And we thought ‘Froomedog’ was just a nickname – key aspect of Sky rider's Salbutamol defence said to hinge on study carried out on canines

kingleo wrote:

If taking salbutamol never made Froome go any faster uphill or in a time trial, what is the problem?

its a controlled substance, in this case primarily to protect the health of the rider. i.e. if you have to take that much salbutamol to function, chances are you should not be smashing yourself on a bike. 

Froome has failed a test for this controlled substance, which is a problem. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

kingleo wrote:

If taking salbutamol never made Froome go any faster uphill or in a time trial, what is the problem?

 

its a controlled substance, in this case primarily to protect the health of the rider. i.e. if you have to take that much salbutamol to function, chances are you should not be smashing yourself on a bike. 

Froome has failed a test for this controlled substance, which is a problem. 

"taking that much": how do you know how much he took?

"protecting the riders health": do you want Froome to drop dead from an asthma attack and do you want all people who suffer from asthma to stop doing any sport?

kingleo wrote:

If taking salbutamol never made Froome go any faster uphill or in a time trial, what is the problem?

There's a number of problems. If you oinhale it it doesn't make you go up hill faster. If you eat it or inject it, it does. There's no way to tell how it got there, except a dose from an inhaler is multiples smaller than a dose from another method. Hence the threshold. If he's too hhigh, he could have been ingesting or injecting, which obviously is a problem

Aldo some drugs arent' taken for their own advantage, they are taken because they mask, or obfuscate the tests for other drugs. It's a controlled substance for both these reasons, but also because therapeutically it needs to be available. 

kingleo wrote:

If taking salbutamol never made Froome go any faster uphill or in a time trial, what is the problem?

Erm, that's not clear either.... if taken in large quantities and ingested not inhaled, it 'might' help performance in some people...

WADA aren't sure as there's not been enough studies done to say either way. Some plain speaking science here -  http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-re...

The problem is that there's a rule in place with an abitary number slotted in at 1000mg per xxx for salbutamol within someone's wee wee. 

Froome was found with double that = line crossed, the UCI has prior form in dealing with this, ban impending, simple move on, right?

Wrong. Clearly the UCI hasn't had to take on anyone with the cash or high stakes on the line before to actually form a case to argue this.

The current rumour is that Sky are arguing that the test is nonsense (quite rightly IMO), that measuring the residue of the drug on the way out of the body is inaccurate and meaningless (when this all came out all the science agreed that this is the case, but as the only measurement it is what it is, was the natural argument), that it cannot take into account the dehydration and condition of a top athlete like Froome, or any other cyclist I guess...  

Terry Jones is trying to use science to reason with the villagers who've found an advise analitical finding - https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g

While Graham Chapman is getting a succinct response from the UCI  - https://youtu.be/QSo0duY7-9s

FatBoyW wrote:

Don if you too want credibility then please don’t suggest someone can just purchase a product over the counter anywhere. 

i refer to Alain Baxter and his vic inhaler if you want to understand why you do not want to do that.

 

As for anti Doping in general I just wish the authorities put a better trustworthy system together and a list of stuff that is actually relevant as a PED in the given sport.

 

also wish UCI would keep to their own process, all of what is going on should be behind closed doors, that alone should be enough for this case to be thrown out, they might take security seriously then.

Holy shit! You're right... Team Sky are totally in the clear, Froome walks on water and there's no record of this excuse in the Team SKY fantastical story...

Best give them a call Credibilty Jones, or put the straws down.

Don't forget that my position on Team SKY is based on their lack of transparity, which is difficult for anyone to dispute, for a team that claimed transparity, they are somewhat lacking in this dept. They are insulting the intelligence of cycling fans and damaging (further) the sport.

don simon wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

Don if you too want credibility then please don’t suggest someone can just purchase a product over the counter anywhere. 

i refer to Alain Baxter and his vic inhaler if you want to understand why you do not want to do that.

 

As for anti Doping in general I just wish the authorities put a better trustworthy system together and a list of stuff that is actually relevant as a PED in the given sport.

 

also wish UCI would keep to their own process, all of what is going on should be behind closed doors, that alone should be enough for this case to be thrown out, they might take security seriously then.

