Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[biker jk]

Timely revelation from Westra given Froome's (puff daddy) case.


"People say: 'why do you use tr*madol? Why a puffer? You do not have asthma anyway'," he told the newspaper. "The answer is simple: because it is allowed and because you will perform better. And if I do not, someone else will. That's what a cyclist thinks."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/westra- ... enhancers/

[MichaelB]

Froome team straw clutching ? - well, isn't the best form of defence to attack ? Wonder who paid for the study or 'assisted' the findings ? Apparently (can't be bothered reading it all) it's the same author who thinks that EPO (yeah, more complicated than that I know, but still....) isn't a performance enhancer.

See Mr Ferrari et al, you were wrong !!!

And then, Surprise !!! - two from the same team positive for CERA.

Laughed at the 1st part of this sentence in this paragraph from a related article on CN

His win surprised many as he distanced former doper Oscar Sevilla, Tiesj Benoot (Lotto Soudal) and Dayer Quintana (Movistar).

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Froome team straw clutching ? - well, isn't the best form of defence to attack ? Wonder who paid for the study or 'assisted' the findings ? Apparently (can't be bothered reading it all) it's the same author who thinks that EPO (yeah, more complicated than that I know, but still....) isn't a performance enhancer.

The EPO study you refer to never made any such claim.

The media, who routinely misrepresent or misunderstand science studies, made the stupid misinformed statement that is now most unfairly attributed to the scientists in a specialist drug research facility who performed some reasonably sound research.

I really suggest reading the actual study before repeating such mistaken claims. And if after reading it's not clear what can and should not be inferred from it, ask people with expertise in the subject matter.

[MichaelB]

I'll be honest, some of what is written is hype, yep, but at the same time, there are apparently credible people saying the same thing. If that's not the case, happy to be proven wrong and edumacated.

So Alex, given your knowledge & expertise (routinely and gratefully demonstrated and digested here), what's your take re the latest research re the Salbutamol testing protocol (and the EPO study findings) ?

Cheers

Michael B

[find_bruce]

I don't think that this particular study is going to trouble WADA very much - the inability to determine a dosage level based on the results of a single urine sample is not limited to salbutamol - I am not aware of any drug that has a good correlation between dosage & metabolites in urine without being affected by hydration, time since use & individual metabolism.

The consequence of there being a range of possible urine levels for a given dosage means that if you set the level so that there is no possibility of an innocent athlete testing positive, you will miss a large % of doping infringements - eg the hematocrit level of 50%

The bit you might be missing Michael is that part of the criticism in this study is that people can be abusing salbutamol & not get exceeding the threshold.

The other thing though is that the whole point of salbutamol being a "specified substance" is that WADA recognises that it is possible to take the permissible dose & still exceed the level.

The problem for Froome is not coming up with an explanation for a level over 1,000, but instead he needs to show two things (1) it is possible to have a level over 2,000 when using salbutamol within the permissible dosage & (2) that explanation is in fact what happened with him.

I am open to the possibility that there is an innocent explanation for Froome's test, but at this stage it is looking unlikely.

[biker jk]

Froome team straw clutching ? - well, isn't the best form of defence to attack ? Wonder who paid for the study or 'assisted' the findings ? Apparently (can't be bothered reading it all) it's the same author who thinks that EPO (yeah, more complicated than that I know, but still....) isn't a performance enhancer.

The EPO study you refer to never made any such claim.

The media, who routinely misrepresent or misunderstand science studies, made the stupid misinformed statement that is now most unfairly attributed to the scientists in a specialist drug research facility who performed some reasonably sound research.

I really suggest reading the actual study before repeating such mistaken claims. And if after reading it's not clear what can and should not be inferred from it, ask people with expertise in the subject matter.

Ross Tucker said the research suggested no EPO benefit and also said the research was widely criticized. Perhaps you should let Ross know he's misrepresenting the research.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'll be honest, some of what is written is hype, yep, but at the same time, there are apparently credible people saying the same thing. If that's not the case, happy to be proven wrong and edumacated.

So Alex, given your knowledge & expertise (routinely and gratefully demonstrated and digested here), what's your take re the latest research re the Salbutamol testing protocol (and the EPO study findings) ?

Cheers

Michael B

I've not read the salbutamol study. Have a link to the full paper?

My brief understanding is a theoretical model was developed, not actual metabolic testing. If so it'll take more than a model to explain away his reading.

[AUbicycles]

Link to study
https://t.co/St2qDXZAJO

Link to Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport - twitter with brief but comprehensive comments on the study and value.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Froome team straw clutching ? - well, isn't the best form of defence to attack ? Wonder who paid for the study or 'assisted' the findings ? Apparently (can't be bothered reading it all) it's the same author who thinks that EPO (yeah, more complicated than that I know, but still....) isn't a performance enhancer.

