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

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby find_bruce » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:36 pm

Michael the presence of drug metabolites in urine is a good indicator of use, but its a mixed bag for indicating the quantity or recency of use. There are standard confounding factors such as hydration, concentration of urine and individual metabolism, but for some drugs the quantity can fluctuate wildly - even going up days after use. I don't know where on the scale salbutamol fits.

The whole premise of the threshold was that there was some relationship between metabolites in urine & the extent or method of use. While there was a possibility of exceeding the threshold with legitimate use, that possibility dropped the further past the threshold you went

My take on this is that WADA utterly capitulated & effectively admitted that the whole scientific premise behind the threshold was flawed

Sharkey
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:32 pm

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

Postby Sharkey » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:01 pm

find_bruce wrote:My take on this is that WADA utterly capitulated & effectively admitted that the whole scientific premise behind the threshold was flawed


But surely if it really was so flawed that you could take the acceptable, prescribed amount and be double the limit there would have been a lot more AAFs in the past.

fat and old
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:16 pm

Maybe there has, and the UCI/Wada's confidentiality bizzo has worked? No foul, no need to publicise?

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5349
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

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

Postby queequeg » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:39 pm

Thoglette wrote:
queequeg wrote:If I read the actual rules, I think it says that it's an AAF if you go over the prescribed limit without demonstrating that it went over whilst still taking the allowed dosage.

Looking at the WADA response, I think they have essentially said bugger the rules

Fixed it for you.


The actual rule relates to the permitted dose. The problem is that the test does not produce a consistent result either between different athletes, or even between the same athlete on different days. That means the test can't say that having a tested reading higher than permitted actually means that the dose taken was higher than permitted.

Have a look at the bottom of page 2 in this WADA document

The urinary results confirmed that after inhalation the enantiomeric ratio between
S(+) and R(-) of the non metabolized and of the metabolized salbutamol strongly
depends on the percentage of the dose that is swallowed. The sulphotransferases
(SULT’s) responsible for the conjugation of salbutamol in different tissues, and for
the different excretion of S(+) and R(-) enantiomers depending on the route of
administration, are polymorphic and then large differences between individuals may
be expected. In some specific cases, this may be the reason for reaching elevated
concentrations of salbutamol after inhaled therapeutic administrations (permitted).


Reading that backwards, it suggests that it is not possible from a Urine test to get an accurate measurement of the dosage that was inhaled.

I reckon WADA is playing it safe with their finding, because they can't say for certain what the dosage was.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4208
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:13 pm

queequeg wrote:I reckon WADA is playing it safe with their finding, because they can't say for certain what the dosage was.


I'll go and re-read the WADA statement again but I recall that stated the rules required an affirmative defence (a CPKS) to avoid an AAF.

I'm surprised that WADA would think they need to play safe: the CAS has generally taken the view that "due process be damn'd", these are the rules you signed up for, so suck it up (e.g. Landis again).

Even the tainted meat defence, which was deemed likely (e.g. Rogers), only resulted in a reduction of penalty when likely.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby DavidS » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:58 pm

The thing is that Froome was not a bit over the limit, but double the limit.

WADA clearly wimped out in the face of expensive lawyers. If lawyers are what gets you to the Tour then something is clearly wrong. If Sky are really so clean then why so many TUEs, why so much secrecy etc.

I hope ASO continue to disinvite Froome, this is a farce.

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5349
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

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

Postby queequeg » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:30 pm

Thoglette wrote:
queequeg wrote:I reckon WADA is playing it safe with their finding, because they can't say for certain what the dosage was.


I'll go and re-read the WADA statement again but I recall that stated the rules required an affirmative defence (a CPKS) to avoid an AAF.

I'm surprised that WADA would think they need to play safe: the CAS has generally taken the view that "due process be damn'd", these are the rules you signed up for, so suck it up (e.g. Landis again).

Even the tainted meat defence, which was deemed likely (e.g. Rogers), only resulted in a reduction of penalty when likely.


It was sort of mentioned in Point 2 in the WADA Statement:-

WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.


The way I read it is that exceeding the decision limit is not actually positive proof of the athlete taking a higher than permitted dose.
The only bit that is a bit odd is that they decided that a CPKS couldn't be done as it was not possible to recreate the exact circumstances under which the original AAF happened. So, all Froome had to show was the reading obtained was possible without exceeding the maximum permitted inhaled dose. WADA then threw it in the too hard basket.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4208
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:15 pm

queequeg wrote:So, all Froome had to show was the reading obtained was possible without exceeding the maximum permitted inhaled dose. WADA then threw it in the too hard basket.


