionally crossed the line by mistake? Perhaps there should be repercussions for that, after all it would be their own fault for playing so close to the line. But we need to keep perspective on what it is.
I agree that Sky are probably using every advantage they can. And that is a whole moral debate in itself. Though why wouldn't you? It's no different really to consuming caffeine gels or painkillers. It's a tough game, and you don't win it without taking every advantage you can get, and that's the way it will always be. The lines need to be clearly defined and the testing accurate. I actually think high profile cases like this are a vital part of improving the process for future generations.
I’m up for Froome being in but comparing one day race’s to the big tours isn’t realistic.
Completely different, I agree. But to turn up at one of the biggest one day races of the year - the one where a whole bunch of people have based their entire year around and arrived in tip-top condition - and to ride away from those guys from 50k out... That's impressive.
No molgrips not definative but indicative - but normal inhaler dosing cannot get anywhere near the levels he showed. thats the problem
Butcher - I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme and I agree cycling is cleaner than it was but the Wiggins and Froome steroid use shows huge loopholes that are being used and the Contador case shows its far from clean
Butcher – I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme
What would be the key differences between the 2 systems?
If that were the case would all this not have been resolved by now?
No, because you have to go through due process to try and determine the cause of the AAF. I expect that Sky will try to cast doubt on the testing process as a defence, because it will be very difficult to explain such a high reading if Froome has just been puffing legally on his inhaler. Cases like this, involving millions of pounds in sponsorship and major sporting events are never going to be resolved in a hurry.
As TJ points out above, tackling doping is an ongoing battle, and the latest doping techniques are not necessarily going to be public knowledge, so who knows how Salbutamol might be misused?
Butcher – I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme
Not convinced that the out of competition testing system in either Kenya or Jamaica - the superpowers of distance and sprinting respectively - is very effective
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/44312755
Yes.
To date, anything is an accusation and remains unresolved.
If the authorities in charge can't get their act together then he shouldn't be punished in the meantime.
Not convinced that the out of competition testing system in either Kenya or Jamaica – the superpowers of distance and sprinting respectively – is very effective
Yeah, wandering off the point of the topic a bit but was thinking similar.. A lot of the national federations in Athletics seem to be very lax in testing. Pretty sure I read somewhere a while ago that Usain Bolt went more than a complete season between out of competition tests.
As TJ points out above, tackling doping is an ongoing battle, and the latest doping techniques are not necessarily going to be public knowledge, so who knows how Salbutamol might be misused?
It's not like Salbutamol is something new though, it's been on the market 30+ years, I think the way it works is pretty well understood, independent studies and those done by the producer seem to concur that there is no performance benefit other than the aforementioned 'development of lean muscle mass'. Having said that if it's being used in combination with something new that isn't commonly known about then that is a different matter, possibly.
As has been said, we are all just discussing in a vacuum here as we don't have anything close to the full facts. Just about the only thing that is certain is that Froome isn't being fairly treated as this is being conducted in the public eye thanks to the leak rather than in private and that according to the rules as they currently stand, he is allowed to race. ASO are likely going to have a hard time stopping him as there is precedent with CAS overrulling them previously with Tom Boonen's cocaine ban.
mike – that is correct which is why the threshold is set at such a high level. a level that normal inhalor use would never get close to is my understanding.
TJ, I’m not sure that’s correct:
However the actual upper limit is based on clinical guidelines from manufacturers, not specific anti-doping research.
This from the above link:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wadaOnviously because use it’s a hot topic it’s in all the cycling news & media, but I’d urge everyone to look a level deeper. For instance some of the several studies that show an “anabolic steroid” like effect also go on to highlight an increase in “fatiguability”, which describes a decrease in cardiovascular function/efficiency. Basically, they seem to describe an increase in muscle mass along with an associated increase in maximum force generated from the muscle (both fast & slow twitch rat muscle), yet causes you to get more tired more quickly. Does this sound like a benefit for a top level grand tour contender?
i don’t think there is a problem with him racing, but I do have a big problem with the guilty before proven innocent.
but normal inhaler dosing cannot get anywhere near the levels he showed.
Right but Froome isn't normal, and he's not using it in a normal situation doing a normal activity.
yet causes you to get more tired more quickly.
I'd certainly agree with that based on my experience, when on either tablets or nebuliser it was difficult to even stay awake never mind function in any meaningful way.. difficult to isolate whether it was down to the drug or the fact that my bronchi had closed up to the size of uncooked threadnoodles though.! 🙂
Also, why on earth would you take this drug to increase muscle mass? He's very clearly training hard and eating the bare minimum to support that - a few more pies would probably stick far more muscle on him. He's in the TdF not Mr Universe.
Also, why on earth would you take this drug to increase muscle mass? He’s very clearly training hard and eating the bare minimum to support that – a few more pies would probably stick far more muscle on him. He’s in the TdF not Mr Universe.
😀
I think the contention is that it aids in the development of lean muscle mass along with weight loss, lean muscle mass is exactly what a cyclist is trying to develop during long training programs. Essentially it improves the benefits to the muscles of endurance training.
Butcher – I think athletics is now much cleaner than cycling with a much tougher testing regieme
Why do you think that TJ? I'm curious. And are you talking about at the national or international level?
Because... 'Track and field's governing body spends about £1.3m a year on anti-doping, whereas its cycling equivalent spends closer to £6m, although much of that comes from the professional teams as a condition of their licences to race in UCI competitions, and race organisers.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/33898614
I can't really find any evidence that athletics is 'cleaner' than cycling. Cycling seems to spend more on anti doping internationally. And by definition. we never know how many athletes or cyclists are getting away with using PEDs.
"I’m still not convinced that the published ‘use case’ for doping Salbutamol fits into a race doping scenario. In order to build lean muscle mass, you need the kind of recovery periods and lower intensity training regime that just don’t exist in a race, let alone a Grand Tour..!? Am I misunderstanding how it works.?"
I think your understanding is correct.
But how long does Salbutamol stay in the system for? That's what I was alluding to.
Bottom line: we know very little, but what we do know is enough to cause suspicion. Previous cases of this drug & Sky's own shady history is surely enough to convince anyone of that!
Why do you think that TJ? I’m curious. And are you talking about at the national or international level?
It's a well trusted technique, say it with confidence and skip the providing any evidence....
But how long does Salbutamol stay in the system for? That’s what I was alluding to.
Bottom line: we know very little, but what we do know is enough to cause suspicion. Previous cases of this drug & Sky’s own shady history is surely enough to convince anyone of that!
True it is a question, though as the levels were normal on previous tests in that tour - probably daily how did this lump dislodge and appear as a spike? If we don't know how long it is retained for and how it leaves the body in a reliable way then you have done Sky/Froome's Job for them as the test is not representative of what they take in.
I'm really looking forward to TJ eating humble pie, when he has to make a public apology.
Yep he should race, inocent until proven guilty.
BWD - MIke - " I think" ie its an opinion. OK maybe british track and field given what others say about some countries. Out of season testing seems more rigorous. I did have quite a ponder about which sports and came to the conclusion track and field would be the only possible one. ~rugby for example has a massive issue and less rigorous testing - not so much at top level but at youth level where there is little testing but that muscle bulk is with them for their career. Very few pros fail but anecdotally its a huge issue with those wanting to get to the top level
Molgrips - its not just a bit more than normal usage - its a huge amount more by my understanding. its not a few more puffs or a bit slower exctrting it. I am not at all convinced by the "he excretes it slower" arguement. Are his kidneys fubared?
Its all opinion and surmise from either side. We simply do not know about Froome.
I have my opinions, others have theirs. None of us actually know.