Holy shit! You're right... Team Sky are totally in the clear, Froome walks on water and there's no record of this excuse in the Team SKY fantastical story...

Best give them a call Credibilty Jones, or put the straws down.

Don't forget that my position on Team SKY is based on their lack of transparity, which is difficult for anyone to dispute, for a team that claimed transparity, they are somewhat lacking in this dept. They are insulting the intelligence of cycling fans and damaging (further) the sport.

 

DonSimon you have one opinion and you won't be swayed, by facts, science or other voices on the internet. You don't care about being patient, and waiting for the outcome, Sky have all the monies and they are buying the destruction of cycling! You don't like anyone at Sky, you don't believe anything they say and they are evilcorp. 

It might not have been so clear the first five times you've posted it, but we all now get it, I promise we do.

peted76 wrote:

don simon wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

Don if you too want credibility then please don’t suggest someone can just purchase a product over the counter anywhere. 

i refer to Alain Baxter and his vic inhaler if you want to understand why you do not want to do that.

 

As for anti Doping in general I just wish the authorities put a better trustworthy system together and a list of stuff that is actually relevant as a PED in the given sport.

 

also wish UCI would keep to their own process, all of what is going on should be behind closed doors, that alone should be enough for this case to be thrown out, they might take security seriously then.

Holy shit! You're right... Team Sky are totally in the clear, Froome walks on water and there's no record of this excuse in the Team SKY fantastical story...

Best give them a call Credibilty Jones, or put the straws down.

Don't forget that my position on Team SKY is based on their lack of transparity, which is difficult for anyone to dispute, for a team that claimed transparity, they are somewhat lacking in this dept. They are insulting the intelligence of cycling fans and damaging (further) the sport.

 

DonSimon you have one opinion and you won't be swayed, by facts, science or other voices on the internet. You don't care about being patient, and waiting for the outcome, Sky have all the monies and they are buying the destruction of cycling! You don't like anyone at Sky, you don't believe anything they say and they are evilcorp. 

It might not have been so clear the first five times you've posted it, but we all now get it, I promise we do.

 

 

Your lack of understanding clearly demonstrates that you don't get it.

Robcdlewis wrote:

This isn't UCI and Sky using delaying tactics, this is the UCI trying to work out how to get out of an complete mess.

UCI test urine level for a drug, but doesn't adjust level of drug for concentration of urine. Thats alright if your just looking for the presence of a drug, but if you want drug levels well then you need to know how concentrated the urine is, whether the drug is passively or actively excreted by the kidneys.

Lets look at salbutamol inhaler, its a dry powder designed to be absorbed and be active in the airways of the lung, but not all will a variable amount will be absorbed in the mouth not even making it to the lungs. Its metabolised by the liver but also excreted by the kidney. Any salbutamol absorbed in the mouth and orophyranx will be absorbed more quickly leading to higher peak levels.

You need to know last dose of drug, dosing of the drug over the last 24-48hours to have an idea over the plasma pharmacokinetics as well as time of last micturition and persons hydration status, before you can possibly state that someone has taken more then the rules say they have.

Basically the UCI have a really bad test, bit like the equivalent of the policeman standing beside the road and guestimating your speed and then pulling you over and saying you were doping 100 in a 50 zone.

The difference with Frome is that, he ans SKY have the resources to actually take on the UCI on this one. All the others, knew it was a bad test, worked out that they were never going to be able to do an individual pharmacokinetic study to show they were innocent, as the test is such a bad test. They could get lucky put probably not, but by fighting it they would have a longer ban. So they did what they could to get the smallest ban, ie put their hands up and said they didn't mean to and took the ban.

UCI is now stuck, they banned racers on a bad test, presumably not just salbutamol and have come up against someone who has the resources to defend themselves and put the test in "court" this makes all the previous bans look dubious. Hence UCI is struggling.

Why would any dope salbutamol in a grand tour, no competetive advantage, too much and  heart rate goes up and you increase anaerobic metabolism lactate. Not exactly good for a GC rider!

 

Which, of course, Team Sky knows and were able to reproduce in the first week in order to clear Golden Balls's name.

