- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome in 2018 Sky kit (via Team Sky)Scientist behind Wada Salbutamol rules sided with Froome
The sports scientist responsible for the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (Wada) Salbutamol regulations wrote in support of Chris Froome during his recent case. Ken Fitch says that he made a ‘terrible blunder’ and has been pressing Wada to change its rules for years.
Froome provided a urine sample after stage 18 of last year’s Vuelta a Espana that contained 2,000 ng/ml of Salbutamol.
A sample over 1000 ng/ml triggers an abnormal finding, but Fitch, who works at the School of Human Sciences at the University of Western Australia, told The Times that the threshold resulted from tests conducted on swimmers.
He points out that while swimmers finish their efforts with a full bladder, cyclists are often dehydrated after riding for hours and thus their urine is more highly concentrated.
“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said.
Fitch wrote in support of Froome and previously sided with Alessandro Petacchi after he produced an abnormal reading of Salbutamol in a sample at the 2007 Giro d’Italia. The Italian sprinter ended up serving a one-year ban.
Froome was cleared earlier this week with world cycling's governing body, the UCI, saying that Wada had told it that in light of "the specific facts of the case" it accepted Froome had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Many are keen to see the finer detail of the case. Asked whether Team Sky would be releasing any further detail on the ruling, Sir Dave Brailsford said that the onus to do so lies with Wada and the UCI.
“The shadow of doubt shouldn’t exist if we trust in our authorities,” he told the Guardian. “The people who made the decision were Wada and the UCI, not Team Sky. I think that’s where the information about how that decision was made should come from.”
UCI president, David Lappartient, said: “An international federation such as the UCI has to follow the World Anti-Doping Agency. They are the experts on this and their experts finally decided that this case was not an anti-doping rule violation so we had to follow the decision from Wada.”
Speaking shortly after the decision was announced, Wada’s head of science Dr Oliver Rabin said that he had been “well aware of salbutamol’s variability”, adding: “That is why an adverse finding only opens the door to further study – it’s not an automatic sanction.”
Outlining the specific elements, he said. “First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days [but still within legal limits]. Second, he was being treated for an infection. And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on.
“Given all of this we decided an excretion study was impossible and the finding was not inconsistent with therapeutic dosages. It’s not a unique case but because it was Froome, a sporting celebrity, and it was put in the limelight, it appears to be unique. For now, we have no reason to question the rules. We can see no reason that previous cases have not been handled fairly.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Boopop 4 sec ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 9 min 10 sec ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 25 min 11 sec ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 2 hours 56 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 14 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 3 hours 43 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 49 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 7 hours 54 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 8 hours 56 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
19 comments
Dont worry when England get their arses kicked by Sweden the press will switch to their abject failure....fingers crossed.
Be nice if the media simply shut up about this, including the race commentators. It;s a distraction.
Focus on the race, not on old gossip/rumourmongering/slandering etc.
Manger vos mots Hinault
I believe he already has, but I have no proof either way. There might be a way of testing whether he has, but I can't be arsed will all that faff, the subtleties of language might mean that I won't be able to identify it anyway. You should just take my word for it, I know language.
Manger vos mots Hinault
Manger vos mots Hinault
he broke the rules, cheated maybe.
he should be fined a $1m to give to a charity that makes bicycles in africa or something.
Yes, it's a total conspiracy. WADA, the UCI and the scientists have been bribed/blackmailed/bullied into letting him off. I bet David Icke knows the real truth.
It's those annoying experts again. Grrr, we've had enough of experts! Whatever happened to "the will of the people"? It's so OBVIOUS he's guilty because, well, just because. Even the dumbest Sun reader instinctively knows it without needing any evidence. Can we hang him now? It's the least we can expect.