Ah, thanks.

And by "showing" do they mean his demonstrated this personally? Or was it just that his team managed to muddy the water sufficiently that it was "possible"? (I haven't read that bit )
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:53 am

MichaelB wrote:So, can anyone explain to the layman, why throughout the race, Froomes salbutamol levels were OK and normal (i.e. below the AAF limit), yet one reading spiked double the limit, but that is now acceptable ?

No. Because it's not possible at the levels Froome had.

The decision limit was already set very generously high such that plenty of actual doping was occurring but not triggering the decision limit.

Once the limit was breached under WADA rules it meant the onus of proof moved to Froome to prove why it was not doping via a pharmakinetic study. WADA's recent decision is that their own rule on requirement of the pharmakinetic study can't practically be implemented.

So now the precedent has been set, it's open season on salbutamol abuse.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:56 am

queequeg wrote:
MichaelB wrote:So, can anyone explain to the layman, why throughout the race, Froomes salbutamol levels were OK and normal (i.e. below the AAF limit), yet one reading spiked double the limit, but that is now acceptable ?


If I read the actual rules, I think it says that it's an AAF if you go over the prescribed limit without demonstrating that it went over whilst still taking the allowed dosage.
Looking at the WADA response, I think they have essentially said that if they took an athlete who had taken a known dosage, and they tested that athlete, there is no consistency in the test results. The same athlete could take the same dose at the same time every day, and the test result would never show the same value. Hence, because the test is "dodgy", the result can't be used to show that the dosage taken was above the prescribed limit.

The limit was already set generously high such that false positives are highly unlikely, and extremely unlikely when you double the limit.

It's a farce.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9177
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:51 am

Thanks Alex, that's what I thought.

And here is my other useful contribution ....

Image

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5349
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

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

Postby queequeg » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am

Thoglette wrote:
queequeg wrote:So, all Froome had to show was the reading obtained was possible without exceeding the maximum permitted inhaled dose. WADA then threw it in the too hard basket.


Ah, thanks.

And by "showing" do they mean his demonstrated this personally? Or was it just that his team managed to muddy the water sufficiently that it was "possible"? (I haven't read that bit )


Unless they release the full details, we'll never know what they did and didn't end up showing, but there must have been enough variation in samples to show that the reading he produced was entirely possibly without exceeding the maximum permitted dosage.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

vosadrian
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:The limit was already set generously high such that false positives are highly unlikely, and extremely unlikely when you double the limit.

It's a farce.


Hi Alex, I'm not sure what you expertise in this area is, and I mean no disrespect, so please don't take it that way. I just want to know what your basis is for thinking that the limits are set generously high. It seems that it would take a lot of testing on a lot of athletes to determine this. Without being involved in that testing, you would be relying on the quality of others work. I have worked as an engineer for some time, and I have been bitten many times by relying on the quality of other's work.

Are you saying it is impossible that Froome could have taken the allowed intake and produced a urine sample of that level? It seems they have presented a case that he had a chest infection and was on other treatments that may have increased the output. Surely interactions between medications could cause "unknown" (as in not considered when setting test levels) effects in the output? Has anyone ever tested such interactions?

Finally, what do you think really happened? Did he intentionally abuse the system for an advantage, or did he accidentally over use an inhaler.... or did he do the right thing and got a high output level. I see 3 levels issue here that have different consequences. Intentional cheating (with a large punishment of many months ban), accidental over dose (small punishment including disqualification from event and possible small ban), correct dose causing limit breach (no punishment as the system is flawed).

It seems many do not like Sky/Froome and assume he is doping because of the results and saw this as the vindication of that. It also seems that there are many Salbutamol cases every year that we mostly do not hear about. It seems everyone who gets a high output universally claims innocence and many are successful in defending there position. Is there any instance of someone admitting to seeking a performance benefit from this substance? Given the question mark over performance benefit, it seems that there is an issue with the way they police the use of this allowed substance if people are doing the right thing and the system is finding adverse findings. Maybe they need to reduce the allowed limit, or change the method of detecting abuse.
Image

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9177
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:41 am

Stolen from WW

]From Matt Slater. Still won't be enough for some people I'm sure.