Oh! Hang on...

Robcdlewis wrote:

This isn't UCI and Sky using delaying tactics, this is the UCI trying to work out how to get out of an complete mess.

UCI test urine level for a drug, but doesn't adjust level of drug for concentration of urine. Thats alright if your just looking for the presence of a drug, but if you want drug levels well then you need to know how concentrated the urine is, whether the drug is passively or actively excreted by the kidneys.

Lets look at salbutamol inhaler, its a dry powder designed to be absorbed and be active in the airways of the lung, but not all will a variable amount will be absorbed in the mouth not even making it to the lungs. Its metabolised by the liver but also excreted by the kidney. Any salbutamol absorbed in the mouth and orophyranx will be absorbed more quickly leading to higher peak levels.

You need to know last dose of drug, dosing of the drug over the last 24-48hours to have an idea over the plasma pharmacokinetics as well as time of last micturition and persons hydration status, before you can possibly state that someone has taken more then the rules say they have.

Basically the UCI have a really bad test, bit like the equivalent of the policeman standing beside the road and guestimating your speed and then pulling you over and saying you were doping 100 in a 50 zone.

The difference with Frome is that, he ans SKY have the resources to actually take on the UCI on this one. All the others, knew it was a bad test, worked out that they were never going to be able to do an individual pharmacokinetic study to show they were innocent, as the test is such a bad test. They could get lucky put probably not, but by fighting it they would have a longer ban. So they did what they could to get the smallest ban, ie put their hands up and said they didn't mean to and took the ban.

UCI is now stuck, they banned racers on a bad test, presumably not just salbutamol and have come up against someone who has the resources to defend themselves and put the test in "court" this makes all the previous bans look dubious. Hence UCI is struggling.

Why would any dope salbutamol in a grand tour, no competetive advantage, too much and  heart rate goes up and you increase anaerobic metabolism lactate. Not exactly good for a GC rider!

 

There's also the fact that these athletes are extreme outliers from a physiological perspective.

Trying to extrapolate how they might metabolise a drug whilst under the extreme stress of a grand tour stage is nigh on impossible to do with any degree of certainty.

Rich_cb wrote:

Robcdlewis wrote:

This isn't UCI and Sky using delaying tactics, this is the UCI trying to work out how to get out of an complete mess.

UCI test urine level for a drug, but doesn't adjust level of drug for concentration of urine. Thats alright if your just looking for the presence of a drug, but if you want drug levels well then you need to know how concentrated the urine is, whether the drug is passively or actively excreted by the kidneys.

Lets look at salbutamol inhaler, its a dry powder designed to be absorbed and be active in the airways of the lung, but not all will a variable amount will be absorbed in the mouth not even making it to the lungs. Its metabolised by the liver but also excreted by the kidney. Any salbutamol absorbed in the mouth and orophyranx will be absorbed more quickly leading to higher peak levels.

You need to know last dose of drug, dosing of the drug over the last 24-48hours to have an idea over the plasma pharmacokinetics as well as time of last micturition and persons hydration status, before you can possibly state that someone has taken more then the rules say they have.

Basically the UCI have a really bad test, bit like the equivalent of the policeman standing beside the road and guestimating your speed and then pulling you over and saying you were doping 100 in a 50 zone.

The difference with Frome is that, he ans SKY have the resources to actually take on the UCI on this one. All the others, knew it was a bad test, worked out that they were never going to be able to do an individual pharmacokinetic study to show they were innocent, as the test is such a bad test. They could get lucky put probably not, but by fighting it they would have a longer ban. So they did what they could to get the smallest ban, ie put their hands up and said they didn't mean to and took the ban.

UCI is now stuck, they banned racers on a bad test, presumably not just salbutamol and have come up against someone who has the resources to defend themselves and put the test in "court" this makes all the previous bans look dubious. Hence UCI is struggling.

Why would any dope salbutamol in a grand tour, no competetive advantage, too much and  heart rate goes up and you increase anaerobic metabolism lactate. Not exactly good for a GC rider!