The EPO study you refer to never made any such claim.

The media, who routinely misrepresent or misunderstand science studies, made the stupid misinformed statement that is now most unfairly attributed to the scientists in a specialist drug research facility who performed some reasonably sound research.

I really suggest reading the actual study before repeating such mistaken claims. And if after reading it's not clear what can and should not be inferred from it, ask people with expertise in the subject matter.

Ross Tucker said the research suggested no EPO benefit and also said the research was widely criticized. Perhaps you should let Ross know he's misrepresenting the research.

But what was actually criticised? I don't read much of what Tucker writes, I find it all a bit click bait-ey. I've no idea what he's said and hence have no comment as to how he may have represented it. I'd rather read the actual science, it's more interesting.

Often people complain that research doesn't answer the question they want answered, but that's often quite unfair. You should judge research based on the question(s) it does sets out to investigate.

The study had two objectives. One was to see what differences there were between two evenly matched groups of trained but not elite cyclists, one receiving quite modest rhEPO dosages and one placebo.

The other more important objective was to test/establish an ethical research protocol for doing such research in the future since, and here's why that's important; there is very little actual decent research into answering the question about the ergogenic impact of exogenous EPO. The scientific evidence is actually pretty skinny.

This does not mean scientists say there is no impact, but rather solid evidence about actual controlled usage to establish a dose-response relationship is very limited such that if it were administered to patients in the manner it is to cyclists it would be considered clinical malpractice.

As for the study in question, there were metabolic differences, e.g. the EPO group had higher haemoglobin levels, higher maximal aerobic power and higher VO2max compared with the placebo group, but the submaximal results were no different to a statistically significant level. I don't think that is overly surprising given the protocol used.

They did not report pre and post intervention results, which means it doesn't tell us the full story that we'd like to read. But then it never really set out to.

Its purpose was to check whether conducting such research using their dosage protocol was safe and ethical, and since they demonstrated it was then further research on performance impacts was open for others to undertake in the knowledge that the basic protocol was shown to be safe.

There is a little bit of science into impact of EPO on cycling performance, e.g.:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/10912888
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 007-0522-8

Note that these findings are not actually inconsistent with the study being criticised. Hct, MAP and VO2max increases in EPO groups are reported fairly consistently. But it took much higher and lengthier dosages than in the criticised study for submaximal performance improvement to be shown. That said, even then time to exhaustion when normalised to same submaximal proportion of VO2max actually declined in the EPO group. It was TTE performance at same absolute power that improved.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Link to study
https://t.co/St2qDXZAJO

Link to Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport - twitter with brief but comprehensive comments on the study and value.

Thanks for link.

Have only glanced. Quick reactions, not a reasoned thoughtful response.

They use a theoretical model and do population level stats based on that model. That's fine for a population level analysis but not for an individual. Obviously there are going to be limitations when doing models, one of them is ascertaining the domain of validity.

They report the population level probability of exceeding 1000 ng/mL (the WADA limit) at ~15% given a range of maximal legal dosage protocols but they do not provide the same population level probability for hitting 2000 ng/mL (Froome's reading). I'd expect there to be a massive drop in the probability rate at a population level for double the WADA limit.

What matters is how Froome metabolises the substance, not how the population on average metabolises it. Salbutamol is tested for in every single urine sample. So why has this never occurred for Froome before? It would seem he has a history of never reaching the WADA limit previously yet on this occasion he's double the limit?

Finally, if the probability of a false positive is really that high, why are we not seeing a much higher number of adverse analytical findings in the population of athletes using this substance (usage is common)?

OK, random thoughts, not read it in detail.

[find_bruce]

As with your comments on the previous EPO study Alex, it is important to understand the aim of the paper - in this case "It was our aim to determine whether current approaches are sufficiently able to differentiate approved usage from violations."

I don't think it will help establish Froome was within the permitted usage nor will an argument that other people are getting away with violations help him escape sanction

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As with your comments on the previous EPO study Alex, it is important to understand the aim of the paper - in this case "It was our aim to determine whether current approaches are sufficiently able to differentiate approved usage from violations."

I don't think it will help establish Froome was within the permitted usage nor will an argument that other people are getting away with violations help him escape sanction

This is the issue with specified substances, you can only set detection limits.

It's not possible to know from dope tests if the usage was via permitted (inhaler) or prohibited (oral, injection) means, let alone the actual dosage. Hence setting a generously high detection limit to begin with. If it were not generous we should expect a lot more such AAFs, especially if the paper's modelling is to be believed.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Link to study
https://t.co/St2qDXZAJO

Link to Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport - twitter with brief but comprehensive comments on the study and value.