Here's an interview with the World Anti-Doping Agency's science director defending their handling of Chris Froome's case. Pretty sure it's a global exclusive as he was about to board a long-haul flight. Given the criticism WADA is getting on social media since the Froome decision broke, I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up. I'll blame the World Cup, the heat wave and my dull intro and post it here to see who wants to read his quotes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has strongly denied that the decision to clear Chris Froome of cheating has left its policy on the asthma drug salbutamol in shreds.
Speaking to Press Association Sport, WADA’s science director Dr Oliver Rabin said the case was “not unique” and he did not believe it would lead to a wave of appeals from athletes who have been banned in the past.
Earlier on Monday, cycling’s governing body the UCI announced it was not proceeding with an anti-doping case against Froome despite the Team Sky star returning a urine sample at last year’s Vuelta a Espana that contained double the permitted amount of salbutamol.
Having always maintained his innocence, the four-time Tour de France champion welcomed the news but many pundits have questioned how WADA’s rules on salbutamol, and other so-called “threshold drugs”, can survive.
Asked what impact he thought the case would have, Dr Rabin said: “I may be about to disappoint you, but I do not believe it will have much at all.”
Salbutamol is classed as a ‘specified’ drug by WADA, which means it is allowed for therapeutic reasons up to a certain dosage. This is because there is no performance-enhancing effect for asthmatics taking normal amounts of the drug via an inhaler.
For salbutamol, the limit is 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml) and that has been set so the majority of people, taking no more than 1,600 micrograms a day, or 16 puffs on an adult inhaler, would not fail the test.
The word “majority” is crucial as Dr Rabin acknowledges WADA “is well aware of salbutamol’s variability” – in other words, not everyone processes it in the same way and some process it differently some of the time.
“That is why an adverse finding only opens the door to further study – it’s not an automatic sanction,” he said.
Froome’s sample contained 2,000 ng/ml of salbutamol, double the limit, although that was then corrected to 1,400 ng/ml when his dehydration was factored in. Having returned that finding, the onus was on him to explain how it happened without taking more than the permitted dose.
The British star, as we now know, has been able to satisfy the UCI and WADA that the one adverse sample he returned during that race, when he was tested almost every day, was an anomaly and not a result of taking too many puffs or taking the drug orally or intravenously.
This last point is significant as WADA does ban higher dosages of salbutamol taken via those methods, as there is evidence it acts as a stimulant and a muscle-building agent.
The problem for WADA, Dr Rabin explained, is that even when you inhale salbutamol 60-70 per cent of it goes into the gastrointestinal tract, as it would if you took it as a pill. This is why WADA’s advice is not to get too close to the dosage limit as doing so would suggest your asthma is out of control and you run the risk of an adverse finding.
“In this case, we had several specific elements,” said Dr Rabin.
“First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days (Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms). 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.”
The reference to excretion study relates to WADA’s usual requirement in these cases that the athlete replicates what happened in a laboratory.
Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.
“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,” he said.
“We deal with all cases on an individual basis and I have personally dealt with several in the past. Yes, there are elements of this case that are fairly unusual but I can assure you it is not unique.”
Stressing that the rules are “for everyone”, Dr Rabin said that WADA would send the details of the case to its experts for review, as it does after every significant case.
“But for now, we have no reason to question the rules,” he said.
And on whether WADA should prepare itself for appeals, he said: “That is more of a legal issue than a science question but, again, each case is different and we can see no reason that previous cases have not been handled fairly.”


For me, this clarifies the 'reported level bit' that I have seen around.

His limit in his test was still the nigh on 2000 value, but corrected for dehydration, it was closer to 1400, but still over the allowable 1000, and above the decision limit of 1200.
He also was being treated for an infection (Um, how is that proven .... :?: or not) and the assertion that he didn't take more than allowed (again, how can that be proven, or not).
It then meant ((one of Sky's arguments) that a Pharmokinetic study couldn't 'replicate those specific' conditions, so no point in doing it. UCI & WADA accepted that.

But at the end of it, it seems the test is still valid .....

Say What ?

Anyway, but these are some of the responses that at least made me laugh at the absurdity of the situation

The guy peddles a bike looking like an albatross on coke but has managed to win handily the last 3 GT's in a row, including the last one with a Landis-like miraculous recovery. Of course he's not doping. :roll:

and
Image

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:03 pm

vosadrian wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:The limit was already set generously high such that false positives are highly unlikely, and extremely unlikely when you double the limit.

It's a farce.


Hi Alex, I'm not sure what you expertise in this area is, and I mean no disrespect, so please don't take it that way. I just want to know what your basis is for thinking that the limits are set generously high.

Based on actual research published on salbutamol urine testing in athletes ingesting maximal permitted dosages.