 

There's also the fact that these athletes are extreme outliers from a physiological perspective. Trying to extrapolate how they might metabolise a drug whilst under the extreme stress of a grand tour stage is nigh on impossible to do with any degree of certainty.

Pretty spot on, the level has already been slashed (1400 something not the 2000mg that keeps getting floated around in the press). as a result of re-adjusting the level, the UCI have effectively admitted theres an error in their test and as a result, any lawyer worth their salt is going to latch on and tear the rest to pieces. But the UCI are in a mess, as if Froome is found innocent, its either a failure in their anti doping proceedues, opening the floodgates for countless 'damages' suits from others in this position, or the tin hat collective will be crying conspiracy and favourtism. All stemming that someone in the UCI thought leaking it to discredit sky would be a good idea in the first place. Sadly, whatever Froomes innocence, or guilt, there are no winners from this case. 

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Robcdlewis wrote:

This isn't UCI and Sky using delaying tactics, this is the UCI trying to work out how to get out of an complete mess.

UCI test urine level for a drug, but doesn't adjust level of drug for concentration of urine. Thats alright if your just looking for the presence of a drug, but if you want drug levels well then you need to know how concentrated the urine is, whether the drug is passively or actively excreted by the kidneys.

Lets look at salbutamol inhaler, its a dry powder designed to be absorbed and be active in the airways of the lung, but not all will a variable amount will be absorbed in the mouth not even making it to the lungs. Its metabolised by the liver but also excreted by the kidney. Any salbutamol absorbed in the mouth and orophyranx will be absorbed more quickly leading to higher peak levels.

You need to know last dose of drug, dosing of the drug over the last 24-48hours to have an idea over the plasma pharmacokinetics as well as time of last micturition and persons hydration status, before you can possibly state that someone has taken more then the rules say they have.

Basically the UCI have a really bad test, bit like the equivalent of the policeman standing beside the road and guestimating your speed and then pulling you over and saying you were doping 100 in a 50 zone.

The difference with Frome is that, he ans SKY have the resources to actually take on the UCI on this one. All the others, knew it was a bad test, worked out that they were never going to be able to do an individual pharmacokinetic study to show they were innocent, as the test is such a bad test. They could get lucky put probably not, but by fighting it they would have a longer ban. So they did what they could to get the smallest ban, ie put their hands up and said they didn't mean to and took the ban.

UCI is now stuck, they banned racers on a bad test, presumably not just salbutamol and have come up against someone who has the resources to defend themselves and put the test in "court" this makes all the previous bans look dubious. Hence UCI is struggling.

Why would any dope salbutamol in a grand tour, no competetive advantage, too much and  heart rate goes up and you increase anaerobic metabolism lactate. Not exactly good for a GC rider!

 

There's also the fact that these athletes are extreme outliers from a physiological perspective. Trying to extrapolate how they might metabolise a drug whilst under the extreme stress of a grand tour stage is nigh on impossible to do with any degree of certainty.

Pretty spot on, the level has already been slashed (1400 something not the 2000mg that keeps getting floated around in the press). as a result of re-adjusting the level, the UCI have effectively admitted theres an error in their test and as a result, any lawyer worth their salt is going to latch on and tear the rest to pieces. But the UCI are in a mess, as if Froome is found innocent, its either a failure in their anti doping proceedues, opening the floodgates for countless 'damages' suits from others in this position, or the tin hat collective will be crying conspiracy and favourtism. All stemming that someone in the UCI thought leaking it to discredit sky would be a good idea in the first place. Sadly, whatever Froomes innocence, or guilt, there are no winners from this case. 

This is the thing that really gets me! Someone, presumably in a position of some responsibility, at the UCI made a decision to leak this information and, therefore, Froome gets tried in the court of public opinion (and opinions are like arseholes as we know), yet I don't hear anything from the UCI president about any type of internal or external investigation as to how this leak happened. I actually hope that Sky take the UCI to the cleaners on this. ANY rider, whoever they are, should be gauranteed due process and anonymity during that process every time they are tested.

pwake wrote:

This is the thing that really gets me! Someone, presumably in a position of some responsibility, at the UCI made a decision to leak this information and, therefore, Froome gets tried in the court of public opinion (and opinions are like arseholes as we know), yet I don't hear anything from the UCI president about any type of internal or external investigation as to how this leak happened. I actually hope that Sky take the UCI to the cleaners on this. ANY rider, whoever they are, should be gauranteed due process and anonymity during that process every time they are tested.