Team Sky are like <insert Science Fiction 'bad guy' aliens> and need to have their noses rubbed in it. And give the Vuelta & Giro wins to a rider who deserves it - someone nice, anyone, as long as they're not from Sky. That'll learn 'em. Pompous gits, coming along and doing all that winning without our approval. Someone should get that bloke from Spain who set fire to the Aquablue bus, do a proper job on the Team Sky death star thing. And tacks on the road. We can't have them win again, it would be the end of the sport and possibly the entire universe. I'll stop watching in protest.
Well, OK, I might just skip one boring flat stage.
I know, I know. Some people are addicted to consipiracies, but what fuels the nuts is that things don't always pass the smell test - often for very simple reasons.
WADA does need to stand taller - not be seen to wilt under pressure, coordinate the efforts of various sports and regional anti-doping bodies a bit more. But they're a very little guy in worlds of big bucks.
There are loads of cases where it just seems like they didn't have their act together, or the resources, or shuffled off into the corner when the going got tough (one that springs to mind that was crying out for the World Anti-Doping Agency to impose some leadership was Floyd Mayweather ahead of the Pac fight, but there are plenty of examples).
It'll continue to be the case as long as WADA just don't have the cash and resources to do this. They're pissing in the wind to try to control or coordinate all anti-doping across all sports across the entire globe - with a budget smaller than Team Sky's. The likes of Lance, Rafa Nadal, Usain Bolt, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kobe Bryant (random list of minted sportsfolk - no drugginess implied, obvs, well, apart from Lance) - they could eat WADA. Mayweather does dumps that cost more than WADA's lawyers.
One major problem with his reasoning....
everyone pisses in the pool!
"...We can see no reason that previous cases have not been handled fairly."
That would be correct if Petacchi was a swimmer.
It took 10 months for WADA to figure out and admit the serious mess they have caused. When will the apology come? Athletes have to bear harsh punishment when step out of line - so that needs to cut both ways.
Reasoned arguments and facts. In the time of Trump, May, Farage et Al do you really think reality will hamper the haters?
And btw I may be misinformed or misunderstanding some of the "confused" info that's been banded about but I thought the actual reading Froome's sample returned and investigated by UCI/WADA, was actually significantly less than the 2000ng/ml? Or is this more false news?
Going to be interesting to see how the Froome haters spin this one.
Probaly with one of the following:
1. The limit is 1000ng/ml, he was over that, so he is still guilty despite the test having been shown to be flawed and the results subject to normal variation even with a permitted dosage of salbutamol.
2. Salbutamol, even though it is a permitted medication, is still performance enhancing so he is still a cheat.
3. This is a vast conspiracy and Sky have manipulated things behind the scenes to cover things up
4. Even though Froome was innocent on this occasion, they *know* he is a cheat and is still deserving of their wrath.
Have I missed anything out?
I love seeing these kinds of complex mental gymnastics designed to make people feel better about themselves rather than having to admit they were wrong. I work in a profession where a refusal to admit a mistake can cost someone their life; none of us can avoid this kind of behavior - it is unconcious - the important thing to do is be aware of the possibility that you are failing to analyse a situation rationally and be prepared to reconsider and admit you were wrong.
P.S. I think the evidence presented so far means that Froome is innocent of drug doping/cheating. I reserve the right to change that opinion should the facts alter.
w
You’re talking round objects
Sky would be totally unable to manipulate Wada behind the scenes, and if anyone is to blame for this, it is wada and their scientists.
The limit is 1000, but the trigger point for referral is 1200. Once corrective factors relat ing to dehydration were applied, he was only about 20 % over. Froome knows he is tested almost every ride. He is going to stick to. Allowable dose. Limits have been set too tight. Wada are the ones with egg on their face and they are the ones who damaged Froome reputation
5. He isn't French
6. Hinault said so.
I think that does it.
2. Salbutamol is not enhancing in anyway when inhaled!
You forgot the one thing the haters will claim.
5. Sky gave this professor so much money to say this, he was able to buy his own retirement island
It should number 1 on your list.
Haters will hate, and never say sorry