I just saw Tucker's tweets on this and the EPO study. I'd say my brief analysis is in alignment with what he said. Also the EPO study wasn't addressing the questions people wished it would.

[biker jk]

A nice critique of the Chris Froome is innocent scientific paper.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p2254742

[AUbicycles]

So Froome should sort his 'stuff' out before competing right?

[MichaelB]

I'll read the paper fully (and understand it as best as I can) - thanks for the link Christopher.

BUT, even without reading it and adding to Alex's comments, the testing/simulation was done re the full permitted dose at once, and we seemingly know (from reports) that Froome's dose was NOT like this, and that it was allegedly multiple small doses during the day, and even a couple after the stage.

So that makes it even more not really applicable.

Then there is the pharmokinetic (sp?) study as well - what were the results of that.

Hmmmm

[MichaelB]

A nice critique of the Chris Froome is innocent scientific paper.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p2254742

Interesting, and well put.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Then there is the pharmokinetic (sp?) study as well - what were the results of that.

The only people that went over the testing limit had doses above that permitted (and via illegal means). No one tested higher than Froome even with dosages well in excess of that permitted.

It did show there is a large individual variability in the post-hoc concentration of metabolites in urine.

I get the sense the modelling paper is a bit like a policy a government runs up the flag pole via leaks to test the public's reaction before actually introducing/announcing it. It the public response is negative, then the government can always claim it was never their policy.

If anything, by putting this out there now it gives the WADA/UCI people plenty of time to dispense with it if it is used as a means to discredit the current testing regime.

Again - Froome needs to provide pharmakinetic evidence specific to himself. Without it he's toast.

[biker jk]

Probably the best article on the Froome Salbutomol AAF I've read.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12 ... ng-part-2/

[Thoglette]

Probably the best article on the Froome Salbutomol AAF I've read.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12 ... ng-part-2/

It does miss one possibility: that the Salbutamol reading was a side effect of something else he's taking.

If that is the case the team will be scurrying around trying to reproduce the combination that caused this (or any combination that can cause this) so that he can pass the pharmacokinetic test.

[biker jk]

Probably the best article on the Froome Salbutomol AAF I've read.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12 ... ng-part-2/

It does miss one possibility: that the Salbutamol reading was a side effect of something else he's taking.

If that is the case the team will be scurrying around trying to reproduce the combination that caused this (or any combination that can cause this) so that he can pass the pharmacokinetic test.

There's no pharmacokinetic test being undertaken. Froome knows he can't pass it. Instead, the defense is riding on discrediting the Salbutomol test itself.

[find_bruce]

It does miss one possibility: that the Salbutamol reading was a side effect of something else he's taking.

If that is the case the team will be scurrying around trying to reproduce the combination that caused this (or any combination that can cause this) so that he can pass the pharmacokinetic test.

Its a remote possibility not least of which because Froome must prove not that is a possible explanation, but that it is THE reason for his test. The difficulties with such an explanation include (1) the products & methods themselves need to be within the WADA code (2) it needs to show why it only had that effect on one day - they have plenty of data from Froome's biological passport but he only had massive levels of Salbutamol on one day & (3) it has to be an unusual drug or combination to explain why it hasn't been detected previously.

[Thoglette]

it has to be an unusual drug or combination to explain why it hasn't been detected previously.

Yup. Perhaps that day someone mixed something up ...

[AUbicycles]

Following on a comment by Alex Simmons in the 2018 Giro d'Italia thread, does anyone know information that covers the effect of cyclists doping in terms of a single / specific ride and comparing it to general riding performance.

I will admit that this could be a difficult/silly question as the different drugs have different effects - some are short term and some long term. But one of the factors of doping control avoidance is to have traces no longer in the system while the performance gains are still present.

Does it simply come down to the type of doping and whether a type is for general/steady enhancement or for a short-term enhancement or is there much more overlap?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Following on a comment by Alex Simmons in the 2018 Giro d'Italia thread, does anyone know information that covers the effect of cyclists doping in terms of a single / specific ride and comparing it to general riding performance.

I will admit that this could be a difficult/silly question as the different drugs have different effects - some are short term and some long term. But one of the factors of doping control avoidance is to have traces no longer in the system while the performance gains are still present.

Does it simply come down to the type of doping and whether a type is for general/steady enhancement or for a short-term enhancement or is there much more overlap?

There is an upcoming paper which looks at the potential to identify suspicious performances based on performance data alone. Dr Mike P (@veloclinic) tells me it'll be out soon. Velonews had an item on it but it doesn't really go into the detail.

My original starting position on it all is that we already know who the riders to target are but without actual metabolite testing at the time of usage or within the glow time in/out of competition, it's not likely to change anything as there will never be a performance based trigger for an anti-doping violation.