This is a great point. 

The leak, IMO, was too early in the process to be a leak from a well meaning individual, frustrated at the lack of action and Sky-mongering (new term, its mine). 

Therefore its leak is more than likely political. If I remember, did its timing co-incide with the UCI president elections /  appointment?

If you remember, the last time the UCI presidency came up, JTL was busted. In his case, for a biological passport infringement, based on one questionable test result. 

Is this a coincidence?

Tim K wrote:

So the UCI think Sky are using delaying tactics. Ummmmmm, "no shit sherlock". 

So if you are ever in the situation where your livlihood is at stake, your reputation, your honour, your bond, your sworn word that you know you have done nothing wrong, you would just let it slide and say okay, give me two weeks and I'm good to go?

That on top of knowing you didn't cheat, the rule that says you cheated/lied was simply wrong, was inaccurate in the sense of deciding what is/isn't cheating you would not go to extreme lengths to try to prove you were innocent?

Yeah, delaying tactics is all it is, top drawer muppetry, I hope you are never accused of something serious because I will expect your defence to put up a half assed rebuttal that will fail because it's incomplete/not enough evidence to prove your innocence!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Tim K wrote:

So the UCI think Sky are using delaying tactics. Ummmmmm, "no shit sherlock". 

So if you are ever in the situation where your livlihood is at stake, your reputation, your honour, your bond, your sworn word that you know you have done nothing wrong, you would just let it slide and say okay, give me two weeks and I'm good to go?

That on top of knowing you didn't cheat, the rule that says you cheated/lied was simply wrong, was inaccurate in the sense of deciding what is/isn't cheating you would not go to extreme lengths to try to prove you were innocent?

Yeah, delaying tactics is all it is, top drawer muppetry, I hope you are never accused of something serious because I will expect your defence to put up a half assed rebuttal that will fail because it's incomplete/not enough evidence to prove your innocence!

Do you actually believe any of that shite you just posted?

Froome was way over the agreed and generous limits which had never been challenged before. 

Now we have new evidence that proves it's all wrong?

zippypablo]</p>

<p>[quote=BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Tim K wrote:

So the UCI think Sky are using delaying tactics. Ummmmmm, "no shit sherlock". 

So if you are ever in the situation where your livlihood is at stake, your reputation, your honour, your bond, your sworn word that you know you have done nothing wrong, you would just let it slide and say okay, give me two weeks and I'm good to go?

That on top of knowing you didn't cheat, the rule that says you cheated/lied was simply wrong, was inaccurate in the sense of deciding what is/isn't cheating you would not go to extreme lengths to try to prove you were innocent?

Yeah, delaying tactics is all it is, top drawer muppetry, I hope you are never accused of something serious because I will expect your defence to put up a half assed rebuttal that will fail because it's incomplete/not enough evidence to prove your innocent.

 

So you think they are not delaying? I gave no reason why so your point is pointless sorry.

I do actually have no faith whatsoever in team sky after thier track record of blatent hippocrasy and stupidity of loosing information most dear to them.

There you go, I've made a little point you can actually attack me on now. Feel free as I niether know who you are or anything about you either so it makes no difference to me. You could probably make me look thick too by pointing out some grammmerr mishtakes tooo if you have nothing better to do. Just don't expect me to waste my time replying.

700c wrote:

All this attention on cyclists being the dirty cheats of the sporting world.. footballers everywhere breathe another sigh of relief lol Oh and to believe that a sport's reputation is being damaged, assumes it has a reputation still vaguely intact! I don't think the media/ general public see cycling in this way.

Not in the slightest.

alotronic wrote:

Well on the one hand animal studies are inportant precursers to trials on humans in drug tests, on the other hand, pfffttttttt....

Oh, I don’t know: it seems like enough humans have used these drugs for scientists to have a pretty good idea how they work without using beagles to cycle the Tour or something...