There is variation but all within the generous decision limit.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby find_bruce » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:55 pm

queequeg wrote:Looking at the WADA response, I think they have essentially said that if they took an athlete who had taken a known dosage, and they tested that athlete, there is no consistency in the test results. The same athlete could take the same dose at the same time every day, and the test result would never show the same value.

That is true of every single drug - you could drink 3 beers each night and your blood alcohol content will vary depending on your hydration, what you ate & when as well as the particular state of your metabolism. This variation will be within a range but the amount of alcohol found in your urine will vary considerably - kidneys are a concentrating organ.

How does salbutamol get into urine? It would appear from the article you linked to earlier that the drug that makes it into the airways & lungs is not detected in urine & that what is detected from inhalation is the portion of the dose that misses the lungs & into the stomach. If however you have an injection or tablet, that will be detectable. All of this is quite common

The problem is not variation (which is normal & common), but in defining the range.
WADA & their experts said the limit was set generously high such that false positives are unlikely & the higher above the limit, the less likely that is & like Alex says, extremely unlikely at double the limit. In the words of Monty Python, 5 is right out. WADA & their experts also set the process by which an athlete could prove innocent use.
queequeg wrote:So, all Froome had to show was the reading obtained was possible without exceeding the maximum permitted inhaled dose.
That's not quite right - as I understand the WADA code the athlete must prove that they did not exceed the maximum permissible dose, not just that it was possible

What it seems that WADA have now admitted is that the process they put in place has too many variables that can't be replicated to prove innocent use - or as you put it WADA then threw it in the too hard basket.
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:It's a farce.
I couldn't agree more.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:05 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Based on actual research published on salbutamol urine testing in athletes ingesting maximal permitted dosages.

There is variation but all within the generous decision limit.

Specifically:
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/18091010
Intervention: On days 2-5, athletes performed a 20-km time trial 15 min after inhalation (PI) of placebo, 200 microg (D2), 400 microg (D4), or 800 microg (D8) of SAL.

Result: Urine cSAL increased with dose and was highly variable, with the peak value observed being 831 ng x mL(-1) after a dose of 800 microg.


Image

https://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Ab ... al.12.aspx
Intervention: Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days.

Results: Maximum urine concentrations peaked in the period of 0 to 4 hours after the administration of inhaled and oral salbutamol in both groups. Median concentrations after inhaled salbutamol and oral salbutamol were 401.6 and 2108.1 ng/mL in healthy subjects and 334.9 and 2975.2 ng/mL in elite athletes with asthma. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups. One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL.



To get the sort of level Froome had registered quite simply means use well over the permitted intake, or use of non-permitted means (e.g. oral ingestion).

Quency
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:35 pm

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

Postby Quency » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:53 pm

MichaelB wrote:Stolen from WW

From Matt Slater. Still won't be enough for some people I'm sure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNIP

For salbutamol, the limit is 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml) and that has been set so the majority of people, taking no more than 1,600 micrograms a day, or 16 puffs on an adult inhaler, would not fail the test.
SNIP







Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Intervention: Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days.

Results:
SNIP
One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL.


To get the sort of level Froome had registered quite simply means use well over the permitted intake, or use of non-permitted means (e.g. oral ingestion).


Snipped quote's to show the bit's i wanted to highlight

Study for 800 microgram dose had one outlier result of 1057ng/mL, corrected to 661ng/mL for specific gravity
Maximum allowable dose of 1600 microgram per day.
Isn't it possible a maximum allowable dose (double that of the test conditions) could result in a similar outlier test result of double; i.e. approx. 2000ng/mL, and 1300ng/mL corrected for specific gravity

Happy to be told i'm wrong. somewhat intrigued as an asthmatic.
Would've been happier if this was resolved with less suspicious timing. was 100% on board with Froome being excluded from the Tour

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9177
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:13 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: ...
To get the sort of level Froome had registered quite simply means use well over the permitted intake, or use of non-permitted means (e.g. oral ingestion).


Yeah but, he said he didn't take any more than allowed, so you MUST be wrong Alex.

:roll: :roll:

vosadrian
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Based on actual research published on salbutamol urine testing in athletes ingesting maximal permitted dosages.

There is variation but all within the generous decision limit.

Specifically:
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/18091010
Intervention: On days 2-5, athletes performed a 20-km time trial 15 min after inhalation (PI) of placebo, 200 microg (D2), 400 microg (D4), or 800 microg (D8) of SAL.

Result: Urine cSAL increased with dose and was highly variable, with the peak value observed being 831 ng x mL(-1) after a dose of 800 microg.


