Do we know how common AAF’s are? Is Froome’s case unusual, or do riders get them left right and centre.

From my perspective he has not got this high reading by taking an inhaler – its nebulised of injected or taken by tablet.  the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it

~so for me no – he should not be racing

cycling is far too soft on dopers.

I think it’s actually really hard on dopeing since the bad old days.

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.  For Froome to be in the wrong he would have to be cheating, taking a huge dose of a drug with little performance benefits, and the Sky doctors would know about it which if they were cheating they would be doing everything possible to make sure he was under the limit.

Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.

It’s not a straightforward failed test like it would be if he had taken testosterone, HGH, EPO etc. It’s an adverse analytical finding because the substance isn’t banned and is covered by a TUE. So the procedure is slightly different, if it was the former he wouldn’t have continued the race, the latter he should be going through this anonymously but it was leaked. Sky’s defense is that the test isn’t an accurate way of determining how much of the drug he took.

I think he should be racing but 2 things standout.

1. Who leaked it and why? What did they hope to get out of ir

2. Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.

This was my thought, it’s not Fancy Bears at it again is it?

Given there’s contention over the benefits of salbutamol I can see why he should be allowed to start but there’s always the chance of a retrospective ban…

Under the rules he is perfectly entitled to race the TDF if  it is before his case comes to trail. Those talking about morally he shouldn’t ride because it is bad for cycling should be directing their anger at the UCI who allowed the leaking of the AAF in the first place . The UCI is supposed to be representing the sport and if they can’t adhere to their own rules then  what does that say about cycling?

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…

But that rule seems a bit heavy handed, especially where benefit is apparently harder to prove, it would make more sense to put the rider “on notice” that a an AAF is being investigated and that should they be found guilty, any results achieved since the sample’s submission will be withdrawn and an appropriate ban/sanction imposed…

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…

It’s an adverse analytical finding because the substance isn’t banned and is covered by a TUE.

Agree with everything you say but my understanding was that Salbutamol doesn’t require a TUE.

Hi Metalheart, At the moment he has returned an adverse analytical reading (both A & B samples). CF needs to prove that the reading is from the result of a therapeutic dose. The onus is on the athlete to prove why this was the case. By being innocent until proven guilty, I meant, he is innocent of cheating until it is proven either way (in a court of law which will be the case).

Like I mentioned, I’m not a fan, but at the same time he should be afforded the same rights as the other riders who may be in his position.

What happens legally if CF is banned, but is subsequently able to prove his innocence? Can you imagine the legal storm that would follow. Team Sky focus on the TDF, I would imagine it is one of the main reasons why Sky sponsor the team. How much revenue would team Sky lose if their main rider was banned but then found to be innocent? How much would Froome himself lose? Just wildly speculating, but I imagine the legal ramifications are one of the reasons why this is taking so long to be resolved. I imagine Team Sky are pretty strong in the lawyer department and quite possibly have more money than LADS to throw at the case. (This is worth a read, not saying it is the case for LADS/UCI – but you never know  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/41899478 )

It could transpire that the actual test itself is flawed, I believe this is an avenue Sky are looking at. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29722428 ) ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044066 )

At the end of the day, its rubbish for cycling. But this may well show that the test itself is wrong and other measures should be used.

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

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.