Brian Cookson confirms he knew about Chris Froome test result

davel wrote:

The levels of that inhaled vs excreted are generally related, but it's complicated.... http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/ In short, it seems to be possible to spike the urine reading via being dehydrated and taking bursts on the inhaler close together. However, the current urine limit is supposed to allow that contingency, while being low enough to catch instances of salbutamol that has been swallowed, which could point to an attempt to use it as a PED or masking agent. WADA (for it is they wot sets these limits, not the UCI) : "The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL… …is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above". Froomey's reading is twice that limit.

Does anyone believe that Team Sky and their marginal gains would allow a rider to dehydrate?

Does antone believe that Froome would take two swift toots close together, especially as he bangs on so much about knowing the rules?

As you say, twice the  limit is significantly more than an oversight, again as Froome said immediately after the stage that he wasn't ill... So that's one hell of a slip up. And people do make mistakes.

don simon wrote:

Does anyone believe that Team Sky and their marginal gains would allow a rider to dehydrate?

Does antone believe that Froome would take two swift toots close together, especially as he bangs on so much about knowing the rules?

I think the vast majority of people, including me, who'll comment on this won't know enough about the metabolisation of salbutamol, either now, or by the time the saga concludes, to speak with any authority.

So it's back to your gut, fan allegiances, whatever. Personally I think GC contenders are most likely up to all sorts, and Froomey going for the double required him to fly too close to the sun.

Does him briefly popping over a fairly arbitrary measure constitute cheating? Probably no more than any other TdF great you can think of. But it isn't 'clean' - and that's what I find entertaining about this. The lengths that Sky and Brailsford will go to to convince the world that they are 'clean' by Joe Public's definition of 'clean', and the conspiracy theories put forward by people motivated to attack them for that very reason, are pretty hilarious.

If Brailsford's line had always been 'we'll sail close to the wind, like everyone else, and occasionally we might get caught', he'd have fewer people sticking the boot in now. Doubt that line would be attractive to sponsors, though.

don simon wrote:

Does anyone believe that Team Sky and their marginal gains would allow a rider to dehydrate?

Does antone believe that Froome would take two swift toots close together, especially as he bangs on so much about knowing the rules?

Yeah - sky will almost certainly dehydrate him in a very controlled fashion for summit finishes - you can knock a kilo off the rider at no performance cost through this method.  

I can't imagine someone like Froome not being mindful that he had taken exactly the right ammount.  I would be very surprised if sky don't have some kind of protocol to track this kind of thing following the jiffy bag problems.  Or maybe they have really messed this one up again, it could be that they have used the same protocol for years and this hasn't happened...

brooksby wrote:

Genuine question: is there a way that Mr Froome's blood could come up twice the allowed count of asthma medication while he was also staying within the allowed dosage (even if higher than his usual dosage)? Presumably these levels were all set by the UCI so that someone wouldn't fall foul of the dosage rules just because they had a bad asthma attack and had to take more of their medication??

Almost certainly yes, but I'd be a bit surprised if Sky didn't already know enough about how he metabolises Salbutamol to be fairly sure what dose might take him over the limit. 

The WADA limits are, I expect, set so as to be very specific, but i doubt thete are truly no false- positives.

Jamminatrix wrote:

One has to ask: If Cookson won re-election, would we have even found out about Froomes positive?

And one might suggest, in these festive times, with the right amount of lubrication, that no, we would not.

Cookson's entire, even latest, UCI campaign seemed to be based on 'I am not McQuaid' - it is difficult to see what he actually stands for.

He likes taking credit for the BC stuff, apart from where it went wrong: that wasn't him.

He's basically everything that's wrong with politics, but in cycling form. What's not to like?!