Image

https://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Ab ... al.12.aspx
Intervention: Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days.

Results: Maximum urine concentrations peaked in the period of 0 to 4 hours after the administration of inhaled and oral salbutamol in both groups. Median concentrations after inhaled salbutamol and oral salbutamol were 401.6 and 2108.1 ng/mL in healthy subjects and 334.9 and 2975.2 ng/mL in elite athletes with asthma. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups. One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL.



To get the sort of level Froome had registered quite simply means use well over the permitted intake, or use of non-permitted means (e.g. oral ingestion).


Was any testing done for interactions with other medications. It seems pretty key to the information that has been released that Froome was under treatment for a chest infection and this may have effected the results.
Image

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby find_bruce » Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:47 pm

Quency wrote:Study for 800 microgram dose had one outlier result of 1057ng/mL, corrected to 661ng/mL for specific gravity
Maximum allowable dose of 1600 microgram per day.
Isn't it possible a maximum allowable dose (double that of the test conditions) could result in a similar outlier test result of double; i.e. approx. 2000ng/mL, and 1300ng/mL corrected for specific gravity

Happy to be told i'm wrong. somewhat intrigued as an asthmatic.
Would've been happier if this was resolved with less suspicious timing. was 100% on board with Froome being excluded from the Tour

Maximum allowable dose for "inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours; in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose"

Quency
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:35 pm

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

Postby Quency » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:09 pm

find_bruce wrote:
Quency wrote:Study for 800 microgram dose had one outlier result of 1057ng/mL, corrected to 661ng/mL for specific gravity
Maximum allowable dose of 1600 microgram per day.
Isn't it possible a maximum allowable dose (double that of the test conditions) could result in a similar outlier test result of double; i.e. approx. 2000ng/mL, and 1300ng/mL corrected for specific gravity

Happy to be told i'm wrong. somewhat intrigued as an asthmatic.
Would've been happier if this was resolved with less suspicious timing. was 100% on board with Froome being excluded from the Tour

Maximum allowable dose for "inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours; in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose"


Thanks for the clarification.

fat and old
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:11 pm

Nope. Too hard.

Doping positive or "AAF"? Instant ban. No appeal.

Or

Open slather.

Harsh, but chock full of credibility. :D

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:13 pm

vosadrian wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Based on actual research published on salbutamol urine testing in athletes ingesting maximal permitted dosages.

There is variation but all within the generous decision limit.

Specifically:
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/18091010
Intervention: On days 2-5, athletes performed a 20-km time trial 15 min after inhalation (PI) of placebo, 200 microg (D2), 400 microg (D4), or 800 microg (D8) of SAL.

Result: Urine cSAL increased with dose and was highly variable, with the peak value observed being 831 ng x mL(-1) after a dose of 800 microg.


Image

https://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Ab ... al.12.aspx
Intervention: Administration of 0.8 mg of inhaled salbutamol and 8 mg of oral salbutamol separated by 14 days.

Results: Maximum urine concentrations peaked in the period of 0 to 4 hours after the administration of inhaled and oral salbutamol in both groups. Median concentrations after inhaled salbutamol and oral salbutamol were 401.6 and 2108.1 ng/mL in healthy subjects and 334.9 and 2975.2 ng/mL in elite athletes with asthma. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups. One sample exceeded the World Anti-Doping Agency threshold value of 1000 ng/mL with a urinary salbutamol concentration of 1057 ng/mL 4 hours after inhalation, when no correction for urine specific gravity was done. When this sample was corrected for urine specific gravity, the result was 661 ng/mL.



To get the sort of level Froome had registered quite simply means use well over the permitted intake, or use of non-permitted means (e.g. oral ingestion).


Was any testing done for interactions with other medications. It seems pretty key to the information that has been released that Froome was under treatment for a chest infection and this may have effected the results.

So you expect us to believe a rider with a chest infection not only manages to get out of bed, they manage to actually ride a bike, but not only that they manage to race their bike, in the 3rd week of a grand tour, on a hilly stage they attack in the finale and distance and/or beat all their GC rivals on a grand tour mountain top stage *and* then they go on to win the tour.

Where can I get such an infection?

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:21 pm

Froome after the stage in question, you know, the one where he's being treated for a chest infection.

"Today worked out perfectly in my favour. It was a really tough stage. A lot of GC guys tried to attack on the penultimate climb, so once we got onto that final climb the team did a really strong pace at the bottom, and I think certainly some guys paid for their efforts yesterday and also paid for their attacks earlier on today," said Froome.

Return to “International and National Tours and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users